Nicias
-
Posts
179 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Nicias
-
-
2 hours ago, Callmedave said:
I have a 2.5 service bay saved as a sub assembly that I use on lifters that I know will be going to orbit so that I can de-orbit that stage.
i.e. in the service bay is: Probe core, Reaction wheels, Solar panels, communication equipment (usually the antenna is sufficient) some batteries and enough mono prop that I need to de-orbit that stage.
- I could even add some parachutes to make these stages recoverable!
when its required i just grab the subassembly and pop it on knowing it has everything I need.
I do the same thing with a "science bay." One of the benefits of this is that since the root is the storage bay, which has free nodes top & bottom, you can attach it on either end.
-
This is already an option in 1.2.2. In the F12 menu, go to "physics" I think and you can select "show autostruts"
-
3 hours ago, Abastro said:
Hmm... then, please update the OP to include the unit (km).
This one was confusing as you said:
I thought this means the result was in meter.
Besides, screenshots would be great for verification.
I think this is a communication problem.
In some places they use "." to separate thousands.
-
I think it feels like it should be twice your escape velocity since the best you could do it turn around with the same speed. However, it then is not twice your escape velocity, it is twice you excess velocity at escape. The higher this is the straighter your orbit is. So you want to maximize this number times the sine of half the angle your orbit turns you. This results in the optimization procedure @Abastro described.
-
I've noticed that the "time to Pe" readout says infinity when on the inboard portion of a hyperbolic orbit. Could that be fixed?
-
I have given up on this problem. I just check my staging anytime I dock or undock anything staged.
-
9 hours ago, StahnAileron said:
My rocket are high TWR with SRB sometimes. GT has issues with the non-throttling SRB at high TWRs during initial launch. Also, this is like the only way I can play and not get completely bored of launching rockets. Otherwise, I wish KSP had a "Space Tycoon"/"Space Program Manager" mode where launches can abstracted if I wanted using a launch history of a particular rocket design. (Be great if you could use GT's database to just "cheat" the rocket to orbit with the approximate correct amount of dV left and the necessary stages discarded.) That and KSP letting you do maneuver nodes without needing to be the active vessel. (i.e. "Background" burns while on rails.)
Look at each answer on the left. There should be a button to mark a post as the answer. Pick the post you think is the best answer and click on it. (And I find it funny you can LIKE posts for questions in this forum software but it won't add to the VOTE count for that post.
Like and Vote are two different things here 
)
I tend to use similar first stages. I typically set the "sensitivity" to 0.03 and leave my cursor to the left of the 3, and then when the boosters separate I hit delete and change the sensitivity to .3 (the default)
-
A craft without fins will resist the *start* of the pitchover maneuver. When you pitchover you are turning from prograde which the fins resist. So it takes longer to actually do the pitchover. So for the same control inputs a fin-less rocket might pitch more. Of course, the depends on the details of the two craft. If the fins have control authority, they can help with the pitchover too.
-
I find that that is a good approach. I'll often do a twin boar with two orange drop tanks and two orange + skippers. The skippers, twin boar & fuel work to get time to Ap up to 50s, and then skippers & their tanks are dropped (if I get the tankage just right.) Then the rocket continues on mostly full throttle twin boar until the navball switches from surface/orbit . This requires a throttle up to keep time to Ap at 50 and at this time the orange tanks are dropped. Then the twin boar mostly takes me to orbit.
-
On 4/12/2017 at 4:21 AM, StahnAileron said:
Oh, then just use the GravityTurn mod WITH MJ: It has MJ integration for the final circularization burn at apoapsis. Totally automated other than the pre-launch set-up (which the current version tries to guess for you automatically now; override if you wish). Or something goes wrong...
.....
So yeah: Give the GT Mod a try. (See @DStaal's post for the link.) I found it far better/efficient than MJ's Ascent Guidance. (MJ's more brute force, GT is more finesse. I suppose the former is more Kerbal-ly.)
