Jump to content

Jasel

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    53

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Jasel

    Telescopes

    in KSP1 Mods Discussions

    Posted

    Are there any working telescope mods that anyone knows of?  I know Tarsier used to have one that was OK but I'm pretty sure it doesn't work, or at least the forums post about it seems dated.  I'd like to build a Kubble, or James Kebb telescope that actually functions (for asteroids, planets, moons).  Even having a ground based one would be cool.

    Thanks for any help!

    Tried returning to the game

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Snark said:

    Moving to Gameplay Questions.

    @Jasel, other than the excellent advice already offered, a few general design tips to bear in mind about the new aerodynamics:

    First, it matters where your CoM is.  You want your CoM to be as far forward as possible.  A rocket with a CoM in the back will be very prone to flipping and there's not much you can do about it.

    One good way to put your CoM where you want it is to ensure that bottom tanks drain first, which moves the CoM upwards as you burn.  You can accomplish this by ensuring that "advanced tweakables" is turned on in the game options, then you can use the fuel-flow priority setting on the tanks to control drainage.  Just click on the +1 for the bottom tank and you're good to go.

    Similarly:  put fins on the back.  You want them as far as possible behind the CoM, because their effectiveness is directly proportional to their lever arm.

    Streamlining matters now.  You want long, skinny rockets, not pancakes.  And make sure that the front ends of things are pointy, not flat-- nosecones and fairings are your friends.

    It's better to fly a lot faster now than before.  Efficient rocket launch is a balancing act between "minimize gravity loss" (which wants you to go faster) and "minimize aerodynamic loss" (which wants you to go slower).  With the new aero in KSP 1.0-and-after, the pendulum has swung hard towards "minimize gravity loss".  For any reasonably streamlined rocket, gravity losses are much bigger than aerodynamic losses, so for the most part it's in your interest to burn pretty hard.  Pre-1.0, for example, I generally launched with a TWR of 1.3 to 1.5, but now I go for around 2.0.

    Follow a gravity curve.  For example, when I launch at TWR 2.0, I start the gravity turn right off the pad (about 10 degrees or so eastwards) and then just follow :prograde: burning like hell until my Ap gets where it needs to be.  Note:  you'll see a lot of scary-looking flames as you ascend.  Ignore them.  They're harmless and bear no relation to aerodynamic drag.

    Orientation to airflow matters now.  I note that your craft is facing the default direction (north), meaning that when you do your gravity turn eastwards, you're going to be yawing right rather than pitching down.  With your big SRBs on the left and right sides of the craft, it means those two big SRBs are going to be experiencing asymmetric aero forces (the one on the left and the one on the right don't get the same airflow), which can make aerodynamic stability trickier.  I'd recommend either rotating your craft so that it faces eastwards on the pad, or (if you really prefer it in this orientation because you're used to yawing rather than pitching), move the SRBs 90 degrees so they're on the north-and-south sides of the craft rather than east-and-west.

     

    This one's a red herring, for a couple of reasons:

    • The CoL indicator in the VAB is notoriously unreliable; the displayed position is virtually meaningless.  It can be useful in the SPH, but not the VAB.  Best to just ignore it.
    • In general:  "CoL behind CoM" is a seriously misunderstood mantra, even in the SPH; it does not equate to stability.  Is it good to be behind the CoM?  Sure, for an airplane.  But it's not even vaguely sufficient for aerodynamic stability because it's not the thing that actually matters.  So, I'm not saying ignore it... but it's not as valuable as people often think.

     

    Thanks @Snark!  I last played before full release so nose cones just made things look pretty in that atmosphere.  There's a ton of useful advice that makes a  lot of sense here and I appreciate it.  I'm excited to see what I can build now!

    Tried returning to the game

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    I appreciate the replies @Jas0n and @The Aziz!!!  I'm cool with all of that.  I even tried mechjeb and he couldn't help but flip also.  What about aerodynamics?  Wings, weight /aerodynamics / thrust distribution?

    It is unnervingly frustrating that I can't get a simple rocket that I used to fly all the time, and even mechjeb can't put it into orbit, so I'm really hoping to get help.  Here is my simple stupid rocket:

    9fuAMgb5G-sv6BilD4pjxc2-T76aVPvsP8ec59sz

    Tried returning to the game

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    Hey all!  It's been a long while.  Maybe since v 1.0?  Probably since asteroids were introduced.  I used to play the ever living crap out of Kerbal and now it feels like I don't even know which end of the rocket I should point mostly up.  It seems the atmosphere is holy crap unforgiving and I can't even make orbit which is insanely frustrating since I used to do it blind folded...well...not really...  Did they make it so making a rocket is just as hard as making a space plane?  What am I missing?

