AHHans

Members
  • Content Count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AHHans

  1. At least on Kerbin and in orbit around Kerbin: yes, yes, and yes. The one thing they can't do is perform crew reports. Hmmm... Nope, you can't cheat having control of a vessel by putting a tourist into a command seat. (But offering rover rides to tourists would have been cool. )
  2. A shorter version is maybe: launch into Mun orbit set up a maneuver node fiddle with the amount of prograde burn and the time (=position on your orbit) of the node until it gets you where you want to go perform the burn
  3. The issue doesn't really bother me, but I like the idea!
  4. I usually first launch into a low orbit (10 km or so), and then set up a maneuver node for the injection burn. To set up the node: start at the side facing Kerbin and increase prograde burn until the projected path leaves the Muns (or Minmus') SOI. notice the angle at which you leave the SOI, change the time of the maneuver node until the ejection angle is parallel the the Muns orbital motion (but retrograde, you want to get back to Kerbin) increase (or decrease) the prograde burn to get the periapsis in Kerbins SOI (after leaving the Muns SOI) close to where you want it iterate steps 2. and 3. until you are happy with the result perform the burn of the maneuver node The most delta-v efficient setup is when the apoapsis of the orbit around Kerbin is at the position where you left the Muns SOI. If you want to get home faster, then you can also angle the ejection vector into the direction of Kerbin. This will push your apoapsis further out from Kerbin, but only after your pass close to Kerbin. I.e. if your PE is inside the atmosphere for landing, then you won't get there. You will enter the atmosphere at a higher speed, though. Because an interplanetary transfer works mostly in the same way, I'd suggest to use this opportunity for training.
  5. The roll (torque from the propeller) is actually something that real aircraft also have to deal with, but I believe that the effect is much stronger in KSP (in relation to the other forces) than in RL. While it is possible to fly a single-prop plane in KSP it's way more fun to have the torque countered by a second prop (or have multiple pairs of props). The propellers can be on the same axis, or you can have the symmetrically to the left and right of your plane, both methods work. One simple way to get counter-rotating props on a single axis is to have a single, un-powered servo or rotor (to act as a bearing) attached to the fuselage and a powered rotor attached to that un-powered one. Then attach the blades to the base (one direction) and the front (other direction) of the powered rotor. When the rotor is powered up, the two sets of blades will spin in opposite directions. The pitching down is probably because you have designed your your plane to be aerodynamically stable (tending to fly nose forward), with the center of mass in front of the center of lift. Being pulled down (by gravity) at the COM and pushed up (by the lift-forces) at the COL, this means that there is a net torque that will pitch the nose of the plane down. AFAIK you'll just have to correct for that with control inputs. You can either have SAS set this input, trim the plane with the manual trim, or correct it manually. (And, yes, this is also an effect that real life pilots need to deal with.)
  6. That's kind of what I meant with the "space tug". I was planning to not refuel on Eve's surface, in that case you don't want to do that 3000 m/s burn with the part that enters the atmosphere. That's not saying much, considering that you can actually get paid to collect more Kerbals in a career game.
  7. So you just need a rescue mission and are just too lazy to design your own craft? Hmmmm... I think a major part of the challenge will be to land on Eve without a non-reusable heatshield. Any ideas? Hmmm... Maybe a space-tug that stays in orbit.
  8. Hmm... Panic-reloading after something goes wrong? That's fine, I guess we don't have to revoke your noob credentials just yet.
  9. I don't believe it, but that does work! You can put a tourist into an external command seat, and then "eject" them into space. And while it is not necessary to automate this, sequencing the ejection of a couple of useless - errr - paying guests makes for a nice "firework" (or Kerbalwork?). Once they are on EVA they can be controlled in the same way as trained Kerbals.
  10. Yes, the most fuel-efficient method is a "suicide burn": burn full throttle retrograde at the last moment so that you come to rest at the moment you touch the ground. It has the tiny disadvantage that it leaves no margin for error. But knowing that this is the most efficient allows you to improve your method over time. Another suggestion is to not use full throttle ('z' key) on the final tens of meters, but use a lower throttle setting. E.g. use just enough throttle to offset gravity and keep your speed constant.
