vyznev

Members
  • Content Count

    213
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

279 Excellent

1 Follower

About vyznev

  • Rank
    Curious George

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I guess this counts? No robotics, though, since I built this long before Breaking Ground came out. I suppose it might be technically possible to rebuild this thing as an ornithopter, but I'll leave that as a challenge to better builders than me. Making this fly as a jet plane was hard enough.
  2. Another question: do we have to bring a kerbal along, or is a probe core enough? Or maybe separate leagues for kerballed and unkerballed entries?
  3. BTW, one thing I noticed during testing was that leaving a command chair can launch a kerbal halfway through a structural plate or some other thin object. If developed further, this technology might some day allow kerbals to be equipped with personal weighted diving collars. Alas, despite some promising early results, I have not yet managed to develop one that would stay on reliably. In particular, while it's not too hard to force a kerbal's helmet through the hole in a small decoupler and suspend him from it, trying to switch vessels and activate the decoupler invariably knocks it loose.
  4. Hmm... after installing Hyperedit so I could do some proper testing, looks like it's indeed working fine. Now I just need a rocket to take it to Eve without using Hyperedit...
  5. That looks neat, but perhaps a bit over-complicated? Admittedly, I haven't actually tested this design on Eve. But I see no reason why it shouldn't work — or at least no reason that couldn't be fixed with the addition of more ballast, if necessary.
  6. ...and what's the score if I land on the launch pad? It can't be harder than hitting a drone ship.
  7. It provides a bunch of info on the screen, as you can see from the screenshots. Some of that info can be pretty useful. KSP 1.6 and 1.7 did make several of the most important numbers available directly in the stock game, making info mods like KER a lot less essential. It used to be that you needed KER or some other mod like MechJeb just to be able to see how much delta-v your stages had and what their thrust-to-weight ratio was. Also, apoapsis and periapsis altitudes used to be only available in the map view in stock, radar altitude over ground was only visible in IVA(!), you could only see your current longitude and latitude using a surface scanning module, and the burn time estimate was more of a guesstimate based on the thrust measured when you last had your engines turned on. Life has sure improved a lot since those early days. Still, there's a bunch of info that KER can show which the stock game still doesn't, including your predicted touchdown coordinates (and even a map marker!), time to impact (assuming a ballistic trajectory with no drag) and estimated time to start burning for an optimally efficient landing (also known as a "suicide burn", since waiting until that point leaves zero margin for error). It's possible to eyeball a landing burn even without that information, but having it sure tends to reduce the wear on your F9 (= reload last quicksave) key.
  8. That one I can answer. If you look at the reaction wheel stats in the game or on the wiki, you can see that the bigger wheels indeed produce more torque per electric charge (50 vs. 20 kN⋅m⋅s per unit of charge), as well as more torque per mass (150 vs. 100 N⋅m/kg). Assuming that propeller thrust is directly proportional to torque, we can even calculate the acceleration per electric charge, at least up to an unknown constant of proportionality, as (torque / mass) / charge consumption rate. This turns out to be worse for the bigger reaction wheels, but only if you don't account for the mass of the rest of the craft. I'm not sure exactly how much the Global Dumpling weighs (and in any case the mass goes down as the fuel is consumed), but from the aero forces display in the screenshot above it seems to be about 6.30 kN / 9.81 m/s2 ≈ 642 kg at the time the screenshot was taken, or about 442 kg excluding the mass of the reaction wheel. Plugging that extra mass into the formula indicates that the largest reaction wheel is almost twice as efficient as the smallest one (angular impulse of 77 vs. 41 m2/s per charge unit) for this craft (and indeed remains so even if we subtract the total fuel mass of 110 kg from the estimated vehicle mass, indicating that the amount of fuel in the tank makes no difference in this case).
  9. Hmm... you could kind of do it by building the fairing backwards (so the base plate is in front of the payload, attached to a decoupler, with a nose cone in front for aerodynamics). Instead of deploying the fairing the normal way, you could then just decouple and land it in one piece.
  10. I was aiming for the Expert rank with this thing, but it's not quite there yet. Still, at least it makes it to space. One issue I ran into that I really didn't expect was the lack of intake air. Normally, that's pretty much never a problem in modern KSP versions, but it turns out that things are different when you're trying to take off vertically at 0 m/s. I ended up with two Wheesley engines and six air intakes crammed into the cargo bay just to get sufficient thrust for a vertical takeoff. Anyway, this design still definitely needs some tweaking to do what it's supposed to do. In the mean time, here's the craft file for this experimental vehicle: https://pastebin.com/pPvZj5zC Also, here's some more screenshots: https://imgur.com/a/cERmVs7
  11. Given that Kerbin's atmosphere ends at 70 km ASL, and that there's almost no air above 60 km anyway, I see no real difference between these ranks. If you can make it to 60 km, you can almost certainly make it to 70 km too. Perhaps the limit for the "advanced atmospheric rank" would be better set somewhere around 30 km (about the altitude where rapiers flame out, IIRC) or 40 km (to make it a bit more challenging) above sea level?
  12. I went and designed an actual entry for this specific challenge: Wet mass at launch: 3,894 kg (+ 94 kg for the pilot). I suspect it would be possible to reduce the fuel and oxidizer amounts further, but optimizing the ascent trajectory would get correspondingly harder. (One non-obvious constraint is the heat tolerance of the air intake, which limits how fast you can go in the lower atmosphere.) This is the lightest version that I managed to successfully fly into orbit myself. More screenshots and flight instructions: https://imgur.com/gallery/gB2XgRi Craft file: https://pastebin.com/vmDrDJgp
  13. Let me start with this old entry to another challenge. It's optimized for part count (and the constraint of using no oxidizer), not mass, but at 7,825 kg wet launch mass it should at least make a decent baseline to beat. More screenshots: https://imgur.com/a/mH7Mozh Craft file: https://pastebin.com/C6tsnQVP
  14. Second attempt. This time I managed to keep the kerbals alive!
  15. I believe the "retract" command just stops the effect of a previous "extend" command (or the "start extended" option in the VAB/SPH right click menu), returning the control surface to its normal state where it's not constantly extended and reacts to steering inputs (unless configured not to do so). There's also a "toggle" command that just extends the control surface if it's retracted, and retracts it if it's extended.