Muetdhiver

Members
  • Content Count

    177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

179 Excellent

About Muetdhiver

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I did try it but I found PBC (Probes before crew) a much better experience along JNSQ than UKS (in 1.7.3). UKS with its engines restrictions makes things really difficult in 2.7x IMO.
  2. I think that for Eve a Roton type rocket or an electric prop space plane makes a whole lot more sense than a mamoth or vector powered spaceplane. However, propeller/helo blades will be a nightmare to get intact to eve surface ^^
  3. Danm. Thanks for the information. X-ing fingers for 1.9 to sort this out then.
  4. I usually play at 30-40%, but for JNSQ I use 50%. There are a few things to consider : 1) higher DV means more expensive rockets. at 30% I tend to run out of funds and mission farming is not my thing (I like doing missions to gets funds, but not oodles of them) 2) higher DV requirements means harder time to get science points early in the career mode. with 30% I get science starved, and I don't want to do the KSC science farming thing. Anyway, I have been running into graphical glitches on Kerbin in this version of JNSQ. I have texture squares appearing. This was not happening in the previous version. (See spoiler). This is with Eve and scaterer. Anyone else got those ?
  5. Tbh this is a problem I have been having with pretty much all capsules in JNSQ / 3.2X when coming back from Mun or higher : if the shield is not angled perfectly then things go bad. Though l suspect something is going on with the moded advanced versions of the mk1 as I have also some troubles. A trick I like is to use a 1.25m device bay between the capsule and the shield. Those have amazing heat resistance. In fact you can use them as heat shield in normal play.
  6. Lol yeah indeed. I tried a caveman ssto, but no payload as the 30 part limit did not allow it One could go the extra mile on fruitcake road with a pad assembled caveman reusable rocket.
  7. No contract nanocrystaline diamond caveman. Shudders. I mean regular difficulty caveman with no contract is probably doable. Diamond ? Seems it would be an exercise in grindy nuttery. Mabye it could be called the Granolla challenge XD. Though it makes for a nice reason to get into caveman tech re-usable lauchers
  8. Cyclic and collective controls. Cries with joy Also, mainsail looks better and the thumper reskin is a neat surprise.
  9. It's not so much that the MkII is ugly, but that it does not fit well with any other parts in term of art style. It's makes for an eyesore (IMO)
  10. Yes, I can elaborate here. I did compare the cryo (dedicated) tanks without EC hardware for cooling to cryo (dedicated) tanks with EC hardware for cooling. This cooling equipement only exists for the benefit of the cryo booster, so I added it the booster dry mass, instead of counting it as payload. I have used 0.5T of power gen + storage hardware for your dedicated cryo tank version of the jumbo (the one with 64K units of volume). This makes the tank mass fraction go down from 0.879 to 0.849. I then compared the cryo without EC hardware to cryo with it. To be clear I have yet to check the exact required cooling hardware mass for such a tank. I wanted to have a looksee of what adding a gigantor + service bay + 100kg of batteries would do to the DV, as one would use for long duration missions like a Duna or Jool mission. It also allowed me to have an idea of the threshold in terms of mission length where EC hardware become worth the DV tax, rather than letting the H2 boil off. Turns out that since the impact is about 10% DV, the EC hardware is only worth it if the mission time exceeds ~100h (a very rough estimate). So a Mun mission would likely not need to bother with dealing with the boiloff, Minmus would be on the fence and anything further would need the EC hardware. I did not look at regular tanks with added EC hardware as I only considered its use case as an upper LH2O stage and/or Mun injection stage, where one would forgo the cooling (given that it'll be used up way before boiloff matters). If one was to use an orbital stage with regular tanks and EC hardware for LH2O cooling, then the DV would become even worse since the the already poor mass fraction would get slapped with a rather heavy addition of dry mass from the EC hardware. Does this clarify things ?
  11. Since I wanted to ckeck what I said, I made a few calculations in python to compare the different engine pairs (terrier - hecate, cheetah - pavonis, poodle - ulysses, wolfhound - tharsis) The booster mass is the tank with the correct mass fraction for LFO (0.889) and LH2O (0.728) respectively for regular tanks, and includes the engine mass too. The payload mass is just that, the stuff you put on the rocket. Below is four plots with the DV ratio for mutliple pairings of booster mass - payload mass, giving a 2D color map. Long story short : with regular tanks, LH2O is nearly always worse in terms of DV. Not by much in quite a lot of cases, but worse. All pairs except wolfhound - tharsis, are nearly perfectly balanced with the LFO engines in terms of DV. The wolfhound - tharsis pair is the exception with the wolfhound being slightly better to a lot better in terms of DV. This is due to the very good (godlike) ISP of the wolfhound. LFO always wins for large booster mass - small payload mass from the much better mass fraction from the tanks. However, the TWR is massively favoring LH2O in the following pairings : pavonis has +40% thrust over the cheetah, the ulysses has +50% thrust over the poodle. terrier - hecate and wolfhound - tharsis are balanced in term of thrust. Using dedicated cryo tanks for the LH2O engines give them +30% to +55% DV over an LFO setup. (so, not for upper stage in atmo since cryo tanks would blow up, but out of the atmosphere, it's amazing.) If one account for the powersupply and power storage as part of the mass fraction the DV edge over LFO goes down to +20% to +45%. Still very good. I haven't tested, but it might be better to use a cryo tank with a fairing rather than a regular tank if one build an LH2O upper stage. If you are interested I can pretty much test any engine pairing, such as comparing nuclear-thermal to LH2O engines.
  12. For me restock brings a certain uniformity in part style that I feel is sorely lacking in stock. It makes for crafts more pleasing to the eye. Then again, the vanilla reskins under progress are not bad, they are just not as good as restock (in my opinion).
  13. Here are the Caveman launch, dock and transfer to Jool video as well as the Pol - Bop - Vall video. Launch, with loss of one of the vernier engines... followed by RVZ with the Jool expedition mothership and transfer to Jool with caveman trajectory corrections using math and pykep. https://youtu.be/vonjAX5r3_0 Landings and tranfers, from Tylo -> Pol -> Bop -> Vall. Includes visiting the Kraken : https://youtu.be/9UKmKqCkktw I had a lot of footage at hand (hours) so I had to cut out a fair bit of faffy stuff (like the Jeb pickup routine and Vall encounter that too several orbits to achieve) and accelerate to x2 most of the sequences. All the Jeb pickups with the ships are done in x8 because they take ages.
  14. Here are the Caveman launch, dock and transfer to Jool video as well as the Pol - Bop - Vall video. https://youtu.be/vonjAX5r3_0 https://youtu.be/9UKmKqCkktw It's a first for me, so no fancy stuff here. Funny thing is that I lose an engine at lauch XD.
  15. I am currently editing the video of the Bop and Pol landings. I'm new to it, so it takes me more time than anticipated. I will try to be done with it as fast as possible. Includes a kraken landing