Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Streetwind

  1. In the editor, set your performanc calculation app (the one with the dV symbol on it in the toolbar) to Moho. Then, click on the stage with the lander's engine in the list on the righthand side of the screen to make it pop out and show advanced info, like thrust to weight ratio. You can configure what info is shown exactly in the app. Remove two thirds of all fuel from the lander. At this point, you want a TWR of at least 2.5, or it will be difficult to land. Not impossible; you can land just fine even with a terminal TWR of below 2. But the lower it gets, the more piloting skill is required to not add a new crater to your destination.
  2. Welcome to the forums The issue is that your relay satellites... are not actually relay satellites. The DTS-M1 is a direct antenna, which cannot receive and forward other signals. The part rightclick info in the editor shows this, albeit just as a single innocuous line. Refer to this table for a quick overview of what antennas can relay. As a rule of thumb, relay-capable antennas are always heavier and higher-priced for the same perfomance.
  3. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I wrote this "little" explanation piece about the phenomenon you observed, and some of the lessons you can derive from it. I recommend giving it a read, and looking at your rocket stage design in a whole new way afterwards
  4. Yes, you can do that, if you don't mind the extra mass. Your controls should not change as long as your control point (cockpit/probe core) does not change. I recommend mapping your various engines to action groups so you can easily toggle them on and off as needed.
  5. I don't know for sure about PS4, but on PC, to get progress for a flyby contract, all you need to do is have an uninterrupted trajectory through the target's sphere of influence. Meaning, as soon as you have a trajectory that enters the SOI of Minmus and then goes on to escape it again, you're performing a flyby. You should get the progress attributed to you at the very latest when your vessel actually enters the SOI. You can even change your trajectory with a burn after that (f.ex. to capture) and not lose the flyby attribution. If your trajectory hits Minmus directly, that doesn't qualify. That's a collision, not a flyby Additionally, if the trophy specifically says "flyby of a planet", then Minmus itself may simply not qualify, because Minmus is not a planet. It is a moon. Try with Duna or Eve, they are both fairly easy to reach as long as you are within the correct transfer window.
  6. Welcome to the forums Are you playing in career mode? If yes, do you have the VAB/hangar upgraded enough to unlock custom action groups? You should also be able to edit action groups in flight. Back when the feature was introduced, it always gave you full access to all action groups, even in career mode without any upgraded buildings. Not sure if that is still the case, but you can always check...
  7. Is it really a glicth though? Seems to me that the parts were deployed, not dropped. To pick them up again, you'd simply need to undeploy them (outside of construction mode).
  8. It's intentionally something you leave behind. Don't even bother waiting for it. You don't need a Kerbal present to operate the equipment. Once deployed, it operates by itself. Everytime an experiment collects (I think) 10% worth of progress, it auto-transmits as soon as it can find a valid signal path home. You'll get a notification every time it happens. The point of these experiments is that you take them with you whenever you first land on a new celestial body, set them up, and leave them behind. Over time you get science passively accumulating in the background. Given that there are 14 different land-able bodies in stock KSP alone, all of which you can put these stations on, that adds up. And when a high level scientist deploys these things, it goes three to four times faster.
  9. The screenshot is a bit small to really see the menus, I'm afraid. But as far as the setup as it is goes, the result you're getting is normal. There is not enough power. Each of the three consumers requests 1 but receives 0.667, so none of them work. The communotron is offline, the control station is offline, and the science experiment is offline. Ergo, the fact that they show as connected but unpowered is perfectly normal, and the fact that you have no control signal is perfectly normal. Now, you say you can undeploy any one of them and the situation doesn't change? That sounds less normal. Could you undeploy the seismometer and leave the control station, solar panel, and communotron deployed? Make a screenshot of that, ideally a somewhat larger one, so that the menus are clearly legible.
  10. @Gargamel Did you by any chance split off a different post than you meant to? OP isn't asking a question, but rather is answering one.
  11. Part clipping can absolutely cause issues in some rare cases, especially when the clipped parts bear a lot of load... ...But, as always when it comes to asking for help troubleshooting specific vehicles: screenshots please
  12. It depends on the burn. Reason being: the maneuver node is a single point in space-time. You reach and pass it in a single instant. But, running your engine to affect the change of velocity you want takes some time. The more dV you wish to spend, and the heavier your spacecraft, the longer it takes; the more thrust you have, the shorter. If you think about that, it makes logical sense to center your burn on the maneuver node in almost all cases. You'll have half your burn before the node, and half your burn after it. Both introduces a small error because you are not perfectly on the node, but because you have an even split before and after, these errors actually cancel each other out near-perfectly. In the settings menu, under "general", you can toggle "show extended burn indicator". I honestly forget what the exact difference is between leaving it off and turning it on, because I simply always turn it on by default and never play without it. But when I make a maneuver node, I have little buttons next to the burn time that let me set a split. It defaults to 50%, which means an even split before and after the node, and that's perfect for 99% of all cases. And there are three bits of timing information: "Node in T - xx:xx", which means how far away the actual node is; "Burn Time", which is how long the actual burn takes; and "Start Burn in", which gives you a countdown for when you need to ignite your engine. This last field will change depending on how you set your split. But as mentioned, 50% is perfect for almost any case.
