GoSlash27

Mattasmack, That happens to me all the time. I see an interesting or potentially helpful post, then can't seem to find it again when I go back for it. It's not just you Best, -Slashy

Most of my crews consist of 4 members. Why? Well... *mainly* because a hitchhiker pod has room for 4. Accordingly, my mission planning and vehicle designs have evolved around that. 1 pilot for the mothership. 1 pilot for the lander. 1 scientist to reset and clean all the experiments and 1 engineer to fix whatever breaks along the way. Everything else is designed to support that. My roster is 50% pilots, 25% engineers, and 25% scientists. My SSTO spaceplane crew shuttles seat 4 passengers. My LKO station has berthing for 4 for each dock. And so on... Best, -Slashy

Mattasmack, Oh, yeah. They came in without a problem. In fact, I was able to turn off SAS and just let them glide in. See the link upstream to my post to how to make them behave. Best, -Slashy

Standard difficulty caveman completed in 4 days, 3 hours, 7 minutes. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Caveman challenge/120/Day4 I still have another munar flyby to land and process, but further unlocking of the tech tree will require facility upgrades. Periapsis of 35 km seems to be the "sweet spot" for successful recovery of munar missions. Best, -Slashy

Apologies for not posting in a timely manner. I've been taking advantage of the unseasonably warm weather by racking up miles on my new scooter and plus there was the most astounding election upset in the history of democracy (no political comments please) to contend with. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Caveman challenge/120/Day3 End of day 3. I built a simple single seater to collect flying science over nearby biomes while waiting for the return of my Mun flyby probes. I also sent a flight to the south polar icecap because that is a unique biome in 1.2. I am now very close to completing the challenge. All I have to do is recover 1 of the 2 returning probes intact in order to complete the caveman tree and begin the game proper. I am genuinely concerned for the probe cores, as their corners are exposed to reentry heat. I'll set the chutes to auto-deploy and cross my fingers. Best, -Slashy

JAFO, Actually, it's not that at all. It's using an engine as a heat shield and doing a reentry in a lander can. There's no reason why I'd tell anyone *not* to do that or fault anyone who does... It's just not something *I* would ever do. At least... not with a manned launch. As a result of my overly-cautious approach to manned missions, doing stuff like this doesn't occur to me. Consequently, I miss out on goodies like your design. Best, -Slashy

JAFO, I like it! It incorporates a few techniques that would make me nervous to try, but it clearly works. Best, -Slashy

Wait... So KSP now rewards building submarines?? I wonder if there are any biomes down there...

xendelaar, I believe it's just barely possible to put a Kerbal on Minmus and return him/ her in 1 shot, but you won't get much science out of the process. 1800 m/sec DV, covers everything from LKO to reentry. Uses an Ant engine. Doesn't seem like much, but it's fine for Minmus. 1700 m/sec DV, t/w= 0.7. This stage gets you to orbit. Or rather, barely suborbital. Don't want to leave junk up there... Uses an LV-909. 1800 m/sec, t/w=1.2. Uses an LV-T30. I *personally* wouldn't do this because the science payoff isn't worth the time and hassle, but if I were to do it, this is how I'd go about it. Best, -Slashy

MaxPeck, This is going to be a *very* useful resource. Excellent work! a 20m drop test seems pretty extreme to me. I'm surprised the gear survived it at the heavy end. Did you have a probe core on the mock "aircraft"? I think that may make a difference. Also, remember that the spring rate and damping can be tweaked. raising the spring rate should make heavy aircraft a little more survivable. Best, -Slashy

MaxPeck, There isn't a max load value given in the .cfg file. There are values for max deflection, max deflection rate, and max impact velocity. As a practical guideline, I wouldn't exceed 5t per main gear for the fixed type. Landing speed should be 40 m/sec max and you should keep it under 5 m/sec sink rate. It's usually the max deflection that gets you. The fixed gear have very little suspension travel and if they bottom out, they explode. HTHs, -Slashy

I don't believe that this approach accurately reflects the economic impact. It's all about the cost per tonne of payload to orbit, and whether the savings of keeping a part vs ditching it is worth the player's added time and attention. (Launch cost - payload cost - recovered value)/ payload mass. Personally, I look at how often I'm going to use a launcher to determine whether or not to go cheap. If it's something I do regularly (transferring crew, shipping fuel, etc) then I'll spend the time to make an economical way to do the job. Otherwise, if it's just a one-off launch I'll just make a disposable launcher and not worry about the additional cost. The savings of launch vehicles are cumulative; it doesn't work if you don't use it often. Going to other planets, the criteria change. It's not easy or convenient to replace parts that have been disposed of out there and I have a preference for logistic networks over disposable one-off missions. As such, I *always* make everything reusable in those situations to the point where I don't visit places that require staging. Best, -Slashy

