CBase

Members
  • Content Count

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Excellent

About CBase

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That's it ! Thank you ! Actually I had to edit the savegame as well, because my Lab on the Mun was created with the wrong value and the attribute is persistent.
  2. I have all requirements: Situation Orbiting or Landed: Checked as visible Crew: 2 scientiest on board LabTime 36 in vessel: checked (via display as a resource) So why doesn't it complete ? There is a requirement that isn't listed or anywhere described like pressing a button and so. Shouldn't it display somewhere that it is completed ? It can not be found anywhere.
  3. Actually that is a good question, how do I tell and what is needed to complete ? Actually I had to add Module WBIExperimentManifest in \WildBlueIndustries\000WildBlueTools\ModuleManagerPatches\MM_Stock.cfg or "Show Manifest" would not appear. As I look into the WBIExperimentLab definition I do see it creates a resource LabTime that is required for the experiement, but no stock part has the resource. In the screenshot there is a field "LabTime:" with no value. Is this the problem why the experiment does not complete ? LabTime was on vessel base collected, when adding the resource I saw 36 LabTime in vessel overview. I found out that I should "Start Experiment" somewhere, but somehow the GUI from WBIModuleScienceExperiment is missing, no idea why.
  4. ... sort of! ahhh come on, it didn't tip over and within 10m of target from orbit isn't that bad. But challenge accepted, today I improved powered braking, so descent angle settings and remaining error from Trajectory are less of a problem. As well the final approach now slowly decreases deploy of control surfaces near target and some builds got within 1m: @ SpaceX: Got any jobs open ? I did try as well some 1.25m, 2.5m and a massive air breathing 5m first stages: The Rockomax one is little more off, since the single drogue chute had a terminal velocity ~150 m/s which proved to be challenging fast for MechJeb target predictions. During my tests I noticed that the "free falling" landing burn calculations, which are perfectly fine on a moon, waste a lot of fuel with any parachutes. First optimisations were maybe a little too aggressive But finally another 50-100 m/s dV could be shaved off, so right now 350m/s in orbit is totally fine for a full recovery landing if the parachutes slow down to ~ 50m/s. Overall a very successful day
  5. Finally modified MechJeb code to land using Trajectory predictions and actually hit the target close enough to land at LaunchPad: All corrections are done by control surfaces and using two drogue and a single normal parachute. For final touchdown engines helped to shave off last bit of velocity. Total dV used from 80km orbit to touchdown was less than 200 m/s. Now it is time to clean up code a bit for pull requests and test with other rocket sizes / builds.
  6. First: I studied physics and the general trajectories in KSP are doing good on physics (there are some few simplifications which are sure too subtle to notice by common sense alone). Your problems are with the visualizations in map view, but lukcily these can be changed: Please note: The movement is still the same, it just changes how to display them to you in respect of different world views.
  7. Not that I am aware of it. I do have Here are all my mods: Verzeichnis von C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData 08.11.2019 18:37 <DIR> 000_ClickThroughBlocker 08.11.2019 18:37 <DIR> 001_ToolbarControl 02.11.2019 18:56 <DIR> AllYAll 29.04.2018 00:27 <DIR> B9_Aerospace_ProceduralWings 21.01.2019 17:03 <DIR> B9PartSwitch 30.10.2019 08:43 <DIR> CBase 13.09.2018 10:13 <DIR> CorrectCoL 13.10.2019 09:19 <DIR> CustomPreLaunchChecks 21.01.2019 17:03 <DIR> DeployableEngines 21.04.2019 13:12 <DIR> DMagicUtilities 26.03.2020 18:16 <DIR> KerbalEngineer 28.10.2019 17:32 <DIR> MechJeb2 16.09.2019 16:16 <DIR> MiningExpansion 22.03.2020 10:29 <DIR> NavBallDockingAlignmentIndicatorCE 21.01.2019 17:03 <DIR> NearFutureAeronautics 22.02.2020 20:30 <DIR> NearFutureSolar 08.11.2019 18:37 <DIR> PartAngleDisplay 12.05.2018 12:23 <DIR> ProceduralFairings 13.10.2019 08:52 <DIR> ReStock 13.10.2019 08:52 <DIR> ReStockPlus 13.05.2018 02:55 <DIR> SpaceY-Expanded 13.05.2018 02:55 <DIR> SpaceY-Lifters 14.02.2020 07:58 <DIR> Squad 20.09.2019 14:26 <DIR> SquadExpansion 08.11.2019 18:37 <DIR> TacFuelBalancer 17.05.2019 00:19 <DIR> Trajectories 31.08.2019 03:26 <DIR> TriggerTech 06.10.2019 10:25 <DIR> VABReorienter 08.11.2019 18:34 <DIR> WaypointManager 21.01.2019 17:03 <DIR> WildBlueIndustries 22.03.2020 10:06 <DIR> WindTunnel 22.03.2020 10:40 <DIR> ZeroMiniAVC CBase are only part patches for extended service bays, no code.
  8. I am afraid that you need two vessels that started independently from Kerbin to fulfill a transfer crew contract. I am not sure if you can dock them at LKO and do the transfer to Duna combined.
