Brotoro

Developing Duna (pic heavy) - ^_^ with Part 11 ^_^

Recommended Posts

Nice touch on the messages. While I don't have time now to fully deduct it, I can grasp the core message with some ease ( note I read a good bunch of SETI related books :D )

Again, nice touch on the Nova scenario rehash

Page 1: Some text that I don't care for translating now, definition of perimeter and angular units and of the Kerbal system of old ( BTW in the same orbit than Kerbin ? ). Besides the original planet, they also colonized Kerbin , Duna and Laythe

Page 2 : This one is more on my avenue :D First you' get a frequence definition based on the transition between different spins of the electron in a hydrogen atom in a 1s orbit. Also Locations on other interesting stuff in Duna using the previously defined angular measurements, definitions of length based on the frequency above, and from there and the water molecule, definition of volume and weight. Also indication of the orbital radius of Kerbin counterclockwise rotation and the indication that the original planet decided to take a extended leave to somewhere further away from the Sun

Page 3: Seriously, I don't have time to dissect the arrows diagram ATM :D But it is obvious that the rest is intel about the Face in Duna and the Vall henge

I'll try to make a more detailed deciphering later, but yeah , nice job, Brotoro :D

Edited by r_rolo1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay! Cool stuff!

Creating efficient procedures for flying the DunaDogs seems like a trick. It might well be that turns greater than some amount of degrees would be more efficiently done by landing, turning around in rover mode, then lifting off again. It would be cool to see how fuel consumption differs between burning the engines during a long, banking turn (say 90 degrees) and a landing/takeoff sequence.

Version 1.0 is coming! I'm no miracle worker, but I'm willing to devote time again to keep the save for this series compatible. :)

Brotoro, once you've gotten the new version, feel free to PM me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...The Squatty Base (Duna P1), Desdin's second Base upgrade (From Exiting Eve update, I couldn't find the name of the Laythe version...), The Gas Station, The Vall ex. main habitat module (Laythe P14), a DunaDog (Duna P1), a BirdDog (Not sure), and the Fuel Fido/Fuel Station Pack (Duna P2)...

The only thing left on that list that hasn't been posted is the Vall Expedition Main Hab, which is identical to the Vall Expedition Lander except that the Hab has the two atmospheric landing capsules (the Lander had four comsats mounted on top of its tanks instead).

You also had the DunaDog listed there, but that craft file was posted in an earlier post up thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mechjeb projection is indeed yellow, with just a hint of green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those easter egg images are awesome!

And you can play the part of the big brains back at KSC who will figure out what they mean and tell the kerbalnauts what they need to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Developing Duna - Part 6

-snip-

Now I know how you figured out that the Coordinates of the Duna-Cam were wrong in my Thread.

Great read, keep it coming :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the new pre-release videos for KSP 1.0... The fact that nuclear engines no longer use oxidizer will have a big effect on my existing transportation structure (both the Duna and Laythe missions), because all my Tugs are set up for LF/O nukes. I wonder what the delta-V capabilities of my Tugs will be when filled with liquid fuel (alas, only PARTIALLY filled, unless they have changed the way we can tweak fuel and oxidizer amounts in tanks)?

Also, I tend to give my Tugs considerably more propellant than they'll need to make the trip because the extra LF/O propellants can be offloaded at the destination for use by the exploration ships. I'll have to think differently about such things now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, what? LV-N's will no longer use oxidiser? Such important piece of information, and i slept through it :P Anyways, i bet it's Porkjet's doing - he created a cool mod modifying how nukes work, and config for oxidiser-less fuel tanks. It was buggy though, and tanks reverted to default setting after reloading the game. Hopefully he fixed it since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at the new pre-release videos for KSP 1.0... The fact that nuclear engines no longer use oxidizer will have a big effect on my existing transportation structure (both the Duna and Laythe missions), because all my Tugs are set up for LF/O nukes. I wonder what the delta-V capabilities of my Tugs will be when filled with liquid fuel (alas, only PARTIALLY filled, unless they have changed the way we can tweak fuel and oxidizer amounts in tanks)?

Also, I tend to give my Tugs considerably more propellant than they'll need to make the trip because the extra LF/O propellants can be offloaded at the destination for use by the exploration ships. I'll have to think differently about such things now.

"What, are you kidding me...? Our nuclear engines have been venting oxidizer ALL THIS TIME?! Nuclear engines don't work that way! Didn't ANYONE find this weird??? I'm rewriting the LV-N engine to never open the oxidizer valve again (WHY DOES IT HAVE AN OXIDIZER VALVE) and if my boss complains... I'm taking the next launch to Eve."

-Another grumpy intern back at KSC

The game might not convert parts already in the persistence file, which would leave you with operating LV-Ns that still consume both resources. Either way, I'd think you'd still want to fiddle with the save, and choose whether to "grandfather" the old LV-Ns to remain LF/O engines and maybe tweaking them to make sure they are not more efficient than the newer, shinier versions OR adjusting them to match the new stats as per our grumpy intern's revelation.

