davidpsummers

So as I understand it.... If the batteries are below 95%, then having solar power doesn't help (except it charges the batteries faster). But if solar power can keep the batteries above 95%, then the fuel cell won't consume fuel.

If you have a mix of solar panels and fuel cells, will the fuel cells shut down when solar power is available? Or will they keep using fuel?

I had the Bug Fix Modules installed. I updated my installation to make sure I had the most recent. (Including the heating fixes) It sill exploded. So I'll use another part. - - - Updated - - - Yeah, but I'd rather not waste money carrying it to Eve. Especially since I want to hit a contract zone so I'm going to kill orbital velocity and drop straight down.

I am designing a small probe to parachute down onto Eve. The last stage has no fuel and I used an octagonal strut to attack a few panels, attenna, science, etc. But when I hit launch, the instant it settles down, the octagonal strut explodes due to "overheating"? Any advice? I could use an empty fuel tank as a structural part, but I want it to be as light as possible.

If you still have problems, check the icon that is labeled "debris". I've had ships accidentally get labelled debris.

Yes. They had become scrambled or something in docking with my space station and accidentally activated through staging. Then, when I hit the minimum pressure, the deployed. Fortunately, I see a "reset chute" commmand.

I was brining my craft home and, during reentry, the parachutes deploys (and were destroyed). I redid it to make sure I didn't accidentally hit the space bar. This happen to anyone else?

I had a ship blow up on the launch pad and the escape system fail. But the crew capsule ended up lying on the ground safe and sound though pure luck.

Thanks. So I used ~50 degrees on take off. TWR about 2-2.4. I was maybe 30 degrees at 11 km and raised my TWR to 3. I think I came up a bit too shallow. I was at 20 degrees at 25 km when I reached the desired apoapsis and cut the engiens. From the losses as I coasted up to 50km I think I lost ~50 m/s to drag from there. Maybe a bit more. OTOH, I made it up in less than the dV chart said. 1200 m/s vs. 1300 m/s. I was worried that my actually performance would relate to the theoretical value like it does on Kerbin, where I always need 30% extra, which would have made it tight and given little room for error. But clearly Duna isn't Kerbin. It's like all red and stuff.

One thing you can do for higher orbits... -Don't circularize in low orbit right away. On launch, keep burning the lower booster until you apoapsis is as high as you need it (say the orbit of the Mun or whatever) before you kick it off. You can even use it to raise your periapsis to 0 km (I actually will raised it <60 km, but if forget if I check to make sure the game remembers to let it burn up) before kicking it off. -Even if you have circularized in LKO, you can use it to raise the apoapsis for a higher orbit. Then just wait until you get to the apoapsis for the new orbit. A relatively small burn (assuming the new apo is high enough) will drop the peri to let you kick off the booster, and then you just do another small burn right away to raise it back up again (or, more likely, circularize). This doesn't help very early in career, but in "early-mid" career, when you have probe cores you can put in the middle of the stack, you can leave a probe core, 4 solar panels, and a little bit of fuel, and then let it deorbit itself.

I have Jeb on the surface of Duna. (Yeah!) The possible fly in the ointment is that fuel is tight. He has 1788 m/s and the listed requirement is 1300 m/s. So one is keen to be as efficient as possible doing this. Any orbit is fine (the oribiter can come get him) so I just need to get above 50km. So what is the most efficient acsent? I'm landed at 3,500 km altitude. That is about the same as ~9,000 km on Kerbin? So I should pitch over something just under 45 degrees on launch? I'm also thinking that since I don't have any velocity at that point, compared to the same pressure on Kerbin, I should have a higher thrust? Maybe a TWR off 2? Then as usual, I just pitch over a bit more as I get higher, get my apoapsis high enough, and circularize?

I think the thing is to treat the effect as an "all other things being equal" kinda thing. For example, my ion engine probes all leave from 1000 km orbit. The burns are long and that lets you not swing around too much of an orbit during the burn (and also helps you avoid having to try and do you burn on the dark side of the planet.)

Addressing this question (is it better to establish a low orbit and raise it or go right for the higher orbit), I would say that, absent the Oberth effect, it doesn't matter. Each orbit has an energy associated with the sum of the kinetic energy (dV) and potential energy (altitude). As long as the efficiency you convert fuel to kinetic energy (and hence also to potential energy) is the same, it shouldn't matter? Now the Oberth effect can mean the efficiency of converting fuel to kinetic energy varies. I think the main difference is that when you circularize your higher orbit (where your speed will be the lowest, and you have the least Oberth effect), you will have less dV to get if you periapsis is higher. That will be if you have already achieved a lower orbit. But for the orbits we are talking about, I don't think that is a big difference?

I may also try moving the wings higher up on the craft. If its COM/COL balance when pitched up, that should help?

Well, pitching the thing in the SPH say the COM and the COL get close. But don't switch? The wings are mounted low, maybe move them higher? I was thinking about more control sufaces, but wonder if I wasn't try to solve a fundamental design problem with brute force at he expense of drag. I'll try adding some. (Whats a good step up from the AV-R8? As far as I can tell, nothing else pivots like it does?)

I did check the center of thrust and made sure it was through the COM. I did a flight where I checked the fuel in the tanks when this happened. I then went to the SPH and adjusted the fuel distribution to be as close as possible. The COM was still ahead of the COL. I didn't check it at different pitch. I can see how that would bring them closer, but not how it would reverse them? But I'll check it out and get back to you. I have to run through where the fuel distribution was at the time.

I am tweaking my big SSTO. I've got a working design and I'm trying to improve performance. In my latest iteration (picture below), I have run into a problem. At some point it will start pitching up and I can't stop it. Any help?

Thanks guys!

I end up calculating it myself. I made up a simple spread sheet. Since Oxidizer and Fuel are often mis matched on space planes, it calculations which on is in exesss and counts it as cargo.... https://www.dropbox.com/s/8m8ltvl54pbr0ms/Space%20Plane.xlsx?dl=0

I have a contract to put a space station around Minmus. I already ahve a little one that doesn't match the requirements for the contract. If I add to it, will I get credit?

Yes indeed. You have to be focused on the sun.

I have a contract to put a satelite in solar orbit. I'm on an escape trajectory out of Kerbin and I look to see how the escape will correspond to the orbit, and I can't find it! It doesn't appear either in map view or in the tracking station. Any help? Also, as I recall, you are suppose to be able to click on the icons that appear at top and hide types of missions (probes, landers, manned, etc.) from the map view? I try that and nothing happens.

The difficulty in clicking on an orbit, between the ship and an existing planetary encounter, to set up an maneuver mode. Pretty much everytime I end up getting the orbit after the encounter...

I do, while waiting for a window, run any other missions I have planned. I don't run missions just because I'm waiting for the window. I also tend to have a day or two (minimum) pass between missions of any sort.

I guess List of places and biomes in KSP in wrong? Why didn't my warp drop to 1 when I hit the atmosphere?