WanderingKid
-
Posts
493 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by WanderingKid
-
-
Which I was. I restored an older save and did the same maneuver to the same general height (4,500 m Periapsis), and absolutely no problems. Very weird, but apparently not one I can recreate, not with/without warp, not with ship positioning, and not with swapping ships mid-landing pattern (something I had done before). I dunno.
-
2 hours ago, LordFerret said:
I would go with that.
Have you looked into the log to see the order in which your craft went poof? That could tell you something.
The log appears to have overwritten with a launch of a new game cycle, so while that was a great idea, I appear to have lost my chance to do so.
-
5,200 m. I was on a landing orbit, sorry, typo. Yes, it's possible to find mountains at that height but usually it's polar or near crater rims. However, I must stress: I saw nothing to hit. Nada. Didn't even clip something and take the engine off the bottom. Just 'WHUMPH', dere it went, like I had forgotten to brake during landing.
-
So, anyone else impacted Mun without actually hitting anything? I was strolling into a landing vector at
~5,200k5,200 m at 10x warp on equator, enjoying watching the moonscape go by, and suddenly I detonated. F3 shows I impacted Mun. According to my Mark 1 eyeballs, no such thing occurred, though there was a possible problem on the horizon... which was supposed to be after my braking maneuver.Anyone else have this occur to them?
-
Pics + Craft file would help tremendously here.
-
1 hour ago, Jashin said:
Ah got it! My tracking station was still level 1 (the grind is real when you have to unlock parts with science + funds) so that's why my relay wasn't working as expected.
I followed your advice and set up intermediary relays and now it's all good. Thanks for your help!
I'm glad it helped, but I just want to make sure you're clear. the DSN on the ground isn't the problem directly. The problem is that communications can only reach the square root of the two antenna's reach. So, the range of the MG-5 is 5,000,000, the range of the Comm-16 is 500,000. See http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/CommNet for details. The square root of these is 1,581,138 (and change) in meters. That's how close those two probes need to be to be able to communicate.
The DSN on the ground is a monster. It starts at 2G, which is 2000M, or 2,000,000k. It's huge. Even at .25 you're looking at 500M. For an MG-5, as long as it's in sqrt(500,000,000 * 5,000,000) = 50with direct line of sight, you're fine. Plenty for Mun, you're stretching for Minmus. I think you just miss.
Now, for Kerbin, the Keo orbit is 2 863.35 km, which is around where you are. If you want your probes with a single Comm-16 to reach them, you'll want to outfit your keosynchronous satellites with 2 MG-5's. That gets you to 2.3 million (roughly). From there, you equip your probes with a pair of Comm-16s, which gets you to 3.16 million, and they can all chat.
The reason I recommend setting up a tripod of satellites at ~600k is they should be able to stay in touch with each other and cover any probe in LKO as well, as a pair of MG-5's communicate at 5,000,000m and that's well within tolerance. They can just spin around Kerbin up there without worrying about which one is in contact with the ground.
-
What antenna do you have on the probe you're hoping to talk to the probe with the HG-5, and what level have you upgraded the tracking station to (that's mostly curiosity)?
Short form: The range is not 5million meters from the HG-5, it's a combination of two antennas. Your Hermes satellite is at 2.7m range. The average combination of an HG-5 relay and a Comm-16 antenna is ~1.5m. Your antenna is way too high. You want 3 of them ~500-600km up in my experience for the early comm net.
-
5 hours ago, Kerbal101 said:
@WanderingKid I am not saying that your aircraft is bad, or incorrect, or how you should proceed or anything like that. I am just stating what happens and why it happens and why "me" don't perceive it to be acceptable - but its me.
You said that its career aircraft and its SSTO - if you manage to get orbit with this type of tech, you should apply for KSP Caveman Challenge
Ack, was I coming off defensively? Sorry, that wasn't the intent. I was trying to be helpful, actually, not realizing what you were showing me.
I'm still waiting to open Tier 5 aero to try the Wheesley out, I've run into a part count problem on the 0.3 and I'm waiting for the FL-T800 and stronger low-altitude engines to cut down the part count, so I'm not sure I get to the caveman challenges, but I'll have to look into it some day.
-
I have abused KER, but I've never used MechJeb. Takes too much of the game out of the game for me.
-
@Kerbal101 Wow, ouch. If you watch closely at the end you don't come down on your rear wheels though, you come down on the front one, which pivots the back down a lot harder. That pivoting definitely overtaxes the wheels. My biggest problem so far has been the braking. Even at 200% it's weak.
