[1.12.1] JNSQ [0.10.0] [23 Sept 2021]

[Gordon Fecyk]

Halfway through filming on Laythe.

Spoiler

 

... what a trip so far. And this is just the first of five moons.

[Space Nerd]

16 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@Space Nerd Laythe is now the most massive of the Jool moons, and even then, it's not as massive as in stock, having lower gravity (which says a lot for Tylo).

I know that, but I imagine a duna sized moon (tylo) can still change the orbit by quite a lot. So both laythe and tylo can eject your craft?

(Or tylo can't anymore?)

6 hours ago, Gordon Fecyk said:

Halfway through filming on Laythe.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

... what a trip so far. And this is just the first of five moons.

Somehow the grey sky makes laythe look even cooler!

Edited June 9, 2020 by Space Nerd

[JadeOfMaar]

@Space Nerd JNSQ Tylo is only slightly wider than but slightly less dense than JNSQ Duna. Tylo's gravity is just 0.32 now. So as far as you can kick yourself with Duna...

[OhioBob]

6 hours ago, Space Nerd said:

I know that, but I imagine a duna sized moon (tylo) can still change the orbit by quite a lot. So both laythe and tylo can eject your craft?

(Or tylo can't anymore?)

We don't know.  What one can do in regard the gravity assists we've left up to the players to figure out.

(edit)  Of course it is going to depend on the circumstances.  If the spacecraft is already traveling at a high speed close to escape velocity, then surely Tylo would be able to give the extra kick needed to eject it from the system.  But if the spacecraft is traveling very slowly as it approaches Tylo, then it likely wouldn't get ejected.  So with the limited amount of information you've given, it is impossible to answer.  We would need to know the specific details of the encounter between moon and spacecraft to make a determination.
 

Quote

Somehow the grey sky makes laythe look even cooler!

We wanted our Laythe to look more dreary than the stock version.
 

Edited June 9, 2020 by OhioBob

[Space Nerd]

43 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

We don't know.  What one can do in regard the gravity assists we've left up to the players to figure out.

(edit)  Of course it is going to depend on the circumstances.  If the spacecraft is already traveling at a high speed close to escape velocity, then surely Tylo would be able to give the extra kick needed to eject it from the system.  But if the spacecraft is traveling very slowly as it approaches Tylo, then it likely wouldn't get ejected.  So with the limited amount of information you've give, it is impossible to answer.  We would need to know the specific details of the encounter between moon and spacecraft to make a determination.

As I said above, this is for a fan art, so I think I will still draw a craft saying "Curse you Tylo!", because I think it's still easy to have your orbit messed up by JNSQ Tylo.

[OhioBob]

@Space Nerd, I've been doing some math and, presuming I didn't mess up the calculations, it looks to me like Tylo is definitely capable of ejecting a spacecraft from Jool orbit given the right circumstances.

[Space Nerd]

On 11/11/2019 at 2:21 AM, OhioBob said:

Yep, I also did a launch from stock Eve for 7500 m/s.  And you're correct, that was vacuum Δv.  The 7000 m/s value for JNSQ is also vacuum.  I made a mistake when I typed sea level (I've since corrected it).

Sorry for a reply after quite a while, but my real question is why the dv to launch from JNSQ Eve is less than that of stock Eve despite JNSQ Eve has higher orbital velocity and thicker atmosphere?

(Lower gravity and shorter atmosphere?)

[OhioBob]

1 hour ago, Space Nerd said:

Sorry for a reply after quite a while, but my real question is why the dv to launch from JNSQ Eve is less than that of stock Eve despite JNSQ Eve has higher orbital velocity and thicker atmosphere?

(Lower gravity and shorter atmosphere?)

JNSQ Eve's atmosphere is only thicker than stock Eve's atmosphere at low altitudes.  Above about 5800 m, JNSQ Eve's atmospheric density is actually lower than stock Eve, and it is only 60 km high instead of 90 km.  Also stock Eve has a higher surface gravity (1.7 g vs. 1.4 g in JNSQ), so there are greater gravity losses in stock.

One extra note about my 7000 m/s number for JNSQ, that was for a nice streamlined rocket that I teleported into place.  I didn't actually land it on Eve.  Thus I didn't have to make something capable of entering Eve's atmosphere, landing, and being stable the entire time.  Something built to be capable of entry and landing may not be quite so aerodynamically friendly on ascent.  Therefore the delta-v could be higher.
 

