Jump to content

Plusck

Members
  • Posts

    1,351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Plusck

  1. Additional information (Mac OS, 1.0.5, no mods): Often if there is an SOI change somewhere along the flightpath, it is impossible to place manouvre nodes before the SOI. Changing focus and/or zooming so that the map "assumes" a different SOI can sometimes fix it but not always. If the current flightpath has a Pe or Ap before encountering the next SOI, then it is generally possible to add a manouvre node after Pe/Ap (i.e. between Pe/Ap and next SOI) and then drag it back along the flightpath to you. In many cases this is the only possible solution. And I have no idea why the presence of Pe/Ap makes any difference to creating a node, but it does.
  2. Agreed - going back to the tracking station sealed their fate, since the tracking station doesn't apply physics. If your two craft were coming in together and close enough, it might have been possible to land both by switching between them. Extremely difficult to do but possible, as long as physics are being applied to both. If you have a savegame from just after the Kraken hit, it would be a cool challenge
  3. It's sort of the opposite if you make any kind of distinction between the navball and the markings on it. The only thing on the navball that is separable from it, is your "pointing this way" chevron. In an ideal world, a pilot would not have a navball but be sitting in a holographic sphere with the navball (and all its markings) mirrored onto the inner surface of the sphere. That way, the NSEW directions wouldn't appear to be inverted like they are on the navball, and you'd be able to see the back of the navball simply by turning your head.* Of course, that's what HUDs in military aircraft do. But it would be cooler if it were an actual holographic sphere, no? *edit: And when you choose a different part to "control from", you simply turn the pilot's seat that way.
  4. There is another bug that leaves phantom reports in your lab, i.e. you right-click the lab and it says it has a report, but you click on the button to review it and it disappears. To avoid that, I never EVA directly into the lab with reports if I can help it. I EVA into another pod, leaving the reports in the pod, then transfer to the lab.
  5. I've been vaguely interested in this since the 1980s. This guy managed to get a number of people interested who probably should have known better. He was paranoid about people "stealing" his idea, so his invention was always a "black box", but I'm pretty sure he was merely exploiting angular momentum somehow, and any actual translation effect would therefore be either: (a) false, and derived from a tiny force applied to whatever was holding the box up, or (b) virtual, meaning that the process of spinning up his device did actually allow the box to generate an apparent force, but spinning it down would necessarily produce the exact opposite apparent force. Looking at it another way, this would mean that his box was using angular momentum to create a "virtual" CoM which was slightly offset from the "real" CoM, but only for as long as whatever wheels in there were actively being spun up. Once maximum rotation was achieved, of course, the system would be neutral, and friction in the wheels would necessarily bring the whole system back to where it started. I strongly suspect that the real answer is (a). It would certainly be interesting if it were (b), and would excuse those University people for being duped, but its practical applications would be virtually zero. edit: Apologies for going off-topic on this, however I do think that this invention (or non-invention, if you prefer) could help in intuitively grasping what reaction wheels are doing, and what they can or cannot do. And another fascinating example of how to use reaction wheels to move around if you have the Earth to push against: The MIT's cubic robots
  6. Yes! My gorgeous 8-core Xeon monster is 7 years old. Each core is probably slower than a core on a more recent machine, but if KSP used half of them it would be so smooth. Also bugs like often not being able to place manoeuvre nodes before a change in SOI / only being able to place nodes on the post-fly-by resulting orbit.
  7. It's a bug, AFAIK. It worried me to start with but it still works. So assuming you have a 175-data report somewhere on your vessel. You have a scientist in your lab. The lab has less than 325 data in it. You click on the "research" button, it takes a couple of minutes (and a load of energy) to convert, then it says there isn't enough storage. In that case, it's fine and nothing to worry about. I have no idea why it says there isn't enough storage but it's clearly a bug of some sort.
  8. I've never really calculated anything (yet), or used any mods (yet). I have created a basic rocket equation spreadsheet (basically for the essential: (i) how much fuel do I need for my interplanetary / landing stages and (ii) if I try to get back with what's on board, will I get there?) Having too much fuel going to the Mun / Minmus is not a problem as soon as you build space stations, because you can drop off fuel for your other stuff when you get there. It's more of an issue for interplanetary travel since it could be years before you have a station set up. I have often used an online "optimal rocket calculator" too. The only problems are that the rockets proposed by the script would look horrible, and the script hogs the CPU, but I find it useful to get a ballpark idea of what I need to get where I'm going. It also helps to identify where I'm making hugely expensive rockets where there would be a cheaper solution.
  9. The 90s bit of the science tree is a difficult one. There are three or four really vital things to unlock: (a) OKTO core + photovoltaeic panel, (b) barometer, (c) radial decouplers, and (d) fuel lines. Each of these things brings massive advantages, but it is a conundrum to work out which one to do first. I think I ended up taking the barometer, then running though all the same missions again, then OKTO, but it might have been the opposite. It's nice if you get a contract to "test" decouplers, for example, as long as you negligently miss the contract parameters on each launch until you can actually afford the science points to get non-experimental access to them.