-
I'm sorry, I can't answer your questions directly, but I can try to help with what you're aiming for:
Rough Guide for weights (best to worst case) when you're in the hangar:
A Class (2.1-9.5 tons): FL-T400 to a RockoMax X200
B Class (9.5 - 42.5): X200 to a Kerbo S3-7200
C Class (42.5 - 190): Kerbodyne S3-7200 to 2xS3-14400
D Class (190 - 854): 2xS3-14400 to Kerbin-Eve Round Trip direct flight ship.
E Class (854 - 3828): Bring mining equipment and prepare for very slow adjustments.
Interception of the Asteroid isn't usually too bad. From LKO (Low Kerbal Orbit) for a deep space rondevous (my preferred method) you'll typically spend 1000 or so d/v to get out of Kerbal SOI, another 500 or so in adjustments for the rendezvous, and between 2000-3500 on the intercept. You can save some d/v if you can launch on the right plane for reversing the intercept to approach it in deep space.
Once you've got the asteroid, it's a matter of where do you want to put the asteroid? Adjusting the asteroid's course for Kerbal intercept isn't usually too bad. Anywhere from 50-300 d/v in my experience, depending on how outrageously you're changing it. Obviously you can get excessive but I usually just pick a different asteroid if that's the case. From there, if you're trying for LKO in the 75k range, I recommend you build with the idea of your ship hiding behind the asteroid for an aerobrake. If you're just needing to get it into any orbit aim for the outer edge of SOI and brake way out there, it'll save you a ton and you won't care if you're pro or retrograde or even on an equatorial orbit. It all depends on where you want it when you're done.
-
53 minutes ago, Kerbal101 said:
Then later in the video you landed at less than 2m/s vertical speed and less than 60m/s horizontal speed, which is impossible without KER and is not a normal type of landing.
It's not impossible. I just loaded it up and goofed off with it a bunch of times landing from 70-100 m/s horizontals. Also speed checked it on the ground and the wheels are perfectly happy rolling at 150 m/s+. It's all about watching the downward speed next to the altimeter. Use gentle controls (usually CAPS LOCK) and it's easier to control nose pitch. Anything under 5 kph downward I was fine with.
Now, was I perfect? Hells no. I'd say I'd get 7/10 landings down without an issue at full tanks. A pilot ejection system for when I unicycle the plane by blowing off the back wheels would be a significant safety improvement. The wheels could use some adjustment but I'm not finding them outrageous, however.
I DO however agree that they need a description adjustment for max expected weight, and perhaps additional adjustments explaining what spring strength and dampers are supposed to do for those of us who are uninitiated.
-
To clarify, are you trying to know how to make a spaceplane, or how to make a very specific plane that can go orbital?
Spaceplanes are poorly lingo'd around here as SSTO's, and there's a ton of viable videos out there about them, from building them to some of Thrimm's low tech designs that he's shown off. I recommend you poke around YouTube, there's tons of videos on it. I'd point you at some of mine but none are valid in the new Aerodynamics. Anything from 1.1.2 or further should be overall useful to you, though some minor details may change.
Mark Thrimm though is very good. Find one of his vids here:
-
On a side note, one of the best mining/refueling stations I've built so far wasn't a Minmus/Mun operation, but drilling the devil out of Class E asteroids in LKO so I could get empty tank deep space vessels to orbit on a budget. One of these days I'll actually MAKE that video... XD
-
Sadly I put the wrong video up, was supposed to be edited, I posted the raw, sorry about some of the time wasting. *facepalm* Fixing that now for future readers, however.
Either or:
5 minutes ago, Kerbal101 said:In this video you show that wheels fragment rightaway unless Spring Strength is increased past 1.4, which does not relate to my response.
"Spring Strength" indeed increases the distance the wheel spring can travel (visually) and increased the amount of weight wheel can carry - including the weight*speed on landing.
By increasing the "Spring Strength" you've boosted the maximum weight by just enough for the wheels not to collapse just standing.However to decrease bounciness - "Damper Strength" setting is used, higher value (move to the right) causes less bounciness.
I think we are saying the same thing here.We are. I don't typically play with Damper strength, however, so part of the confuzzlement for is my lack of playing with all the toys. By increasing spring strength without mucking with the damper, I get a bit bouncy.
6 minutes ago, Kerbal101 said:Then later in the video you landed at less than 2m/s vertical speed and less than 60m/s horizontal speed, which is impossible without KER and is not a normal type of landing.
It falls very well in the category ofWhat happens by such extra-accurate landing, is that "crashTolerance" is not exceeded.
