mystifeid

Members
  • Content count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

219 Excellent

About mystifeid

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I think that the total may be minimized as B approaches zero - ie the cheapest inclination change from 0° to 180° is attained by extending the Ap to the edge of the SOI, changing inclination and then circularizing at the Pe. While it would be nice to be slick at arithmetic so that I could demonstrate mathematically, it is, as usual, easy to test. Here are a few examples of the dV required to flip a 100km Kerbin orbit. Ap A B Total 100km 0 4492.3m/s 4492.3m/s 1000km 403.3m/s 2318.2m/s 3124.8m/s 5000km 748.7m/s 748.7m/s 2246.1m/s 10000km 830.4m/s 406.3m/s 2067.1m/s 20000km 877.7m/s 212.3m/s 1967.7m/s 40000km 903.3m/s 108.6m/s 1915.2m/s 80000km 916.7m/s 55.0m/s 1888.4m/s I used Mechjeb for the maneuvers and even after flipping at 80 000km, MJ circularized back at 100km with an inclination of 179.999° - this would probably be a bit trickier without Mechjeb.
  2. mystifeid

    Exploding ore tanks

    Also be sure to mention the tanks are radially attached to a stack of z1-k batteries.
  3. mystifeid

    Exploding ore tanks

    Probably the best example is the original - transferring ore into the six radially clipped tanks in orbit. Explosion occurs on fifth transfer. Sure. Only if you can make sense of it. I can't.
  4. mystifeid

    Exploding ore tanks

    Just to confuse you a bit more - in all cases tested on the launchpad so far, if the attached tanks (clipped or not) are supporting the central stack instead of the other way around, the craft seems perfectly stable on the launchpad. I think some of the launchpad testing results may just be effects of the physics engine kicking in but that would still not explain why ore cannot be transferred into clipped tanks in orbit.
  5. mystifeid

    Exploding ore tanks

    Nope - bad example. Even when I attach the six Rockomax tanks with modular girder segments so that there is no clipping, it still explodes on the launchpad. Going back to the original test - I used an okto2 probecore on a stack of z1-k batteries and attached six full small holding tanks. It explodes on the launchpad. When I remove the clipping by attaching the six full tanks with tt-38k radial decouplers, it doesn't explode but it still doesn't look happy on the launchpad. Ok so trying eight (8) full small holding tanks attached to a full FL-T800 fuel there is only a very small heading change on launch. When I empty the fuel tank though, the heading change is wild. So the mass of the central stack, as well as the clipping seems to be involved. Good luck trying to quantify this phenomenon well enough for a bug report.
  6. mystifeid

    Exploding ore tanks

    The central stack does not need to be batteries. At first I thought replacing them with a fuel tank was stable but watch the heading on the launchpad - a stable craft should remain at 000°. Using one (empty) FL-T series fuel tank clustered with eight smaller (full) FL-T tanks is at first glance ok except for that small heading change and a feeling that the craft is vibrating imperceptibly. Replace the eight FL-T tanks with six Rockomax tanks and ... boom! So, the simple craft in the picture below may be easier to reproduce: an Okto2 probecore on top of an empty FL-T800 fuel tank with six full Rockomax x200-16 fuel tanks joined to it. Self destructs on launchpad. Bad example - see next post.
  7. mystifeid

    Exploding ore tanks

    My test was stock but since I'm not a clipping fan it won't be me filing a bug report - though you should feel free. The top six ore tanks in my screenshot above are joined directly to a stack of z-1k batteries with 6x symmetry and are empty. The bottom six ore tanks are full. Cheat the craft into orbit Even on the launchpad you should be able to start transferring ore and see some fireworks halfway through transferring to the fifth tank. And If you send the craft to the launchpad with the top six ore tanks already full, then you will have to do nothing. It will just explode. Bad things also happen if the ore tanks are replaced by clipping fuel tanks.
  8. mystifeid

    Help!