  10. Although not wholly relevant, there have been a number of self-trained genius inventors who have claimed to have invented a torque-producing machine that does induce a translation in the centre of mass. And I think the whole idea of spinning flying saucers came from this idea, too.
  11. I was thinking about this problem earlier, and came to the conclusion that testing it in practice - then correcting forwards or backwards in time for subsequent launches - it is the only feasible solution because the maths is going to be horrible. You can approximate the maths for rockets since the acceleration increases over time at a relatively even rate, and you don't even need to consider the vertical distance and/or curvature of the planet since you can just consider the whole system as running along one dimension. i.e. you have this system: A-----B-------------C, where A= starting position of KSS, B= launch position of SSTO, C= meeting point. However, since your acceleration is going to be changing quite significantly at different stages, it'll be a slog to determine your distance from B to C using maths since you'll have so many components to the equation. On the other hand, since you know that it takes you a set time to get to C, you don't even need to make any calculations. You just need to set a flag at KSP, set it as target, climb to 100x100 orbit, note distance to target. Revert to the runway and leave your SSTO sitting there. Switch to KSS, set flag as target, and warp until your distance to target is the same. Set a manoeuvre node at that point on the KSS's orbit as soon as you've passed it, then go back to the tracking station and wait until your KSS's time to that node is exactly 16 minutes (or whatever your SSTO flight time is). You then hop in your SSTO on the runway, select KSS as target and see how far away it is. Theoretically, that should be the exact distance that you want to launch at every time.
  12. Yes, absolutely. Forgot to answer that bit about the Terrier. It can make a world (or at least a Mun...) of a difference.
  13. On the flight cores, they all face "up". So you want to turn it so the top is pointing forwards on the rover. There's no advantage in having anything other than a scientist unless you need to pilot a non-core ship (or if you're doing a suicide burn or even just landing on a ship that only has an OKTO core and can't hold retrograde), or land in an atmosphere (so you need an engineer to repack the chutes), or tend to land heavily (so the engineer can fix your landing legs). There is an advantage in having more than one pod so that you can bring back duplicate surface samples and perhaps other things that give science points for a second reading - though I can't remember which they are and/or whether sending data back then taking a second reading has the same net effect.
  14. Fairings aren't quite fixed yet. Apparently they protect from heat, but they don't really protect from drag, so you might be better off simply not using them. I don't really know because I haven't used them since 1.0.4.
  15. Aaaaaand finally... Nope, can't really do better than that. I've tried a ton of variations but SRB at 100%, breaking the sound barrier at around 6800m at 50°, and getting very hot at around 20km, and ending up with a very minor (around 600m/s) circularization burn leaving 15 units LF in the tank, is the best I can do. I did get a bit better by being even more aggressive - breaking the sound barrier earlier at closer to 45° around the first stage switch, and ending up with 25 units fuel, but the goo cannisters exploded because I was doing 1800m/s at 30km... Pics here: http://imgur.com/a/tQPzL Oh and, for that last run, I left SAS off all the time and didn't touch the controls at all (after initiating the turn) until the second stage ran out. After that it is necessary otherwise you flip. And finally finally finally, a fully documented best orbit while keeping the goo in one piece. I tried to make sure every significant moment was pictured. Again, didn't use SAS or touch the controls between the off-launchpad manoeuvre and the start of the last stage. http://imgur.com/a/QihYN
  16. No, no, no... Sorry, but when I say "about" I reallly mean "about". I went back to my copy of your first craft (with two goo cannisters on the roof). Best orbit so far: 71x76 km with 15 units of LF remaining. This is a screenshot at the sound barrier on that run: 7km, 5/6th thrust, 55° prograde. Just after this shot was taken I cranked it up to 100% thrust. So in fact, this ended up getting very fast and hot at around 20km. Maybe I can improve the launch profile to lose less energy to the atmosphere but so far, since your craft is actually very stable at prograde, it seems atmopheric losses are more than compensated for by the savings on gravity-over-time losses.
  17. Allow edits within the first couple of minutes without requiring a reason and without marking it as an edit.
  18. Ah, the ability to compromise ! What committees are there for, basically So to compromise: the phonetic alphabet was chosen because the basic sounds of each word are relatively easy to reproduce in all western languages. And where one part of the word (like the Spanish J meaning that a native speaker would say something like "ch'Hooliette" where "ch" is pronounced like in "loch") poses a problem, the rest of the word remains understandable to anyone who knows the phonetic alphabet EVEN IF he/she has no inkling of what any other language sounds like. And a rookie radio operator who has never heard the alphabet in use and just has it written down in front of them will STILL be understandable, in all Roman-alphabet languages. However, even using the standard alphabet, pilots in different countries tend to vary them for ease of use. For example, in France when using French as communication language, pilots and radio towers never use "Foxtrot": they use "Fox" instead. I don't know the exact reason why but I would guess that it's because (a) both the "f" and the "cs" sounds are quite common and heavily pronounced in French, (b) the "o" in fox is the same "o" as in Golf and Oscar and quite different in French to the other "o" sounds in the alphabet, and (c) the likeliest mix-up would be with "Oscar", but the "ar" is much more heavily pronounced in French than in English, so that eliminates the possibility of confusion, and (d) sheer laziness and/or historical reasons I don't know about.
