Jump to content

king of nowhere

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by king of nowhere

  1. actually, being minus gives you chances. because you can drive a rover just with reaction wheels. thanks to the low gravity, your reaction wheels may be enough to lift your vehicle. in this case, you may make it roll to move it.
  2. I don't know about anyone else, but to me manually warping at 10x first, and then activating higher time warp, helps. Saving often and reloading if needed is also the general panacea
  3. Part 9: Make Jupiter small again: the conquest of Io The Cylinder module goes to Jupiter. In this first part, Spider lands on the innermost moon Io. A combintion of high deltaV requirements and radiations turn this into the most difficult landing so far. Stunts I had to pull in this chapter include, but are not limited to: 30 gravity assists, the creation of an entirely new and unplanned vehicle configuration, a 12-hours burn with ion engines, Bill reaching 90% radiation damage twice, recovering a vehicle drifting in the void with fuel exhausted. It took over two years of game time. Flag planting with bug 29: the sun shines through Jupiter 9.1) Going to Jupiter 9.2) False starts 9.3) Fat Man takes the slow route (including a special insert with ALL the 21 flybys) 9.4) Dolphin 2 takes the expesive route 9.5) Exploring Io 9.6) More false starts 9.7) Fat Man takes the expensive route back 9.8) Spider-Dolphin takes the slow route back (including a special insert with ALL the 9 flybys) With this most difficult moon cleared, the rest of the Jool system should be explored without too many problems. Bug compilation updated Broken parts recap
  4. the kerbalism window for a vessel always reports, in the environment section, a voice called "gravioli" - as seen in this screenshot and it always says "nothing here". I've run multiple grand tours, I've literally been everywhere, and I didn't ever notice this voice saying something different. what is that? is it just a joke based on the gravioli detector fluff text mentioning that they are very elusive? every other voice in that windown is something important for a spaceship.
  5. they should atuo-transmit by default. but transmission can be slow. i get the same problem because some experiments accumulate data faster than the antenna can send them
  6. I specifically said landers. yes, my motherships also use nuclear engines and twr 0.1. But landers, I learned through harsh experience (in particular as detailed in my DREAM BIG mission report, part 5, Moho landing) that it's worth sacrificing some deltaV to get a bigger engine with better twr. besides the strict math, it's also easier to drive and more forgiving
  7. make a different rocket, obviously. can't really say without specifics. that's quite a difficult contract to fulfill.
  8. wait. maybe this is your problem. you are an engineer, so you expect things to work exactly like in engineering, you do things your way, and get mad when they don't work? look, there are a tons of bugs with this game (I compiled a list for my latest mission report, and I came up to 28 so far), but most of those you call such, aren't. or they are the innocuous variety that can be avoided easily. let's start from engineering. this game is exceptionally realistic. except, it's still a game. it's still only realistic up to a certain point. there are some acceptable breaks made for convenience, and some for simplicity, and some because this is still a simulator, with all its limitations. So you can't just say "I am an engineer and this thing should work, if it doesn't it's the game's fault". You must still adapt to the game. And before you complain about realism, find me a game that does this kind of simulation better. If you know one, I may play it instead of ksp. in particular, if your craft explodes, you can fix it. it doesn't matter how you think it should work; I successfully made 1500-parts, 50000-tons ships, and while it took a lot of effort, they did not explode in the end. In any case, "three fuel canisters in a series" should never be a problem. if you get wobbling with three canisters, you may be more skilled than I am, because I'd be at a loss on how to replicate such a feat. really, the exploding ships is not really an issue until you start making big stuff - which, as a self-proclaimed new player, you probably are not. as for launching asymmetric crafts, there are ways. here I'm flying a plane with asymmetric thrust, simulating a broken engine and here I'm flying an asymmetric rocket after a booster got hit by debris and exploded, but engine gimbaling is correcting for that, and I completed the launch sucessfully regarding aerodinamics, indeed the aerodinamic model used by the game is not very accurate. probably because it's primarily meant to replicate space rockets. the game was made by a relatively small company, which probably had limited resurces and decided a more realistic aerodinamic model would not worth the effort. anyay, there is a mod that makes aerodinamic more realistic, I don't know its name but if you ask, you can find it. regarding rovers, every surface behaves like ice and that's not particularly realistic, but your traction problems absolutely are. low gravity interferes with driving. low gravity means your rover is not pushed against the ground, so the wheels skid more. and you have less stability, you bounce more and a small bump may send you flying. absolutely normal in low gravity. you accelerate more slowly, and you brake even more slowly. I did drive rovers long distances on every planetary body, and I never had any problem that could not be reasonably pinned to gravity and terrain. mosty, accept that you'll go slower. (EDIT: actually, perhaps rovers were messed up by the latest update. i don't know if the current issues I have are caused by that, or by the mods I'm using) that is not the case. I can get to any planet without any eyeballing and without rcs - there is need for small correction manuevers, but real space missions need those too, so I see no problem here. Summing it up, look at this from an outside perspective. You are a self-proclaimed new player, and you came here stating that the game is all wrong because you can't do X. Then we told you that yes, you can actually do X if you do it in a certain way, and you claim that the game is wrong because it should work like you want. You further reinforce this attitude by claiming that you don't need to learn anything, you already know how things should work and refuse to try it any other way. because you are an engineer. unless you specifically are a senior rocket engineer working for nasa or spacex, i don't know how relevant your engineering experience is. you seem like you want the game to behave like you want all the time, because you are calling "bug" every instance of the game not doing exactly that. I hope you can see this is not making you look good. furtermore, engineering does not work like you claim. most of us here are engineers or scientists too. actual engineering does entail trial and error. I've never seen any kind of science/tech project that didn't have some surprises along the way, some things not working exactly like expected. And then you figure out what is the issue and find ways to fix it. which is a large part of how this game works. a final word on mods: yes, some mods improve on issues you may have. but all mods can have compatibility issues, and can have their own bugs and glitches. generally, mods destabilize the game.
