• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

785 Excellent

1 Follower

About Bornholio

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

766 profile views
  1. Never ending dev testing ( I should make a Haiku) Upon discovering that others did not know that RSS had a release in the works with Uranus' Moons included I worked on testing that a bit with Principia because "We Cannot Afford a Principia Gap!" New Biomes and textures maps, added moons and planets (Vesta, Ceres..) KCT version shows already picked tech nodes but yet to finish researching as orange in green and fixes the old stuck purchase bug from hovering over a purchase node that is too expensive. So far Principia (Cayley) is working fine.
  2. I'm not the person to give a great answer for direct ascent, but with MJ you can launch to rendezvous with a bit of error. That is the only way I have done it. Made a 70m/s midcourse correction at midpoint. You can slop quite a bit for a few hundred dV. I never line things up unless I'm doing a free return path. Very seldom do i do more that basic alignment on launch and I launch to 28.608 instead of the proper 28.363. Baikonour will be a bit more difficult to always find a good intercept. Also if you are doing a polar mapping mission or landing on the poles its actually worse to line up, since you want to drop in over or under the moon. I find that 240dV is enough to correct for any number of horrible alignments (some will always fail) but even 90deg out of phase is not a useless orbit to launch from. One thing to do is place a junk sat in a test orbit and do planning nodes from that. use Cheat Orbit screen or hyper edit to place the sat in an orbit that is co-planar with the Moon and in about whatever you are likely to use as a parking orbit. Then place a second in a test orbit high enough that you can get to with 0 to minimal dogleg on launch. Then make planning nodes from that and see how you can get intercepts from many odd angles.
  3. Depends on the heat loading, if you have radiators you can manage the heat load and minimize or eliminate the losses. Starwaster also has a heat pump mod that uses more realistic power amounts but either way going above x1000 time warp inflicts analytic mode and heat will not be controlled properly. Cryogenic tanks just lower the heat load by adding insulation. Service modules add even more insulation and allow for higher pressures at the expense of more weight and lower capacity. If the tank can be kept at 20K or less then Hydrogen boiloff is not an issue. Likewise LqdMethane and LqdOxygen can be kept much easier since the are far higher boiling points and lower expansion ratios. Commonly if a Hydrogen stage is being used to do TLI or other Injection burn it can just be over provisioned with hydrogen to make up for the boil off relative to the LOx. One thing about having a higher thrust Transit bus is that is will lower gravity losses and improve maneuver accuracy. That said I love cavea-B RCS and 1&2kN Thrusters for probe driving. Usually once you have that you can go straight to Lunar orbit and even landers if you using drop tanks and a small probe. Most common for me in those missions is an AJ-10 Early since it is restartable. Have you also thought of direct ascent and not going into a parking orbit? That would allow you to use the stage without needing an extra ignition.
  4. Well if you have to, but can I interest you in a visit to Oberon? Its a lot less gassy and in the neighborhood.
  5. When I push with LR105 uppers and know it will have excess fuel I will add a set of 2 or 4 LR101s to expend the rest of the fuel into TLI. So unless you can conserve an ignition then either reduce the stage to just enough to make orbit with an extra small stage to push TLI or add a secondary pusher that can use the same fuel. Its almost always more efficient to design a good small Bus stage with a multi ignition engine.
  6. It is a slow process, It depends on each required mod first being 1.3. For some mods the change is as simple as recompiling once. Others require fundamental fixes. Then RO needs to accommodate any changes they make. So the answer is no That said lots of work is happening in development RO & RP-0 Version release on Reddit
  7. RP-0 is crush my will, well Dev testing is. My son is home and spouse training for the new school year. So i get plenty of time this week to test, making about 20-30 test launches a day The crew is adding new features like tooling costs, maintenance and crew training along side the awesome new tech tree and heavy duty contract system launched way too many nearly identical sounding rockets with minimized cost.
  8. Aug 9 testing, my sons time off before school start has me running heavy duty. Did a large number of X-Plane (sonic) by taking my first planes (2xGE, +XLR So astronauts have this nice extra information in mouse over. Bobby is happy he got to do a Suborbital hop to 230km high extended his contract. Charles Moore needs some fun or he won't stay on past '59 Maintenance costs and a new training feature have their own toolbar button now. Sounding rocket mission for new altitude record is in. If you want to slightly increase and re-run it multiple times, power down just after making AP high enough otherwise the new one will be higher than whater you end up at. I did not, faster to take the money from the milestones. Minimizing cost minimizes build times, so no avionics, just Hit R and spacebar a couple of times straight up Early game has very little to do after finishing early SO contracts are done. Doing repeatable Xplane(sonic) missions to pass some time. Can't wait till RO/RP-0 can go 1.3 so i have a working runway. (go get kerbal constructs if you need to run plane missions and put a good one in) Landing it on the runway is critical, that why I parachute in every time. By parachuting in i make turnaround time just the time to roll it back in (still pretty long) but compared to the 200 day construction easy to do. Turns like an SR-71, yeah not very good, but stable and fast 735m/s at 25km Need to keep it along the coast so i can navigate . No tracking station for near a year so no navigation help. Heading to 15km and 550m/s for the contract. Lobbing attacks at texas to grab biomes after getting new science. Massive pile of dog poo fired into orbit. So bad I'm embarrassed to post its picture. No avionics except an aerobee core, its less satellite than intentional space junk.
