Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'atmosphere'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • 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


  • Developer Articles

Found 18 results

  1. Before posting feature requests or bug reports, please read the FAQ. FAQ Works with stock aerodynamics and FAR Reportedly works with deadly reentry real solar system Rescaled Kerbin Compatible with Blizzy's toolbar If you see weird spirals or other crazy lines everywhere, double-check you didn't enable "body-fixed mode" by mistake If the predicted trajectory seems inaccurate, check that you set the correct orientation in the Descent profile (or checked Prograde or Retrograde), and that you keep that orientation all the time It's not possible to predict a trajectory for a future stage. We know this is a highly requested feature, but unless we duplicate big parts of the KSP-internal code, we are limited to simulating the current state of the vessel. Parachutes are not simulated (that's usually not a problem if you open it near the ground) Download On SpaceDock On GitHub A build of Trajectories 1.7.0 for KSP 1.2.2 can be downloaded here. Description The mod displays trajectory predictions, accounting for atmospheric drag and lift. Works with the stock aerodynamic model, and with Ferram Aerospace Research (FAR). With this mod, you can choose precisely the location where you'll crash. The typical precision is about 6km. Plan Aerobraking maneuvers that can, for example, put you on intersection trajectory with another body (see point 1 about what you can do from there) Keep in mind that this software comes without warranty of any kind, and in particular that it may or may not help you survive, reach a specific target, or anything at all. But it usually helps User manual See your predicted trajectory Open the map view This is it ; trajectory display is enabled by default, you have nothing else to do White is the trajectory in space, red is the trajectory in atmosphere, the red cross is your impact point (that takes the body rotation into account to show the impact point on the terrain, this is useful both for bodies with and without atmosphere) Disable the trajectory display Click on the Trajectories icon in the stock KSP toolbar (or Blizzy's toolbar if it's installed) to display the main UI Click "Display trajectory" to toggle it on/off Click "complete" to toggle display of the complete trajectory (including parts where it is superimposed with the stock KSP trajectory) Set a target point (nav ball guidance) Adjust your velocity so that the red cross is located where you want to go Click "Set current impact as target" to enable the green cross Alternatively, there is a button to set the target on the KSC (works on Kerbin only obviously), or you can enter longitude/latitude Go back in flight view, and notice the two new indicators on the nav ball The square indicator shows where you need to point your craft at if you were exactly following the predicted trajectory The circle indicator is a hint about the direction you should go to adjust your actual trajectory to reach the target (this is not necessarily where you need to point, what's important is the direction between the square and the circle, and the distance between them indicates how far you are from the perfect trajectory) Body-fixed mode Use this toggle to switch between the regular mode (similar to stock KSP orbits), or body-fixed mode. In body-fixed mode, the trajectory is displayed relatively to the body frame, following the body rotation. This mode makes sense for atmospheric or low terrain fly-by, and also to adjust a geostationary orbit. However, for most high orbits, it will just look funny. This can help you keep occupied for those 2-year-long planetary transfers, but try not to burn up all the fuel to see how it can make funny curved lines. Manoeuver nodes You can plan aerobraking or re-entry after manoeuvers, just place your nodes as usual and see the predicted trajectory. Keep in mind that you always place nodes on the stock trajectory, that might be very different from the predicted one, so you may have to place nodes at a point that have an effect somewhere else on the predicted trajectory (especially when planning landing on a body without atmosphere with body-fixed mode). Also, atmospheric prediction can happen only for the body you are currently orbiting, so you can't plan a Kerbin re-entry while you're still arround the Mun. Support and Bugs If you have questions and feedback regarding a current release, feel free to post in this thread. Please post bug reports on the GitHub bug tracker. If you don't know how, don't want to learn or are unsure it's a bug, you can ask in this thread. Contributions This mod is a community project! It was originally written by @Youen and is currently maintained by @Kobymaru. The following people have already contributed to this project (in approximative order of commits): Youen (Github neuoy) Kobymaru (Github fat-lobyte) PiezPiedPy atomicfury (Github sawyerap) And many others. You want to be part of this list? Contributions are very welcome! Read our Introduction for Contributors, fork the Repository on Github and have a go at the code! When you feel that your changes are mature enough to be included, send me a pull request! Also, please let us know what you are working on in the development thread. It's always best if you work on your "pet problem" - a bug that needs to be fixed or that you personally want to see implemented. Or you could just grab an issue from our Issue Tracker! For discussions about Mod internals and Development, please head over to the development thread. Change log The changelog started with release v1.6.7. For the changes in versions older than that, please visit the GitHub releases page. License This mod is under MIT license, feel free to look at the source code:
  2. I noticed in KSP 1.3 that parts using ModuleResourceHarvester type = 2 (atmospheric) no longer appear to harvest any resource if surface speed is exactly zero, such as if the craft is attached to a launch clamp or has wheel brakes engaged. If there's any motion, such as a heavy craft wobbling on its clamps, or with brakes engaged but can still be tilted side to side, then it'll harvest the resource. This seems to happen regardless of abundance. This differs from air intakes that can still take in a fixed amount of IntakeAir if perfectly stationary. I originally tuned my harvesters to match whatever the corresponding air intake would harvest in IntakeAir while stationary, then re-tuned that to match the IntakeAir rate times whatever MinAbundance was (assuming MinAbundance and MaxAbundance were equal). Now it seems I'll have to re-tune that based on a fixed non-zero speed. Or maybe there's an option for a stationary atmospheric harvester to still work. Where can I find changes to ModuleResourceHarvester?