Arugela, There are too many factors to be able to estimate that, but there are a couple different approaches you can use: 1) build your spaceplane proportionally to the desired payload. 1-2 engines per 10 tonnes payload. Total spaceplane mass roughly 4x payload, etc. 2) build a replica of your spaceplane with fuel as payload and launch it. However much fuel is left in orbit is how much payload your plane can handle. Best, -Slashy

LordKael, If you want to go fully reusable (my personal preference), I recommend forgetting about Tylo. Any lander you come up with will either be too close to the DV margin to be safe or too thirsty to be practical. Single stage designs grow exponentially with DV budgets, and there is a hard limit to how much you can get out of one stage. Assuming twice the bare minimum DV for landing (necessary for precision/ safety margin), you're looking at 13.5 tonnes total for each tonne of payload using the aerospike. This only gets you to the surface, so it requires ISRU on the surface and refueling in orbit. Best, -Slashy

rocketbuilder, It just so happens I made a post about it. Happy science-ing! -Slashy

rocketbuilder, I know what you mean. This design tumbled pretty badly at first. I fixed it Best, -Slashy

rocketbuilder, Only the skinny part above the decoupler is returned, and it's *definitely* stable. The part I'm worried about is the okto probe core overheating. The corners stick out past the ablator and they do catch heat. I ran the math to see if I can get by with just transmitting the science back, and it comes up about 100 points short. I have no choice but to cross my fingers and do it. Best, -Slashy

End of day 2. I'm running out of science to collect from Kerbin, but my Munar flyby probes are almost there. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Caveman challenge/120/Day2 They've got to survive reentry if I hope to complete this challenge quickly. Best, -Slashy

Snotshot, You don't have to precisely match the target orbit, but it's easier if you do. Match the inclination, then... if you're ahead of the target, raise your apoapsis until you have an intercept on the next orbit If you're behind, lower your periapsis until you have an intercept on the next orbit (be careful not to hit the atmosphere) About 1/8 orbit away from the intercept, you will begin to match your closure rate (m/sec) to 10x the range to target (km), while "pushing the marble" to keep your retrograde marker (green) on top of the target's retrograde marker (purple). This will park you right on top of the target. I usually park within 20m for the EVA. You need to practice this intercept/ rendezvous maneuver until it becomes second nature. It's a critical skill in this game. Best, -Slashy

Expanding on what Snark is saying, Center of pressure is essentially the center of drag. It's not shown in the VAB, so you have to visualize it. When the plane is at a high pitch angle relative to it's direction of flight (angle of attack), your plane must create more drag behind the center of mass than in front of it, and that drag must have more leverage. Delta canard configurations look all futuristic and cool, but conventional layouts are much more stable at high angles of attack. Best, -Slashy

Plusck, This looks like the video I was thinking of. While he employs low t/w and pays for it with higher gravity losses, the technique itself is super- efficient in terms of DV expenditure. It's just not precise or very safe in mountainous terrain. Personally, I almost always use the technique I describe in my tutorial because when I land on a body I have a very specific location in mind. It's easy to design a ship that will work with it, and I don't have to calculate or practice anything beforehand. Best, -Slashy

^ This is what I'm referring to as "zero descent rate". It is the most efficient procedure in terms of DV expenditure. I'm playing hell finding a tutorial for it, though. I saw a really good video on it, but now I can't find it. Still lookin'... -Slashy

Space Dino, This is the technique that I used: It's not as efficient as the "zero descent rate" technique, but it's easy to do and very precise. I can't seem to find a tutorial for the zero descent rate technique, but I'll try to find you one. Best, -Slashy

@Jedi_Mushroom, A rocket isn't perfect when nothing else needs to be added to it, it's perfect when nothing else can be removed from it. An efficient rocket design will have the bare minimum required in the payload, and is designed to accelerate that payload the bare minimum DV and t/w needed to achieve it's goal. Perhaps with a small safety margin, but stressing *small*. An efficient rocket design begins with thorough understanding of the mission. What's required by the payload, and what's required of each individual stage. You design the payload to achieve it's goal as light and cheap as possible. Then you design the final stage to hit it's DV and t/w goals as light and cheap as possible while pushing that payload. Then add a decoupler and repeat for the preceding stage. Continue this process until you are all the way back to the pad. Some helpful tutorials: HTHs, -Slashy