Jump to content

18Watt

Members
  • Posts

    255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 18Watt

  1. Build a crewed rover, deliver it to Minmus, and drive all the way around. How hard can it be?
  2. I almost never go to Moho, but I needed to get there to complete a challenge. My opinion is Moho is by far the most difficult body to get to. My attempt to reach it ended up requiring multiple recovery vessels. And then recovery vessels to recover the recovery vessels. Getting there on 2500 m/s takes dedication, nice job!
  3. As @king of nowhere said, the size of that rover is impressive. I’m also fascinated by your take on a ‘sky crane’ deployment. Great screenshots, and it looked like the deployment went very smoothly. Although I could be wrong about that.. Not sure how far you’re going, but if you go all the way around Mun, I hope you drop an entry to the Elcano challenge!
  4. Completed a surface circumnavigation of every CB in stock KSP for the Elcano challenge. The original challenge was created in March 2015. Six years later, I'm the third player to complete the challenge on every CB. It's a tough challenge.
  5. Eeloo circumnavigation complete! The last one! Well, this has taken a very long time, but I have finally completed a circumnavigation of every stock celestial body in KSP. Since @Fengist posted the original Elcano challenge, in March of 2015, only two players have completed a circumnavigation of every stock CB- I'm the third. It's not quite 5 pm, but I'm having an adult beverage anyway. Getting There: The Drive: Here's a shot of the markers I left:
  6. Do you mean in the VAB / SPH, or in the field? In either case, I don’t know the answer, but that information might help.
  7. Using parts which can withstand high temperatures is critical. Many of the aero parts are not suitable for spaceplanes, because their heat tolerance is not sufficient. Another thing which can make a huge impact on survivability is your entry profile. One common misconception is that a shallow entry into the atmosphere will be gentler on your space plane. This is not correct. A steeper entry often works better at managing heat. With a shallow entry you end up spending longer at high speed, but producing little drag. Even at high altitudes the high speed generates a lot of heat. Eventually your ship generates more heat than it can safely handle. A steeper entry, which gets you below ~30 km quickly, often works better. Below ~30 km the atmosphere is thick enough to generate drag, slowing you down. So my suggestions are: Make sure you are using parts with high heat tolerance, and Perhaps try using a steeper entry profile. As an example of an entry profile that normally works well for me, starting from an orbit of 80-120 km- I burn retro-grade until my projected path intercepts the surface about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way around Kerbin. I do not try to add drag by pitching up until I’m below ~45 km. I’m trying to get to 30 km as quickly as I can. Once I’m below 45 km I start pitching up to add drag. But if it looks like I’ll level off above 30 km I reduce the pitch to continue the descent to 30 km or below.
  8. The effect seems to be worse when a vessel is supported by landing gear or legs, or has robotic parts. I’d suggest retracting the landing gear while it’s parked, but I see the nose gear is not retractable. Also, try turning down a few settings of the landing gear, you may need to enable advanced tweakables for this. Try turning spring strength to zero, and damping to max. That’s only a temporary fix while the aircraft is parked, if you fly it again you’ll want to bring the landing gear settings back to reasonable values.
  9. I would take a similar approach to this. However, first I would not power the ISRU equipment with RTGs. They cost too much, for too little power. I’d use fuel cells. The only time you need the electricity is when you’re on the surface, and fuel is infinite. Fuel cells are cheap, don’t weight much, and produce lots of power. Also, you don’t need a TWR of 2, or even 1.5. A TWR of 1 will work fine. The critical (difficult to fly) part will be landing. This ship will be landing essentially empty, so the landing TWR will be quite high, even if the takeoff TWR is at or near 1.0. Saving in engine mass really helps, if you don’t truly need the high TWR. I miscalculated on my last Tylo lander. It actually had a TWR of about 0.9 fully fueled on the surface. Still worked fine. I just ran the engines until the TWR reached 1.0, then slowly climbed to orbit. My vessel was loaded with extra payload, so was not able to return to the surface without refueling in orbit. I had to bring fuel over from Bop or Pol to get back to the surface.
  10. I sometimes find it helpful to reduce thrust greatly while dropping boosters. Personally I am not concerned if the boosters hit each other, I’m more concerned about them hitting the remaining vessel. But you might give that a try- reducing thrust, or going to zero-thrust when you separate. Another thought- stage the dropped boosters about a second apart. Also, you might try adjusting the location on the booster where it is attached to the decoupler. That could introduce yaw moments which are causing the boosters to rotate inwards after separation.
  11. The method @AHHans described works well for me. It works so well that I am consistently in danger of landing on top of the targeted vessel. I have to remember to purposely offset my approach path in the last few km. Learn to use the NavBall, which takes practice.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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!
  17. @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!
  18. 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!
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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!
  22. Welcome to the forums, great first post! I’m looking forward to adding you to the leaderboard!
  23. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...