Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 18Watt

  1. @Pds314, here's an update. It blew up again, as always while I was away from my computer. Ok, here's a drop test, with some interesting results. I dropped it from 150 m over the runway: If you have any other ideas, let me know. I'll see if I get better results from attaching the probe core more securely, and eliminating the cubic octagonal struts.
  2. I managed to hit one dead-center one time. Otherwise, I'm amazed at how many I pass close to, but never hit. Basically yes. I didn't look, but will report the next time it happens. The basic chassis is a MK2 cargo bay, 50 m/s impact rating. Most of the delicate parts are inside the bay. Additional tough parts are 2 nose cones (20 m/s?) and landing gear (really high impact rating). I also have a couple of cubic octagonal struts, and several structural panels (which also have a crazy high impact rating). Most delicate parts are inside the bay- RTGs, probe core, batteries, reaction wheels, servo, and KALs. LOL! I'll try that, and report back. Not sure how to drop-kick it.. Would just dropping it from a similar height accomplish the same test? Thinking I could just F12 it to say 150 m altitude over the runway, after disabling 'ease into physics'.
  3. My plan right now is to follow the coast up before turning north. I think I see a path that keeps me clear of severe terrain. I'm cruising at an average speed of about 19.7 m/s, a little faster or slower on hills. I'm not altering my prop settings at all. Steering is via a probe core mounted on a servo, which is controlled by a KAL. 20 m/s is painfully slow, but it greatly reduces the risk of tipping over. Another advantage of avoiding severe terrain is the speed does not vary as much, which is important because every turn is time-based, from the moment I leave the runway. The KAL is performing a few other functions- I need to occasionally open the cargo doors to cool off the RTGs. I'm also pulling up KerbNet periodically to drop markers. I still need to click to drop the marker, but at least the KAL will remind me to do that at regular intervals. Oh, my rover is amphibious. I thought I'd need to cross some rivers, but so far haven't seen any. I am cutting across the bay north of the runway though. Edit: @Pds314, are you sometimes experiencing the complete destruction of your rover for no apparent reason? I'm occasionally getting that, but am never watching the screen when it happens. The F3 screen says that every part collided with Kerbin and was destroyed. At 20 m/s, I'd expect at least some of the parts to survive. Not sure if I'm dropping into terrain gaps, hitting trees, or what. I initially suspected the RTGs were overheating, but I've solved that problem. Seems to be very random..
  4. As @jost said, you need at least one ore storage container. The converter won’t accept ore directly from the drill, it needs to get it from a storage container. The in-game ‘KSPedia’ does a pretty good job explaining the operation of ISRU equipment, electric resources, and thermal management, or radiators.
  5. @Pds314, another question: When I do my actual run, my original plan was to take screenshots in map view to show my approximate route. However, about half of the run will occur at night, so that won't work very well. Would it be OK to manually generate KerbNet waypoints as I go along? The purpose would be so that after the voyage is complete, I can warp Kerbin so my route is on the day side, to give a rough idea of the route I took. Yes, I think the KAL can generate Kerbnet Waypoints too, however that still requires manual intervention, you need to click ok to accept each generated waypoint. Either way, I wouldn't be doing anything to affect the path of the rover, just trying to leave a trail for other players to see the route I took. PS - No rush on this question- I'll be busy at work for the next few days, probably won't be able to do my actual run till this weekend..
  6. The KAL would certainly have more uses if there were other inputs. Right now I think time is the only input.
  7. That's exactly what I need! Ok, I'll do it stock, but I can dream, right? Actually, I haven't used the KAL yet... I'm just 'pointing north' and 'hoping for the best'.