GT for the win.
-
Also, design rockets.
-
On 4/7/2017 at 10:03 AM, Razorforce7 said:
In light of a collective desire to have atmospheric propulsion on Eve I say "aye" to any new propulsion method.
In light of a poor attempt to magicaly transform Jet engines into something fictional to meet the desire for having such propulsion I say "nay"And I am going to bring up the "science behind" this idea. Not to convert you from the core idea of having atmospheric propulsion on Eve, in fact I'm encouraging you.
But I will attempt a reconsideraton of yours on what kind of propulsion this should be.I'm not trying to convince people not to have their fun with a mod like this. If it entices you to have such a engine for Eve then go for it. Forget I ever replied and sorry for my post its length.
But in light of what I'm going to discuss I would recommend to go for atleast a theoretical propulsion design rather then a fictional hybrid jet engine for Eve. Because it makes no sense whatsoever.
Given the temperature and atmospheric conditions at Eve I can only think that explodium is a raw naturally occuring hydrocarbon.
Hydrocarbons are filthy in their raw form. They do not burn in a clean and controlled fashion, your engine will choke itself in case it does give you any ignition hicccup if it were to be fueled by it.
But it will never get to work because unrefined hydrocarbons are volatile, sticky, explosive, corrosive and unfit for controlled engine combustion.
Any raw material present is impure by the very fact that it is raw. Its why you bring your car to ExxonMobil instead of a oil well.
It is why water is purified in your local water treatment plant.
Also, explodium is present as lakes and atmosphere. So there is precipitation of explodium in the atmosphere. Meaning that the layer of combustable explodium is limited to the lowest part of Eve's atmosphere. And I would expect any such engine to choke itself from 8km altitude and quit alltogether at 10km.
Also, last time I checked turbofan combustion chambers have their fuel injected, not their oxygen.
If oxygen is to be injected then how could it guarantee proper chamber combustion when the chamber is expecting compressed oxygen to be ambient within the chamber itself?
How can you disperse oxygen to be ambient within a high pressure chamber that is designed to compress and exhaust as much ambient air as possible?
It would require a very sophisticated system that automaticaly injects the proper amount of oxygen before it is compressed in the turbines compressor.
Which needs to happen at the same pressure (which is high even in front of the compressor)
It also needs to happen very accurate or your engine will simply fail due to oxygen starvation.
How would that then be possible?
Also, oxygen requires heavy pressure tanks to be stored. For that reason I don't think it will fit any aicraft design since they'd be easily to heavy.
This engine would have the following miracle properties.*Ability to feed injected oxidiser before it enters the engines compressor and have it computer controlled so that the engine keeps combustion stability at every turbine speed.
*Ability to refine the explodium fuel as it enters the intake (which requires a secondary intake) Because you need to store it first to refine it onboard.
*Very limited use since explodium is mainly liquid and only exists as a narrow lower band in the atmosphere as it is the densest gas available.
So realisticaly your engine should stall only a few kilometres above the surface and fail completely by going any higher then 10km altitude.Carrying oxygen around is much heavier, a secondary intake and refinery is even more heavy. A modified heavier jet engine (if at all possible) is even more weight.
The point in case: You will never get of Eve's surface. This is like suggesting a alcubierre drive. Atleast from that one we agree it's fictional.
Since a Eve jet engine is the same ballpark I wonder why you don't simply theorize a fictional engine to begin with. Instead of something of which we know it can't be done. Or atleast not successful and for any existing purpose.
I don't buy these concerns. Whatever explodium is the substance in the ocean, is not the same as the substance in the atmosphere. If the oceans are filled with a reducer (like a hydrocarbon) then the atmosphere must not have any oxidizer in it. Otherwise the oceans would be on fire. So the most volatile elements of whatever is in the ocean will evaporate and rain down, like on Titan. So if the oceans are all kinds of hydrocarbon crud, the reactive portion of atmosphere is probably mostly things like methane, ethane, ethene, propane, etc. Which all burn fine. Don't think of using crude oil, think of using natural gas. Again, like Titan.
