James M

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

125 Excellent


About James M

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. You're doing the same thing as getting there but in reverse. When you're in Duna orbit and want to get back to kerbin, you have to remember that you're technically in a higher position around the sun than Kerbin is. As such, you're going slower and and will need to both descend closer to the sun and speed up to meet Kerbin as it passes under Duna's orbit. To do this, just wait until Kerbin is behind Duna by about 15/20 degrees or so and set up a maneuver and see how close you are to meeting Kerbin on the other side of the sun. Presumably it should be close enough and you should be able to adjust time and/or the maneuver to get close enough for an encounter. Forgot to say. When you want to raise your sol orbit, you'll need to accelerate with your maneuver node on the other side of the planet you're orbiting from the sol (Camera sees sol behind planet). When you want to lower it, you'll need to put the maneuver node on the side of the planet facing the sun. (Sol should be behind the camera as you're initially placing the node.) Hope this helps
  2. Sounds like you've got the process down. What kind of trouble are you having with the booster landing?
  3. 1) Tall, balanced weight, and draggy parts at the bottom 2) Don't turn over so quickly so you are out of the innermost atmo pressures before hitting max q 3) Slow down? 4) Forgot this one. Don't use the russian pods without a fairing over them. They're ridiculously draggy for no reason.
  4. I laughed when I saw this. Do we have to land the craft on gilly too?
  5. Oh it's all good. I see what you're talking about though. That would be pretty pretty interesting I guess. I'm not very creative so I couldn't really visualize it until you said it like this.
  6. I get why this is a cool idea, but I also have to say I imagine it would be quite difficult to program in a way that would both work and not make things worse than they already are. As of right now, and for the purposes of simplicity, once you put a fairing around something, it essentially eliminates it's drag value. By putting a hole in the fairing, you'd be re-applying all the drag values of all the objects inside the fairing. As a result, your craft would end up flying like it didn't have a fairing in the first place. This is unrealistic obviously. IRL I imagine this would be more like opening a cargo bay on a plane and causing quite a bit of turbulence during flight. In order to do what you're suggesting, the devs would have to restructure how drag actually functions in the game to be based on direction of travel, direction craft is facing, direction of both passive and active air particle movement, lifting bodies and all that mumbo jumbo fluid dynamics stuff I am 100% not experienced with. But I imagine, not only would it be really complex to program but I would be willing to bet the sheer amount of continuous processing necessary for this would probably slow the game down dramatically at worst and if it still somehow worked, would severely hinder flight stability at best. Feel free to criticize me here btw. I won't mind.
  7. Omg yes. Landing legs in ksp1 is an absolute disaster. Procedural legs would be amazing.
  8. Nobody said it yet, but only ore detectors in a polar orbit can show the ore overlay (Showing where ore is on the surface). If you ever plan on mining, you have to use one of these first to know you're landing in a desirable location and as stated before it's generally cheaper to do so with a probe so that's usually the route people take. Furthermore, you can keep it there forever and never have to worry about your kerbals getting bored/hungry in a pod lol Seriously though, the other nice thing about probes are that unlike kerbals they can use the KerbNet system. This will show things like elevation and biomes on the surface and allow you to make points of interest ON THE SURFACE ITSELF. I do this all the time to decide where to land my crafts! And the last golden nugget to piece it all together? Polar orbits pass over the entirety of the surface as the planet rotates underneath so by combining surface sanners and KerbNet all together, you can perfectly plan future missions! Satellites are so cool!
  9. If the fine print does in fact say 53km - 54km orbit, then try accelerating to orbital speed really friggin fast as soon as you hit like 52km maybe then detach and really quickly click the test part function on the heat shield? Thats the only thing I can think of. Otherwise you may have to ditch that contract. Rip.
  10. My solution would probably be something along the lines of asparagus staging large LF/OX engines around the fuel tank in the center so once you're down to the last two engines, you'll complete your orbit, set up rendezvous, and get as close to docking as possible before detaching them, leaving the central tank full on fuel.
  11. Are you turning the rocket around then thrusting back ward or are you getting all the way into orbit? I'm assuming suborbital here, so I dunno try this.. Take note of your surface velocity on the launch pad (rotational speed of surface of kerbin), launch, then once at booster turn-around point, pause the game and add your current surface velocity while in space to kerbins' surface velocity and retroboost to that total velocity? I dunno if that would work as I haven't done it myself, but I am curious to know if it'd work
  12. This tells me you're ascending, meaning you have traction at least in the rear. The sheer weight of the vehicle and the mass of the planet are keeping you glued down, so your problem here is one of two things. Either 1) You're lacking on horsepower. Or 2) Your heavy back end is dragging on the slope adding excess friction as you try to accelerate up. Generally the fixes would go along the lines of increasing the rear suspension a bit or adding more powered wheels depending on the actual problem. Obviously you can't edit the vehicle so... Try raising the rear suspension or reducing friction of back half of wheels or both lol? If it's digging in too much, it might start accelerating better after the change. If not, whelp I tried.
  13. I think the metal balls are like massive floodlights. (Nope, also spherical on the other side.) Not saying you're wrong, but why have "Tanks" of metallic hydrogen in a line off the side of your base? When I think of metallic hydrogen fuel storage, I think of radioactive rods or something like that. Something you can just put in your ship nice and easy when you need more fuel. Sphere's don't seem like the most ergonomic choice of fuel shape unless you're intending to spread pressures. Makes me wonder if they're trying to conveyor whatever it is inward to your rocket when refueling? Can those lines of things become full/expanded? Can you add more of those lines for stockpiling purposes? Idk, just some random thoughts