Jump to content

18Watt

Members
  • Posts

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

170 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • About me
    Macho Business Donkey Wrestler

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Heh, I considered that also. My brain is too focused on landing on the runway, and I felt adding a second set of landing gear (to land upside down) would detract from the mission goal- that would be extra weight which wouldn’t count towards your payload. Hmmm. If splash down, you don’t need landing gear. The landing gear could be part of the payload. I don’t have a suggestion for the yaw stability issue though.
  2. I often have more trouble accounting for engine mass than fuel burn with spaceplanes. Enough so that I spend a lot of time trying to mount engines closer to the COM if possible. With your design, I think you are stuck with having the engines mounted at the very aft of the plane. However, since you are using elevators both in front of and behind the COM (canards and traditional elevators), I wonder if that plane could be flown backwards successfully? It looks like you use some wing incidence, so flying backwards would be less efficient. But after burning all your fuel and deploying the payload, I suspect it would still fly fine with the negative wing incidence. Once deploying the payload, it doesn’t need to be efficient at all, just flyable enough to get on the ground.
  3. I’m with @king of nowhere, I often find that using LF+OX engines I actually come out even, or sometimes even ahead in terms of DV. Especially if a surface landing is planned. Like others have said, the theoretical DV attainable with Nervs is much higher, but with a practical ship that actually has a payload I usually find 6,000 - 8,000 DV is as good as I can get. I often end up with more like 5,000, because I want to carry more payload without adding a ridiculous amount of fuel storage.
  4. Distance from the sun, atmosphere, and angle all affect how much power a solar panel puts out. You can observe this in-game. Right-click on a solar panel, and observe how much energy it is producing.
  5. Your design goals, as I understand them, should be achievable. A vessel with ISRU equipment on board. Can refuel on the surface of Tylo, Then get to orbit of Tylo (with 3 passengers) Then return to Tylo’s surface, without refueling in orbit. I have never actually accomplished what you are describing. The vessels I use can refuel on Tylo’s surface, but to return back to the surface they always need additional fuel. However, I do not believe it is impossible, I just haven’t optimized my vessels for that task. I think you will need to figure out how to get to the surface efficiently, which is not easy at Tylo. Your descent profile is going to make a very big difference in how much fuel you use. I would not consider this a trivial challenge, I suspect it will take a lot of trial and error to make it work. Good Luck!
  6. @Sp1f, when you complete your Minmus run, please include a link to this thread in the Elcano thread. Awesome log! The one single piece of advice I’d offer for driving on Minmus is don’t forget to quick save every now and then. Minmus looks harmless, and it mostly is. Up until it’s not. Looking forward to seeing your Minmus entry!
  7. That made me laugh! If I had a nickel for every time I’ve done that... At some point in the past, the game stopped providing me with an unlimited supply of flags. So I started marking progress with KerbNet markers. I still like flags better. But it did cause me to change how I name waypoints. I label my waypoints now with the basic lat/long (ex. 05N060W). That has reduced the number of waypoints I mis-label, but I still think dropping flags as you go is a more elegant way of doing it. I’ll get your latest run added to the leaderboards soon, great post!
  8. I believe @Pds314 means that if you use a propeller, it must function while completely submerged. Building a propeller which functions under water is a little different (perhaps more difficult) than building one that works in air. Most of the propeller driven boats I build have the propeller above the surface, in air. They are like ‘airboats’. This design is not what this challenge is after- he’s looking for propulsion which works while completely submerged. i think.
  9. Patience and practice. It’s not difficult once you’ve seen it work a few times, but at first it can be very frustrating. Here’s my tips, for what they’re worth. You will need to plan and execute at least two separate burns, one from LKO to Jool intercept, and then a second burn to fine-tune your arrival. From ‘LKO’. First, I do departure burns from 150-250 km above Kerbin. At the end of your departure burn, you are looking for a Jool intercept, with a PE as low as you can get it. Don’t worry if the PE isn’t as low as you’d like, this will be fixed later. Your second burn will be a ‘mid-course correction’. This burn will take place when your ship is about halfway between Kerbin and Jool. This second burn needs to be planned in advance using maneuver nodes. Place a maneuver node about halfway to your Jool intercept, and start playing with it. While playing with the maneuver node, focus your view on Jool. Make small changes to the vectors, to slowly bring your course to a Tylo intercept. I like to start with Normal/Anti-Normal adjustments to get my path at Jool roughly equatorial. Next I make small changes to Pro/Retro-Grade or Radial In/Out to get a Tylo intercept. Eventually you should end up with a Tylo intercept, with a course departing Tylo’s SOI that stays within Jool’s. Tylo is so big, and orbits Jool so quickly, that it’s actually kinda hard to miss. However, it IS possible your arrival will not produce a favorable Tylo intercept. In that case, you need to adjust your arrival date/time at Jool. Playing with the Pro/Retro grade and Radial In/Out vectors (while at your mid-course maneuver..) can easily accomplish this. Try not to get frustrated. It is easy after you’ve done it a few times, but until you’ve seen it work it can be confusing, and certainly NOT easy.
  10. Leaderboards have been updated, congratulations! Spelling 'Yay Bill' on the panels of the lander was a nice touch. I have found docking rovers to rockets on the surface to be very challenging. Your delivery and recovery sky crane setup looks great. Again, welcome to the forums!
  11. Welcome to the forums, great first post! I’m looking forward to adding you to the leaderboard!
  12. I think when contracts were first introduced in KSP they used the term ‘Fine Print’. As in you need to read the fine print before accepting the contracts. Some of the contracts are intentionally very challenging. When you are early in the tech-tree it is a good idea to pass on contracts that you are going to have severe difficulties with. I certainly do.
  13. I agree, the temperature difference doesn’t appear to be enough to generate the effect observed. I have also noticed this, in my case I was operating a turbo-prop powered boat. So I was at sea-level, not 4,000 m. But I also noticed the significant decrease in performance at high latitudes. My first guess was also temperature changes, and the resulting change to the speed of sound. However, I think there may be something additional going on. I’m just not sure what that could be. Edit- I just remembered I have also seen this with jet-powered boats on Kerbin. Again, this would be at sea-level. The boats I was testing used either the Wheelsey engine or the Goliath (giant jet engine). Those vessels also exhibited the same decrease in performance at high latitudes- either a significant drop in top speed, or a significant increase in fuel flow to maintain a given speed. Edit #2- One guess I have is the way KSP calculates surface speed. Perhaps there is a rounding error occurring at high latitudes? I think I have a way to test this theory, but won’t be able to do it today.
×
×
  • Create New...