  19. Well, yes and no (of course! when make an answer simple if it can be complicated!). Up to about 8-10km, you definitely don't want to break the sound barrier because the atmosphere is so thick. But you most definitely want to do so by 30km - much earlier than 30km in fact - because otherwise the time you take to get to really thin air (i.e. about 33-35km) is robbing you of enormous amounts of energy. Trial and error is the best way to get a feel for it. And as I said earlier (or hinted at, I suppose): beware of getting into bad habits. I went through a phase of station-building which required a much slower ascent to start with, because my payloads were draggy and my engines a bit feeble, so I got used to going too slow and making much more of an effort over a very long time in the very high atmosphere. So now I'm re-learning how to be more efficient, but since it's hard or even impossible (without mods) to watch all of the information closely all the time (altitude, speed, navball inclination, remaining fuel in stage, Apoapsis, time to Ap, drag/heating effects on your ship) then you need to get a feel for it. I'm sorry if that means that I'm not giving hard numbers but I'd have to video a good launch and run back over it to be more precise about them.
  20. I find that reaction wheels help, and they help immensely in space. They are quite effective at countering an off-balance centre of mass when landing on the Mun, for example. But in the atmosphere they only contribute so much - if you drift too far off prograde (i.e. you're trying to power through a cross-wind) there is a point they just don't have enough force and you will flip. So yes - as others have said, it is first a matter of making your craft aerodynamiclly stable, then a matter of getting your gravity turn right. For the gravity turn - you basically need to follow the exact flight path in reverse that you'd get from re-entry, except with a bit more vertical speed in the upper atmosphere to avoid all that heating. So a rather sudden and probably fatal (due to parachutes burning up) de-orbit in reverse, if you prefer. That means you'll always be facing exactly prograde, reducing all that supersonic drag that hits the side of your nose and flips you around.
  21. French aren't good at saying "law" either tbh But this is getting off topic
  22. One time, I pushed gently up a slope then launched myself off a crater wall. Ok, the flight profile immediately after that was less than optimal. And the cockpit recorder probably read "aargh up up comeon where's up argh turn turn thrust thust argh we're spinning press T OMG OMG OMG we're all gonna die" but I recovered. Eventually.
  23. I just ran through the flea experiment to check. Should have just trusted my intuition because the answer is... of course... 42. This is with just a flea, a mk1 pod and nothing else. Valentina trusted me that she'd revert so she volunteered. Of course the reason is you hit the sound barrier wall in any event, at low altitude. Put more thrust in and you lose, quicker, a battle you were never going to win anyway. Less thrust and you only just hit the barrier, and spend more time just countering that -9.81m/s per second thing sucking at your soles. Final thing to add for efficiency: don't forget that you are moving fowards by chucking mass backwards. If the mass you are chucking backwards is hurtling back into the ground at high speed, that is energy you are putting into the ground for nothing. You always get more energy if your exhaust is doing nothing much. Therefore, the closer you are to sending exhaust directly behind your direction of travel, and the faster that travel is, the more energy you are sucking out of your exhaust and putting it into your ship. Therefore you really do want to go as fast as possible and thrust in that direction. Starting off the launchpad slowly is blasting the earth with masses of energy for nothing. Driving into low atmo sound barrier is pushing pointlessly into highly resistant air. And burning in any direction other than purely prograde (if you want to go faster, retrograde otherwise) is giving your exhaust added energy for nothing. That last point can't be helped in a lot of cases, but shouldn't be forgotten either. So you never start at anything less than 100% thrust, to get going as fast as possible ASAP. And if there is any time to save your fuel's potential energy, it is while you wait to get into thinner air where the sound barrier is much less of a big deal. Doing that at anything less than about 2/3 of the speed of sound is just giving more time to the 9.81m/s/s sucker under your feet to pull you down.
  24. I should mabye add that "upright" depends on your situation. If you're suborbital (i.e. using the jetpack on a moon) then "upright" means your feet point down to the centre of gravity. If you're on an orbital trajectory, then upright means your head is towards the normal, I think. I found out recently that this can get a touch annoying if you're somewhere like Gilly. Orbital speeds are so slow that EVAing around a ship in orbit or jet-packing around on the surface can easily have you change to and fro between orbital and suborbital trajectories. With the accompanying flurry of thruster fire.
×
×
  • Create New...