Fraktal

Members
  • Content Count

    122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

84 Excellent

About Fraktal

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Fraktal

    Getting a probe to the sun

    Got my facts wrong. Wiki says 18 km is low atmosphere altitude. High is 600 km.
  2. Fraktal

    Getting a probe to the sun

    Low orbit is one thing, it's KER that says 16 km is high atmosphere altitude.
  3. I've recently begun considering launching a flyby probe to the sun, making a quick pass just below 16 km to grab science, then transmitting it back to Kerbin once at a safe distance. However, I'm struggling with actually finding a way to get there. The intended payload: 1 x HECS core 1 x thermometer 1 x barometer 3 x Z-200 battery 2 x DTS-1 antenna (Antenna Helper says this gives 18% coverage at Moho for DSN level 2, so I'm hoping it's just enough to reach the sun) 2 x Solar panel 1x6 (retractable) 4 x Thermal Control System (small) 1 x Heat shield (1.25m) at the very front, to be pointed radial-in during final approach Strapping this payload to an FL-T800 tank with a Spark gives about 4100 m/s; however, the maneuver node says (and the community dV map concurs) I need nearly double that amount to reach the target periapse. I am not trying to achieve orbit, just a close flyby. How do I get it, without nukes or ions?
  4. Fraktal

    What did you do in KSP today?

    Launched my first Duna probe, consisting of an Ike rover and a relay satellite. Not sure if I'll actually be able to complete the mission, though, as Duna's transfer window was closing (it's slightly ahead of Kerbin right now) when I launched so the transfer stage only has about 60 m/s left. Both the rover and the satellite have 1500+ m/s each and they're going to pass by just within Ike's orbit very close to the ecliptic, briefly entering Ike's SOI near the Duna periapse; is that enough dV to brake and still have enough to do other stuff? Also wanted to launch an identical probe to Eve, but Eve is currently on the other side of Kerbol and Kerbin has just passed the ascending node, so I couldn't get an encounter. The transfer window will open shortly before the Duna probe arrives. To pass the time, I strolled back into aircraft research. After having spent a while scratching my head over the point of the existence of the radial intake, seeing how it somehow has triple the drag of the circular intake and inferior performance as far as runway flameouts go, I discovered that it actually has slightly superior high-speed performance that can give a single-Wheesley aircraft an extra .3 Mach at low altitude despite the increased drag. Still not as good as an inline Engine Nacelle with a nosecone (capable of propelling three Wheesleys at Mach 2 and without a runway flameout!) and two circular intakes perform better than two radial ones on a two-Wheesley configuration (as the drag finally overpowers the slightly more air being provided by the radial intake at the same speed), so I'm still able to find a use for all three. Also, I decided to try building something bigger. Enter the L3 Skystreaker, a dual-cockpit, quad-Wheesley flying wing that can not only match the triple-Wheesley L2 Record Breaker's maximum cruising speed despite being much bigger, but do so at a higher altitude (reached 14 km in a nearly level flight) and greater endurance. Did have some snafus during the test flight, though: flexing wings and multiple flatspins from overly responsible controls, the pilots almost passing out from one flatspin, stalling out below 4 km altitude from a too sharp turn... even the landing was a bit tricky due to the fact that the aircraft's massive wing surface area meant that it really didn't want to come back down to the ground and since I didn't put in drogue chutes (or any chutes), I was forced to land on the grass. It rolled for several hundred meters (used up only about 5% of the fuel, so it was over 26 tons) before stopping with a hair-raising 180° powerslide - but its weight being distributed over eight landing gear sets (smallest retractable, using this many makes it rock-solid stable on the runway, no jiggling or veering) meant that it didn't tip over.
  5. Fraktal

    Inline Landing Legs?

    Relevant post of mine in another thread:
  6. Fraktal

    Benefit of more AirIntake?

    The only suggestion I can make in this regard is that if your plane has multiple engines, you may want to consider adding a single Engine Nacelle in addition to whatever high-speed intakes you use to combat asymmetric flameouts before you reach sufficient cruising speed where the high-speed intakes fully kick in. Despite its low fuel capacity for its weight, this particular intake is really well-suited for the role of a secondary intake that gets you where you need to be for your primary intakes to do their job, kinda like the SRB to the high-speed intakes' nuke/ion. In fact, I recently discovered that if you aren't trying to go hypersonic/suborbital and are simply trying to reduce drag, low-drag inline intakes (I only tested the Engine Nacelle but the Engine Pre-cooler should work too) with a nosecone are your best bet. You may not get as much high-speed mileage out of them as from a Shock Cone, true, but the major drag reduction from having a nosecone instead of a front intake more than offsets the added weight of having to include another intake to keep the engines fed.
  7. Fraktal

    More landing legs ?

