Brainlord Mesomorph

What? and that sounds like a cheat. She's already in orbit. and those things are expensive and expensive to loft (I'm in career mode) I have another design with fewer engines. And what about my idea of one burn across more than one node? I really think that solves the problem.

OK, OK, OK…. I think I get this now. To recap: it’s not a 4000 m/s burn it’s a 2000m/s burn. But the problem remains that my ship is big and slow and it takes half an hour to execute the burn and by ship is well off course by the time the burn is complete. In the real world, NASA would execute a series of perigee burns lengthening the orbit in exactly the right direction until a final escape burn. But I don’t have a team of Kerbals with slide rules to figure that out for me. Another way of looking at the problem would be to say that the KSP navigation system is flawed. (please no flame, I mean no disrespect, I love this game!) But their system assumes that you have speed “A†until you reach the node and then have speed “B†immediately after. It makes no allowance for the length of the burn. Indeed that’s part of the game, guessing when to begin and end the burn. (I would assume NASA’s nav system tells you when to begin and end your burn) But what if you were to break the burn up into several pieces? Or to say that another way; plot one burn across several nodes. Here’s what I mean: I wait until my launch window, I plot one burn from LKO to Moho (or Jool) it’s a 2000m/s burn. But then I *reduce it* to 1000 m/s. That’s a 15 minute burn. Whatever orbit that is doesn't matter. I can start the burn at 7 minutes before the node, end 8 minutes after the node. And then 15 minutes after the first burn and I have plotted a second burn to Moho, this should only be 1000 m/s burn (right?), and would start immediately after the first ends. It’s basically the same thing, but the track in the NAV System is much closer to what the ship is capable of. Which should keep me from falling backwards into Kerbin orbit. Or maybe its four 500 m/s burns plotted 8 minutes apart. It’s all really the same thing, but it lets me plot a course the ship can actually achieve. Because that’s really the problem, the Nav System is writing checks that the engines can’t cash. I assume guys using Xenon have the same problem. Does this make any sense?!

OK, my bad. I had gone to this web page, http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ to calculate my launch window and I misread the webpage. At the bottom there is a figure for total delta V, but that of course includes the orbital insertion burn when you get there. That’s why I was thinking that I needed a 4 km/s burn, Its actually two 2 km/s burns. Secondly, it’s taken me a lot of armchair physics to realize that you *are* getting a gravity assist from Kerbin when you launch from Kerbin orbit. If you were flying straight away from the planet (Star Trek style) that wouldn’t be the case, but we’re not, we’re doing a prograde burn around the planet, so yes the gravity of the planet is helping. And I’m glad I started this conversation, now it looks like I will need a “departure orbit†but that will be a highly eccentric orbit achieved by a series of perigee burns. The question becomes which direction it should be eccentric in, and I think I have an answer for that. First I should plot a direct transfer orbit from LKO to Moho (or later Jool) even though I won’t be able to do that in one burn. That should be the point for my repetitive perigee burns, right? (that should make the eccentric in the right direction) Than after I’ve achieved the eccentric orbit re-plot the transfer orbit, which should start just about at perigee, right?

I got very tired of all of my ships arriving where they were going without enough fuel to get back. So I'm going big. You want to screen shots and mission parameters, OK. This is an “Interplanetary Service Module: Model 4 /Nuclear†with extra fuel, carrying a 30 ton “Gamma 1B†lander with extra fuel. It is designated “Moho Rescue One†(seriously, in this game of more than half the ships we make are rescue ships) it supposed to go to Moho to rescue Bob Kerman, who flew a similar ship there, with half as much fuel, and is now out of gas. It weighs 150 tons, carries 12,000 units of fuel, and gets about 1 m/s per unit of fuel. That gets better as it drops empty tanks. If that’s slightly overkill for the mission that’s good, because that will establish that the ISM4/n is the perfect vehicle for carrying payloads like 50 tons of science to Jool and still having enough fuel for Ops and a return flight. Which are the parameters my upcoming Joolian Exploratory Fleet. But upon further consideration I’ve decided to (cue the Frank Sinatra music) to do it my way. I might only be saving 100 m/s with the Oberth maneuver, but there’s no downside to it. And lobbing all the ships into solar orbit gives me much more time to plot their interplanetary burns, to space them hours apart, and to make sure nothing overlaps. (in terms of dispatching a fleet). Not to mention, a 150 ton spaceship flying at 2 kilometers per second less than a kilometer over the surface of the Mun is very exciting! BTW: I decided I have to totally blog the Joolian Exploratory Fleet, step-by-step live. Which forum should I post that in?