  3. 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?
  4. Good evening to you all. Hopefully I have a simple question here. I have built an early tech plane, and, in order to make it long range I added a Terrier rocket engine to it so I could get it off the ground with all the extra fuel it's carrying for the Juno engines that are on it. I set the thrust limiter on the Terrier to 20, just enough to get the plane off the ground, and then I shut it down once I have enough speed to keep the plane in the air. My question is, does the oxidizer burn at the same rate no matter what you have the thrust set at? When I do activate the Terrier in flight it seems that the oxidizer is still burning at the same rate it would if the Terrier was at full power. If it does, is there any way to limit the oxidizer so I can maximize the effectiveness of the Terrier?
  5. Once Galileo probe entered the atmosphere of Jupiter we made a lot of dicoveries and conclusions about Jupiter and all gas giants in solar system. But in ksp we can much more than in real life The idea is - you dive deeply into jool atmosphere as deep you can can and then return . For this task you beter use a plane/glider. Rules :Dont use cheats to prevent overheating nor cheats for infinite fue (just dont use cheats at all !) . Dont use mods except the the mods that add balloons . You need stay at the low altitide for 55 sec. That is your guide Easy: 70 000 m Normal: 40 000 m Hard: 35 000 m .
  6. Hey guys, I am trying to get the atmosphere on Kerbin looking good but I am getting blocky clouds with sharp edges and bugger all atmosphere glow from orbit... I have EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements, Scatterer and TextureReplacer installed. I am wondering if there are settings that can be adjusted for these mods or is it possibly limitations of my Graphics card? I have a GTX 960 with 2GB ram on it (my system has 24gig ram). I am trying to attach a screen shot but I can't see a button anywhere to attach a pic (only a url link) Any help would be greatly appreciated
  7. It seems that the ksp atmosphere(stock) has some visual artifacts with the brightness and contrast. Which makes me curious about: How's it rendered? Is it intended to be physically accurate (in some degree), or just artificially constructed to look good? Also, I've heard that Tylo and Eeloo supposed to have very thin atmosphere, but it is discarded due to the rendering method of ksp being incapable of those rendering. Can I be given a short description of the cause of the incapability?
  8. Revamped Kerbol System Atmospheres This is an EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements and Scatterer configuration for use with @GregroxMun's Revamped Stock Kerbol System mod. Greg asked me to help him create this for his mod, and I was happy to help. He and I discussed the changes to be made for the Revamp, and I've done my best to implement his vision for this mod. EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements 1.1-3 or later is required! Scatterer v0.0246 or later is required! To install, first download and install EVE and the standard EVE configs, and install Scatterer and any additional Scatterer sunflare as you desire. Then download and extract the file. Copy the GameData folder into your KSP install, and overwrite the existing Scatterer configs. Currently it is not possible to implement Scatterer configs via a ModuleManager patch, and custom textures for Scatterer are in use with this mod. However, the MM patch in the "Cetera" folder will make the necessary changes to the BoulderCo > Atmosphere >clouds.cfg. This file must exist for module manager to update in order for this mod to work. Download License: GPLv3, primarily due to using the Scatterer config tool to create the textures and the configurations, and that is the license Scatterer is released under. Special thanks to @GregroxMun for making the Revamped Stock Kerbol System mod, @rbray89 for creating and supporting EVE all these years, and @blackrack for the Scatter mod. KSP just wouldn't look nearly as good without the efforts of those two gentleman, and you should each thank them personally. A huge thank you to @Raptor831 for coaching me through writing the ModuleManager patch, and explaining to me like I'm five how module manager works. His patience was instrumental in making this mod happen. Details: Jool has a more yellow cloud color, and a very pale green atmosphere in Scatterer. Lathe has a more blue-ish gray atmosphere, adding an additional cloud layer. Duna has very light, wispy, high-altitude clouds. The clouds are a light brownish-orange. Eve has been reworked to keep the stock EVE textures, but turn them a very nice pink, almost salmon, color. The atmosphere in Scatterer still has a purple highlight. Moho has a very thin, gray atmosphere. At higher elevations on the planet, it will not show up at all, as you are above the majority of the atmosphere. At lower elevations, it will provide a gray highlight to the horizon.
