Jump to content

moar ssto

Members
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

2 Followers

About moar ssto

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

655 profile views
  1. following maneuver nodes is a good way to preserve your argument of periapsis. That small radial component tries to act againts shifting aop by the prograde component not appliead at pe, of course there are limitations, for long burn time, neither method will conserve aop. and if your pe rises, even if you can keep it at the same argument, with the same final specific orbital energy, the eccentricity, hence ejection direction ,will be different from what you have pulled with the node. That will result in change in timing of your arrival. For that particualr burn, he didn't escape soi, ju
  2. But burns are not instantenaous, so pe will rise, I'v seen someone doing coulple hundred prograde burns and found himself needed to make an additional node to lower the periapsis again to the desired altitude. Maneuvers are not just about instantenous energy efficiency, but also about choosing a path that gives more energy efficiency. Burning in prograde, will cause you maximise instantanous energy efficiency at this given velocity and position, but if you can keep yourself on a lower, faster trajectory forehand, you may enjoy better efficiency. For the same reason, vehicles taking off
  3. The best the way to deal with low twr burn is just to avoid using any substancial final ejection(by sending it onto a gravity assist chain, and avoid any direct transfer to non adjacent bodies), and split the orbit raising burns into many miniburns that conserves aop and pe height. This should reduce the losses to something basically negligable, reguardless you use prograde facing or node facing burn. Prograde facing burn is not neccessarily the best, since you will rasie your periapsis, which reduces the oobert effect on later burns. The net cosine losses associated with not pointing p
  4. And the craft has landed, on the targeted landing site on trappist 1d
  5. Yes, you go to the config of the stars, in the orbit node, you remove the mode = 0 line After more then 150k years of flight(time and orbital phase angles edited to reduce orbital krakening due to floating point inaccuracies) and 29 gravity assists in the trappist1 system, I finally managed to captured into trappist1d's orbit, with just aerocapture.
  6. all the plantets in this pack are really quite large, and for those planets that likely have their atmospheres stripped, we either have a proof it has an atmo or is a super earth.
  7. That won't work sadly, alternator output is based on thrust, not throttle. But what can you do is having an empty battery bank that is charged up during kerbin ascend and transfer by lvn.
  8. Yes, they do have good l/d, infinite in fact, but when you have a curved trajectory, ksp's rotation plysics will have a hard time keeping track of the lift,and what happens is that you will have positive or negtaive(in this case, thrust) induced lift. Flags also have very great l/m ratio, infact, better than convetional wings. The only drawbacks they have are being not heat torerant, there are ways to get around that, and one of them doesn't add any drag.
  9. crafts involving magic wings will have less payload fraction and inorbit live/dead mass ratio compared to conventional wings rapier nerv sstos, this will be just worse if you use magic props. since the whole craft will be essesntially a set of giant propellers+wings. The big value of magic wings is that they allow your carft to pack much higher usable atmospheric dv, than conventional wing sstos, but not with good mass efficiency. There might be a chance of getting high payload fraction on magic wing is by using extremely small wing area and a very long runway, such as the polar icecaps,
  10. Due to how terrain height is defined is ksp, most of the mars's terrain is not close to sea level, but close to 10km ,which means the atm pressure is really lower than it should be in irl. Either due to hight altitude or low pressure, chutes will never deploy at most places. You will need to land at few certain places where the terrain goes sufficiently low, I recomand landing in a giant eliptical impact basin on the southern hemisphere, it's sufficiently low that chutes can fully deploy and lsow down your vehicle to a very low speeds. Sadly, this does mean that you will only have a very limi
  11. The issue seems to be this: key = 20833 3.35159E-02 -8.77457E-06 -8.77457E-06 key = 11917 1.49880E-02 -4.10334E-06 -4.10334E-06 key = 25000 6.50271E-03 -1.84089E-06 -1.84089E-06 changing 11917 to 22917 seems to result in a smooth looking curve.
  12. Anyone observed proxima centauri b having an odd presure profile between 12000 and 12500m? the pressure quicly decays then goes back again.
  13. for the particluar setup, l/d starts with 100 ish at transonic, 600 ish at M5 and 400 ish above M25. The limiting factor is really the sonic barrier, right after ion ignition.
  14. rtg heating can only become a problem if you are careless about timewarping and encounter a bug that locks the rtg core temp to some very high value.
  15. I used a mod called kerbal wind tunnel (correct CoL, also a aero analyser mod, should work as well), which displays lift to drag ratios of your crafts in the vab or sph at different simulated mach number and aoas. I distinguish magic wings as parts that have a better supersonic/hypersonic lift to drag ratios than conventional wings at certain aoas, which I remember is 3.15 @M1.15( the "real" sound barrier in ksp), [email protected], and [email protected](>=M25). There is no systemetic way so far I found that can be used to distinguish magic wings from other parts, since they have different mechanism of w
×
×
  • Create New...