you might want to look at this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/96920-Help-with-a-space-plane-design-how-much-air-do-i-need-How-to-read-the-Air-Intake/page3 one of the last posts is step by step to orbit.

practice with Kerbals in jetpacks. those controls are just like "docking controls" personally, I can't switch back and forth from docking controls to "staging controls" so I just leave it at staging and have learnt to use the retro btottons (hn, ik, & jl )

When it came to interplanetary flight, my first instinct was to plot a spoon out maneuver around the back side of the Mun, while the Mun was on the opposite side of Kerbin from the sun (a full Moon). Done right, this give you free escape velocity out of the Kerbin gravity well into solar orbit at Kerbin distance slightly prograde of Kerbin for the cost of an 800 m/s burn. (to go to the inner solar system, I would go retrograde to Kerbin) From there, I would plot a transfer orbit, letting the ships float in solar orbit for sometimes 3/4 year. (Good thing Kerbals don’t need air.) Now I look things up here, and I find launch window calculators, and you guys actually plotting direct Kerbin LKO to Jool transfer orbits. This sounds like a good idea, but with my interplanetary ships (12,000 units of fuel, 2,3 or 4 nuclear engines) a 4 km/s burn would take an hour plus, and I’ll make two orbits of Kerbin in that time. Or actually, not make them, because halfway through the first orbit I am actually burning retrograde, the orbit becomes unstable and I fall out of the sky. (not enough thrust, just like not making orbit, accept from orbit). For a while, I was thinking about a “departure orbit †at about 1000 km. But now I’m thinking that my original idea might have been better. And instead of massing my fleet in orbit of Kerbin, I should assemble it in solar orbit. prograde of Kerbin, in the weeks just ahead of my launch window. I’d like to discuss this. Opinions, comments, questions?

yeah ... until "oops oh &%$!" so you start over and then you notice they're not straight, to you adjust one and then its "oops oh &%$!" but they need to fix it. fuel flow doesn't make sense either. But there are limits to simulation. and its a fun game! I think we keep forgetting the "version 0.25" part. Thanks

Okay it works, here’s what I did: Per you guys’s instructions I put two shock cones on each of the 2 RAPIER nacelles, and each of the 4 turbojets has one shock cone and 4 structurals. I tried to put them on the sequence suggested that that’s very difficult especially given that the structurals require symmetry, add then need to be adjusted a little. So no, they didn’t go on to ship in the correct order. Flight profile is as follows: (is there anything I can improve on?) VTO (takes a while on turbojets), steep angle (45 degree) assent to 7 kilometers, leveling off to 20 degrees above the horizon, in order to do this the ship’s nose is 35° above the horizon (she’s very heavy in the rear). And then maintain this course. By 10 km we’re at 350 m/s. At 15 km we’re at 500 m/s. (That seems to be the sweet spot, if you hit 15 km slower than 500 m/s, you can’t make orbit – in this ship - with the amount of fuel I’m carrying.) We continue to keep this track, at 23 km (1 km/s) she gets a little wobbly, we kill the turbojets, the RAPIERs continue on air burning, at 30 km RAPIERs get wobbly, and we close the intakes and switch over to LOX. From there it’s a pretty shallow but normal orbital insertion. yay Space!

