ajburges

Members
  • Content Count

    520
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

126 Excellent

About ajburges

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's possible (2700 m/s from LKO and only need to land with 900 m/s), but it seems like an odd mission profile. The only advantage of bringing your lander back to Kerbin's surface is the science for a vessel that has been to the Mun. It's essentially just a direct ascent lander without staging. Terriers or Sparks are the best for this as I mentioned due to mass considerations. What I find more interesting is a lander that makes multiple Mun landings. It can dock with a mother-ship in LMO for refueling or return to a station in LKO after an Aerobrake. The Aerobrake dV requirements are similar, but you don't need parachutes!
  2. Wait, do you want a reusable lander or a SSTO capable of a Mun landing?
  3. Moon and back to where? Assuming 1-3 seats and a science suite Mid/Low Munar orbit: Ant array or Spark. Ants are more efficient on dV, but 1 Spark gives plenty of thrust and spamming 6-8 Ants just looks silly if you know anything about rocket thrust physics. Kerbin orbit: Spark(s) or Terrier. You need much more dV to go from LKO to Mun and back. More care in design if you wish to aerobrake. This might push you out of the "weight class" where sparks dominate. Mun is about the biggest body you can consider Nerv engines. Even then you need a massive vessel for them to make sense.
  4. Depends on role. Terrier and Spark engines are my goto. Sometimes I use Aerospikes. Considerations: ISP: more ISP means less fuel used per landing while there are corner cases where engine mass itself would eat into ISP savings, craft with more efficient engines almost always get more dV per unit fuel. (see Nerv, Poodle, Terrier) Length: shorter engines allow for shorter stacks which are easier to make stable on the ground. (see Terrier, Aerospike, Spark, Ant) Alternatively, surface mounts trade efficiency to remove engines from the stack length (see Twitch, Thud) TWR: more TWR means you need less engine mass to achieve the TWR you desire for landing. Not commonly considered, but this consideration is why you don't see many landers with Nerv or Ion engines.
  5. You will get improved structural integrity if you attach things via nodes instead of surface attachment. Still bendy, but a marginal improvement.
  6. Another thing to consider is polar relays are great for many things: > Resource scanner > Anomaly detection over several days (at sufficiently high altitude you can see the entire planet face in Kerb net). > With proper resonance, you are in a mapping orbit and can complete grab/temp scans above x contacts without fuel burn. Not to mention transmitting grav scans for every biome! > I like to use my polar relay as a synchronization timer in case my Draim constellation desynchronizatizes.
  7. Hah! No it's still a problem. My Munar lander springs up near the equator and falls 20 m at the poles when loaded. If your craft are springing up on load, I find increasing spring strength can help. My hypothesis is resting position is saved but not spring compression, loading violently compresses the springs. Increasing spring strength raises the resting state recurring the impulse on load. If your craft drops on load, reducing spring strength can help the landing. Regardless, be extremely weary of overdamping. Setting it over 1 can introduce new problems.
  8. Trying to be useful with my cry of same issue: Looks like the icons are way point icons. My mod list: Community Trait Icons CorrectCOL KER KerbNetController Docking Port Alignment Indicator PartAngleDisplay [x] Science! PreciseNode RCS buiild aid Trajectories KAC TransferWindowPlanner WaypointManager (given that the icons are waypoints this seems prime for conflicts) WindTunnel Edit: looks like it doesn't play nice with way-points. The save lost almost all my custom way-points. I needed to revert saves after downgrading the mod.
  9. Have you already reduced engine mass? In builder, tweak the engine to 2-10%. You don't need much torque to drive a rotor to make max rpm and the torque is what causes the undesired roll. Reduced engine mass will reduce (but not eliminate) the magnitude of the undesired forces. Also, throttle up gradually to reduce the impulse.
  10. Also pay attention to how you attach parts. Engines are heavy. Attaching them to wings increases the forces they see. If they are attached to the body and offset to where you want on the wings it looks the same but is more durable. You also get some better heat-sink properties.
  11. Also keep in mind that KSP can still run on modest systems. More CPU power just allows you to use higher part count shops comfortably.
  12. Can you capture am image in the VAB? I'm familiar with the problem, but can offer no specific disposition without seeing the payload/fairing relation.
  13. I find the largest wheels troublesome in general. Differential turning requires short wheel bases and the large wheels have enough leverage to cause a lot of torque related issues. If you have kraken issues at 1x, there is something unstable in your design. Try reviewing your use of rigid attachment and autostruts. Remember the wheels have locked struts, so check the vessel tree from heaviest part to wheels for components that would flex on stress.
  14. Autostrut? Pictures could help us understand the scope of your problem or improve diagnosis.
  15. Mk2 parts have excessive drag for their volume. On top of heat tolerance issues, they also are draggy and move your COL and COP forward.