Jump to content

silent_prtoagonist

Members
  • Posts

    187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by silent_prtoagonist

  1. I just started playing with Kommander as well, and I've been having similar thoughts about the importance of aerobraking. First thought: Use the 10m inflatable heat shield, which doesn't use ablator and is thus completely reusable. You'd just have to be careful to never accidentally jettison the thing. As an added bonus it lends itself to flying saucer designs, which are just cool. (This was always one of my favorite ships from Orbiter that used such a design http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=3629) Thought the second: Don't make such deep dives, staying relatively high and cool to protect the fragile parts, and make up for it by making your ship as draggy as possible/doing more braking passes. A good reentry vehicle has as much drag as possible (basically the opposite of a good aircraft, which is why the space shuttle flew like a brick) so that it sheds as much energy as possible in the upper atmosphere before the real heating begins. You could even give it some stubby wings/design it more like a spaceplane, which would allow you to fine tune your flight profile and ride that bleeding edge of just barely not exploding.
  2. To be fair a pretty large portion of the spaceflight industry agrees with you.
  3. I love these designs. Remind me of Lockheed's Star Clipper concept from the 60s.
  4. Are the ailerons close to the center of lift, or rotated in the editor, or otherwise weirdly placed? I noticed some similar behavior with some of my more...creatively placed control surfaces. As a temporary fix you can un-invert them by setting the Authority Limiter to negative values in the right-click menu, even mid-flight.
  5. I am having trouble getting KSP to launch with the Steam overlay in 64-bit mode. I am running a clean install of 1.1.1, Steam version (obviously), on Windows 10. So far I have tried three different methods of launching KSP 64-bit: 1) Selecting "Launch KSP (64-bit)" when launching the game normally through Steam. 2) Editing the launch options. I have tried using two different commands 3) Adding KSP_x64.exe to Steam as a non-Steam game. (Note: Adding KSP.exe as a non-steam game successfully launches 32-bit KSP with the Steam overlay enabled) None of these methods have launched KSP with the Steam overlay enabled. I have double checked that the overlay is enabled both in the general Steam settings and the individual game settings. So, anyone have any other ideas for work-arounds? Normally this would be a minor annoyance but I have been trying to set up KSP with my new Steam Controller, which unfortunately requires the overlay to function.
  6. I'm having this issue as well, but only running 32-bit KSP. In 64-bit the config window shows normally. Unfortunately I'm using a steam controller and I have yet to figure out a way to run 64-bit KSP with the steam overlay (a separate issue) which is required to edit the steam controller settings.
  7. I'm just amused that the vector feels so over powered when in fact it's the closest ksp engines have come the performance of real rocket engines, at least in terms of thrust/physical size. Thrust to weight is still horrible by real world standards, though.
  8. Just a note, you can set your starting funds and science in the difficulty options when you create a new game. However the most you can give yourself is 500,000 funds and 5000 science, which I just tested is enough to get you lvl 2 R&D and every 160 science node, plus a few 300s. Still it makes a nice middle of the road option if you want to skip the early game and don't want to edit configs.
  9. A center of thrust misalignment isn't your problem. The problem is that your center of mass is so low on your rocket, and therefore behind the center of drag, so your rocket wants to fly backwards (COM in front of COD). Note that what the blue marker in the VAB shows is only center of lift, which only accounts for lifting surfaces on your vessel and not general drag. Currently there's no way to display the center of drag on a vessel, which makes solving this kind of problem very frustrating. But the general solution is just "add bigger and bigger fins until it works." EDIT: You can also redesign your rocket to move the center of mass farther forward (try to avoid big long fairings with low density parts inside them like the one you have), but this can be difficult for certain pyloads. Or you can often fly even an unstable rocket if you never let the nose get more than a few degrees from the velocity vector, but that can be tough to do without some sort of autopilot.