You can unload your plane from nearly all fuel to get near 8t value (which mine had) and then try the regular landing (deactivate KER stats) and you'll still be crash(crushing?) LY-01 (and never LY-05) 95% of the time, because that would behavior would constantly lead to exceed of "crashTolerance" value.
I hadn't read your post on fixing the description of the LY-01 yet, so I'm playing catchup there. While I agree that KER allows me to rather accurate with my shallow and light descents, I'll have to play with it a bit with that shut off. I've gotten in the habit of using the readouts during orbital descents, so I don't think twice about them anymore. However, that'll have to wait until later when I'm not taking a few minutes out of work and can actually play with it for a bit.
-
@Kerbal101 From the other thread:
QuoteActually, I will gladly hijack this thread, because
OP does not respond to my question regarding part of his mission.Your call, I won't.
QuoteThanks for providing the craft, I have just tested it in 1.2 (unmodded) and
wheels reliably blow up, like they should.Mods: KER, DPAI, KAC, Chatterer, Blizzy Toolbar, and Ambient Light. None of these will adjust raw files.
QuoteConsider upgrading to next-size landing wheel, which has double impact and stress tolerances of LY-01 ($KSP/GameData/Squad/Parts/Wheel/LandingGear/GearSmall.cfg).
Career Mode, don't have the tech yet.
2 hours ago, Kerbal101 said:More than 6 tonnes (3t/wheel)
My initial problematic craft had 7.7t weight.As to the viability of the wheels, I have no problems, though you cannot be rough with them, and I agree that if you don't adjust spring strength the wheels will blow off. At the beginning of the following video, I show you what I'm talking about, where 1.35 spring strength can handle the weight, 1.0 cannot.
Afterwards, I take it for a very short flight and land without burning off almost any of my fuel and proceed to land it. You have to come in gentle, but it works fine. The brakes well and truly suck though for overweight craft.
Edit: Apologies, the entire 'need a new kerbal' bit was supposed to have been edited out and the loop to landing was sped up. I must have exported the raw instead of the edited version. Whoops. I've corrected the video.
-
5 hours ago, Aegolius13 said:
Do you mean the node with respect to Kerbin or Moho? On the former, you should be able to do it anywhere from an equitorial orbit. On the latter, I usually don't try to hit the node exactly, just within a day or so. And I guess you could do the first burn 2 days before the node, then get an orbital period of 2 days.
I meant with respect to Kerbin for the angle you want to leave at for arriving at moho, and it depends on how much change you're trying to get in a single adjustment or if you've gone off-kilter and still need to adjust. I was thinking aloud and to explain what I meant if it's not making sense would require pictures and much unnecessary typing.
-
23 minutes ago, Kerbal101 said:
Can you please provide your design? "Springiness" is unrelated to bounciness.
Not in my experience, I've taken my designs on a few longer range trips for some observations. As I mentioned, I don't intend to hijack the thread, so I'm going to move this conversation, and the associated craft, over to the Spacecraft Exchange forum. You'll find it here:
-
Below find the SSTO 0.3 which I'm putting up on request from another thread. The craft is 30 parts, 13.325 tons, and doesn't get to space, I know. That's not why it's here.
The primary concern in this craft is the LY-01 fixed landing gear and their tendency to kaboom, which I fixed using spring strength in the 1.35 range. 1.25-1.3 was a bit iffy on spawn due to the landing gear occasionally nuking themselves when it bounced a bit on spawn up.
Craft File: https://www.dropbox.com/s/aejmqly904hfg66/SSTO 0_3.craft?dl=0
-
In general, yes. If you're going to burn normal/anti-normal, you want to be doing it at the slowest part of your journey, which means getting your ascending/descending node onto your Apoapsis and doing your burn there. However, under most circumstances, if your an/dn is NOT on the apoapsis, you're going to have to burn off point.
On a side note, a trick you can use to get your inclination straight(er) on liftoff is to watch the Prograde route of Kerbin and liftoff a little before you get to it with the inclination you're going to need for your very near future burn. Obviously this doesn't work if you're launching a month or two ahead of schedule, but if you're lifting off and leaving in a day or two once you ferry up fuel and cargo, this can save you a massive amount of d/v by already being ready to plane transfer.
-
15 hours ago, Kerbal101 said:
@Dr Turtlestein Hello. I noticed you have build basic plane in your gallery "Bonus picture: First airplane design" built with YT-01 Fixed Landing Gear.
Have you managed landing your airplane anywhere, except runway, without these wheels blowing off? I mean this seriously. Thank you!