  13. If you mount a tank that contains LF+Ox to an engine that consumes only LF, then that engine will run out of fuel once all the liquid fuel is gone, with the tank still being roughly half filled with oxidizer. This not only means that you're carrying around the mass of the useless oxidizer, which requires more propellant expenditure to accelerate, and more lift to keep it airborne, which requires more wing, which creates more drag, and also add mass, which requires more propellant expenditure... yada yada; but also, only half the tank's actual volume will be dedicated to carrying fuel you can use. Which means you need to add more tanks to get the total amount of fuel you need. All of which, again, only have half of their volume dedicated to useful fuel, and the rest to useless oxidizer, which you have to carry along, see above. But even if you think "hey, I can remove the oxidizer in the hangar, no problem", it's still not equal to using pure liquid fuel tanks. Because the fact that you need twice as many tanks still applies. And tanks have dry mass. Meaning, they have a mass even when empty. A base mass that gets added to the mass of fuel inside them. So if you carry twice as many tanks, you're carrying twice as much dry mass. (This, by the way, is why rockets stage: to get rid of performance-killing dry mass.) Now, RAPIERs can be used in closed cycle, where they consume oxidizer. A typical spaceplane will want to carry some oxidizer for the moment when the atmosphere gets too thin to support airbreathing combustion. But you should strive to bring only exactly as much as you need to successfully fly the mission.
  14. I've not tried something like that myself, but perhaps you can work around this by spreading your engine groups across multiple stages. Now, I don't mean stages you actually stage. Rather, when I think massive mothership, I think of a vessel that is already on its final stage. It can undock and re-dock vessels for refuelling operations, but none of that is done through actual staging. That means you're not pressing spacebar anymore. So... just create some virtual stages that don't do anything except having groups of engines in them. Then, in flight, you can pop out the expanded stage info, and receive information for that specific stage, such as its remaining burn time and its acceleration. This display does update as you manually toggle engines via action groups, IIRC. Note that in order to customize what info the expanded stage view shows you, you have to go into the VAB and set it there. It's a global setting, not a vessel-specific one.
  15. Uninstall KSP in Steam Rightclick KSP in Steam Select Properties Click the "Betas" tab Ensure that the dropdown menu is set to "none" Close the Properties window Install KSP again If this does not give you the latest version, please contact Steam support about their client not working properly.
  16. Agreed. Don't start in sandbox or in career... start in science mode. Same limited parts pool as career, but without money or reputation or contracts being involved. All you gotta do is collect science to unlock new parts.
  17. Various "I can't see my apoapsis" posts started cropping up after 1.12, so it's either an intended change in that version, or a bug.
  18. If you want to practice interplanetary transfers without waiting for years, try going from Mun to Minmus and/or back. It's exactly the same principles, except on a smaller scale, so you'll only be waiting for days instead.
  19. I'm with @KerikBalm here. There's no reason large rockets should be less stable than small ones. If you're having issues, you're probably building it in a way that invites stability issues at any size. Perhaps you could share a screenshot of your launch vehicle, and we can take a look at it? Or tell us what you need lifted, and we can tell you how we'd design the lifter. Some rules of the thumb you can follow to improve the stability of your rockets: Heavy stuff at the front, draggy stuff at the back (AKA the golden rule of rocketry). Following this rule gives you what is called passive stability. A passively stable rocket is one that wants to fly perfectly straight without any fins and any gimbals to help it. You should always aim for passive stability in anything you build. In an ideal world, fins are an unnecessary crutch, and engine gimbals are meant to force a passively stable rocket to change directions, not to keep an unstable one straight. If you're just on the edge of instability, you can employ fuel tank priority settings to make your fuel tanks drain bottom-first, thus shifting the CoM upwards durign flight and leaning into the rule above. Fins may be a crutch, but if you must use fins, mount four of them (not three, not six - exactly four) and align them to the cardinal directions. If you also have side boosters, mount them 45° offset instead. The boosters don't care (at least when they're just boosters without control authority). The fins do. Don't overdo control authority. If you have SAS on and your rocket oscillates more and more, you have too much authority from gimbals and/or active steering fins, and they are fighting each other into a feedback loop. Turn them down or switch them off. Try for a single-stack design. KSP's radial decouplers are bendy things, and will cause engines mounted on side boosters to thrust off center ever so slightly. It's not so bad when they are used just for thrust, as the imparted forces will cancel each other out between mirrored boosters. But as soon as you try to use them for control authority, you have a potential recipe for things to go haywire. If you must use side