• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

About aluc24

  • Rank
  1. Did you mean when Tylo is between Jool and the Sun maybe? If not, I didn't understand that bit. I am already using patched conics at 5... I am using Flyby Finder, but it doesn't solve this kind of scenario. Even if it did, it would be very difficult to input the starting orbit and position of the craft in question.
  2. I immediately apologize if this has been asked earlier - but I haven't been able to find it. Arriving to Jool from Kerbin, I always make use of Laythe or Tylo slingshot to get captured into the system, and then use dozens more slingshots to visit the whole Jool system under 100 m/s dV. Logic dictates that the reverse should be possible too, waiting for a Jool-Kerbin launch window, and then slinging past Laythe or Tylo to get on a Hohmann trajectory back to Kerbin. Problem is, how do I set up such a slingshot? First off, my initial trajectory is nowhere near circular, as a result of multiple previous slingshots, but at least it is zero inclination. It is entirely possible that I'll need to make multiple slingshots past the Jool's moons to get enough velocity to escape in the right direction at the right speed. Can somebody teach me how to do this? Eye-balling it takes hours, and is rarely accurate enough. Thanks in advance!
  3. Interesting! Is that a more precise way of executing long burns?
  4. @sarbian , I am using Mechjeb 2 in KSP 1.2.2. I noticed that MJ executes maneuver nodes significantly later than half burn time (I am using BetterBurnTime to determine that half time). Is this a bug, or an intended behavior?
  5. Well, I tried to re-create it now on purpose to find the problem, but now it worked perfectly, with actual maneuver details matching what I need to get right encounters. I'm using KSP 1.2.2, and 0.85 of the Finder - which is meant for KSP 1.3. Could that be the problem? I don't really think planet positions should be affected after an update, but who knows.
  6. Well, I meant the inclination relative to the planet too. I think I understand what LAN is, but if, say, I depart from Kerbin at correct time and arrive at Duna at correct time and pass on the correct side of the planet, how can LAN be wrong? But anyway, what you suggested, transfer orbit inclination, should be good enough for practical use. It's just that KSP doesn't readily display inclination after a slingshot. I think it can be worked around by selecting Kerbin as target and seeing the relative inclination. Well, I did a Kerbin - Duna - Jool - Sarnus (from OPM) probe mission, and I think the initial burn was something around 1969m/s total, when it should have been 1939m/s. My initial orbit was perfectly 75x75km@0°, and the launch time was off by no more than one orbit. That's an error of 1.55%. Nothing scandalous, but enough to arouse curiosity. Using the data from Finder didn't even get me an encounter, so I had to tweak the values to get that encounter at the right date. If you think it's needed, I could create a new mission for testing purposes. Let me know. One more suggestion... Nothing terribly important, but when I run the Finder with a large number of search steps, the program hangs until it completes calculations. It always finishes them, never crashes, but it would be great if there was some sort of progress bar and/or ETA. It would be even more amazing if there was an "Abort" button to cancel the calculations if I notice I made an input mistake for calculation that will take minutes to run. Not sure how easy would it be to implement this, and if you have time for it, but a progress bar and an abort button would be handy to have.
  7. Yeah, the TAC is listed, I just found it weird that it is the only manned module that doesn't have any life support supplies. But maybe it was intentional, as you suggest.
  8. I am not an expert on orbital mechanics, but I think that if slingshot periapsis and date are correct, then the LAN would automatically be correct too (since you can't change it without changing periapsis and it's date). That is, assuming you're passing in the right side of the planet, which is usually obvious. So the only remaining property is the actual inclination, which, if known, should make the fly-by stick to the plan. I'm making a few assumptions here, so let me know if I'm wrong about it One more unrelated question - often when I'm setting up a maneuver node based on Finder's data, I find that the initial transfer dV is somewhat higher than the Finder says (meaning I need to increase the maneuver dV to make the rendezvous with the first planet at the right date). Before you say it, I always launch into perfect 75x75@0° orbit to start with (and I do mean perfect), which is exactly what Finder is expecting when it states the "Start Boost from Equat. Orbit" dV. Why does this value differ from the real maneuver data? Am I doing something wrong, or is it some sort of calculation inaccuracy?
  9. It's Near Future Spacecraft [0.7.2] (scroll down a bit until you see it). The part is Mk3-9 Orbital Command Pod.
  10. @nightingale , I would like to suggest removing the "must not have performed a flyby of" requirement in Strategia strategies. The argument: often, some players would like to do a fly-by missions far before they actually landed on the planet. For example, my first interplanetary manned mission is Kerbin - Eve - Duna - Kerbin slingshot. However, doing this mission would forever close an option to ever use the Duna and Eve programs of Strategia, which doesn't really make sense, because I might be landing on these planets much later on.
  11. Hey, @Nertea , I am using TAC along with Near Future Technologies (full pack), and I noticed that the 2 kerbal command module (I don't remember it's title) doesn't have any TAC resources (air, food, water) integrated into it, unlike all other command modules added by NFT. Unless it's intentional, could you please fix it in the next patch?
  12. Hey, @PLAD , it's great to see that your finder is still being developed and updated. If I may, I would like to suggest adding fly-by inclination in the auto-generated flight path description. It would be really helpful, because sometimes setting up an fly-by, even with the next encounter at the correct date, can lead to an inclination drift (usually "steepening" the craft's Kerbol trajectory with each fly-by), and that can cause problems further down the road. Obviously, the planner takes this into the account, but doesn't give any numbers to adjust the inclination, except for the initial Kerbin escape burn, so the user can only guess if his inclination is still on the right path. Would it be possible to add this bit of information?
  13. I don't know, I downloaded Near Future packs through CKAN a week ago. I'm not sure which pack is this engine from, but I got it when I downloaded through CKAN. I won't use it then.
  14. @Nertea, I'd like to report a bug: the LV-T95-8 Liquid Fuel Engine Assembly doesn't show up at the Engines tab in the VAB/SPH, nor at any other tab. It is still possible to find and use through search function. P.S. Another question, where can I download Near Future Launch Vehicles for KSP 1.2.2? Or will the 1.3 version work too?
  15. Hey, @JPLRepo, would it be possible to add TAC support for Near Future Command Modules? As of now, they have no TAC Life Support Module, nor any resources inside.