Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

433 Excellent

About foamyesque

  • Rank
    Senior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

3,266 profile views
  1. Load up the torchship I used to insert into a retrograde Kerbin orbit, wait for Kerbin to rotate to the correct angle, then launch more or less straight up. When you have 22km/s of 1+g thrust you don't need precision. I might be caught by the game having to slow down during the launch sequence, though.
  2. Yeah, about the only structural failure you can reliably get any more is ripping wings off when executing 40g manouvers in the atmosphere. Nobody used to modern KSP has any idea what Wobbly Rockets(TM) used to be like. I bent some rockets into a clean horseshoe in days gone by.
  3. Jully 2011, 0.8. I had a few days of playing without symmetry and no option for snapping placement before 0.8.1 was released. Those were some wobbly-ass rockets.
  4. It's actually something I do all the time. Engine gimbals give you enormous torque compared to basically anything else, excepting reaction-wheels on small ships and appropriately sited aerodynamic control surfaces. With particularly large craft I will often crack the throttle in order to align, and then zero out the (minor) translation drift over the course of the burn. And with small craft I begrudge any pennysworth of mass not strictly dedicated to the mission :p
  5. Gimbal control is by far the most effective way to perform attitude control in a burn, excepting perhaps atmospheric control surfaces. It's non-burn attitude control that it struggles with, since any rotation inevitably requires some translation if you're using gimballing, whereas RCS can null out and reaction wheels don't produce thrust as such (although they do generate angular momentum from nowhere, which means you can build some interesting contraptions).
  6. KSP's reaction wheels are literal magic. Things like the Hubble or the ISS do use them for attitude control and fine pointing, but there's a world of difference between precisely torquing an orbital telescope to a ten-thousandth of a degree, and shoving an airplane around in midflight :p
  7. This is one of the first things I do with a new game. Makes me sometimes wish I had a third hand, though.
  8. Your issue is the addition of the radiator and the removal of the fins. Radially attached parts have significant drag (and, if asymmetric, can also cause a torque), and because you've put it at the top of your rocket, you've moved your center of aerodynamic force upwards. At the same time, you've eliminated the fins at the bottom that would've moved the center of aerodynamic forces back down. For a rocket of that size the capsule would provide entirely adequate steering otherwise. The heat shield's probably also unnecessary for an LKO machine like this appears to be, but if it's in the stack i
  9. It wasn't tied to the throttle; you can see mine is set at zero. As far as I know it was completely meaningless, and I don't remember at this remove what made it light up or not. My favourite part about picture is that you can clearly see the great big divot I had to make in order to avoid crashing into the old launch gantry
  10. Rockets flip for one of (usually) two reasons: 1. A center of mass that has moved below the center of aerodynamic pressure, causing aerodynamic instability; 2. A center of mass that has moved out of alignment with the center of thrust, which will induce a torque, and that torque becomes larger than your ability to counteract it. A picture of the rocket would be useful in figuring out the cause. It's usually aerodynamics if you're in an atmosphere, since engines are heavy and so fuel draining will tend to move the CoM down over a given stage's burn if you have them
  11. I have a sneaking suspicion I've posted this before, but the definitive More Boosters picture:
  12. Nah, I've used it for orbital manouvers too. When you're that light you have all the dV in the world, if you want it. Nulling out any unwanted translation isn't difficult unless you're trying for extreme precision. This is especially so if you've got a pair of engines; you can roll trivially, toggle engines on and off with action groups, and flip end-for-end with just the barest puff of propellant and barely any translation. You should try it sometime. It's a whole new way to fly.
  13. Yup. Can, have, and might well do so again. :p I prefer to use something like RCS or torque wheels on larger craft, but on a tiny probe, you get by far the best attitude-control-for-mass from a gimballing engine. Went to orbit on 670kg that way :p
  14. The OCTO-2 specifically, as the lightest probe core and the one that you'd probably use on anything that actually would mount an Ant in the first place, does not. Nor do lawnchairs, if you're building some kind of lightweight Kerbaled craft. Those would be the very supplemental control systems I am talking about. And their mass is poison for lightweight design. The smallest reaction wheel has a mass of 0.05t and is, in addition to being way more control authority than something using an Ant could possibly need, shoots the TWR in the foot. A pair of Spiders provides twice the thrus
  • Create New...