  9. I know clouds have been brought up a lot on this forum, but I think clouds are only half the story. Weather is often a determining factor in the success or failure of space missions or aircraft flights, be it on Earth, or at the destination. 1. Wind - Wind plays a big factor when taking off or landing with aircraft. High wind speeds and storms also cause hazard for re-entering spacecraft, and for spacecraft wishing to launch. 2. Clouds - Clouds add a layer of uncertainty to approaches, as it is more difficult to judge where your spacecraft will touch down, (especially on a planet like eve where there would be very thick clouds). It'd also add nice aesthetics. 3. Rain - Again, mostly cosmetic, but adding another level of depth to the planets you are visiting. Every day is the same on the moon, but Laythe storms would add a different perspective to the mostly barren moon. 4. Storms - Storms would combine all of the above, not freak hurricanes which destroy ground bases (although poorly built ground bases or top-heavy landers might topple) but still a deterrence from landing. Weather is something which is closely tied to aeronautics and space, and I think I'd be a loss if KSP didn't implement some form of weather system. PS: No mod I've seen has successfully combined all of the above. I've seen Kerbal Wind: And I've seen EVE: But these two do not represent a fully functioning weather system.
  10. How to get atmosphere and tempterature curve values without writing them? Or a generator maybe?
  11. Hi there, I've accepted a contract asking me to enter the atmosphere of Jool. I decided to send a very simple probe in a deadly trip to the Green Planet. (Periapsis 4 km...) I was thinking that "Enter the atmosphere of Jool to achieve this goal" was pretty clear. But my probe exploded a few hundred meters below the surface of Jool, and the contract is still there... Do you think I need wings to achieve this contract, or is this just a bug? Thanks for reading
  12. I have a very small pod (about 1 ton) in an elliptical orbit around Kerbin. The Pe is around 68km, the Ap around 330km. I am mostly watching the thing orbit in realtime. When I am not timewarping, both the Ap and the Pe fall. (In 1.0, it used to be true that when the Ap fell, the Pe would rise, and vise versa.) The funny thing is that it's acting like a drag that's decreasing with altitude. Like the 70km atmosphere cutoff no longer applies. Is anyone else seeing something like this?
  13. Is there any add-on which shows the trajectory of the ship and where will it land after experiencing drag in the atmosphere? Whenever I try to land at KSC or any other piece of flat land, I find it difficult to land on the exact position I had chosen, due to decay of the orbit. So, is there any mod which shows me where I will exactly land after experiencing drag in the atmosphere? Thank you.
  14. Hellooow everyone ! Today I come up with a weird question : Okay, so I wish to start exploring other planets in the game now, but I like to do things properly and well, because the most amazing part of the gameto me is when excrements works and you succeed in actually going somewhere. My first target will obviously be Duna and I have this program idea, that's kind of inspired by the Mars Semi-direct Mission, with a hab module, a Duna Ascent Vehicle and a Kerbin Return Vehicle. Now I know Duna has a different atmosphere and gravity pull than Kerbin... So how do I test properly my crafts ? How am I going to know if they'll actually work waaaay over there ? That's the kind of mission I don't want to have to restart from the beginning if something doesn't work.. I mean, I enjoy problems that are interesting and spectacular, like when everything goes south or when you forgot a step and the result is just too funny to be reverted etc... Not the annoying stuff that makes you start again 60 times and takes you 7hours to get right. So yeah, thanks in advance for all the help and have a nice Odyssey
  15. As the title says: we have listed values for vacuum and ASL thrust, but how is the Isp/thrust interpolated from there (or extrapolated for higher atmospheric pressures)?