  9. They are fine maybe just not have them center. Would be nice to have a summary somewhere maybe a toolbar screen. Or super awesome would be in the Astronaut screen. The maintenance popup was the only one that started to get annoying. Added more info above also.
  10. Aug 8 testing, in between doing maintenance and lawn work on a day off i restarted again. Since @NathanKell added several features (Astronaut retirement and down time), (more tooling changes), (KSC general maintenance costs) and @pap1723 moved the starting parts out so it cleans up the VAB since now the masses of aero and propeller parts don't have to be visible but must be purchased. This enables tooling costs to be factored into more parts and the entry cost modifier system applied to all parts. Then node that contains them comes with a contract that completes after a delay of 2 seconds and grants the node. That worked great and currently the costs are mostly 1 fund for each part (it contains more than 190 parts even with just required parts packs like sxt, vens and taerobee). Astronaut information on startup. Maintenance, Astronaut, TACLS and KCT pile on each other at start. New node for starting parts Go get the new start mission first. Pop out and the mission completes. Node with Entry Cost parts all at one whole fund. Some are more and most will get some tooling setup charges add is suspect. Important to balance against the tooling costs for proc parts. Did a custom settings career this time (hard, but reload/saves and 500% reward modifier) . I think the astronaut retirement and the maintenance costs interface needs some love. In particular the maintenance costs screen pops up and locks some inputs pretty regularly. The first few normal lob rockets were all built on V-2/WAC bumpers, tooling costs are looking stable and reasonable for the reward. The heavier tanks are harder to judge by intuition and sure can't make it to orbit with the first few nodes of techs. Make sure you save enough money for those '56 engines or its going to be a hard grind. Launch one had a late A-4 low power failure and the WAC failed to ignite (my fault) but it still made 160km. Second WAC failed to ignite also even with sepatrons. Third time was the charm. Got most water/shores/grassland science. Did the manned mission as soon as I had X-1 cockpit, other than that and an A-9 Engine its mostly the same as my booster. Until several nodes happen i won't push it any farther. Improvements to separation, Retro burn sepatrons and added N2 RCS after the first guy took 30g of re-entry force. The others took 12ish gees. Maybe crew off time should be linked to max G force squared Did alternating sounding rocket (Difficult missions with other missions until the only other missions available were the X planes (sonic) missions which had a plane in construction for 340 days and the first orbital missions. Made a very cheap V-2 rocket with only a Aerobee core to start the engine and let it go straight, each mission cost about 1k 300ish for the rocket depending on payload and 500-600 for rollout costs, each took about 5 days and a day rollout, not sure how many days are between that and the next mission available. Did my eleventh sounding rocket mission in late August. Tech at the end of science harvesting wave 1: made a Short tank section to stretch over the V-2(A-4) tanks and mate to the conic. Contained the variable amounts of payload requirement for each mission. Waste space was filled with fuel and fuel minimized to make the altitude required. Mission Alt-Mission Alt-Reached PayloadUnits Reward dV Sounding Rocket Missions 1 200 406 60u 10k ---- 2 400 402 70u 11k 3 200 326 555u 11k 4 200 312 770u 12k 5 300 322 545u 12k 6 200 278 1165u 13k 3114dV 7 400 560u 13k 3295dV 8 300 302 825u 13k 3225dV 9 100 163 3740u 15k 2529dV 10 200 230 2225u 16k 2913dV 126k total 37k Costs (yeah for 3bp) # km Altitude payload reward dV fuel one later mission had a motor failure just as it unclamped. Building construction take a lot longer, investing in VAB build rate is critical for this speed (1.2bp/s)
  11. @Syczek I see normal recoveries, including taking parts to scrapyard. Nothing listing it even trying to transfer science but didn't That 38k exceptions is a lot it has semisaturatable Reaction wheels is throwing exceptions, FAR is erroring several thousand times. Scatterer is failing to find cloud layers for planets etc. It might be that among the exceptions and errors it is refusing to unload the part that contains the science. i don't see a specific reason why, but there is a lot of NRE spam going on. You probably want to carefully rebuild your install (make a copy of the whole thing).
  12. Sounds like you have a problem with your install, post an output_log.txt online and I'll take a look. I play on a much weaker computer without crashes.
  13. I did a couple booster sample recoveries today that worked fine. Are you sure the science was not recovered or transmitted before hand. If science is recovered in a stage the icon will be blue and the science recovery text inside the information box will be blue.
  14. @tychochallenge log please fixing it is better
  15. august 7 worked too much Silly designer, x-1 tanks are switchable and not pressurized by default, no supersonic for you. got to lr-105s and lr89, plus aj10-137, from hard as all get out to orbit, to easy peasy including balloon tanks restart and try a fast biosampler... much harder with heavy tanks, like playing stock+RSS and no smurff