• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1659 Excellent

About Raptor9

  • Rank
    Spacecraft & Rocket Dealer

Profile Information

  • Location United States
  • Interests Anything and everything aerospace-related.

Recent Profile Visitors

8937 profile views
  1. @RizzoTheRat, I apologize, I should have been more explicit. I meant that it was less delta-V to depart directly interplanetary from a low Mun orbit compared to a low Minmus orbit. As for what combination of gravity slingshots you use (Minmus to slingshot around Kerbin, or Mun to slingshot around Kerbin), that's something I haven't gotten hard numbers on. I will say though that if you can setup a propellant generation system on the Mun, you can use the same equipment in other places like Ike or Dres since they have similar gravity (just slightly less). The only thing you may have to change is your power generation capabilities due to less solar energy the further out you go.
  2. I've given considerable thought how to set up a propellant generation network in the Kerbin SOI that is both efficient and practical, but I've never taken it down to hard numbers or mathematical equations on total energy in vs total energy out. It's probably not the best, but in my mind it has the least amount of overhead effort to maintain. 1) Location of assembling and launching interplanetary missions: low Munar orbit. It takes less delta-V to achieve Kerbin ejection velocity here than it does from Minmus orbit, even if you don't use a Kerbin slingshot; which is of course an option to reduce delta-V expended, but it requires more complex trajectories. The zero-inclination orbit provides an easier access route to/from Kerbin, and the shorter orbital duration allows for more frequent departure opportunities than Minmus. Plus it's close to the propellant generation location: the Mun. 2) Location of mining propellants: Munar surface. I refine all the propellants as necessary on the surface, and lift the fuel to munar orbit. The orbital fuel depot/shipping hubs are at low altitude (15km equatorial orbit) to provide a close orbit to equator ISRU sites so the fuel transports expend the least amount of fuel hopping up to the depots. You could reduce the fuel expended lifting to orbit by mining on Minmus and shipping it to the Mun, but you would lose a lot more fuel during the transit, and it adds a lot more tedious "economy management" gameplay, taking away from the actual exploring. 3) Fuel transport: large propellant fractions/efficient propulsion. The uncrewed fuel transports are essentially large fuel tanks with landing gear, engines, and attitude control. They have a high propellant fraction to reduce the amount of hardware weighing them down, and utilize Poodle engines that have decent thrust and the highest ISP, again to prevent fuel losses during shipment. All of the ISRU equipment remains on the surface in place since the hardware is heavy. You really penalize yourself by having a lot of unnecessary equipment repeatedly moving between the surface and orbit, like large crewed sections, or carrying drills, converters, large solar arrays/radiators. 4) Reusability: once it's in orbit, it stays in orbit. Pretty much the only launches from the Kerbin surface is new hardware, so the rockets need to be as cheap as possible, and the lifters only need to make it to low Kerbin orbit. Once in orbit, refuelable cargo transports or reusable upper stages dock to the payload to transport them elsewhere. For Kerbals, I send them up on SSTO spaceplanes to waiting crew transports in orbit to take them elsewhere, or vice versa to return them to the KSC. 5) Interplanetary versatility. To reduce the amount of hardware you purchase before you launch it from the KSC, try to make the craft as versatile as possible. It's a lot cheaper to buy spacecraft that can perform multiple functions, or be reconfigured to perform different missions, instead of purchasing two entire spacecraft for the two functions. This also means you expend less fuel and delta-V sending one craft versus two on interplanetary missions. And it also builds redundancy. (ie: Wrecked my reusable Ike lander? I'll use my reusable Duna lander to perform additional sorties to the Ike surface -since I ensured it has that tested capability- because the next transfer window to send a replacement lander is in 6 months, with a 8 month travel time, etc.). Of course you need to keep it within reason; adding too much additional equipment to a spacecraft to perform a bunch of different functions and you'll start impacting its performance. Regarding aerobraking and gravity assists, these are skills I haven't gotten proficient in, so I tend to focus on propulsive captures and simple departure burns. But again, I'm very selective on where I'm departing from to save on dV.
  3. I know I've mentioned similar sentiments in the past, but after having a look at the all the IVA's of the latest build, I can't imagine how many hours of pain-staking work it took to do all this, especially those centrifuges and inflatable modules. The Near Future Tech mod set is still my favorite, but the new station part mod is so massive and with a lot of attention to detail. Also the terrain-leveling functions of those module legs are quite nice too.
  4. I can't be more emphatic when I say "NO!". Unless they can be turned off and the existing PC setup be kept.
  5. Aircraft trim provides for decreased pilot workload by adjusting fine control input. As an aircraft accelerates through different airspeed ranges, altitudes, or burns fuel or loads/unloads payload, it may be desirable to provide a small amount of input in one or multiple axes, to prevent a pilot from having to keep those control inputs in manually.
  6. That's pretty much the MO for the entire gaming and movie industry, to release video games and DVD's on Tuesdays. Has been for a long time.
  7. Thanks Hope they were useful. ___________________________________ In a random project this morning, I completed a more quantitative investigation on how viable a Falcon 9-style rocket would be in terms of cost-savings. I get the occasional suggestion to do reusable rockets, but the repetitive launching sequence always became tedious for me. To make an analogue to the Falcon 9 (an orbital-class two-stage rocket for launching satellites), I used an extended 'Javelin' booster stage, re-engined for better TWR and atmo ISP, and a 'Javelin 2' upper stage. After a few tries I was able to successfully launch a 0.5 ton satellite to a 100km orbit with plenty of upper stage fuel to spare, and recover the 1st stage back to the KSC relatively easily. So I started looking at the cost and performance breakdowns. For comparisons sake, I'll call the reusable rocket the 'Javelin R' and I compared it to the 'Javelin 1' and 'Javelin 3', but I didn't include the launch clamps. A 0.54 ton satellite payload was used for the delta-V calculations using DMagic's Basic Delta-V modlet, however I just used raw vacuum readouts and didn't take into account gravity or drag losses. 'Javelin 1' 'Javelin R' 'Javelin 3' Initial purchase cost 3,913 20,679 8,114 Cost break-down Rocket & fuel (expendable) Upper stage and all fuel (expendable) 1st stage booster (recovered) Rocket & fuel (expendable) Cost per launch 3,913 2,341 (if recovered on the launch pad or runway) 2,708 (if recovered anywhere else on KSC) 8,114 Total delta-V (Vacuum) 4,378 m/s 4,819 m/s (assumes 1/3 of booster fuel used for 1st stage RTLS) 5,782 m/s Advantages Straightforward launches Can reach higher orbits than 'Javelin 1' More precise orbit placement capability It's cool and all the rage nowadays Can place a satellite anywhere in Kerbin SOI Disadvantages Lacks precise orbit insertion capability More precise timing and sequencing required for each launch Higher inclination trajectories eat away at dV due to increased cross-range RTLS Almost twice the funds-to-dV ratio than 'Javelin 1' So the conclusion from all of this from my personal gameplay and practicality viewpoint: I'm only saving about 1,200 by using a reusable 'Javelin' rocket variant to place satellites into LKO, which isn't worth the additional tediousness I'd be imposing on myself to launch a lot of satellites into orbit around Kerbin. However, depending on what the final orbit altitude and inclination is, it might be occasionally worthwhile in an early career grind (when funds may be tight) to use a 'Javelin R' and attempt a recovery back at the KSC instead of using a 'Javelin 3', which sometimes might be overkill. From a strictly performance stance, the 'Javelin R' might be a decent balance between the 'Javelin 1' and 'Javelin 3'. TL;DR Bottom line: I'll keep the craft file around for possible publishing in the future. Still not sure what sort of rebalancing KSP 1.4 may bring, but if the performance remains the same, I'll look into publishing it for all you launch-land-repeat enthusiasts out there.
  8. KSP Weekly: Deep Inside a Comet