  9. there really isn't much to do; the asteroid is big, so to move it you need a lot of fuel on the plus side, it is on a very high orbit, it's gonna becheap to get a minmus orbit. even though it orbits retrograde, fixing that is going to cost a few hundred m/s.. So you just need a bit more fuel. if you were in a different orbit, you could try stuff like aerobraking and gravity assist, but not in this case
  10. i can't recommend you an engine because it depends on the craft. but I can recommend three things: 1) don't rocket brake before duna's atmosphere. you said you brake to 1000 m/s, you arrived presumably at 2000 m/s, so you spent 1000 m/s. you can save that. worst case scenario, you can brake less and still save at least 500 m/s. that alone is enough if you're tight. 2) you mention having problems with low thrust, needing a long burn to stop. this is bad. you probably have an engine too small. a bigger engine would help. yes, a bigger engine is heavier and makes you lose deltaV, but it's a lander, you have gravity drag for low thrust, you waste more deltaV by that than you lose with a bigger engine. 3) include parachutes in your lander. without parachutes, you'll fall at over 100 m/s, maybe up to 300 m/s, depending on the shape and size of your lander. with parachutes, you'll fall between 30 and 50 m/s. you save a lot more deltaV than you lose by their mass. and you can remove them before leaving, either by eva construction, or by putting them on decouplers
  11. oh, i see. then the problem is not the aerobraking process, but the landing itself. yes, duna's atmosphere is thin, so it won't brake you much. parachutes would help, but you still need rockets. it doesn't matter the periapsis you set. rocket braking down to 1000 m/s before entering atmosphere was exaggerated. you could have managed with a higher speed for sure. well, it seems you managed anyway
  12. wait, wait, wait, those speeds make no sense. escape speed from duna is somewhere between 1400 and 1500 m/s, I don't remember. so, if you come from outside, that's the speed you'll pick up falling towards duna. that's the minimum possible speed you can have. To that you have to add your intercept speed (well, a bit less, for the way energy works), so a normal speed to enter duna atmosphere is 2000 m/s. I therefore have no idea what those 750/1000 m/s you mention are. and 2000 m/s is an easily survivable speed. it's slower than you enter kerbin's atmosphere, and one routinely does that with unshielded crafts. So I see a feww options for what went wrong 1) you were not in an optimized trajectory to duna. You took a bad transfer, leading to much higher intercept speed (even a few hundred m/s can make the difference), leading to faster aerobraking, leading to death 2) your rover is fragile. maybe it has heat sensitive parts, like a science jr, in exposed positions. check maximum temperature of parts in the VAB. most parts have 2000°, that's the "standard", and that's what survives a 2000 m/s reentry. parts with lower heat tolerance are bad for aerobraking. 3) you just were too low. I didn't think it's possible to actually break a lander by aerobraking from 2 km/s, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, 10 km is very, very low. you get in the low atmosphere very fast. i suppose it could be a combinaton of all those factors
  13. there is a specific tutorial for that, just play it
  14. the editor may have a glitch. I suggest you perform the manual calculation yourself looking at the habitat volume of given parts divided by crew members. it's not a big calculation, fortunately
  15. alas, that I have no idea. wait, is habitat size wrong? maybe you are mistaking habitat per person against total habitat? in that case, if you have many kerbals on board, that could be the case. i seem to remember float required a lot of space per kerbal. if it's not that, then i have no idea
  16. i'm not familiar with the current version, but in the previous version you could not. maybe you can edit the file? I'm not sure EDIT: I went to check one of my old mission reports, because I remember having an issue with enabling/disabling habitats. Yes, you can enable/disable by editing the save file. there should be the option "habitat" that you can manually change
  17. aerobraking is a matter of speed. if you go too fast, too shallow, you burn. but if you don't go shallow, you don't brake. hencefore, what makes duna uniquely suited for aerobraking is not its thin air - which is actually no different from other upper atmospheres. duna is unique because it is small. you arrive at a planet with your intercept speed. for a kerbin-duna transfer, it's generally 400 to 600 m/s. then you fall towards the planet, so you have to add the escape velocity from the planet to your intercept speed. on kerbin, this would result in speeds well over 3000 m/s, which incinerate most parts. eve is even worse, and laythe is only slightly better. but duna has a very low escape speed. you can reach it from interplanetary, and still be no faster than 2 km/s, which is totally survivable. still, heat sensitive parts - like some solar panels - won't survive that. so make sure there aren't any; use retractable solar panels, those are very strong, or put your solar panels in shielded positions. as for height, you can only figure it by trial and error. my experence is different from @Vanamonde, I generally get by with periapsis between 20 and 25 km. perhaps the difference is because i want to brake, but to stay in duna's orbit, while he wants to land directly. regardless, save the game before the encounter and try different periapsis until you find the right one.