    You know what I think would be darn useful? Take the existing legs and integrate them into fuel tanks. That is, it externally looks like a regular fuel tank, but has 4 holes on the side the landing legs emerge from, with enough clearance to allow an engine of matching radial size underneath. When retracted, the legs fully retract into the tank. Pros: Lower part count. Lower drag than radially-mounted legs. Legs won't burn off as easily during reentry. Cons: Slightly lower fuel capacity than the legless tank due to internal space being taken up by the landing legs. Drag still higher than the legless tank due to the landing legs' holes causing turbulence. Heat resistance lower than the legless tank due to the landing legs' holes being weak points. The legs don't extend quite as far to the side as radially-mounted legs, resulting in tall landers more easily tipping over on slopes. Landing leg clearance isn't big enough for bigger and more powerful engines, preventing use on high-performance landers (e.g. Tylo, Eve, Kerbin and anywhere with dense enough atmosphere to drop TWR below 1).
  8. System suddenly going dark with even the fans shutting down? Might be CPU overheat, as KSP is very CPU-heavy. I had such overheats on my previous laptop with similar symptoms, albeit not with KSP and the laptop in question refused to turn back on for a few more minutes until it cooled a bit. Getting a cooling pad solved that issue.
  9. That's the thing: without SAS, it flips immediately because the service bay's drag pulls it off retrograde harder than the Mk1 pod's drag pulls it back to retrograde.
  10. He's not the only one. I've been having trouble myself ever since the 1.4 update. In particular, back in 1.3 I was able to make use of the service bay's high heat resistance to forego a heat shield at LKO. Starting from 1.4, however, that's no longer possible: the service bay has such excessive drag that if my orientation deviates more than 2-3 degrees away from perfectly retrograde, the drag overpowers SAS and flips the craft prograde, resulting in a nosedive into the ground beyond parachute release speed. According to the aero readouts, the service bay has more than twice the drag of the Mk1 pod while flying sideways with both pointed into the airstream. Adding a zero-ablator heatshield helps noticeably, but it does not make the problem fully go away. It only decreases slightly the rate at which the drag torque ramps up when deviating from retrograde, allowing a slightly higher deviation before SAS loses it.
  11. Because MUH KONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Ahem. That particular example doesn't work because the EU would tear them a new one if they collected and stored data about you without your consent, EULA or no EULA.
  12. If I may have a suggestion in this regard... To learn a skill (better SAS, better repair capabilities, better science gain, etc.), the Kerbal has to spend X time at the KSC, during which he/she can't go on missions. While skills still have an XP requirement, it's not an absolute yes/no condition like right now; instead, the Kerbal can learn that skill even if he/she doesn't have the indicated amount of XP, it will just significantly (from days to weeks to months, in extreme cases) increase training time proportionally to how much XP the Kerbal has to go to reach the threshold (meaning if a skill requires 10 XP and the Kerbal has 2, it will take him/her longer to learn it than a Kerbal with 6 XP). Conversely, having more XP than the requirement proportionally decreases training time and if the difference is big enough (Kerbal has double or more XP than the required), there's a chance upon next returning to Kerbin that the overleveled Kerbal instantly learns that skill without needing to take time off for training, due to their experience allowing them to figure it out on their own. The chance of this happening would be a difficulty option and can be set anywhere between 0% and 100%. Similarly, Kerbals may learn skills outside their field of expertise (like Scientists learning SAS), but this will be limited to lower-tier skills and/or have a 1.5+ multiplier to XP requirements (which also indirectly increases training time). Whether overleveled Kerbals can auto-learn skills outside their field of expertise would be a difficulty option. Additionally, skills that are not numeric multipliers (SAS levels, repair skills, etc.) can be learned out of order, if you consider the incomplete skillset and/or insufficient experience training time penalty worth it. Astronaut Complex modifiers: Skills can be tied to Astronaut Complex level. By default this only affects training, not the "overleveled Kerbals randomly get the skill for free" thing; also affecting the latter is a difficulty option. Upgrading the Astronaut Complex decreases all training time. Kerbals who know a skill provide a small training time decrease to everyone else learning the same skill while the veteran in question is idling at the Astronaut Complex, giving a purpose to spreading the experience around rather than only flying with the First Four. Optionally, there could also be a way for Kerbals to learn skills while on a mission via telepresence instruction, giving them something useful to do during interplanetary voyages.
  13. Fraktal

    Crater Antipode

    I read back in the day that the Wilkes Land crater under the Antarctican ice apparently used to be antipodal to the Siberian Traps during the Permian, the crater is of similar age as the apocalyptic eruption that created the Traps at the end of the Permian and said eruption may have been the cause of the mass extinction event at the end of the Permian that singlehandedly came closest to ending life on Earth. So whatever created that crater... you did not want to be on Kerbin at the same time.
  14. Fraktal

    What in the name of DUH did I just see?!

    It's in the post above you. It also happens on February 22.