  10. Periodically during the game you will get a contract to test a new part that you haven't researched yet. This part then becomes available for you to build with so long as the contract is active. This is a very nice mechanic that lets you access some critical parts without having to research a whole node to get them (small landing gear I'm looking at you). My problem with it though is that you don't get to keep the part after you complete the contract. I often find myself taking a contract and then ignoring it while I fly around with my shiny new part. I only complete the contract once I've finally gotten around to actually researching that node. It would make sense if you got to retain access to the part after completing the contract and it would give you more incentive to do these types of missions (in addition to 1.0.5 making the testing contracts friendlier in general).
  11. http://brickset.com/sets/1682-1 This was one of my favorite sets growing up. I noticed that they're using the same truss piece that was used for the majority of the service structure on the shuttle for the LES tower and had a huge nostalgia trip. Very cool project; I especially love the new internals. This instantly got my support and I'm passing the word on.
  12. The Adventures of OktoProbe​TM Hail Probe! Planetary Alignment (Minmus, Kedbin and Jool):
  13. One thing Skylon has going for it in terms of reentry is the fact that once it's massive hydrogen tanks are empty it'll have a very low overall density, which will do a lot to ease reentry heating compared to the denser space shuttle.
  14. It would be a win-win for Spacex. Not only would they be getting more business, but it would increase demand for the engines, allowing them to ramp up production making the cost per engine (and thus cost per Spacex rocket) lower.
  15. This reminds me a bit of the big dumb booster concept, I like it. Looking forward to reading more.
  16. Sadly she is scattered as a fine mist of ash in kerbin's upper atmosphere, first and last victim of 1.0's heat shield bug. Per aspera ad astra!
  17. Yes it looks like you forgot to convert KSP "units" for the fuel to mass. Both LF and Ox are 1 tonne / 200 units, and xenon is 1 tonne / 10,000 units. I never have quite understood why Squad did things that way, instead of displaying everything in mass units. Maybe at some point they were thinking about having different density fuels, i.e. the same tank can hold less hydrogen than kerosene? I also looked in the config and the ion engine's vacuum thrust is exactly 2, and vacuum Isp is exactly 4200s. Btw, you have to be a bit careful dealing with Isp in KSP, since apparently the game uses a value that's slightly off from g0 (9.82 according to the wiki) to convert from thrust-specific impulse (measured in s) to mass-specific impulse (measured in m/s, aka effective exhaust velocity), which is what gets used in the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation (the delta-v eqn.), Dv = Ve * ln(m0/m1).
  18. *Maths incoming* Ok, the ION engine consumes 0.486 xenon/s = 48.6E-6 t/s 8.74 ec/s and produces a thrust of 2kN With fuel cells, the ec costs 8.74 ec/s * 12.5E-6 t(lfo)/ec = 109.3E-6 t/s so the total mass flow rate is 48.3E-6 + 109.3E-6 = 157.9E-6 t/s Specific impulse is thrust/(mass flow rate) = 2kN/(157.9 t/s) = 12.63 E3 m/s which is equivalent to ~1300 s So it's a big performance hit, but still better than any other engine, including the LV-N.
  19. HarvesteR. I was still active on the Orbiter forums way back when HarvesteR introduced KSP there. Decided to check it out and was not disappointed. EDIT: for great nostalgia! http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=22998
  20. Just came here to second the notion of making the current control settings available in game, as it stands the process of getting a joystick set up just so is rather frustrating.
  21. Reading the delta-v maps backwards works just fine. Just remember that those maps are only approximate and very optimistic. I usually figure on adding 50% to whatever number they give you for a relatively low-stress flight.
  22. I like to think of 1 unit of "electric charge" as being equal to 1 MJ, based on the ion thruster. The PB-ION produces 500 N of thrust with an exhaust velocity of 41,202 m/s (insert rant about the units of Isp here), and draws 14.548 ec/s (according to the wiki). Thrust power for a reaction engine is: thrust power = 1/2*thrust*exhaust velocity = 0.5*500N*41202m/s = 10.3E6 W Assuming it's drawing 14.548E6 W of electrical power, this corresponds to an efficiency of 10.3/14.548 = 70.8%, which seems reasonable. Interestingly, 1 MJ is also equal to about 240 food calories. Thus, in order to reduce confusion about charge vs. power, I hereby recommend rebranding the unit of electrical power in KSP as "snacks."
×
×
  • Create New...