Not to hijack the thread but they work, I can grassland land with them. I have to up the springiness though to ~1.25-1.35 to keep them from detonating on impact/spawn. Makes it bouncy to land, but they don't kaboom.
@OP: Congratulations! Welcome to our humble insanity. Stay for the cake. Jeb made it. On Moho, so it's a bit flat, but he made it!
-
I would say that 1.2 and the Unity corrections handled a lot of issues. There's minor items, but it's very stable.
This is how I'd hoped the 1.0 release would be. It's finally sound enough that I'm getting back to enjoying KSP since 0.90.0 because I'm not frustrated by a thousand different things at once... like wandering orbits and bouncing wheels.
-
2 hours ago, Der Anfang said:
Yes. I had Fraps for a little bit. Although, I was really confused, as I couldn't seem to get any of my recordings beyond 30 seconds each. Is that a non-premium feature where you're supposed to buy it if you want longer recordings?
Yes, also removes the watermark (if it still has that).
-
So in my career game, as usual, I'm holding off on upgrades as long as possible because I hate running grind missions for cash and later missions are worth more. This makes me incredibly selective as to what, and when, I upgrade.
Because of that, I've gotten reasonably handy at free return missions for Mun flyby's with tourists and the like. You can even pull off some stunts like doing a really really high orbit for cheap then pushing it back out to where you started if you've got 3-400 d/v left over when you slip past.
However, I find myself wanting some low orbit science, so my little science visitor, quicksave, and myself decided to play some Munar chicken. I figured I'd share for those who'd like to know.
Some caveats: This was done by hand, no conics, from a roughly circular orbit at 70.3k above Kerbin. Burns are pure prograde burns starting at Munar rise, which means there's some slight variance as to when I got the time warp back to zero. Thus, YMMV, but this should give some rough help for those interested:
10 million: ~2.1kk
- ~23k Peri (Escape to Kerbin)11 million: ~135k
- ~18kk apo, ~4.8kk peri11.08 million: 30-55k Peri
- ~25.4 - 30kk apo, ~6.7- 7.4kk Peri (lower you go higher these get)11.1 - 11.9 million: Welcome to Mun
- You're not coming home.11.95 million: ~40k retro
- ~7.5kk Peri12 million: ~80k retro
- ~7kk Peri12.5 million: ~535k retro
- ~1.5kk Peri13 million: ~950k retro
- ~415k Peri13.5 million: ~1.3kk retro
- ~77k Peri14.0 million: ~1.5kk retro
- Landing on KerbinBecause of this, For a low orbit flyby I've found that the best general method is to aim for the 11.08 million line and get retro'd out into deep Kerbin orbit. At the high apoapsis drop periapsis down to your typical 30-35k re-entry height (bring a heat shield) and head home. MET goes way up (9 - 12 days) but it's efficient, as it only takes around 150 d/v to get yourself back to re-entry. Just watch out for heat.
Comm Sat Minimum Orbits
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted · Edited by WanderingKid
The math is bad, don't know why. Yet.
EDIT: THIS MATH IS WRONG. I don't know what's inaccurate in my math, but it's outright wrong. I can't even get 500km satellites to work in a triangle and talk to each other. I'll work on it when I get some time but if someone beats on this and figures out where I made the mistake, please let me know.
So I spent a bit trying to get myself figured out on what is the minimum altitude for a triangular comm sat system on Kerbin and sat down with all the math I needed. Attempting to do that I realized I needed a picture. While I was at it, I figured I'd make it pretty so I could share it.
A LKO Comm Sat network needs to roll at a minimum of 281 km orbital height. Punch this up to 350k and you should be golden. If you're not concerned with atmospheric distortion, anything above 200km will work.
The outer network (assuming MG-5s), to stay in comms with each other, can fly at most 3,799 km orbital height with 1 MG-5, 7,598 km with dual MG-5's. This isn't to say they can't reach Kerbin with that giant ground based DSN, but to be able to relay to each other.
Hope this helps.
Edit: Almost forgot to add the actual final equation if you need it for another body. Rp is the Radius of the Planet you're orbiting, Ra is the Radius of the planet + atmosphere (Ie: Kerbin is 600km radius, + 70km of atmo, so Rp = 600 and Ra = 670), Rs is the satellite's final orbital height. Can't get the radical sign to show up so SqRt(3) is the square root of 3.
Rs = SqRt( ( (Ra * SqRt(3)) ^2 * SqRt(3)) /3 ) - Rp
For Max Network intercommunication, the equation is (Max Comm Distance = Mc)
Rs = SqRt( ( Mc^2 * SqRt(3)) /3) - Rp