• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,193 Excellent


About fourfa

  • Rank
    Explodium handler

Recent Profile Visitors

7,392 profile views
  1. Looks fascinating, can’t wait to try it. How compatible would this be with making stock inhabited parts require cooling, in simple proportion to number of seats? Could it be as simple as a custom patch adding a systemheat module?
  2. Also, if you just wait to separate the three pods until you’re through reentry and mostly falling vertically, all three will then stay within the 2.3km fine-physics bubble and function properly
  3. Try this:
  4. Built a Mk3 cargo plane to fly around Kerbin using the 1200K airliner parts (Goliath engine, jumbo wings etc). Managed to make it fly over Mach 1 so it suffered a lot of heating and red-hot wings, managed by radiators. Landed, Bob got out to do some science, removed helmet, boarded a chair in the cargo area, and exploded from overheating. RIP Bob. Note to astronaut office: do not remove helmets while deployed
  5. Another option re: docking ports. Doesn't remove the ports after use like Konstruction, but makes the CPU-heavy scan behaviour toggleable. When toggled off, the ports should be no more laggy than any other part. Worth a try, see if it makes a difference on an existing station rather than have to launch a whole new one with Konstruction parts
  6. I've been spending a lot of time flying helos with counter-rotating mains set up for standard cyclic pitch and roll, and ducted fan unit on the tail for yaw control. Tail rotor turns full speed, blades deployed at zero degrees, yaw in collective. No KAL, no reaction wheels, nothing complicated. Flies like a helicopter to me, and happily delivering loads in career. Not fast, to be sure - like 80m/s max over the surface and somewhat fiddly matching the collective main rotor pitch to the angle of attack in flight. MUCH easier with an analog flight stick, so I can hold constant AoA. I built some compound designs with jets for forward thrust, and can get up to high subsonic speed. There's a pretty usable happy medium in there somewhere. Just wondering what "toy quality" means to you here.
  7. @KingDominoIII Kinda surprising results. The RTG seems to have strange drag. When node-attached inline, the part behind it gets very high drag, almost as if it still has an open node (my sounding rocket reached orbit with 628m/s of delta-V remaining). But the drag penalty of just surface attaching it isn't bad - in fact it's better than the inline test (flying the same fixed trajectory, reached orbit with 683m/s). Worst of all is surface-attaching the RTG, then putting Small Nose Cones on its open front and rear nodes (reached orbit with 288m/s). I also tried the Very Small Nosecone from Breaking Ground (445m/s remaining), and the Tiny Nosecone (680m/s). What this tells me is that inherently the part doesn't have high drag at all, the extra mass penalty of nosecones don't offset whatever bare drag penalty it has. So I revise my original advice - you should surface mount and offset it. It won't be shielded from drag, but it hardly matters, and it probably will be less draggy than the solar panels you want to get rid of.
  8. Check the contract carefully. If it says “measure the temperature above X meters” guess what, in orbit in outer space counts as “above.” That’s often an easier way to do it. Put a simple probe in a polar orbit, and you can knock out “above” contracts all day long for profit and no new cost (just a lot of timewarping). Unfortunately it’s often worthwhile to check these contracts in the Tracking Station to see how far away they are if you’re looking for things near to the runway. Would be nice if mission control had a map, or you could see contracts from the tracking station (but there are maps mods for that)
  9. Should be OK? Though there are some parts with weird drag no matter what (for instance the tri-structural adapter last I checked) so I don't want to swear. I'll check it out later since I know it can be kinda tricky to parse the data in the AeroGUI
  10. Oh the hidden counter rotating cowl prop is genius!
  11. There was a brief period when motors came out in BG, before the propeller parts got added. Using the stock aero parts, it was a big struggle to get much power out of elevons and basic fins with the inherent motor speed limit of 460rpm (and this was true for krakentech mechanisms before BG too, the true unmodded speed limit is something like 500rpm). For example this nastiness only got max 85m/s top speed. When the props dropped, they had these disconnected magenta vectors. It’s a hack of sorts - the game treats them as having a much larger aero surface than they really have, by applying the force at a much greater distance. That greatly magnifies their force when spinning relative to regular parts. The result in a similar craft was more then triple the top speed with lower part count. edit - as for other questions, I’ve noticed many cases where shielded parts in cargo bays also throw red drag arrows, but the amount of drag actually applied is zero. Seems to be complex or broken rules about red vectors
  12. Neither. Clipping parts visually out of the way does not ever eliminate drag. As for part 2 of your question, yes open nodes cause increased drag, but mis-matched nodes are just as bad or worse. For instance, if your plane is Mk1 part -> RTG -> Mk1 part, you’ll have huge drag at both the 1.25m-to-0.625m and 0.625m-to-1.25m nodes (the RTG is 0.625m or Mk0 as the game sees it - look at the diameter of the green node before attaching, these tell you what matches) The correct answer is service bay, cargo bay, or fairing. That is the only way to eliminate drag entirely for your various service parts. All my SSTOs have one, and I test carefully that the parts inside are actually shielded from drag (it’s quite easy to have a part that looks like it should be shielded actually be getting drag). Try alt-F12 -> Physics -> aero -> show aero data in right-click menu (something like that), then right-click the part in question. Aero mods like FAR change everything but since you didn’t mention it and are asking here instead of the FAR thread I’m assuming you’re playing stock
