Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'altitude'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website
  • KSP Pre-release
    • 1.3.1 Pre-release Branch
    • 1.3.1 Pre-release Modding Discussions

Categories

  • Developer Articles

Found 7 results

  1. When you first got KSP, and started up a career save, you were excited to play the game and go to SPACE! Then you realized you only had a flea booster to work with, so you said "Space will have to wait," and built that same starter rocket everyone builds, didn't you? (You know what I mean) WELL NOT ANYMORE! WHAT IF YOU COULDN'T WAIT TO WORK YOUR WAY UP THE SCIENCE TREE? YOU NEED TO GET TO SPACE! This is the root of this challenge: Get the highest possible altitude with only tier 1 parts, easy right? (Here's a hint: Tier 1 has no decouplers or struts) Parts List: MK1 Command Pod, RT-5 "Flea" SRB, Mk16 Parachute, Mystery Goo, Modular Girder Segment, Basic Fin. THAT'S IT. How This Challenge Works: Create a NEW career file, on normal difficulty, go into settings, and put funds at 500,000 (Max), and make sure starting science is 0 Upgrade any buildings you want to, I recommend VAB+Launchpad for larger rockets, and Astronaut Complex to allow for EVA's (Extra Points) BUILD AWAY Staff your rocket, more kerbals does not equal more points, however those extra crew reports are worth something LAUNCH! Collect science along the way, it earns you points! (Using X-Science helps) REACH NEW HEIGHTS, THEN LAND! At least ONE kerbal must walk away from landing to plant a flag (all the more reason to have more >:) Do Nots: DO NOT use modded parts that happen to be in tier 1, mods that don't use parts like X-Science and Kerbal Engineer are ok DO NOT use the administration bulding, or mission control in any way to try and boost funds/science DO NOT use tier 2 or above parts (no science building) DO NOT use part clipping to stuff 10 flea boosters into the size of 1, mild part clipping with structural parts ok YOUR FIRST FLIGHT must be the record attempt, if you fail, revert flight, DO NOT RECOVER OR TERMINATE (test run on sandbox or another file) NO F12 OR HYPEREDIT (hopefully, this is a duh) NO USING the EVA spam push trick once in space, I will allow ONE push retrograde using a max of 1.0 units of EVA fuel (more info in spoiler) Tips + Tricks You may use the runway if you wish, however there are no wheels in tier 1 Flea boosters blowing each other/structural parts up make good decouplers The structural girders are very flimsy, although they "decouple" better than the fleas themselves (no struts) The Basic Fins perform strangely on some rockets, also they add weight, sometimes it is better to go without them Command Pods can be used as nose cones, even with their weight it can pay off once you are moving 500 m/s, also you get more reaction wheels Remove Monoprop from the command pods, it helps at those later stages Parachutes alone most likely will not stop you in time, having an alternate landing system is usually necessary Launching straight up will get you the highest, unless you are going for orbit Scoring: Suborbital: Highest Point Reached (in meters) + # of science points x 1000 = total score (91,000 + 16x1000 = 107,000 points) Orbital (Separate Scoring): Periapsis + Apoapsis + # of science points x 1500 = total score (71,000 + 83,000 + 18x1500 = 181,000 points) If there is need for a higher scoring system, such as moon orbits/landings (or interplanetary :P), I will add more leaderboards, you MUST have a screenshot of your rocket during launch, your map view upon reaching your final height, and one of the space center (science points) when you return as a minimum. Leaderboards Suborbital: @MarvinKitFox - 859,101 Points (859,101 Meters, Science Not Given) @LazySoUseHyperedit - 206,138 Points (94,038 Meters, 112.1x1000 Science) @Cunjo Carl - 137,951 Points (76,951 Meters, 61x1000 Science) First Besides Me To Do It Award I LIKE - 0 Points (0 Meters, 0 Science) PIE - 0 Points (0 Meters, 0 Science) Orbital: @Gordon Fecyk - 593,275 Points (Apoapsis 290,421 Meters, Periapsis 71,284 Meters, 154.5x1500 Science) First To Orbit Award Somebody - 0 Points (Apoapsis 0 Meters, Periapsis 0 Meters, 0 Science) Once - 0 Points (Apoapsis 0 Meters, Periapsis 0 Meters, 0 Science) Told - 0 Points (Apoapsis 0 Meters, Periapsis 0 Meters, 0 Science) Me - 0 Points (Apoapsis 0 Meters, Periapsis 0 Meters, 0 Science) CHALLENGE ENDS LAST DAY OF MAY, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED - you are still allowed to try
  2. Hey everyone, I recently have been sucked into this game, and I'm loving the math. My question is this simple, determine the altitude a rocket will achieve on full fuel burn of a single stage. I've done a lot of research and have come up with the following example problem to test my algorithm/process of calculation. Let me know what you guys think of below and what I'm missing or potentially a force I haven't considered into the calculation such as lift, as you'll see my answer is off by nearly 3,300m. (For the sake of simplicity the rocket travels straight up in a vertical dimension only.) Known Values of my Rocket: Full Mass [MFull] (Entire Rocket) : 7.5t (7,500kg) Empty Mass [MEmpty] (First Stage Depleted) : 4.5t (4,500kg) Fuel Mass [MFuel] (Both LQ and OX) : 3.0t (3,000kg) Isp [Isp] (Reliant Engine) : 265 sec Thrust [FT] (Thrust Force Atm.) : 205.2kN (205,200N) LQ Rate [BLQ] (Burn Rate of LQ) : 7.105 u/sec OX Rate [BOX] (Burn Rate of OX) : 8.684 u/sec LQ Volume [VLQ] (LQ Fuel 45% Mix) : 270 u OX Volume [VOX] (OX Fuel 55% Mix) : 330 u Known Values of Kerbin: Accel. Kerbin [g] (Accel. of Gravity) : 9.81 m/sec^2 First I will calculate the time required to burn through the fuel mixture. This time will be needed in the final calculation. Tburn =VLQ /BLQ =VOX / BOX << >> 270u / (7.105u/sec) = 38.0 sec Next I convert burn rate units from volume/sec to units of kg/sec. (I assume 1u = 5kg of both LQ and OX) BLQ_M = BLQ * (5kg/u) << >> (7.105u/sec) * (5kg/u) = 35.525 kg/sec BOX_M = BOX * (5kg/u) << >> (8.684u/sec) * (5kg/u) = 43.42 kg/sec BTOTAL= BLQ + BOX << >> 35.525kg/sec + 43.42kg/sec = 78.945 kg/sec (M *Dot = Mass Flow Rate) Determine effective exhaust velocity of rocket motor related to Specific Impulse and Gravity. (NASA Formula) Ve= Isp * g << >> 265sec * 9.81m/sec^2 = 2,599.65 m/s Determine acceleration of rocket (Found this formula on a physics forum, not sure if valid) a = Ve ( BTOTAL / MFULL ) - g << >> 2,599.65 m/s * (78.945kg/sec / 7,500kg) - 9.81m/s^2 = 17.554 m/s^2 Apply classical kinematic physics equation for displacement with acceleration. (Vertical Axis only...) deltaX = 0.5 * a * (Tburn^2) << >> 0.5 * 17.554m/s^2 * (38sec ^ 2) = 12,673.988m So in the end this calculation results in an effective altitude of 12,673.98 meters. If anything, I expect drag (if simulated) among other forces to take away from this value. Instead the opposite occurred, my actual test flight while holding steady to the center of the NavBall resulted in roughly 16,000 meters altitude at 38 seconds into flight (after stage finished burning). Any ideas?
  3. At sea level, Mach 3 is around 1021m/s but by the time you get to 60,000ft or 18,288m it's down to around 885m/s. Does KSP model this change when it comes to the performance of jet engines that vary thrust depending on your velocity?
  4. Hi all, I've been busily procrastinating on a Spaceplane performance guide. I've got to a section where i'm discussing the effect of altitude on jet engine performance, ie. what's the best altitude for penetrating sound barrier, what's best for hitting max airbreathing speed. Looking at the config file of the rapier, I can see that at 0.35 atmospheres of pressure, we have a thrust multiplier of 0.5. At 0.08 , thrust multiplier falls to 0.3 (looks like a sweet spot to me) , then at 0.018 we still have 0.09 (still somewhat decent, we thrust has only fallen half as much as pressure - drag - has , right?). Above that things go south very quickly. The thing is, is there a way to convert these pressure numbers, expressed in "atmospheres", into actual altitudes I can use when flying an aircraft? The KSP wiki has a table of pressure (in atmospheres) vs altitude (in km), but there are only 11 data points and inconveniently the numbers in the config file fall in between. It's not a linear relationship of altitude vs pressure so interpolating it won't be very accurate. My best guesses are at these numbers correspond to 6km (thrust multiplier 0.5) , 14km (thrust multiplier 0.3) and 23km (thrust multiplier 0.09), but is there any tool to calculate the numbers properly?
  5. Seems any time I make a rocket, the game decides to more than rapidly explode my rocket at around 2500-2600m. Basically, I'll get close, the game will get jittery. Then the rocket goes and splits apart at insane velocities. I've seen it sometime explode so badly that parts burned up in the atmosphere. I've tested this with a few different rocket designs and looked at the post mission report and basically it shows catastrophic failure of dozens of components within less than a second. This kinda leads me to believe it's some kind of game engine _ clownery and not my design. The fact it also happens at 2600m almost all the time is telling. I did a debug with unbreakable parts and it STILL does it. I did a debug with no gravity and was able to gently hover past the 2600m mark at around 100m/s? It happens in both the 64bit version and the not-64 version. ship design doesn't seem to be a factor, but speed and/or gravity might? Note also in previous versions! This rocket worked! Now I can't get one past 2600? I don't know what's goin on.
  6. Altiude set Deployable Fairing