  8. Well, I made it past 19N, still going. I'm still calling this a test run- I don't think I'll make it all the way, and have found a few problems with my rover: I had nose cones on the nose and tail, to make it more aerodynamic for water excursions. (Or hydronamic? More efficient in water. You know what I mean.). Traveling through the mountains, both nosecones blew up, they can't handle extremely steep gradient changes I guess. The rest of the rover is still working. As this journey will take several days, I'm powering my rover with a bunch of RTGs, inside a cargo bay. At about 19N, two of the RTGs started showing signs of overheating, orange bars. Hmm, this could be a problem I will need to address. I won't be offended if I managed to disqualify myself on this run, here's what I did- Not 100% sure why two RTGs started to overheat, but I was curious if opening the cargo bay doors would solve the problem. It did indeed solve the overheating problem. However, I did manually open and then close the cargo bay during this run, to see if that would cool the RTGs off. The more I think about it, I feel this run needs to be disqualified. Not 100% sure, but I suspect a KAL could be programmed to open the cargo doors for a minute every 2 hours or so. So I think I have a way around the RTG overheat issue. I'm not willing to mount them on the exterior because there's a lot of them, and I can't afford to lose many of them.
  9. That's towards the north side of the second, large, mountainous area? That's awesome!
  10. Well, I got past the first mountain- the one that starts at about 06N. We'll see how far I make it. I think in order to get close to the pole I will need to figure out a way to do simple course changes based on time. @Pds314's suggestion of mounting a control element (like docking port or probe core) to a servo seems like a good way to go. Having never really used the KAL before, can you do really long time intervals? The entire journey will likely take 2 days (12 hours), just a really rough guess. I have a rover design that can maintain a somewhat constant speed over non-mountainous terrain, so I think a time-based approach might actually work, if I can get the KALs to handle extremely long time intervals. Having fun with this challenge!
  11. Leaderboard updated! (both Vall and Gilly..) I have a much easier time hitting Tylo on arrival to Jool, I seem to mess up catching Tylo on the way out of Jool. Nice assist! That is blazing fast on Gilly. Good thing Gilly is so small.. Good luck!
  12. Working on an entry. Nothing fancy, just point north and let it go. I used a bunch of RTGs, so electricity isn't a problem. I should have launched closer to morning though, so I could see where I'm going. Or maybe put lights on it. Just passed 6N, hit a small mountain head-on. Seems to be handling it so far. I considered finally figuring out how to use a KAL, but the KAL doesn't control anything I want it to- such as wheel steering or maintaining a constant rover speed. So I didn't use a KAL. My rover is amphibious, so I didn't need to figure out how to drive around the bay to the north of KSC. I'll post an actual entry when this one runs out of steam. Edit: Just ran out of steam, couldn't make it up the mountain. 6 deg 24' N.
  13. Level 2+++ Complete! (I think..) I was going to test out orbital assembly, but decided to just go for Minmus. Still planning on making orbital assembly work in this challenge, just haven't gotten around to it. Ship and Launch: Minmus Landing: Return to Kerbin: In addition to using the inflatable airlocks for orbital construction, I have another use for them: They make an excellent and lightweight re-entry capsule for Jeb! Unfortunately, you can not control an engine (to de-orbit) from inside the airlock. So Jeb has to get out and push. But that's OK, his jetpack has plenty of DV to deorbit an airlock from LKO. I need a cheap way to get Jeb back to the surface, because if I do orbital construction Jeb needs to fly all the missions.
  14. Perhaps. But a kromulent engine like the swivel embiggens the smallest rocket.
  15. Yep, when the new FLT30 wouldn't burn through the FL-A5 I knew something was amiss. That part doesn't have much thermal mass, shouldn't take long to blow it up. That makes sense- thanks for clarifying!
  16. LOL!!! I actually looked to see if the KAL was in Jeb's list, because I might have a legitimate, non-cheaty use for it. It is not one of Jeb's parts. But I'm confident someone will ask about it anyway.. I'm working out ways to use the little Ant engines as RCS thrusters, to aid maneuvering for docking. I thought I could just tie them to the translation controls using action groups, but now I don't think that will work. Looks like I'll need to use action groups to turn on and off the individual thrusters as needed. It'll be a little clunky and awkward, but 99% sure I can make that work. Which leads me to my next question: If I do manage to perform orbital assembly, it would most likely involve a second pilot bringing up additional components. Of course Jeb would pilot the main vessel, but if say Val piloted the second launch, would that still fall within the rules? If not, I'd just need to return Jeb to the surface to pilot the second launch- not impossible, but would be easier if a second pilot could pilot the second launch.