    They may have been referring to "mobile launch pads", but I agree it would be cool to have a couple additional launch sites and/or runways to land to. Like launching a Soyuz from Baikerbanur on the continent west of the KSC. From the KSP Weekly on August 4th, 2017... "The artists have also began designing a mobile launch pad! This launch pad has to be modular to fit various diameters, and has to have a terrain leveling system. The artists are taking inspiration from the crawler-transporter with some elements from other industrial facilities and applications. More details will be released later about this mobile launch pad and how it will work." ...and the KSP Weekly on August 18th, 2017 "While devs continue writing code, making pull requests and implementing features, the artists have also been occupied with several tasks. For example, they have finished their first mock-up for the Mobile Launch Pad. This mockup is an early prototype that will allow developers to begin working on the code for the Launch Pad. The idea behind it is that a mission creator will be able to place launchpads on the surface of any celestial body whilst creating their missions. The launchpads can then be used to launch or land vessels during a mission. The mission creator will be able to choose to have none, one, or more of these in their created missions. Just keep in mind that whilst it has been designed it is still being developed, so things could change." The bold emphasis on the last sentence of the second quote was added by me, since we probably won't know for sure what ends up going into the DLC until late in the "experimentals" phase; assuming the KSP dev cycle between updates hasn't changed of course.
  9. KSP Weekly: Deep Inside a Comet

    Disappointed that there weren't any screenshots of parts this week. However, considering how much information we've already gotten, I'll gladly take a backseat and let the attention be on the long-awaited console version for a change.
  10. So many different jokes I could make about this...but I won't, I'll keep it classy. EDIT: Just looked at the IVA for the 3.75m PXL-9 Astrogation Lab, that holographic spinning globe is amazing! And then I started laughing after reading one of the computer screens: "You didn't say the magic word"
  11. From the FAQ section on the OP: Q: One of your craft appears to not be working as intended.A: This is a common comment I see on KerbalX. First thing I'm going to ask you to do is try the craft out in a vanilla (stock only) install of KSP. 9/10 times a mod is altering the behavior of the craft or interfering with a designed feature. I am not without my mistakes, but I thoroughly test these craft in stock KSP before publishing them on KerbalX. Another reason may be using the craft in a different version of KSP than it was intended. I'm always happy to troubleshoot issues, but the first two questions I will ask are "Do you have any mods installed?" and "Which version of KSP are you running?" To add to that, several weeks ago I purposely tried to get the ER-4 to wobble during launch by introducing several rapid control oscillations, and was unable to. So there is probably a mod responsible...
  12. Thread of the Year: 2017

    Congratulations and good work @boolybooly. Impressive you've been maintaining this challenge that far back into KSP early access. I just looked through some of the screenshots on the first page. It's amazing how far KSP has come since then.
  13. Cupcake's Dropship Dealership...

    That is definitely the most original KSP video I've seen. I don't know how you come up with these sequences @Cupcake....
  14. As long as the displayed name in the description box is labeled similarly as in the screenshot below, I don't think it will be that confusing. Not to mention there are already several ways to filter parts, such as by diameter or direct search.
  15. CisMunar Tutorial Part 2 is live... ___________________________________ Also, in an un-related note, I don't intend to publish any more craft files until KSP 1.4 comes out. Besides the obvious visual changes that will be occurring (as announced in yesterday's KSP Weekly), I suspect there may be a few subtle stats re-balancing of some of the existing parts. This is pure speculation on my part, but I just don't want to have to potentially re-do some of the work.