    A rather intersting thought crossed my mind tis morning when I was playing Kerbal and in fact this idea could work (after all we ahve Parachutes that Depoy or open when the vehicle htis a certain alttitude above the surface.. But this idea takes the idea and reuns it in reverse.. Everyone who builds a craft that has aerodynamic fairing either has to stage the fairing properly so that it opens when a certain event hpappens of you deply it maually (This is one thing that I du..) But what if the fairing wer eto autodeply when the vehicle reaches a certain altitude.. . IN a way it's like the parachutes hwe have in game abut run in reverse.. (forexample the part could be set with a deply area that would range from say 35,000 mets all the way up to 70,000 meters.. And you could set this deploment altitude before you launch. (Much like you can set the parachuts an or the ablation for a heat shiled.. So then the real question is, could this work? an if so what type of coding would it take to make it work/ Thoughts? Space_Coyote
  7. I've started a new sandbox game and with inspiration from @ZooNamedGames, I've begun a space program for the United Kerbin Republic... As I was preparing to compose mission objectives for each of the missions in the initial program, I decided to take a page from NASA/NACA and actually set early goals for a specific number of orbits. During the first flight, I discovered something for the first time - KSP does not count the number of orbits around any body within the game! So, it's another suggestion by me so feel free to ignore it; I think that having a counter that can be toggled to count orbits when around a body within the Kerbol System would be a tremendous help...