Precisely this. It's an odd vehicle. I call it the Hawk Command Module. Going to be the CM for the flagship of my Joolian Explorer Fleet. SSTO spaceplane+CM+Laythe Lander with a payload bay full of science. To function as CM it has to be built around a Clamp-o-tron Sr. (not a typical spaceplane part) and I figure there aren't going to be any runways on Laythe, so the thing has parachutes, landing struts, and is a tail-lander. And how did that other guy make his plane RED?

THANKS Wanderfound (of course I meant turbojet (speech recognition LOL) and thanks for the flight instruction. I was starting to figure that out umm... how do I mark this as a answer?

Thanks Red, I was typing at last response, while you posted yours. I'll go read that, B

I’m trying to understand what the numbers mean. The jumbo jet engine says it consumes 5.3701/sec of intake air. 5.3 what? (I’ll guess liters because everything else is metric ) the new “shock cone intake†as in intake air of .4 (not per sec) so I would need 14 shock cones for every turbojet? (I’m clearly misunderstanding that) I have read the jet engines work up to about 30 km, mine sputter out at 23. (I already have 26 air intakes) So does somebody know what these numbers actually mean?

Help with a space plane design: how much air do i need? How to read the Air Intake Resource Meter? I understand the fuel resource meter. 1440/750 means that I have 750 units of fuel (kg?) left of my capacity of 1440. But when my air intake resource meters says: 9.61/24.30 what does that mean? Does it mean that an excess capacity? (maybe I do, adding air intakes is awfully easy …and fun!) Currently my space plane has four turbo jet engines and two RAPIER engines With 6 of the new “shock cone intakes†and 20 (I didn’t realize there were 20) of those new little square “structural intakes†So: How much your do I need? And what the heck and does that air resource meter mean? tia brainlord BTW: Love this game! Love this game! Love this game! Love this game!

THANK YOU! Back to year 3 instead of 7! Those radio buttons are great fro yes/no things but lousy for a choosing among options.

wait. Isn’t there a difference between SAS and ASAS? That difference being automated retros? Don’t all we need both modules in all three sizes? 6 in all? (and don’t we need some kind of official nomenclature for these sizes?)

Sorry still calling it a bug. It's listed as "small" not tiny. And they can't go making major size changes in components of ship I already have deployed. (well obviously they can...) Sure we need a Tiny ASAS module. But we also need a small SAS.

[h=2]Where's Earth time?[/h] .25 win 8.1 64bit the .25 upgrade cleared my prefs and I'm back to Kerbin time. Where is the darn setting for Earth time? - it's not gone is it? I cant make sense of 6 hour days, and I have huge spreadsheet with all my departure windows calculated in earth time. tia (does Kerbal Alarm Clock really count as a "Modded install")

oops wrong forum then. I'm usually not in favor modding games, but how can you possibly play this game (esp w/ >1 ship) w/o the alarm clock?

.25 win 8.1 64bit the .25 upgrade cleared my prefs and I'm back to Kerbin time. Where is the darn setting for Earth time? - it's not gone is it? I cant make sense of 6 hour days, and I have huge spreadsheet with all my departure windows calculated in earth time. tia (does Kerbal Alarm Clock really count as a "Modded install")

.25 bug: "Small inline Reaction Wheels" have become tiny and float in the center of the space they used to maintain leaving gaps in the rocket. please fix this, i have several of things already in orbit should I post pics? win 8.1 64 bit

UPDATE: my launchpad fire was caused by the rocket JUST BARELY penetrating the ground plane. Not enough to harm the rocket, but enough to blow up the pad. That used to be impossible in 0.24

On further thought (software bugwise) : it appears that the trigger that blows up the LaunchPad is more sensitive than the trigger that blows up the rocket. That would explain the behavior I'm seeing.

You mean the red Gantry thingy. I used three (and some more struts) , like I said,now it doesn't blow up. But the huge fire that destroys the launchpad, but doesn't harm the rocket, and doesn't appear in the Flight Events... that looks like a bug. There doesn't appear to be a reason for the fire, the rocket is fine, no fuel consumed. What was on fire? The concrete launchpad?