I am also concerned with how fuel tanks will work for LV-Ns. Removing oxidizer from a standard LF/O tank is removing (what used to be) reaction mass without reducing dry weight. Though, the engine has likely been rebalanced in terms of ISP, so it's hard to tell just how big a deal this is. Re-purposing aircraft tanks (LF only) may be reasonable for more efficient designs... Looking forward to testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I am also concerned with how fuel tanks will work for LV-Ns. Removing oxidizer from a standard LF/O tank is removing (what used to be) reaction mass without reducing dry weight. Though, the engine has likely been rebalanced in terms of ISP, so it's hard to tell just how big a deal this is. Re-purposing aircraft tanks (LF only) may be reasonable for more efficient designs... Looking forward to testing.

I don't know yet about the ISP changes, but I have heard that they've increased the mass of the nuclear engine from 2.5 to 3 tons...so I don't think they were looking to be friendly to the NERVA at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know yet about the ISP changes, but I have heard that they've increased the mass of the nuclear engine from 2.5 to 3 tons...so I don't think they were looking to be friendly to the NERVA at all.

Hmm. Removing uneccesary hardware added 500kg. Go figure.

As for tanks for the NERVAs - I suddenly have a use for those large SpacePlane LF-only tanks. Though it'd be nice to have a very-large stock LF tank... or perhaps tweakable tanks by part volume akin to what RealFuels does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, did some tests. Claw non-active is not as dangerous as before, but you do have to return to space centre or maybe another vessel to "refresh", as it kinda bugs out the display for a second.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also concerned with how fuel tanks will work for LV-Ns. Removing oxidizer from a standard LF/O tank is removing (what used to be) reaction mass without reducing dry weight. Though, the engine has likely been rebalanced in terms of ISP, so it's hard to tell just how big a deal this is. Re-purposing aircraft tanks (LF only) may be reasonable for more efficient designs... Looking forward to testing.

In real life, LH2 is incredibly fluffy, so the mass ratio of an LH2 tank isn't as good as you would get with kerosene/oxygen/storables/etc. I'll have to look up some real stages and run some numbers, but the mass ratio cost for flying an LFO tank with no oxidizer might be proportional to the cost of replacing a kerolox tank with a same-volume hydrogen tank. (Of course, since our tanks are built like battleships, a proportionally similar cost makes a much bigger difference in how far you can get).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first test in version 1.0 did not go well. I installed Kerbal Engineer (since there was an update that supposedly works with 1.0), and the Jeb9000 and Bill9000 and Protractor parts (so that the ships with those parts on them could load, even though they don't have any MechJeb or Protractor dll to link to). The game loaded up OK, and showed all my old ships in the Tracking Station.

But when I went to Laythe and started looking over the ships, the game hung (spinning beach ball of death..."Application Not Responding"...memory usage was over 3GB by the application according to the Activity Monitor).

So I Force Quit and restarted KSP. This time I checked out one of the Laythe BirdDogs, which looked really strange because of the reworked parts. The Ram-Air Intakes are now big clunky things, and the forward-swept canards are no longer forward-swept canards, and the tail fin is different. But, if you look closely at the BirdDog's rear fuel tank, you'll see that the bug that causes certain parts to show up shrunken has apparently NOT been fixed (but hopefully the old fix that I've been using with the Module Manager will work again to fix this):

x1ZsizR.jpg

Strangely, the jet engine was deactivated, but I reactivated it and tried an take-off run. The BirdDog was very slow in taking off, but it did get into the air...and then the game froze up again.

Restart...try again...and again the game froze up after takeoff.

So I restarted the game and decided to check out Duna instead. I went to the Duna Lander 1 (currently unmanned). Its rocket engines were still activated, and so I decided to try flying it into orbit. Lift-off OK (with the cool new dust effects...but I couldn't tell if they were red Duna dust because I'm colorblind). Started to tip the lander downrange...and, again, the program froze up. Memory usage over 3 GB. Application not responding.

Alas. So now I'll try a new save to see if the few parts I have installed are what's causing the problem. And onward from there, to see if the old missions can be restored to usefulness.

- - - Updated - - -

In real life, LH2 is incredibly fluffy, so the mass ratio of an LH2 tank isn't as good as you would get with kerosene/oxygen/storables/etc. I'll have to look up some real stages and run some numbers, but the mass ratio cost for flying an LFO tank with no oxidizer might be proportional to the cost of replacing a kerolox tank with a same-volume hydrogen tank. (Of course, since our tanks are built like battleships, a proportionally similar cost makes a much bigger difference in how far you can get).

Certainly liquid hydrogen is very low density and would require MUCH larger tanks. But the new Nuclear Engine still uses plain ol' high density liquid fuel (whatever that is). So designing a new Tug would probably best be done with aircraft Liquid Fuel tankage. Even though they have a higher dry weight than LF/O tanks...I expect they will still be better than using a LF/O tank that is only partially filled with liquid fuel.

The question I'm interested in (for the sake of the old Tugs) is what kind of delta-V they can get now with the updated nuclear engines and tanks (partially)-filled with only liquid fuel.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, did some tests. Claw non-active is not as dangerous as before, but you do have to return to space centre or maybe another vessel to "refresh", as it kinda bugs out the display for a second.

