Jump to content

Rovers: what's in the update / DLC?


Laie

Recommended Posts

I'm once more struggling with rovers, and how to repack them in the field. Integrating the ramp into spacecraft necessitates compromises I'm loath to make, and for all that it's still very restrictive when it comes to size.

I recall some of the early Making History screenshots showing an Apollo-like rover on the Mun, which seemed to be very large relative to the lander. Is there anything we know about how it's to be stored, if it can be repacked, and if the solution will generic?

 

Edited by Laie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Laie said:

I'm once more struggling with rovers, and how to repack them in the field. Integrating the ramp into spacecraft necessitates compromises I'm loath to make, and for all that it's still very restrictive when it comes to size.

I recall some of the early Making History screenshots showing an Apollo-like rover on the Mun, which seemed to be very large relative to the lander. Is there anything we know about how it's to be stored, if it can be repacked, and if the solution will generic?

Afaik the DLC features an un-packable mini rover you interact with via Kerbal.

I doubt it's re-packable though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Laie said:

I'm once more struggling with rovers, and how to repack them in the field. Integrating the ramp into spacecraft necessitates compromises I'm loath to make, and for all that it's still very restrictive when it comes to size.

What compromises are these? 

I haven't seen this DLC unpackable rover, but its bigger than what you can fit in a mk3 bay?! I don't find the mk3 to be tooo restrictive (there are some mods out there to add "mk4" spaceplane parts which have huge cargobays)

Mainly when I use rovers from mk3 cargobays+ramps, they are surface base modules with very poor driving characteristics. The modules are long with a very narrow track, so they tip easily. I'll only show stock ones for now.

Spoiler

Hy9viC0.png

KyZBG1U.png

^ ok that tank on the left had non-stock landing legs, but this was a test for linking my stock modules to a module designed to adapt stock modules to non stock KPBS modules

9v6eid0.png

VXWNtul.png

AD1Rrmo.png

 

 

 

And earlier stock rovers (in a version before they fixed the "wheel blocked" thing and I had to use multiple smaller wheels)

Spoiler

1aPSPuF.pngCpZQ8JO.png

So I tried to make one that actually drives better - its essentially 2 rovers that dock side to side to give a wide track and prevent tipping.

Spoiler

FmPFLsQ.png

^ a test deployment

evDfnIx.png

^ The "assembled" rover

2r339BS.png

^ an earlier test with both sides being identical

As for design compromises of the lander.. what are they?

Here is one of my earliest landers for deploying stock modules on stock Mun

Spoiler

B0pfK7w.png

4Us7TSq.png

Basically, I just follow retrograde, and land vertically on the two prongs at the back, which ensure it will fall correctly to land on the landing gearI then switch the poodles off and the Thuds on, and fire them (I think I also had a pair of aerospikes on the underside) to come down softly (although in low grav, especially on minmus, its not needed). The "VTOL" rockets can also be used for takeoff, but really all that is needed is enough thrust to pitch the nose up enough for the poodles to take over

But then I started playing on a 3x rescale, so I needed a bigger lander, here's a design that is a bit different:

Spoiler

CXwcU9z.png

^the central tank is just a test payload. Its now a front loader, with two vectors instead of poodles. The wheels are gone, the aerospikes on the underside are gone, just the thuds to lift the front up before engaging the vectors.

jKwPc1p.png

jTPWccB.png

Deploying a non-stock module:

HvvzIMp.png

 

 

 

And a video of my lander for deploying rovers on 3x minmus:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

21 hours ago, Laie said:

Integrating the ramp into spacecraft necessitates compromises I'm loath to make,

5 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

What compromises are these? 

The ramp and cargo bay has to be parallel to the ground in order to work. Easy with planes and an atmosphere, not so much with vacuum landers (entirely doable, but). The ramp also needs to be at one end of the vessel. Lacking a Mk3 inline cockpit, that's the rear end, taking up the place of a large engine (alternatives: cockpit in the cargo bay or on another stack, or adapters to change diameter).

Items in brackets denote the hoops I'd have to jump through but rather wouldn't.

I'm not looking for mod solutions, (IMO the simplest would be a winch, allowing you to deploy and recover a rover even if the cargo bay is vertical and far from the ground) but was wondering what stock will bring. Apparently, not much besides a specialist Apollo-like part, or set of parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Laie said:

The ramp also needs to be at one end of the vessel. [...] alternatives: cockpit in the cargo bay or on another stack

Not necessarily, you can make some solutions work with an "upside-down" cargobay, and a docking port on top of the rover facing down, and a docking port on the roof of the cargobay facing down. The test rig I was using below had a ramp, but you should get the idea

Spoiler

H0VR4lE.png

 

S3ocCzc.png

This one was early in my testing of deployable rovers, it was also before autostrutting. I was attaching the rover via a front connection, and a top connection, which was pretty hard to line up:

NzqIJBC.png

I had to retract all the wheels on the plane, and extend the landing gear on the rover to get the top "magnetism" to at least pull the rover up (before autostrutting, it would clip through the bottom of the bay as soon as the front port connected:

OsICpah.png

I find these setups to be rather difficult, however. What is the big deal with having the cockpit on another stack? for non-atmospheric landers, you won't care about the aerodynamics of it.

Quote

The ramp and cargo bay has to be parallel to the ground in order to work.

Generally, Yes. So all you really need is a system that allows your lander to rest horizontally, and get its "nose" up again for takeoff. For my landers, thats just two prongs at the back so that it tips forward after a vertical landing, and 2 radially attached engines to lift the front up for takeoff again. 

Every design has to make compromises, I don't think that 2 prongs, radially attached engines, and 1 radially attached cockpit are such a huge compromise to make to enable the use of mk3 cargobays.

Quote

I'm not looking for mod solutions, (IMO the simplest would be a winch, allowing you to deploy and recover a rover even if the cargo bay is vertical and far from the ground) but was wondering what stock will bring. Apparently, not much besides a specialist Apollo-like part, or set of parts.

Well, a winch would have to not just lift the rover, but then orient it vertically. You'd also needs something like the robotics mod to extend the winch out of the sides.. etc etc.

I've tried to make rovers that fit in 2.5m service bays, but I don't have anything satisfying. I'd instead want a 3.75m service bay, and a taller version of it. Then you have a vertically aligned cargospace , and you can use dockingports attached on the top of rovers.

Interestingly, there is a stock way to do this using fairings and interstage nodes... but once you jettison the fairing, you can't close it again (not really needed if you're not going to take it in an atmosphere).

Another alternative that I've seen fairly often on the forums also uses top mounted docking ports. You drive your rover directly under a lander with a downward facing docking port. Then you simply extend landing gear/legs to raise the rover and establish a docking connection and/or retract the landing legs/gear on the lander to lower it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Every design has to make compromises, I don't think that 2 prongs, radially attached engines, and 1 radially attached cockpit are such a huge compromise to make to enable the use of mk3 cargobays.

Yeah, topple the stack (Timber!), later erect it again using thrusters. It's about the easiest and most reliable solution available at present, but... did you just try to tell me that this is fine?

30 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Every design has to make compromises, I don't think that 2 prongs, radially attached engines, and 1 radially attached cockpit are such a huge compromise to make to enable the use of mk3 cargobays.

I think you did.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...