Aazard

Members
  • Content count

    409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Excellent

About Aazard

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. on this note... @Bornholio I think its time for a quick chat about any recent changes to getting a Dev build of RP-1 Seeing as its abit "tricky" keeping everything updated to "most current supported version" of the "required/recommended/supported" mods with any needed fixes or additions (scrapyard returning part reuse to KCT for example) for the user to get the "FULL" RP-1 experience , running on KSP 1.3.1. I'm personally starting to feel abit lost and I've been around career mods for RSS/RO from the "realistic progression lite" days.. Note this is no way said disrespectfully, I know things take time to get done, and I thank everyone involved for their time
  2. I've been doing some testing of whats possible the "start" of of career, before any tech unlocks. This started with 2 nearly obsessive quests to finding: a tier 0 orbital vehicle... Which i did find in 79 second RD-100 core with 2x 79 sec RD-100 boosters, carrying a Cluster of 9x 56.5 second WAC sounding rockets, in a radially attached 6 to 2 to 1 rockets, with a "payload" of a sounding rocket core, barometer and thermometer. ...and: designing a single Derwent V engine, Bzzard cockpit jet that could break mach 1 (342m/sec), cruise at 15km and reach 20km+ in a spike climb Which I did also, but learning area ruling took abit to get right,but well worth it, max speed level ended up being 360m/sec. I found a few things that escaped me over many RP-0/RP-1 saves. One was that while I was tweaking a WAC boosted by RD-100 sounding rocket I was talking with a friend, and I mentioned its "impressive" altitude capabilities to him. His first question was "where can it reach", something i had never really tried, so i added "down range" tracker to mechjeb window flew it east in a lobbed arc (75 degree pitch @ 80m/sec to 26km quickly making way to 5 degree pitch with 60km Spin/Seperation)) with final AP hitting about 200km. Watching it travel I saw the down range tracker hit 1420km just as i crossed back into upper atmosphere, almost 1650 km before it burned up. My friend was unimpressed, but I realized that I had always assumed that water, shores, and forests were my only early science point hunting grounds other than a time limited tight to fly polar orbit (and that only opened up 8, with luck, near in space telemetry reports, about 18 science), but now I had access to atleast some of them. So i put a 1500km radius on a map with Cape Canaveral launch as the center and got this: This compared to biome map showed me at least tropics and grasslands in my reach, but mountains, deserts and tiaga where very close by Texas, likely reachable by adding 1 additional WAC stage to my WAC/RD-100 sounding rocket. Savanna was oddly present at the top of South America, tundra was in Quebec (my current RD-100 LV with 3 WAC's in a 2 to 1 setup would reach both likely), and ice cape started in Greenland ((my current RD-100 LV with 5 WAC's in a 2 to 2 to 1 setup would reach it, if not the 6 to 2 to 1 setup would). So Basicly instead of doing very little useful in the "start" of career I found I could collect ALOT of science and get more free VAB/SPH/R&D upgrade points faster. About 11 missions should net you all the science you can get, but film canisters are a pain to recover without burning up, requiring a breaking setup or makeshift heatshield. The second was that I was researching tech and spending upgrade points poorly. I used to through all my starting efforts into better rockets and spent upgrades without a plan. Now I set aside the 1st 20 upgrade points for the VAB build rate, giving me decet build times for even large starting rockets, then dump everything into R&D. I now research buying the cheapest nodes first (buying as many separate nodes as i can each time I buy) but change research order to this: 1st flight node, for X1 cockpit > 1st avionics node for batteries > 2nd avionics node for Sputnik > 1st solar power node, for solar panels > 1st rocket node, for XASR-1/RD-101/A9 > 1st SRB node > 2nd SRB node, for castor/baby sergeant >1st materials node, for service module tanks > 3rd avionics node, for explorer core > 1st science node > 2nd science node > 4th avionics node, for early controlled core > first RCS node for 1kn thruster > 1st heat shield node > 2nd rocket node > 3rd rocket node > 4th rocket node > lunar range comm node Rushing manned sub-orbital flights directly to solar panels is a huge speed up for satellite missions, and with RD-101/A9/XASR-1 rocket upgrades moon impact/flyby missions are possible, baby sergeants help that further. Also rushing the 1st orbit flight ASAP after the sub-orbital return mission injects your space rogramwith alot of useful cash. Also the lack of any starting add-on battery makes little sense to me. In 1942 mercury oxide - zinc and by 1949 alkaline were in use, sure they dont recharge and are larger/heavier then more modern batteries but there were in use according to Wikipedia. It would be helpful to have some way of adding power craft. See Wikipedia info here: Cell chemistry Also known as Electrode Re­charge­able Com­mercial­ized Voltage Energy density Specific power Cost† Discharge efficiency Self-discharge rate Shelf life Anode Cathode Cutoff Nominal 100% SOC by mass by volume year V V V MJ/kg (Wh/kg) MJ/L (Wh/L) W/kg Wh/$ ($/kWh) % %/month years Mercury oxide-zinc Mercuric oxide Mercury cell Zinc Mercuric oxide No 1942–[6]1996[7] 0.9[8] 1.35[8] 0.36–0.44 (99–123)[8] 1.1–1.8 (300–500)[8] 2[6] Alkaline Zn/MnO 2 LR Zinc Manganese (IV) oxide No 1949[9] 0.9[10] 1.5[11] 1.6[10] 0.31–0.68 (85–190)[12] 0.90–1.56 (250–434)[12] 50[12] 0.48 (2067)[12] 45–85[12] 0.17[12] 5–10[4]