Nice to know. Thank you!

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like a new standard exploration package will be an oxidizer depot.

Tugs would probably have to bring along LF/O tank payloads for the mission (instead of counting on mostly using the excess LF/O from the Tug's own tanks)...but it may be worth including extra Oxidizer in the payload to match any excess Liquid Fuel the Tug has available to leave behind).

However, this whole equation is changed by the fact that we now have the in-situ resource exploration to fuel the distant exploration part of the mission...so Tugs shouldn't need to haul as much propellant along as payload.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick look in the persistence file shows that your kerbal's ... is determined by a "gender" value (either Male of Female...I wonder what happens if I put in Kraken or something else)... But, alas, it appears that Squad has NOT changed the profession system (pilot, engineer, scientist) to be determined by a value in the file, so you still will have to mess with names to get the profession you want.

- - - Updated - - -

the tugs are dead

Why? They still will have some (as yet undetermined by me) delta-V capacity.

- - - Updated - - -

And there are interesting things like this in the persistence file:

SCENARIO

{

name = ScenarioDiscoverableObjects

scene = 7, 8, 5

lastSeed = 559298752

sizeCurve

{

key = 0 0 1.5 1.5

key = 0.3 0.45 0.875 0.875

key = 0.7 0.55 0.875 0.875

key = 1 1 1.5 1.5

}

}

SCENARIO

{

name = ResourceScenario

scene = 5, 7, 6

RESOURCE_SETTINGS

{

GameSeed = 475746992

MaxDeltaTime = 21600

}

}

- - - Updated - - -

Oooo...the NavBall is semi-transparent now.

Niiiiiice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Reusable Rocket with Standard Nuclear Tug on top was able to put the Tug into orbit following its 'stupid' old trajectory (straight up until the side boosters burn out so that they can be dropped straight down onto the KSC for recovery). But now the side boosters push the rocket ridiculously high before they burnout (over 30 km) and the apoapsis is up at 185 km -- that's just goofy. So I had to drop the side boosters before they even burned out (at 20-something kilometers) so that the sustainer could turn and head into orbit (with the help of the friendly nukes of the Tug above 40 km).

I couldn't just run the nukes the whole time, because they would overheat to the point of explosion. Who would design a nuclear engine that couldn't be run at its full rated throttle? That's just stupid. I guess they want to make our loooong nuke burns even loooooonnnnggeerrrr.

Anyway, it got into a 100 km orbit with the Tug finishing the burn and dragging the sustainer along. By the way, this was with the Tug tanks full of unnecessary oxidizer (since I wanted a comparison with the old situation where the Tug had oxidizer as well).

The Tug transferred enough fuel and oxidizer to the sustainer so that the sustainer could attempt a return to Kerbin (reusability, you know). I separated the Tug and eye-balled the retro burn for the return to KSC (since, of course, no MechJeb to help target it). The sustainer was stable butt-first during reentry. The heat caused the four fins (AV-R* Winglets) to explode. I guess those aren't designed for reentry. The rest of the sustainer survived (I did the cheaty "pop ou the chutes during the reentry flames" method) and landed a few kilometers off shore from KSC using parachutes and engine braking. Then it fell over in the water and exploded its forward tank.

t3v4YwU.jpg

In version 1.0, the delta-V capacity of the Standard Nuclear Tug with all of the oxidizer removed is about 4.1 km/sec. That compares to a delta-V or about 9.5 km/sec that the Tug had in version 0.90. AND the inability to run the nukes at full throttle would require much longer burns. It's a sad day in TugLand, boys and girls.

A new Tug design is going to need to use the aircraft Liquid-Fuel-only tanks to be efficient.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh! The sepatrons on the side boosters were, of course, positioned to safely push the side boosters away from the sustainer back in the day when the bug was causing the boosters to try to nose inward after separation. So for this flight in 1.0, the sepatrons caused the side boosters to pivot rather violently nose-outward, and swing around to smash into each other below the sustainer.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh oh! After messing around with the reusable booster for several launches and trips back and forth from the VAB...KSP has crashed again, taking up over 3GB again. And this is in a NEW save game. This does not bode well.

Back to testing...

Edited by Brotoro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having the same frequent crashes, mostly when switching scenes. My view of the update so far is: Content= great, Quality Of Life= urrkkk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With regards to your tug situation, I noticed this post RE: nuclear engines and cooling:

Experiments in NTR radiators

Hopefully this can help with keeping your tugs at full throttle longer.

I saw those... but having to add 24 wing sections per nuke seems extreme. Not only will your ships be part-count-hell, I'm concerned about how sticking all those wing sections on top of a rocket is going to affect the stability. If heat was going to cause us all these problems, why didn't we get radiator parts with this update? Radiators are important on spacecraft.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh...I've been testing my planes. The BirdDog flies (at least with full tanks). The C724 airliner I built recently (just to compare with its 1.0 behavior) flies. The Passenger Pigeon SSTO spaceplane flies...but so far I haven't gotten it anywhere near getting to space. I thought I knew spaceplanes.....now I think I know nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now