  9. I finished up with adding "Air breathing Gravity Turn" to MechJeb. Of course it needed some tests, but rocket purists in HQ did not wanted to risk too much money, so a smaller launch vehicle was used for first tests: Everything worked well. Since the idea of this GT is to stay low and burn as much in air breathing cycle, I did get rid of turn start altitude (fixed at 500m) and "Intermediate" settings, instead added speed when I switch the initial closed cycle to air breathing mode (~200/220 m/s depending on TWR worked for me) and a minimum TWR at which it will throttle down any conventionell rocket engines to save fuel. For real workloads a mixed engine layout with vectors help to get off from launchpad and they are more efficient later on as well. During tests it got obvious that efficient GT are very shallow and do get hot... So I did some work on thermal limiter, which previously was mainly designed to control core heat transfered from engines and will now prtect entire vessel including all skin from overheating. In the picture it can be actually seen that it completely throttled down to keep criticial parts skin temperature around 97%. If anyone is interested to push to main MechJeb give a note here. Commits are https://github.com/cbase2/MechJeb2/commit/d18719272ec01dd6d7b2296bdcd1717b64c77822, https://github.com/cbase2/MechJeb2/commit/eeb80f321eebc4ce750dfbd1c759c03b287a0453 and https://github.com/cbase2/MechJeb2/commit/3d2bf21b3cff074291d82d0bc9b82e390664d92a Afterwards I got inspired by some other post about how to control Starship like stages: Hmm actually two set of control surfaces on a SSTO rocket sound interesting and nice to control landings. SpaceX mentioned some 60° entry for Starship, if this would work ? It does And with a PE of 15km it was very smooth, although in lower atmo the angle needed to be reduced to 15 to 20°. The MCS near the engines bleed of speed very well at their high angle while the other has just enough control to prevent wild spinning. Perfect landings at runway got very easy to reproduce. Let's see how steep we can go without overheating from a 80km orbit: PE at 5km no heat problem, next PE -10km fine as well, -25km , -50km , -80km , -120km , -250km ... and never it got beyond 80% of critical heat. I did stop at that point because just the deorbit burn cost 400 m/s and slowed down so substantial that it was clear that it would be fine on reentry. Personal favorite design choice on SSTO from now on: two pairs of B9 full moving control surfaces. All this tests got back my interest from last year to get Mechjeb to do perfect landings with Trajectories on Kerbin...
  10. I do hope this thread is the right place to ask: I did not install MOLE, but got the experiment science extension and contracts through Buffalo parts. I did accept an "Run Ice Cream Experiement on the Mun" contract and thought I could do it without installing MOLE since it modifies stock science parts as well, but I am struggling: I did load the experiement on a science storage, included the stock science lab and added a container with some additional research kits. All of this is now landed on the Mun, the contract shows green ticks for Transport experiement and Satisfy all experiment conditions, but not for complete experiment. I did try to transfer the experiment into the lab, then run again lab time. Progress goes to 100% but it only seems to complete some other Experiements, as review data shows texts like "Research indicates that you did not go into space today." From looking at the description in BasicExperiments.cfg this should only come at KerbinSrfLanded, however I am 100% landed at the Mun East Crater ! Also I only ever get the Result from WBISpaceResearch experiment, never any message from WBIIceCreamResearch. What is actually needed to complete a experiment ?
  11. Just recently I discovered that optimised gravity turns gather speeds only slightly higher than spaceplanes, so I wondered if a rocket with R.A.P.I.E.R.s would work and how efficient they are ? So by start of last week I did design a SSTO stage for a 36 payload, which happens to be a little overpowered complete return science lab to land on the mun. And after some tweaking on construction and flight engineer support.... it worked ! Going from 3 Vector to 1 Vector and 12 Rapier saved around 38% wet mass on the SSTO stage going down from ~210t to 130t . I never got too fancied about spaceplanes because for bigger payloads proper air balance is a time consuming exercise, but this is about as easy as designing a rocket once you know the dV requirements. The Rapiers do start in closed cycle to assist with rocket lift off, around 200 m/s I do switch them to air breathing mode, throttle later back the only Vector to save fuel. When rapiers get near their speed limit - still below the ceiling altitude for air breathing - everything is throttled back up and switched to closed cycle. And all piloted by MechJebs Gravity Turn So next step: Automate flight engineer tasks in MechJeb Oh and I installed some near future mod with bigger dual mode engines for needs with bigger SSTO.
  12. For me it is all about drag: Bigger sizes have less surface per volume. Note that even sides do produce drag. So center core + 2x side ? Fine. But before going for center+3x side I usually switch to 2.5m. Actually at the next steps ( I am using SpaceY up to 10m ) a factor of 2 is enough to switch for next diameter.
  13. Exactly And my first stages do land near KSC for maximizing funds, although after some successful landings on the runway I don't consider it fun enough to repeat. But the first time to land there: Unforgetable.
  14. My SSTO descend retrograde with some control surfaces at both ends deployed and AoA of roughly -15°. PE at deorbit is arund 10km, deorbit point choosen so that Trajectories prediction is at or slightly east of KSC. For return capsules always try how hard and deep can I set PE without blowing up. Usually it is around 25km and I hardly use dedicated heatshields, but rather burn off any transfer stages and land with parachutes. Actually retrograde burns do help as well as kind of heat shield beyond reducing speed, so I am throttling up any remaining fuel once KER shows 80%+ temperature on my critical part. Just as Snark I do not care about landing spot for mission returns: whatever comes back is usually not worth enough to make a difference in credits and I do not have to get into LKO to time for KSC.
  15. Thanks to SpaceY Extended my first stages are all SSTO without SRB. The first stage might include multiple tubes, but it would still stay until return from orbit in the same configuration.