Spricigo

Members
  • Content Count

    2,460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

943 Excellent

5 Followers

About Spricigo

  • Rank
    Literally Nobody

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

7,090 profile views
  1. I know that people usually have a particular kind of craft when they use the term. But the point is the term there is not necessary and even slightly misleading. Helicopters and rockets are VTOL, we just don't call them that because we reserve the term for planes, vehicles that usually don't take off/land this way. Similarly, if we are talking about landing on Minmus, we expect everything to be land/take off vertically, to be a VTOL, we just don't need to say it and confuse things. We'd rather need to say when something is not a VTOL since that is what everyone is expecting. Actually, you just did: But hey, don't focus to much in my pedantry with terminology. Let us take a look in your craft to see if we can offer some specific advice for how to improve it.
  2. First lets get or terminology correct. If you are planing an almost horizontal landing, that is not Vertical Take Off and Landing. on the other hand, the traditional craft @Grogs mention are VTOL. Now, wing will not help you there, in fact they will hinder you(likely not much, still...). But a more horizontal landing actually makes a lot of sense for Minmus. Since the gravity is low, your approach speed also will be, and there is plenty of surface flat as..well, Flats, And wheels let the brakes to take care of some of the deltaV after the touchdown. Put the engines in the rear of the rove.' Coming form the low orbit, lower the periapsis to just a few meter above the ground*, maintain retrograde with the wheels facing down. Burn just before the periapsis making the trajectory intercept the ground at safe speed, brake to a full stop. It may take some practice to get it right, but it is very satisfying when you do. (then you either automatize of switch back to less stylish/efficient but easier options)
  3. I have this in my sig: And yet, is not obvious to you. Ok: USING A CRAFT SOMEONE SHARED IS NOT CHEATING IN MY BOOK For anyone interested, here is mine,. There is 38000 other craft in the same site and many more in The Spacecraft Exchange Subforum . And if you ask nicely we may try to design a new one together and have fun doing it. @MarsUltor I appreciate if you clarify the point you think I misinterpreted, make it stronger than the eventual snak. Arguing about what I said on the other hand, will get you nowhere, an I will not waste my time with it anymore. He already sent probes to Duna... maybe a manned lander catch his attention. Gossiper
  4. Maybe there is more elegant solutions but THAT would work for sure. Probably not. But is often cheaper, simpler and lighter than the setup you need for a rocket breaking
  5. I will neither confirm nor deny that. Don't worry, you are not the first to come there with a flipping spaceplane. And I'm sure you will not be the last either.
  6. Mind you, making "a shuttle" that looks less like "The Shuttle" is often a easier way to solve the issue. Putting more of the weight up front and making it more symmetrical improves stability more than a bit of control surfaces, reaction wheels and RCS usually can.
  7. Set the Flow Priority in the tanks that you want to use first to a higher value and Enable Crossfeed in the decouple/docking port between the tank and the engines you want to use. Those option appear on the Part Action Windows if you have Advanced Tweakables enabled.
  8. @M@tyu Clarke is a much smaller and cheaper rocket that can perform that task without any problem. Maybe you don't want to use a ship you didn't designed yourself but you may still take a look to see what can be done with a fraction of the cost of your reusable rocket.
  9. Not saying the actual don't have its issues, but that was in reference to a previous version (with a Kerbodyne Engine Cluster Adapter Tank filled with mismatched engines, IOW a part screaming "DRAAAAAGG!!!") The aero overlay is just to get a basic idea. To know how draggy each individual part is you need to check {Display aero data in action menu} under Physics in the debug menu. Then you can open the Part Action Window and see something like this: Welcome to the world of overwhelming amounts of data available. Digging some info out of it can take a lot of time and effort. Good luck with your plane. Meanwhile, I been told the cool kids are doing boats those days.
  10. Of course you have choice, the ascending node or the descending node. And you can, during a previous maneuver, change where those will be if that means lesser overall deltaV expenditure. Anyways, I'm not saying that is never a good idea to combine burns, just to be aware that sometimes is not.
  11. Are the parts I'd be more concerned. Granted, the adapters are close. BTW, nice profile image.
  12. A large modular station using weak junior docking ports as links? The Kraken will be praised with your offering.
  13. Quite the contrary in many cases. Prograde/retrograde burns are cheaper when your speed is high, normal/antinormal burn are cheaper when your speed is low. That means if you combine both is not the ideal moment for at least one.
  14. Have you considered Minmus instead? It have a lower gravity and is a lot easier to find flat terrain there. Anyways, you can prevent some issues if build things horizontally and don't let your base resting on anything with springs or hinges. There is a few mods that allow you transfer resources without docking, for stock (as you asked) is either the Grabbing Units or Docking ports. Personally, I'd go with docking ports facing downward/upward similarly to @FleshJeb design, however I prefer the transport to have the wheels.
  15. However, a part may not be shielded because of a tiny bit clipping through the wall. That is more often the case(but still rare occurrence) with parts attached to the wall than to the nodes.