  3. Rd101/102 boosters with aA9/ rd103 core start to make it possible to send an aerobee variant (xasr1 or aj type) to orbit with with enough DV and a small avionics unit and RCS tank/thrusters to aim it at the moon for flyby/impact. So far that's my limit nothing past fairly basic orbits until RD-101/A9 and XASR1 upgrades. And I doubt that could pull off a mars/Venus flyby. Heck that limited of parts makes perametered orbits nearly impossible unless your good at killing throttle at the right time
  4. I find rd-100 series my early work horse, when the rd-101 and A9 unlock the A9 has limited use as sustainer until rd-103 comes along. Getting to orbit/polar orbit is doable with rd-100 and aerobees but that's best I can manage with them. I might be able to get 1 full WAC into orbit but it's not enough to flyby or impact moon (for me)
  5. So has anyone ever found a rocket engine or solid rocket in the 2 starting carrer nodes other than A4 RD-100, Aerobee, Tiny Tim or the separator solid rocket in any supported mods? I am referring to the 2 nodes that "start" unlocked, including very first node and the one seems to need a visit to VAB/SPH to unlock. There are only so many combinations of aerobee and RD-100 or A4 that i can "theory build" with lol.
  6. Are you using newest module manager for 1.3.1? As a secondary note did your CKAN installed procedural fairings come with a procedural payload fairing (any) because i had to download the correct 1.3.1 version from GitHub to get them on my install. I believe there was also a missing "name = ModuleUnpressurizedCockpit" tag on my starting airplane cockpits in the tree-parts file of rp-0 (rp-1) folder i had to fix. I hope you get the play speed of the "slides" to your liking
  7. I have had this issue on some installs and not others (my previous 1.3.1 install was super fast, my current 1.3.1 install plays at "normal" speed) . I had chalked it up to a bad mod install as my install was flawed in other ways. I deleted everything (but sub assemblies that i copied and saved) including all mods i manually downloaded and used ckan as the wiki described, downloading all suggested/supported mods listed for RP-0/RP-1 support in OP, and added the manual mod installs plus other non-part mods I use (being super careful to check version numbers for 1.3.1 support). After that everything was fine. SO TLDR: either a weird bug, bad install, or it "just happens" sometimes, what do i know i'm not a unity coder. I'd suggest a wipe and reinstall of KSP and hope that fixes it.
  8. I second the back port of ktc and scrap yard to 1.3.1 for RO/RP-1 users, this mod is just too needed for balance and racing
  9. Omg someone add scrapyard to the required/suggested mod list plz
  10. Honestly, I'm just seeing if anyone else has designed a rocket with greater reliableity. I'm not trying to make any point with the design other than faster completion of the contracts for faster early career progression.
  11. Still working on tier 0 orbital capable rocket designs, it's wreking my mind! I remade boosters and core with exact avionics via procedural avionics and was able to reduce RD-100 run times to exactly 70.2 seconds, but I still need 4 stages of WAC rockets @ 50.1 seconds run time (6x to 2x to 1x to 1x) for a total of 10 WAC's. These fail like 75% of the time. I need suggestions.... Bad lol
  12. Anyone else notice tank weights change slightly in RP-1? Now a tier 0 orbital (RD-100/A4/WAC based) rockets are now VERY tricky to design. My current design had to resort to 2x RD-100 75 second boosters with 10 ton procedural avionics units each, an air lit 75 second RD-100 core with a 3rd 10 ton procedural avionics unit and 4 WAC stages (50.1 secondd each, 6x to 2x to 1x to 1x with sounding rocket avionics unit plus thermometer/barometer) to just get over 9525 DV. The sucker has 30 tons of total avionics control on the pad with a mass of 40 tons and a core with 10 tons of avionics control with a mass of 15 tons. TLDR tier 0 orbital rockets are almost a no go in RP-1 unless my design is some how flawed. Seeing 10 WAC rockets bundled just looks wrong and tempts test flight too much. Any suggestions to reduce the wrath of the test flights gods??
  13. Not to pester but are we still looking at a 1.3.1 release or going right to 1.4.x
  14. @Bornholio want to weigh in on boil-off mitigation?