  17. Ok, here's my first entry. This is a level 1+ (I think) entry. I'm using DLC. The ship and launch: The re-entry: For my next attempt, I'm considering orbital assembly. Pretty sure I can make that work, even limited to Jeb's parts. The inflatable airlocks can dock to each other. Docking without RCS thrusters is difficult, but I've done it before..
  18. I'm taking a crack at it, and ran into an odd issue right away. The new version of the LVT30 engine is not heating the part below it, so 'hot-staging' isn't working. Oddly, the old version of the LVT30 does successfully heat up the part below it. The LVT45 does not appear to have the same issue- both versions (new and old models) seem to blow up the part below them just fine. For ships that need the LVT30, I'll use the old version. Curious if anyone else has seen this issue?
  19. Yes, that certainly makes sense. With enough operational experience it’s possible to expand the envelope safely. Plus, to keep everybody on the same page (thousands of engineers with the shuttle program), it also makes sense to keep the same thrust values for ‘100%’, instead of keeping track of different values for different engine variants. In the case of the engine I mentioned from earlier in my career, it was set to an odd value from day one.
  20. I have also flown equipment with similar limit labels, one that comes to mind is an engine variant on which max power was 103.5%. It is possible there was a good reason for doing that, but it always struck me as absurd, and unnecessarily confusing. Also reminds me of Nigel Tufnel’s amplifier that ‘goes to eleven’. (Spinal Tap) In the end, you don’t get any more power out of the engine, the amp isn’t any louder, etc. They just changed the label to have a different upper value than what would make more sense. I do also recall that the RS25s had an upper safe range above ‘100%’.
  21. Leaderboard updated! I find rovering at night to be extremely risky. Leaderboard updated! Personally, I found using wheels on Gilly very frustrating. So I gave up and did something different. Reminds me of sometimes being offered contracts to take ore from Eve and deliver it somewhere. Took me nearly 6 years to figure out how to get a Kerbal to Eve orbit. Nice job getting 3 Kerbals into orbit with jetpacks! I'm sure there was some frantic keyboard action to make that happen. I think you'll make it. But if not, don't forget that it is absolutely fine to deliver spare parts, or even a replacement rover. I know you want to do the whole thing with a single rover, but don't forget you can deliver more repair kits if needed.. Leaderboard updated! @Jack Joseph Kerman, by my count Laythe is the only stock CB you have left? Also, as always please double-check the leaderboards to make sure I'm getting all the entries added correctly. You guys are doing these so quickly I'm worried I'll forget an entry somewhere.
  22. I didn’t notice your props were identical until @Pouicpouic pointed it out. Counter-rotating props solves the torque problem completely. If you need to mount the props on the centerline forward and aft props can accomplish the same thing. It’s a little awkward getting them set up properly, but worth the effort in my opinion. Sorry we waited until after you completed Eve to point that out..
  23. Leaderboard updated! By the way, you've been added to two leaderboards with this entry- Eve and the Master Navigator leaderboards. The Master Navigator is for folks who have circumnavigated both Kerbin and Eve. It is a very short list, although I suspect I'll be adding another name to it soon. Fantastic entry! I enjoyed the video of the entertaining diversion you took at one of the poles. Good luck at Gilly. I'm sure @Jack Joseph Kerman will also reply on this question, but here's a few things I do: I use the shortest propeller blades available. I attach them with 'Rigid Attachment' on. You might need to enable Advanced Tweakables to find this option. I also attach them using auto struts. Edit- just thought of another possibility, offsetting the blades inward. In aerodynamic challenges this could be considered an exploit, as you can reduce your electricity usage to zero by offsetting prop blades. For Elcano, it’s fine, and might help allow 2X or perhaps even higher physics warp.. Even doing that, I think the diameter of the rotor disc does expand slightly at 2X warp, but it was workable for me. One other side-effect is that using physics warp with robotics parts (including the electric rotors and propeller blades) can cause them to shift their position on your vessel slightly.
  24. You are really getting through these quickly! Yep, these things do happen as you age. Or so I've heard.. Yep, that's actually a pretty good speed on Pol. Much faster and you risk having really high jumps, which can damage a rover. I have yet to accomplish that- my personal record is a successful landing on the second attempt. And I've only done that once. Another fantastic entry, looking forward to your Tylo entry.
  • Create New...