    Interestingly, and as an addendum to the above, it took about 11m/s more dV to reach and return from a 50km Mun orbit with a 180° inclination than the 0° inclination used in the example above - but again, that might have just been me.
  9. mystifeid

    Help!

    Terrible advice? It's very easy to test. I put Bill in a 10 800km orbit around Kerbin which is a bit closer than the Mun. Bob I put in a 50km orbit around the Mun. Jeb is in a rescue craft with plenty of fuel in a 100km Kerbin orbit. Let's see how much dV is required to rescue both Bill and Bob and how much fuel is remaining for a braking burn in Kerbin's atmosphere after setting a 55km periapsis. Both Bill and Bob are in orbits with 0° inclination and zero eccentricity. To eliminate bias from my own clumsy handling of maneuver nodes, I used Mechjeb and in both cases it seemed to do a stand-up job. If anything, Mechjeb penalizes the Mun rescue because when setting the initial transfer node, I would not be aiming at the center of the Mun as Mechjeb does. Bob (in 10 800km Kerbin orbit) Hohmann transfer - 837.1m/s Match velocities - 367.2m/s Close to 80m - 17.9m/s Match velocities - 17.9m/s (Bob transferred) Change periapsis to 55km - 373.1m/s Total dV - 1613.2m/s Fuel Remaining - 1820 Oxidizer Remaining - 2224 Bill (in 50km Mun orbit) Hohmann Transfer to Mun - 841.6m/s Fine Tune to 118km Mun orbit - 19.5m/s Circularize at 118km periapsis - 236.4m/s Hohmann Transfer to Bill - 27.7m/s Match velocities - 29.1m/s Close to 80m - 2.4m/s Match velocities - 2.1m/s (Bill transferred) Return from Mun into Kerbin orbit with 55km Pe - 254.9m/s Total dV - 1413.7m/s Fuel Remaining - 2063 Oxidizer Remaining - 2521 It looks very much like it costs about 200m/s less dV to rescue Bill from the Mun orbit than Bob from the Kerbin orbit. I would assume that any variation from perfect 0° inclination and no eccentricity is also going to favor the Mun.
  10. mystifeid

    Ground Vehicle Death Shimmy

    So it's probably not necessary to start a new thread for each reply. Anyway, you had the dampers for every wheel set to 2. When this was reduced to 1 - no shimmy. And the highest setting that I found I could use for the dampers with no resulting shimmy was 1.4 The design has real problems going over bumps with a lot of weight being put on a couple of wheels. You can expect blowouts. I had more success when I removed them all and attached 24 wheels as near as I could in lines of 4. But It was still advisable to move over bumps carefully. Without ever leaving or falling off the launchpad this is what happens if I leave the dampers at the original setting of 2.
  11. mystifeid

    Ground Vehicle Death Shimmy

    So I tried modifying the first rover to be more like the second although still with only 8 wheels and surprise, surprise, I can do what I like with the springs / dampers (2/2) and it still drives normally around KSC. Go figure.
  12. mystifeid

    Ground Vehicle Death Shimmy

    The craft file will be in [game directory]\saves\[name of game]\ships\VAB\ Here is another example I've noticed lately. Lightweight - hard to call it overloaded yet it jumps around on the launchpad until a tire blows (rear left in second screenshot). Even with the fuel tank empty it starts jumping around when I start driving it around KSC. But the wheels have had both spring and damper settings increased to 2. Strange because the 16 wheel rover I've done most of my cn's with has all wheels with springs/dampers set to 2/2 and the 16 wheeler (11.648 tons of it) still behaves normally at KSC
  13. mystifeid

    Ground Vehicle Death Shimmy

    That's a pity because posting the craft file or save file somewhere is probably the best way of receiving timely help. We're just guessing otherwise.
  14. mystifeid

    Exploding ore tanks

    I was curious about that too so I just used 6x symmetry. Have fun!