• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About creator1629

  • Rank
  1. actually the difference between these 2 measurements comes from the fact that the tools use slightly different ways to calculate the ideal angle. when i first started to use these tools as well, i experienced similar differences, sometimes up to 10 degrees difference for targets like moho. so i experimented and and tried using both values, and surprisingly they were both able to get me an intercept with the target planet (of course mid course correction burns were necessary, but not a lot). in the end, what i do usually though, is use for the phase angle, while i use the protractor mod to determine the ideal ejection angle
  2. @ impulsespacecenter: good for you man, yes that is the proper attitude to have. don't let anyone tell you how to play or enjoy your game. as for your question, i have played around with it before myself, i like using the ships torque to adjust my pitch, yaw, and roll, while saving the rcs for translational movements and docking. i had a ship with 2 probe cores each having a rotational value or torque of 0.5, so 1 in total, and the ship was 20 metric tons in weight. i could move it but it was extremely slow, so i had to start moving/aiming my ship 2 minutes before i hit my maneuver node. im guessing a better ratio would be 1 unit of torque for every 10 metric tons of ship, or better than that, though i still have to test it out to make sure, in the end it all depends on how slow is too slow for you. i would recommend checking out the command pod parts list to see how much torque each part gives and how much it weighs to see how it affects your ratio (the cupola pod has 30 torque i believe). also when adding more pods to your ship don't forget to check your thrust to weight ratio because too many pods will add up in weight.
  3. i notice landing gear on your craft, if you do plan on landing on gilly, i suggest you be very careful, its gravity is so low that if you land even with a few meters per second too much speed, you will end up quite literally bouncing off its surface. i know on my first manual landing there i bounced 3-4 times before finally coming to a stop. remember the quicksave
  4. oh ok, wow 2000 delta v is a lot. youre right, ill give it a go at 120 km and see if that is enough to stop me, thats what quick save is for. i agree, better a few extra orbits than a fiery crash
  5. i am currently planning several missions to get to the moons of jool, and for this i will first get into an orbit around jool then make my way to each moon from there. what im currently trying to compute is how much delta v i will need to get into each moons orbit. but if i use aerobraking to get captured into an orbit around jool first i will save a bit of delta v, but my question is approximately how much will i save? so that i can factor that in to my current ship design. also what is the ideal altitude to areobrake around jool without crashing into it, 100 km, 110km, 120 km?
  6. oh ok thanks a lot for the info guys. i have been able to design a 22 metric ton lander + rover, with 2956 m/s delta v, it has a kerbin TWR of 1.8, and is equipped with 4 XL parachutes, that should get me to any of the celestial bodies in the system. next step, design the tug to get this thing into the targets orbit
  7. yeah i have made many customized landers for different targets and i figured i would challenge myself by making a lander that could land on anything, then sending a whole bunch of them en masse around the solar system. for eve, that TWR requirement of 1.7, can that be offset by adding more parachutes?
  8. oh yes tavert, thanks, thats exactly what i meant. its just a probe rover im landing, and its not meant to come back at all. so im guessing tylo is the target with the highest gravity among the celestial bodies without an atmosphere?
  9. oh sorry i should clarify, i just want to land on the target i dont need it to get back into orbit, as all im doing is depositing a small rover. cuz i think that 12,000 figure is for getting back into orbit around eve isn't it? landing there shouldn't require too much as it has a thick atmosphere and i can attach a few parachutes
  10. hello, i was planning on designing a lander that could be used on all the planets and moons (except for jool of course) and was wondering what is the most delta v i would need for a landing? most moons have low gravity so that isn't generally going to be a problem, and for planets with stronger gravity they usually have an atmosphere which helps with aerobraking and parachutes. but the places with relatively strong gravity but without an atmosphere might be a challenge, so my question is, theoretically what is the most delta v i would need for a landing assuming i already have a stable orbit around my target?
  11. that makes sense, ill base it off those values then, and adjust as needed. ill just experiment off of kerbins orbit before i commit to any long term interplanetary voyages. thanks again chris, you have been very helpful. (i wont refer to you by your full handle because it feels like i am offending you hahaha)
  12. oh hey thanks chris, thats actually good advice, i had not considered the actual torque to weight ratio. yeah the cupola pod is the heaviest one. do you happen to know what a good torque value per metric ton ratio will give decent maneuverability? i want to measure the total weight of my ship, then add probe cores till i get the desired amount of torque.
  13. i noticed that the cupola pod has the highest torque value. so i was wondering, if i put several of these pods on my interplanetary ship, does the torque value add up? i would like to be able to change my pitch and yaw angles without having to rely too much on my rcs thrusters and save the monoprop fuel for translational maneuvers during docking. also when i want to use my asas to hold my heading without needing to have the rcs active for those long 20-30 minute burns, since that uses up monoprop fuel like crazy.
  14. you could also modify the cfg file so that instead of an absurd amount of xenon in the tank, you could give the ion engine an absurdly high isp