  18. it's also possible, depending on the difficulty setting, that the rocket is losing communication. really, we need more information
  19. yeah, but that wasn't my question. This is of little practicall relevance, because you very rarely want to use a gravity assist to pull a 180° flip. My question arose because I came to a gas giant with 500 m/s intercept speed and I used a large moon for gravity capture and it worked fine, and then I came at another similar gas giant, with a similar intercept speed, and I tried to use a similar moon for a similar gravity capture, and this time I could only get a minor saving. @Leganeskianswer about intercept speed is probably it
  20. I interrupted my regular routine for an important new. Today died Piero Angela. I don't think he was famous outside of Italy, but in Italy there's virtualy nobody that doesn't know him. He wasn't an italian science communicator, he was THE italian science communicator. His name was practically synonimous with documentariesto the point of entering common language. Perhaps his closer equivalent was Neil Degrasse Tyson, but I don't know if he's equally popular and pervasive, and for seven decades. Piero Angela raised generations of future scientists. So I prepared a little tribute to him This is Pieroangelsat 1. It's got a huge communication array that it uses to stream science documentaries nonstop.
  21. the thing about alignment of the velocity vector is a good point. my periapsis was at Io's level, and I could get less help from Io than I could from Ganymede. I guess I never realized this because I had many Jool missions when I took gravity assists from Tylo at periapsis; but tylo is a lot bigger than any of the real life moons, so perhaps it's strong enough that even an inefficient assist is enough for gravity capture. as for the intercept speed, I'm not sure it actually affects gravity assist. I used Mun for a lot of manuevers, some of them even at very high speeds. There was one instance where I zipped past Kerbin at 4 km/s intercept speed, and I used a Mun flyby to refine the gravity assist, and I could squeeze some deltaV from it even though it was five times faster than the normal speed of a Mun intercept. On the other hand, it certainly makes intuitive sense that spending less time close to the body will result in less change in trajectory. Do you know this for sure, or is it a speculation? Spheres of influence may be relevant here too - though of course they don't exhist in real life, they affect how this game calculates trajectories. Ganymede is close to Jupiter, and its sphere of influence is rather small.
  22. well, i didn't check. I am running an elcano challenge on wal, and i stumbled over that mountain accidentally. i actually thought wal had mountains above 30 km (was confusing with priax) so I thought nothing of it. until i run halfway around wal, found very few mountains above 20 km, and went to check this thread to see where the 30 km peaks were. I can't really replicate the process for another planet
  23. i found a sizable mistake in the chart. wal has at least one point that is 100 meters higher than the record given in the table (indicated as 20660 m and 3 degrees eastward)
  24. a gravity assist does not change your velocity relative to the planet. it changes your velocity relative to the sun.
  25. yes, if you could pass through rock, then you could get the same assist regardless of the mass of the body. but you yourself recognize that the practical limit is skimming the surface (or the atmosphere), and that defines how much you can get from a gravity assist. as for 2x of the relative speed, that's not helpful. that's just a specific case of the more general principle "you leave with the same speed at which you arrive". relative speeds in rss are generally of many km/s anyway. by "how much deltaV you can get from a gravity assist", I obviously mean by passing as close to the surface as safely possible. In stock, I was used to know how much I can get from a specific body. From Mun, I could get 100 m/s. To get to duna you need 1000 m/s, with a mun assist I could do it with 900 (yes, I know multiple assists make it cheaper, i never bothered for such a small gain). To get to jool i'd need 2000 m/s, with a mun assist I could still save 100. tylo gave... maybe 500? not sure, but it was consistent. Now in rss it doesn't seem consistent anymore, bodies of similar size giving wildly different results in different situations. P.S. It just came to my mind that it may be possble to just aim for a lithobraking trajectory and use high time warp to glitch through the planet, getting a bigger boost from the gravity assist than otherwise possible. but here i'm talking of real physics; and for gaming purpose, I'm against exploiting bugs anyway.
  • Create New...