Edited June 11, 2020 by OhioBob

[Gordon Fecyk]

23 hours ago, OhioBob said:

Something built to be capable of (Eve atmospheric) entry and landing may not be quite so aerodynamically friendly on ascent.

If it helps, the stock 10 m heat shield is just on the edge of tolerance for a JNSQ Eve atmospheric entry. And even then I only got back off the ground thanks to some Panther-like Explodium-breathing afterburners.

If @Space Nerd doesn't want to use Explodium jets or Breaking Ground prop craft, there are some lovely plateaus along the equator at 10 km altitude. Pressure there is just slightly higher than Kerbin sea level. Density is still pretty high; sea level rockets would work but air friction drag would be slightly worse.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Gordon Fecyk
'air friction?' Like I forgot about 'drag?'

[OOM]

Is my SMURFF optimally configured (0.13, where 1 is the real system, 0 is stock) for playing in x.2.7? I just want to make spare parts more confident, but still have big planets. Especially when you consider that I have a mod “Kerbal health”, which makes the ship a little heavier due to additional radiation protection

Edited June 13, 2020 by OOM

[OhioBob]

7 hours ago, OOM said:

Is my SMURFF optimally configured (0.13, where 1 is the real system, 0 is stock) for playing in x.2.7? I just want to make spare parts more confident, but still have big planets. Especially when you consider that I have a mod “Kerbal health”, which makes the ship a little heavier due to additional radiation protection

Our recommendation for JNSQ is to not use SMURFF at all.  The entire purpose of making JNSQ 1/4 real scale (~2.7x stock) is to make rockets built using unmodified stock parts look and perform more lifelike.  Modifying the parts with SMURFF defeats that purpose.  Of course you can play anyway you want (far be it from me to tell you how to have fun).  But I suggest you try JNSQ without SMURFF first to see how you like it before changing it.  Many players seem to believe that JNSQ is the "goldilocks zone" for planetary scale using stock parts.
 

Edited June 13, 2020 by OhioBob

[Cheesecake]

Does anyone know this issue? There are no landmasses to see in mapview.

KSP 1.8.1

[Gordon Fecyk]

Space Plane Paradise, or Purgatory?

Spoiler

 

JNSQ Exploration continues.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Gordon Fecyk
Re-upload for better audio

[davidy12]

Okay, I installed Scatterer, uninstalled it, and now KSC is floating above the ground. Anyone else having this problem?

EDIT: NVM, reset my terrain settings

Edited June 14, 2020 by davidy12

[sturmhauke]

That Medusa nuclear sail just seems so implausible. It is certainly very kerbal though. Yeah I know it's based on a real proposal, but I mean... lobbing nukes at a sail and hoping it won't break? Wut?

[Gordon Fecyk]

23 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

lobbing nukes at a sail and hoping it won't break?

The original Orion engine would have given me the same performance, but in the past I've found that the thrust of that thing fused docking ports together. That was back when the thrust was originally one pulse per second.

The Medusa version made more sense to pull rather than push, once I realized what it did. That worked around the smashed docking port problem, and the planned real-world design was supposed to use the sail as a dampening tool to even out the thrust.

Gameplay-wise, there was no way I could do a thorough enough series in a reasonable amount of real-world time without a boost.

[RocketRyleigh]

So I noticed this in the OP and just had a question in relation to RemoteTech:

Quote

When starting new saves under JNSQ, we advise that you enter Difficulty Settings and raise the DSN modifier to 4x. JNSQ applies a patch to increase antenna range by 4x, so leave the range modifier at 1 (changing it triggers a bug that may prevent science transmission).

How might this patch interact with RemoteTech's antenna range settings? In particular, the RangeMultiplier and the RangeModelType. The original advice for using RT's "Root" range model included changing the RangeMultiplier setting to 0.5 (halving the range), since the Root model effectively doubles antenna ranges.

I'd just like to end up with an equivalent kind of antenna range in JNSQ to using RT's Root model as it'd be balanced in a stock system with the RangeMultiplier halved as advised, but I'm not sure when or how exactly RT's range modifications are being applied compared to JNSQ's, so I'm not sure where to set my RT RangeMultiplier slider when using the Root model to account for JNSQ's 4x increase.