  16. So, I am making a planet pack with Kopernicus for KSP. And I have a problem. I want to create a brown dwarf, using Jool as template. I want to create an atmosphere for it (so you can't land on it), but I don't understand those complicated numbers: key = 137500 100.8216733 -2.71949803636364E-03 -2.71949803636364E-03 key = 151250 68.1071 -2.13953963636364E-03 -2.13953963636364E-03 key = 165000 41.98433333 -1.65774109090909E-03 -1.65774109090909E-03 key = 178750 22.51922 -1.00126501090909E-03 -1.00126501090909E-03 key = 192500 14.44954667 -4.06759432727273E-04 -4.06759432727273E-04 key = 206250 11.33333333 -2.27824727272727E-04 -2.27824727272727E-04 key = 220000 8.184366667 -2.25669374545455E-04 -2.25669374545455E-04 key = 233750 5.127426667 -2.06283192727273E-04 -2.06283192727273E-04 key = 247500 2.51158 -1.61502101818182E-04 -1.61502101818182E-04 key = 261250 0.68612 -9.13301818181818E-05 -9.13301818181818E-05 key = 275000 0 -4.98996363636364E-05 -4.98996363636364E-05 (They're about atmosphere pressure and temperature curve) Is there a program or site to make these, or is there a simpler way?
  17. Re-entry is tough, especially when it's at high speed with a very large craft. This is a challenge to see how large and fast of a spacecraft you can successfully navigate through the terrors of atmospheric re-entry to a successful landing! It's also a challenge designed to encourage big spectacular explosions and cool orange glows. The total kinetic energy of a moving object is proportional to m * v^2. Your score in this challenge is your peak re-entry speed in km/sec, squared, times the mass of your craft in tons (or biggest single piece of your craft) after it comes to a stop on the ground. That's it. The Fine Print: 1. Passive braking systems only. No engines after you enter the atmosphere. Heat shields, air brakes, parachutes, winged gliders, and lithobraking are all OK. Using engines (or Hyperedit, or any other technique) to accelerate your craft up to speed in space is also just fine, but everything gets switched off before hitting the atmosphere. 2. Stock parts only. We will have separate divisions for stock physics and FAR. 3. Any (stock) planetary body with atmosphere and a landable surface is fine. 4. Pics or it doesn't count. Failure pics are also encouraged if they are spectacular or entertaining. 5. KSP version 1.0.5. 6. Multi-orbit aerobraking doesn't count if it uses engines between atmospheric passes. Or put differently, your score is measured from the highest speed after you've shut down your engines for the final time. Standings: Stock: 1. Foxster: 1042.4 (50.953 tons, 4.523 km/sec) 2. 3. FAR: 1. Yakky: 223.715. (22.194 tons, 3.1749 km/sec) 2. 3. My sample entry (and the inspiration for this challenge): I landed a pretty heavy lander on Eve the other day. Peak re-entry speed was 3.1749 km/sec (might have been higher but that is what I captured in a screen grab), and mass after landing was 22.194 tons. Total score = [mass] * [speed] * [speed] = 223.715. Re-entry screenshot: After landing:
  18. As I was performing an aerobrake, my ablator died and went completely black. Then it made me wonder: how fast can you kill an ablator? ---RULES--- No Alt F12, keep it stock, don't mess with game files, etc. Keep it pure and genuine. I want to see how fast you can kill an ablator. I'm not sure if the size matters, but I'm going to try and keep it on even ground. The size of your base, starting engines determines the size ablator you can use. For instance, a 3.5m starting engine only allows you to use no smaller than a 3.5m ablator, and a 2.5 m starting engine allows a 2.5m ablator, and so forth. However, you can stick on a larger ablator with a smaller starting engine (The Vector engine can carry a 2 or 3 m ablator). If you use a cluster of starting engines of varying sizes, you can use an ablator no smaller than the largest starting engine. You may use stages as you see fit, but you may not use an engine in any stage larger than your blator payload. I will keep ablator burn up times each respective to their sizes. You gain bonus points if your vehicle doesn't blow up after killing the ablator, and especially if you come to a complete stop. This also means you can't have any parts destroyed while attempting to fry your blator. ----- Also, I hope this is a reasonable challenge... feel free to critique my challenge, but please don't be a wiseguy. As long as you are nice about pointing out any potential loopsholes, etc. Have fun.