Armisael

Members
  • Content Count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

81 Excellent

About Armisael

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @Aethon That's only true if your trajectory is always exactly at sea level.
  2. I don't think you're calculating the eccentricity correctly for the pitch angle in the sample case - you need to wrap a sqrt around the (1-sin(θ/2))/(1+sin(θ/2)). The numbers you have to the right of that definitely aren't right, since the pitch angle should never go above 45 degrees (not in the simple case, at least).
  3. @jofwu Yeah, I think you're right. If you run through r = p/[1 + e cos(ν)] using both r_Ap (where ν = 180°) and r_Moon (where ν = 180° - θ/2) you get an eccentricity of [r_Ap - r_Moon]/[r_Ap - r_Moon cos(θ/2)]. From there it's pretty trivial to calculate the semi-latus rectum and SMA, and then you're basically done - we have easy expressions for any other interesting quantity in terms of those.
  4. The assumption is just two sites - a launch site and a landing site. We've been looking at figuring out the most dv-efficient suborbital path between those two points, not pathfinding algorithms. The problem with simply figuring out how far the landing site moves mid-flight is that the duration of the flight is a function of the position of the landing site. It seems like it ought to be possible to figure out the motion precisely, though. You might not be going very far on a non-smooth planet - maybe you want to travel 3km and land on top of that mountain.
  5. I was having a dumb moment - left the files as txt instead of cfg. Anways, @fourfa if you're still looking for that radial decoupler crossfeed default: //New radial decouplers allow crossfeed //Author: Armisael @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleAnchoredDecoupler]]:FINAL { @MODULE[ModuleToggleCrossfeed] { @crossfeedStatus = true } } @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDecouple]:HAS[#explosiveNodeID[srf]]]:FINAL { @MODULE[ModuleToggleCrossfeed] { @crossfeedStatus = true } }
  6. I'm having trouble with the autohibernate script; it doesn't seem to be doing anything for me. Can someone else either confirm that or let me know that it's just an issue for me? Also, any idea how'd I'd go about having fairings start with the interstage nodes disabled? FWIW I suspect that I'm the author of the 'no monoprop' patch; the timing with this post seems right.
  7. Obviously it'd be useful to be able to deflate it. No one's arguing that. It'd also be useful to have a engine with 10^9 Isp. The inflatable heatshield already feels like it's verging on hilariously OP to me - please don't make it even more so.
  8. Good to see this actually happen. On the recovery side: 818 spesos
  9. The challenge gets very different if recovery or mods are allowed.
  10. How'd you load the kerbal into the chair? It hardly seems fair to not count that.
  11. From the devnotes a week before the 1.2 prerelease: I don't know how much more clarity you could possibly want.
  12. You can only use the version of the part you've currently unlocked. In sandbox you get the base version of the part - no upgrades at all. I'm still not sure how I feel about upgradeable parts in general, but the current system is clearly not ready for even beta release (not by KSP beta standard at least - the term beta has become rather devalued over the last decade). I'm also very thankful that they didn't hold up literally everything else to get that system sorted out. Were you expecting these parts in 1.2? They were excruciatingly clear that these parts wouldn't be making it into the update. The fact that we got even a peek at them through a mod is already more than expected.
  13. So it turns out that there's a bug in the upgrade code, and those aren't the final upgraded stats - they are, in fact, the unupgraded stats. My apologies for the confusion.
  14. SECOND EDIT: I made a vastly more compact form once I got home: THIRD EDIT (because why not): it seems to me that there's a bug in the upgrade code - engines with upgrades don't display those upgrades in the right click menu. These are the un-upgraded stats. For example, the terrier doesn't cap out at 340s - it makes it to 345s at least.
  15. I'm thrilled with these changes - not just because they indicate that SQUAD is willing to change well-established parts - but because they're mostly pretty good. The reliant and the twin-boar were totally overshadowed by their brethren (the reliant a little more so). The vector was definitely ridiculous. I'm also excited for the new parts; there was always a bit of a gap between the skipper and the mainsail - hopefully the boar does an adequate job of filling that. I'm not as clear on the reasons for the terrier buff (!?) and a little concerned that the pug will squeeze the spark a little too much - it's effectively a 0.175t engine with more thrust and better Isp - since that isn't really an effective size class for lifter engines. I may have to make an updated version of my command pod rejigger thread if they're open to doing this kind of work...