  13. If the video the OP is working from is the one I think it is, this would have been in v1.0.2. So post-release and not the ancient souposphere. But I wouldn't expect the speed/thrust curves on those old engines to be the same. Drag and heating curves have changed as well. The game has changed a lot between v1.0 and v1.9, so it's reasonable that there are large differences in performance in craft over that time. It might even be accurate to say the engines have been 'nerfed' - there were lots of features of the early game that were wildly overpowered, and those jets at that time may have been one of them. But yeah I see no reason the craft won't reach orbit; it looks broadly similar to planes I fly all the time. You just need to try your own flight profile rather than copying from the five year old video FWIW it's kind of unfortunate that people are still recommending Scott's videos all over the internet in 2020. They're high quality and entertaining and engaging to be sure, but so badly out of date. There needs to be some modern equivalent, and I haven't really seen it. edit - the last couple of posts have good ideas on flight profiles. What @jbdenney describes in his last post sounds like some kind of crazy drag error, like parts are not node-attached correctly, or objects in the cargo bay are not shielded from drag properly. Try turning on the aero debug overlay (F12) and see what parts have very long red backward-pointing arrows attached to them.
  14. If we’re requesting changes in this area, I’d like the ability to activate RCS by staging. For instance leave the RCS on your lander deactivated along with its engine while stowed in a cargo bay, or being handled by a transfer stage..
  15. Couple of reasons @eberkain. One, boosters spend a lot of their lifespan in the low atmosphere surrounded by the ambient 14.7psi. Not just flight, but stacking, fueling, defueling, destacking, lots of potential abort situations etc. Many rocket stages will collapse under their own weight if they’re not inflated with substantial pressure inside. Then in flight, the volume of fuel getting sucked into the turbopumps needs to be replaced with something - pressurized gas - or the internal pressure will drop below the external ambient pressure (while still in atmo at least) and the tank will implode. Bad news. This is the routine reason that applies to all rockets. The gas could be compressed nitrogen; Saturn/Apollo used cryogenic helium, some rockets even use a fraction of their own propellants that run around the engines as coolant, turn from liquid to gas, then get routed back to the tank as pressurant. The headlines about Starship pressure tests are another reason having to do with the particular propellants chosen. Oxygen and methane are gases at ordinary temperatures. Cool them to very low (cryogenic) temperature and they turn liquid. But how to keep them liquid on a hot Florida or Texas afternoon? Insulation helps (the orange stuff on the outside of the space shuttle external tank is foam insulation). But increased pressure helps a lot more - if you can hold the tanks at high pressure, the tendency of cryogenics to boil is much reduced. Then there’s a safety factor - imagine the pressure relief valve that maintains that desired pressure fails and sticks closed, let’s say on the hottest Florida summer day with hours and hours of launch delays. The cryogenics are going to continue to slowly boil and increase pressure in the tank, and you definitely don’t want the tank to rupture and explode - especially when there will be people on top. So you design for the pressure you need to minimize boil-off, then add a safety factor (and triple up on safety release valves too). For Starship that safe pressure level looks to be 8.5bar (about 125psi). SpaceX has been experimenting with new methods of tank construction, and testing their experimental tanks to destruction. Some of those tests, rather than using explosive propellants, have been done with inert nitrogen instead. Now it looks like they’re starting to test with real propellants, which they have to do eventually because they’ll be different temperatures than liquid nitrogen. They need to prove to NASA or the FAA or themselves that the tanks are safe. But none of it is to cram more propellant in the tank by compressing it to make it more dense. SpaceX does, however, cram more fuel and oxygen in its Falcon 9 tanks by making them more dense - by making them COLDER. This works, and gives you a few percent more fuel for the same volume tank. This is one of the reasons the Falcon 9 payload has gotten upgraded significantly over the years. The downside is if there is a launch delay, the propellants warm up and start to boil off more aggressively. Delay too long, they have to call an abort, detank and try again with a fresh batch of super-cold LO2. Not only that - but usually a rocket is filled with propellant with no one on board and minimal staff around in case of an accident. Then the long and complex process of boarding astronauts and sealing up the cockpit happens. But that takes too long with super-cooled densified propellant, it'll warm up and boil off too much. So SpaceX has to board and seal up the crew first, then fill up the rocket with them on board (they call this "load-and-go"). Lots of people consider this more dangerous; some don't. Its a complex topic and easily mixed up!