    Hoping some vets will know where I'm coming from and send some tips my way.  I tried watching some vids and they just say to keep pointing prograde, but my rockets don't seem to want to.  This is career mode BTW.  Basic rocket stuff to work with.

    where should there be a space mission to

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    I'd like to nip the whole ET life thing in the but so I vote: Enceladus - DLR has created something called the ICE MOLE which can burrow through the moons frozen crust. A few days of burrowing and boom alien space whales. You can see video's on VIMEO about it if you speak Deutsch.

    RTG powered lander + 1-2 billion = micro life

    How do you transport your rover?

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted · Edited by Jasel

    I have a small rover I made using the stock rover body. My plan was to attach it to the bottom of my lander using a mini-docking port. However, I created my rover in the SPH, an made it a sub assembly.

    I then created the lander, put a docking port on the bottom and grabbed by rover out of the sub assembly where the mini-docking port doesn't have a green connector orb, just has one on the bottom of the rover for some reason.

    I don't mind using KAS, or making something with a drawbridge/garage door opener, I just don't know how to do those kind of things.

    Space Engine

    in The Lounge

    Posted

    It seems cool, but without "challenges" it seems to be a very, very, good looking Eye of the Solar System. I think I would label this "game" as Space Pron. Especially with that sound track. :cool:

    Space Engine

    in The Lounge

    Posted

    Anybody hear or play this game yet?

    SpaceEngine: a free space simulation program that lets you explore the universe in three dimensions, from planet Earth to the most distant galaxies. Areas of the known universe are represented using actual astronomical data, while regions uncharted by astronomy are generated procedurally. Millions of galaxies, trillions of stars, countless planets - all available for exploration. You can land any planet, moon or asteroid and watch alien landscapes and celestial phenomena. You can even pilot starships and atmospheric shuttles.

    Two differents ships, same techniques, not same results (Making a circular orbit)

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    Just some quick beginner tips I learned from the Scott Manley School of Exploding Rockets:

    -You should start your turn when all of these are hit: 10K, with 15K app, going at 200m/s

    -Look up Kerbins terminal velocities...should be a wiki page with them on it. Try not to go over too much. You can adjust the amount of thrust on your solid rockets by right clicking them. Essentially, don't go above 230 (i think) until 10K

    -Your turn should should be 45 degrees

    MechJeb

    There might be some issues with the rockets you're using vs the amount of fuel you are trying to push up into space soooo -

    -If your going to use MechJeb for anything, use it to view your DeltaV. How you use it is personal preference and how you feel it helps, or over-helps. That is your stance and no one elses. (I feel since all manned flights into space are computer controlled, it's ok to use MechJeb; that said I still started out doing everything manual just so I learned).

    -Lastly - Use MECHJEB FOR DELTAV

    Gravity Assist - Does Altitude matter?

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    I've read through everybody's comments (thank you all very much), and will try and summarize to my specific question: Does altitude matter when performing a gravity assist.

    Altitude does seem to matter, however it is not needed as long as you enter and exit at the correct angles. If your going for skipping off the atmosphere, you'll need a pretty good wingspan. From Meysts post, the altitude seems to be the same as aero-braking.

    I saw the Wiki page NorthStar but it's blocked from my current location...I will try and give it a read when I get home.

    [Showcase] show of your space pictures!!

    in The Lounge

    Posted · Edited by Jasel

    they are satellite trails. the trail is not continuous throughout the shot since it is the sunlight being reflected from the solar panels down to earth. As the angle of the panels changes towards the earth by the movement of the satellite the trail can be longer or shorter. Satellite trails can be a real pain for deep space astrophotography. google iridium flares

    Satellites move across the sky in straight lines, and even with flaring, no movement would be seen. Here is an image i took of an iridium flare (along with some terrible lens flaring and another satellite moving in the opposite direction of the flaring one):

    20130803_Mohican_MW_Sats_Fail.jpg

    [Showcase] show of your space pictures!!

    in The Lounge

    Posted

    does anybody know what these lines are?? i've captured 2 so far and i'm pretty sure that they aren't planes or meteorites, because at the end of their trail they got a weird curve. i've already checked my lens on scratches but there doesn't seem to be any. the lines didn't appear between the 2 shots either, so i don't think it has something to do with my camera.

    any ideas?

    http://i.imgur.com/SYENuer.jpg?1

    http://i.imgur.com/7ezH9U5.png?1?8138

    I've seen this before. So you probably had a 20-25 second exposure going here, so that rules our meteorites or anything traveling in from space as these objects are going waaaay to slow. They would have taken up a lot more of your shot at these focal lengths.

    Most of the time these end up being Chinese Lanterns so that's what I would put my money on here.

    [Showcase] show of your space pictures!!

    in The Lounge

    Posted

    After reading this thread I have been inspired to dig out my telescope and get a shot of mars tonight as its at opposition (well it was a few days ago i think). Fortunatley where I live in the UK seems to be the only part in the whole country that has lear skies.

    Opposition was last night, but Mars will be at its closest to Earth on Tuesday. I can't wait to see what you get!

×
×
  • Create New...