boosters or multiple cores, don't mount fins on them, especially not active steering fins; and turn off all gimbals on them. Try for a single-size design. Don't change diameter along the length of the rocket, except to go from smaller top to larger bottom. The most stable designs avoid even that. The biggest sin is going from large to small and then large again; this will not only cause extra drag, but also introduces a pair of weak(er) joints that is liable to wobble. If you wish to mount undersized engines in the middle of a larger stack, use Making History's engine plates, or surface attach them while building an interstage with the help of a fairing base. Try for smooth stacks. Don't mount anything on the outside that doesn't absolutely need to be there during atmospheric flight. Payload bays, interstage fairings, and even structural tubes let you hide whatever you like inside the smooth stack. Avoid part clipping. It works in 99% of all cases, and in the other 1%, it induces phantom forces that make your rocket shake, bend, and flip. Murphy's Law dictates that you are the 1%. Try for sane acceleration values. A surface take-off TWR of 1.4 to 1.5 is recommended. Not only do such rockets need less control authority to steer, but they also experience much lower maximum dynamic pressures while transsonic than high-TWR designs. Fly smooth, even turns with the help of SAS Hold Prograde. Once you're past 2km in altitude or so and happy with your heading, you shouldn't need to touch anything but spacebar and your throttle control to make it into orbit. Every manual control input is a potential source for instability. You may not always be able to follow all of these principles, but at minimum you should be aware of them, and compromise on them knowingly, rather than accidentally. I've never played with autostruts. Not once. My rockets almost never have fins, and their gimbals are turned down to 25% or locked outright. They still fly straight and true, and don't wobble or drift around randomly. That is the power of proper construction.
  20. One and a half hours left to liftoff, still time to delay it a few more times
  21. So, have the suggestions here helped you? Is your planned mothership coming along nicely?
  22. This is something for which there is no straightforward way to do it in the base game. As Jimmy said above, the engine plates included in the Making History DLC are specifically meant for this. If you don't have them, you need to use surface attachment to circumvent the lack of dedicated parts. Start by attaching the fuel tank of the lander to a fairing truss node, with a full size decoupler in between. No bi-couplers or anything here, don't ever use them in between stages, it never works. Just lander tank -> decoupler -> truss node. This leaves you with a clean, full-size node stack top to bottom without any of the engines getting in the way. Now, rightclick the fairing and turn off the interstage truss. Not the nodes, just the truss, so that your attached lander is magically free-floating but still attached. Yes, it looks stupid, don't worry, it'll be fine later. Then, you surface-attach engines to the bottom of the lander's tank inside the hollow decoupler, in such a way that they won't catch on the decoupler ring during stage separation. But what if you want engines that cannot surface attach? Well, that's what the BZ-52 Radial Attachment Point is for. You surface attach a pair of those to the bottom of the tank, which gives you extra nodes outside the main node stack to attach the engines to. Next, switch to the Move tool, select the decoupler, and move it down towards the fairing base until the engine bells are nice and close to it. Don't clip into it, that may not end well. Finally, build the interstage fairing. Once it is closed, you'll no longer be looking at a magically floating lander - it is now (at least visually) supported by the interstage. Set the fairing to Not Staged, and it'll remain a fixed structure that never gets ejected until you leave it behind when the lander decouples.
  23. Okay, turns out the 5m parts are likely oversized for this. I slapped this thing together real quick, and it pushed a 40-ton dummy payload into LKO with 1600 m/s left in my test. And I only used Mastodons, not even Mainsails, and throttled all the engines to 90% already because it felt like it still had a bit too much thrust. So you could probably assemble your spacecraft in orbit of the Mun or something (It has the antenna power for it too.) Has tons of control authority, lots of battery power, no weird shapes, zero need for autostruts. Flies straight like and arrow, just mindlessly follow the staging order. Only thing is, I used the L-size probe core, and that's one of the final tier techs. Not sure if you have it. You can probably load the craft in a sandbox save and replace the core with something else if you want. It won't hurt the vehicle - you'll just lose some high-end SAS modes like follow maneuver. The avionics section is tucked away in the structural tube on the upper stage, directly below the fairing. Take off the fuel tanks below to access it. Just be careful when reattaching the tanks that they attach to the structural tube, not to the parts inside.
  24. 36t to LKO is not hard, in principle. But it might become tricky when you realize that objects that heavy tend to have a certain bulk, while you're requesting something easily steerable. These two things don't generally come together, because aerodynamics. What tech level and what DLCs do you have available to use? The 5m parts from Making History would be the obvious choice.
  • Create New...