• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rhomphaia

  1. V∞ is the Hyperbolic excess velocity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_trajectory
  2. The command module determines it, Cockpits will be planes, rovemax will give rovers, lander cans make landers etc. If you right click the command module, you can select rename vessel, and change the type in the rename menu. You can also change it from the tracking station, select the vessel, Click the i button (bottom left) and then double click the vessels name in the info box that pops up.
  3. Part count of 1969 is actually accurate, (assuming the like the instructions, you count the pry tool included as a part) I got a few spares of smaller parts, but 1968 are required for the build.
  4. Except the longer burning "boosters" have a better Isp than the solid "core" (254s sea-level, 287s vacuum for the Vikas, vs 237s sea-level, 269 vacuum for the S139) Probabaly easier/cheaper to build this way with the engines available than to try to build an asymmetric design with one solid booster and a four engine core.
  5. I would check your inclination, chances are you are 180degrees off.
  6. I never worry about it, It is just an artifact of Kerbins scale. Real world plasma occurs above 3000m/s, this is higher than orbital velocity at Kerbin, but far lower than at Earth, so they just cranked up the plasma in order to get some on the way down. The atmospheres of Earth and Kerbin are pretty similar though so with this unrealistic plasma an efficient ascent will get plasma on the way up.
  7. The atmosphere isnt soupy, it just ionizes very easily. The issue is that Kerbin is tiny but has a huge atmosphere. Orbital velocity is 1/4 Earths, but the atmosphere is 4/5. Really plasma effects wouldn't happen at these speeds, but they are forced in so that you get them on the way down. Following an optimal path put you at near Kerbin orbital velocity quite low, where as on Earth you would still have a lot of burning to do Just ignore unless your ship is melting.
  8. Wings have to have some AoA to provide lift anyway. If you have no incidence then to get that lift you have to have your nose pointing above the airstream, then you are getting drag from both wings and fuselage Add incidence and you can minimize the drag from the fuselage while getting lift from the wings
  9. No it won't, If you have calculated how much fuel you need to burn from your start mass and ISP (rearrange the rocket eqn) then you have already taken the increase of acceleration into account. this is how better burn times calculates. The inaccurate method is how it is done in stock, where it is calculated using the vessels TWR.
  10. Maneuver nodes in KSP assume an instantaneous burn for the DeltaV. Any time you are burning other than t=0 you are wasting DeltaV. the lower your TWR the longer you spend thrusting in the wrong direction and so, the worse it gets.
  11. This used to be true back in 1.0, but not any more. A bare Mk1 pod will overheat and explode coming back from Mun unless you are really careful. A MK1 pod with a heatshield will slow down to subsonic and land with a parachute just fine.
  12. the optimal altitude to align with Minmus is zero. Ie launch into the correct plane as KSC passes under Minmus ascending/descending node. Failing that Minmus is fairly low inclination, boosting yourself up to any other parking orbit would cost more than you would save on the plane change. Best to plane change at minmus altitude. If you need to save DeltaV and you must use an equatorial parking orbit, and don't want to wait for a window to encounter Minmus at an ascending/descending node. then your best bet would be to trade off for time, boost youself up to Munmus alt at one node then at the other, raise your peiapsis until you get an encounter on your next orbit
  13. Even without something to target that mod will provide more accurate burn times than stock, but if you want to calculate manually then using the ISP and Current mass of your lander and the DeltaV required you can rearrange the Rocket Formula (deltaV = 9.81ISPln(initial mass/final mass) to spit out the final mass, then use the fuel flow (seen in right click on engine while burning or in VAB) to calculate how long it will take to burn the difference (1u = 0.005t)
  14. Those are intersect markers, not closest approach, and looks like they are for your future orbit after the mun encounter.
  15. The maps may not but Alex Moons launch window planner does. You could also check out KSP Trajectory Optimisation Tool if you really want to optimize the efficiency of your flybys.
  16. The 2 tonnes looks to be what is north of the decoupler, It is indeed throwing off KERs readouts, since it is calculating the DV without it, should be 2550ish TWR is also off by a bit. MechJeb seems to handle the staging better than KER on this boilerplate (the Ore and monoprop tanks are partially filled for ballast) and matches manual calculation
  17. Recording is still not playing nice, but here is my attempt
  18. This is not a problem with Physics or Aerodynamics, but rather the issue is the digital nature of keyboard controls, when you tap the keys You are not simulating little corrections, you are in fact slamming your control surfaces momentarily to maximum deflection. Try turning on fine control (capslock)
  19. It will work fine, I use cubic octos for the LES on my own mercury clone. You can combine them just fine too.
  20. The satellites will be positioned using differential drag. By changing the attitude of a satellite you can increase the drag causing it to slow down more or less than other satellites in the constellation . This is not realizable in KSP Since there is no drag above 70km https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/c-missions/cygnss#launch
  21. Don't know that such an arbitrary scoring system is the best way to honor the achievements of John Glen . Perhaps would be better to look to such previous challenges as Doing it Apollo style and come up with a scoring system based on closeness to historical accuracy. My ship: Should have an entry up tomorrow. was hoping for a vid but recording is playing up.
  22. Except Alpha Centauri has not been renamed, Alpha Centauri refers to the trinary star system comprised of Rigil Kentaurus (formerly Alpha Centauri A), Alpha Centauri B (still no official name) and Proxima Centauri (Never really known as Alpha Centauri C)