  11. I hope you are aware that this means that you left one item on your Noob Mistakes bucket list unticked? Well flying aircraft are another kettle of fish! I think I was quite proficient at docking before I got my first plane to fly well. (And I still suck at landing...)
  12. FYI: The autostruts issue should be solved in the latest version (KSP 1.7.3, BG 1.2). When a robotic part is not locked, then the struts stop at the part (and the part can still move), but when the part is locked then the autostruts can traverse the robotic part (like it was a normal, non-robotic part). If it doesn't work for you that way, then you may need to let SQUAD know about that.
  13. No problem. But I can't really help you. It works for me, and I cannot reproduce your problems. Maybe ask in the technical support forum?
  14. Of the four craft I can only load the "Rover Test F", the other ones require some modded parts. And the "Rover Test F" throws quite a few warnings about "missing part module XYZ". But once loaded it behaves fine (sort of, see below): no stuck hinges (if they aren't locked), autostruts stopping at or traversing the hinges depending on locking state, and hinges "falling down" when I remove the motor and unlock them. (You do have the latest version, right? KSP 1.7.3.2954 and BG 1.2.0. IIRC the autostrut issue was only fixed in that version.) What doesn't work well is setting the locks automatically via the controller. I set up a controller scheme as I outlined it in my earlier post. This can unlock and move the hinges just fine, but setting the lock only works sometimes. Even when I try to set the locks manually it usually takes a few tries before the lock is set.
  15. Yes, but that's not really a newbie problem. That can still happen after a few hundred hours playtime... Yes, they all do that from time to time. You really have to watch where you're going out there. Minmus also likes to reach out with a mountain and try to swat your vessels in orbit. Btw. did you already send a contracted satellite into its orbit, the other way around (clockwise vs. counterclockwise)?
  16. Yes. Mostly. AFAIK it doesn't matter who sets up the controller or the transmitter. But all science experiments will generate science faster if they are set up by a scientist, and the power modules (solar panel or RTG) generate more power when set up by an engineer. (See e.g. OX-Stat-PD on the Wiki)
  17. Hmmm... Maybe I'll try it sometime. First I'll need to unlock all that good stuff in my career save. ;-)
  18. Can you post a craft file that shows this problem?
  19. Not that I know of. But why not use the excess fuel to decelerate before / during reentry? If you point at the right direction between retrograde and radial-out then you can reduce your speed without lowering your periapsis. P.S. Maybe this fits more into the Gameplay Questions forum...
  20. I assume you mean "very different thing" in the sense: "The source and thus the properties of the relativistic particles is very different than radiation from nuclear reactions." I now understand what you want to say, but sometimes using a few more words to be more specific can be very helpful. (And avoid statements that - as such - are wrong.)
  21. Oh, yes! I would want bonus points for convincing tourists to do an EVA. SCNR!
  22. You do realize, that this is different from claiming that: "You can't get Cherenkov radiation in air." Because that claim would mean that high energy gamma ray astronomy doesn't work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IACT So you are saying, that the "flash of blue light" reported here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core#Second_incident was not Cherenkov radiation?
  23. In addition to what @linuxgurugamer wrote: KSP is very open and mod-friendly. But that also means that if SQUAD would ship the files for the DLC parts with the base game and "lock" them away in some fashion, then it would either be fairly easy to make a mod that unlocks the parts or they have to change the game to be a lot less mod-friendly. I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want the latter.
  24. Ah, no. When you dock then the two vessels are combined into one new vessel, and I AFAIK the root of the new vessel is the root of the older vessel. Yes, that means that "autostrut to root" will change when you dock or undock. P.S. That is also the cause of my comment that it is literally always the wrong part: I have a big refueling station in Kerbin orbit. And when I launch a new interplanetary vessel and refuel it at the station, then any maneuver node I set up while they are docked will remain with the station. And not the vessel that I actually want to move...