In terms of getting just the right amount to use, that is easy too. You don't. IRL, turbine engines aren't rune stoicometerically (sp?). They would melt if they did. So you throttle by controlling how much oxidizer you pump in.
You also don't have to use LOX. (Assuming that is what oxidizer is). Hydrogen peroxide might be a better choice if you were actually making one of these.
Aside from the fact that LOX is cryogenic, I don't see any difference between a lox or peroxide jet in a mostly inert atmosphere with some light hydrocarbon and using a CNG turbine in a oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere.
-
How do I change the kind of tank in flight? Even when it is empty I don't see an option to change what it contains. Here are pictures showing what I see.
-
18 hours ago, wasml said:
I can see how it would be nice to be able to glance at a craft and tell if it was set up right but with IFS there isn't as much reason to be able to tell the tanks apart as it allows you to change the contents in the editor and, if empty, in flight. As a plus it helps keep the number of parts down in the editor.
I can't figure out how to change the type of tank in flight. How do I do that?
-
I wish I was good with graphics. I'll try out IFS, but then the tanks will look the same. I think a mod with just 5 parts (the 2.5m fuel tanks I mentioned plus the 2.5-1 adapter) with basically the same graphics with a stripe down them or somesuch and LF only would be great.
-
I'm looking for a mod that just adds 2.5m LF tanks (for NERV powered craft) I don't need anything fancy, just oil-drum (full, half, and quarter size) and maybe a big orange. I also want to be able to add this to my current install save without breaking anything.
Any suggestions?
-
First of all thanks for collecting/creating all of these! Would it be possible to modify the "allow deflating inflatable heatshield" patch to allow deflation by action group?
-
Thanks! That's what I figured.
-
Can I add OPM to a current savefile or will that break things?
-
Getting an intercept with minmus is harder, because of the smaller SOI and inclination. Once you have an intercept, getting in orbit, landing, getting back to orbit and getting home are easier. All of those things require less dV, lower TWR, and are more tolerant of human error.
-
I don't know if KER has it, but MechJeb has synodic period with target. That will tell you how long until the active object and the target are in the same relative positions in their orbits again. So if it is 10000 years, then one object will lap the other every 10000 years. I use that to sync up my relays. For solar relays using a thrust limited ion drive, I can get that number up in the trillions of years. That means that they will be off by less than a degree ever billion years, which seems sufficient.
-
21 hours ago, eloquentJane said:
If you assume that your lifter will be at full throttle until the SRBs burn out and the tanks on top of the SRBs are empty, you don't need to balance it for each different payload since the burn time will be the same. Balancing it initially is still a pain, but you don't need to rebalance it each time. Obviously a design that has to remain at full throttle all the time isn't always ideal, but it's the easiest way to make drop tanks on top of SRBs work.
Yeah, even then its pretty easy to do if you have MJ or KER installed. I just put on the decouplers, the SRB's and a tank (as a guess) I set the staging to go SRB, LF, Decoupler, and it will tell you the burn time for the SRB and for the main engine using the fuel from the boosters. Add tanks until the LF time is close, but not more than the SRB time. Merge the bottom two stages and you are done.
I also have a premade bottom stack of TwinBoar + 4 Thumpers + Tankage. I end up putting that on most of my medium sized launches anyway. It works out nice. I use GravityTurn and the Thumpers burn out just as the time to Ap hits 50s, and GT wants to throttle down.
-
Would it be possible to have lights on probe cores?
-
Just the kickback's CoM.
Like and Vote are two different things here 
)
Parachute Reseter
in KSP1 Mods Discussions
Posted
Hello, I was wondering if there was a mod that could take some of the grind out of resetting parachutes. I have an engineer aboard, but I don't want to have to EVA her out to the nose of the craft to reset all the chutes one by one.