Edited June 16, 2020 by RocketRyleigh

[OhioBob]

1 hour ago, RocketRyleigh said:

How might this patch interact with RemoteTech's antenna range settings?

JNSQ's antenna config includes patches to RemoteTech, so I assume it's modified in a way that's consistent with our recommendations.  Unfortunately I don't know anything about RemoteTech, so I don't understand what the patches are doing.  Perhaps @JadeOfMaar can explain.

[RocketRyleigh]

Thanks for that info at least @OhioBob. I'm not surprised it's you who answered either you've always been so helpful on the forums (you helped me with something awhile ago, I think it was Realistic Atmospheres).

For the moment it sounds like my safest bet is to just leave RemoteTech's settings alone, which I don't mind at all. Although if @JadeOfMaar or any of you other indispensable KSP modders can give any insight on how JNSQ interacts with RT's Root range model or even it's own range multiplier setting, I'll definitely appreciate it, and think it's worth having that info available for anyone else using old mods like me lol.

[OhioBob]

@RocketRyleigh, below are JNSQ's RemoteTech changes.  Perhaps it will make some sense to you.  It looks to me like it's just multiplying all the antenna ranges by 4.

// RemoteTech
@PART:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleRTAntenna*]]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]:LAST[JNSQ]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleRTAntenna*]
	{
		@OmniRange *= 4
		@Mode1OmniRange *= 4
		@Mode1DishRange *= 4
		%JNSQ = True
	}
}

 

[RocketRyleigh]

3 hours ago, OhioBob said:

@RocketRyleigh, below are JNSQ's RemoteTech changes.  Perhaps it will make some sense to you.  It looks to me like it's just multiplying all the antenna ranges by 4.

I doubt it makes any more sense to me than you lol, but I appreciate you posting the patch for me. It also looks to me like it's multiplying everything by 4, but the part I think I need beyond that is how or if RemoteTech's RangeModelType is affecting JNSQ (since it affects the effective ranges of antennas), and I'd probably need to ask Team Galileo about that. I'm kinda starting to think it might just override RT's range settings, which is fine with me if they're being scaled to fit JNSQ anyways.

Thanks for your help in any case @OhioBob <3

[jimmymcgoochie]

Anyone know how to switch off asteroid spawns entirely? I don’t want them but they keep showing up and deleting the config (except for the part that should delete all previous spawn patterns) seems to have made it worse somehow.

[Space Nerd]

I'll just drop this one here:

[derega16]

Any one have a tip to aim for KSC for landing spaceplane?

[JadeOfMaar]

34 minutes ago, derega16 said:

Any one have a tip to aim for KSC for landing spaceplane?

I'm not much of an active pilot here but what I can suggest is to develop a pattern or strategy for reentry.

• First ensure that your spaceplane can hold its AoA and survive reentry then test your plane with different initial periapses (depending on how shallow or steep you prefer). Typically the safe limit of your dropped periapsis is 35km.
• Once you have that, take note of the relative longitudes of your craft when you deorbit; where you put your periapsis; where your periapsis moves to at the end of the reentry; the KSC.
• Once you meditate on this enough and repeat it a few times you'll be able to discern the best location (longitude) for your braking burn when the real reentries (as part of your missions) begin.
• Install airbrakes on your spaceplane, but don't have your stopping power centered on them. They should always be a reserve for when you need them. Also the stock one is most effective at 15 ~ 20km altitude where it can really grab the atmosphere, meanwhile, you're not moving so fast that they'll threaten to melt in seconds of opening.
• In the event that you catch yourself about to overshoot the KSC by a large amount, prepare to do S turns well in advance or dive down a bit and grab onto some of that extra drag potential to help you slow down. I typically take it as a very bad sign when I'm 100km from my target and closing in at Mach 5. While this is a bad thing at first, it's better to have excess momentum and overshoot than be short on momentum and have to spare dV for when you undershoot.

Be advised that variables in your craft design will require you to adjust your pattern a little or a lot. A very large plane can't use the same parameters as a very small one. A very stable spaceplane (its CoL very far back) can't use the same parameters as a very unstable or maneuverable spaceplane (its CoL very near its CoM). If you're not already the kind of player who deals with standardized crafts, and you have a unique design for every occasion, you're going to find yourself wanting to retire most of them in order to avoid developing this reentry pattern and remembering the parameters for all of them.