Wanderfound
-
Posts
4,893 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Wanderfound
-
-
"Adequately stable" is in the eye of the pilot, of course, but as others have said your problem is most likely poor design.
There's also the point that even a well-designed spaceplane is likely be not quite as nimble as an equivalent conventional plane, simply because it's burdened with the extra mass of equipment required for space. Also keep in mind the relative speeds involved: conventional planes don't spend a lot of time at the edge of hypersonic like spaceplanes do.
Give this one a go: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/89092-Kerbodyne-Scattershot-a-simple-and-easy-to-fly-beginner-s-SSTO-spaceplane
I designed it with the intention of making something decent looking but easy to fly into orbit; if you struggle with this plane, it's likely that your piloting needs some work as well.
-
Spaceplanes are also more fun to fly, often. I've spent the day buzzing around Kerbin. "Flight over Kerbin" contracts are generally a lot easier with spaceplanes than rockets.
A further question: I find myself using the little cube struts to attach ram scoops. And I've used a plate, or a long thin stick, to attach the rear landing gear. Are these sort of kludges unusual? I kinda wish there were a ram-intake-attacher part.
Along the same lines, my small control surfaces seem to hover about six inches over the wing. They work; they just look strange. Maybe I'll post a pic later to show you what I mean. Gotta run right now.
Those sorts of kludges are common, but they're not necessary. Have a look at this one for an example without them: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/89092-Kerbodyne-Scattershot-a-simple-and-easy-to-fly-beginner-s-SSTO-spaceplane
There's no reason why you can't build a good SSTO spaceplane without resorting to such tricks. Airhogging, stacked wings, excessive part clipping; these are all just things that let you get away with otherwise poor design. There's nothing wrong with doing that if it's fun for you, but it's not the only way.
There is a ram-scoop attacher part, BTW: the nacelles. It's what they're made for; intake on front, engine on back. You don't need five hundred ramscoops to go to space.
-
Yes, you can run a pure spaceplane program. It isn't too hard to design something that can lift 100 ton or better, and anything bigger can be assembled in orbit.
I only use rockets when I'm in a hurry. Spaceplanes are cheaper to fly and more interesting to build. Rockets are faster and simpler.
-
(snip lots of points I agree with)
Seconded.
The only thing in FAR that tends to give me trouble is the occasional aerodynamic failure on re-entry to Kerbin after going interplanetary. Gotta fly careful when you're doing Mach 10.
-
I'm not using FAR. But you are saying a Cockpit + Docking + Largo Cargo + LTO fusilage + long mk2->mk1 setup would only require 1 Rapier engine to get to LKO? Sounds weird to me. But i will try it later today
Spaceplanes lift with their wings, not their engines. And once you get into the low-friction atmosphere over 20,000m, it only takes a small amount of power to crank it up to Mach 4 or better.
Speed is more about altitude than power. More power lets you climb to 20,000m faster, but once you get there you should be shutting down as many engines as possible anyway. Your intakes can keep one engine running at much higher altitudes than they can keep multiple engines running.
If it's got enough oomph to get off the runway, it should be able to get to space if it's flown right. Minimise angle of attack and climb rate (ideally, both <10 at 30,000m), maximise speed and altitude. Don't pull the nose up and light the rockets until the air runs out.
And you really should at least give FAR/NEAR a try. Spaceplanes aren't spaceplanes without it.
-
Hi,
I dont know what 'Ironman' mode is maybe someone can enlighten me - and us.
"Ironman" mode was so dubbed by Scott Manley. No revert, no quickload. Most folks doing it would also be using perma-death, but given the unlimited supply of Kerbals that doesn't really add to the difficulty (although keeping Jeb alive long-term is a bit challenging unless you park him on the Mun or similar).
-
I have HotRockets installed, but it doesn't produce the effect. Nice exhausts, but not the side-scattering. Everything just gets swallowed up by the "black hole" beneath the pad...
Just "a bit", and it might depend on the rockets you're using. I had a liftoff with a large all-solid stage earlier this evening, and I was presently surprised to see that some of the glowy flecks in the exhaust that happen just after ignition with Hot Rockets appeared to be coming sideways out of the flame tunnels.
I did get a screenshot of the lifter, but too late for the flame tunnels, unfortunately:
-
BTW, although the launch sequence takes getting used to, it feels more realistic to fire the engines, wait for a few seconds to spool up, then release the clamps. Now if Squad or a mod could get the rocket exhaust to shoot out the flame trenches to either side of the pad...
Hot Rockets does do that a bit.
-
I'd be keen.
If you can, chat to some real scientists for ideas. Drop Bobak a line...
-
(snip Whackjob vid)
Kudos for the Great Escape soundtrack.
-
True, never thought about that, but the swept wings say "A prototype swept back wing. Made of light weight composite materials. Guaranteed to generate lift, not guaranteed to ensure crew safety." Perhaps they mean a ton of drag relative to lift? Also the intakes do not contribute, I did a high pitch at low altitude test.
The descriptions are written for comedy, not accuracy. Ignore them unless you need a giggle.
-
Laie: Thanks for the link. I think I'd read some of Kasuha's findings before, particularly his comment that air intake is processed depending on when the intake part was added in the Space Plane Hangar (or VAB). That is, that the order of construction influences air flow. I gather from your link that some of the same is true of fuel flow?
Allmhuran: Awesome video!
I like the idea of fuel tanks in the middle of the plane, with fuel lines feeding the middle tank. But what if one needs both jet and rocket fuel? The two different types of fuel presumably can't be pumped into each others' containers, can they?
Into, no, through, yes. Not a problem. "Jet fuel" is just rocket fuel minus oxidiser.
-
Lol, I am sure I am a newbie, but dear god, I can barely rescue a kerbal in a normal orbit...this is one I would almost certainly skip.
How about "intercept a Kerbal on a Kerbin-colliding return trajectory from the Mun"?
-
This is why we need bigger SRBs:
-
So I enjoy doing Apollo style lander missions. In addition to this simply being my preferred way to go about things, it also serves the benefit that I can leave a lander on the surface and have a return craft to science retrieval (2 kerbals are needed of course).
However, I have a very hard time building docking nodes in to my rocket stack. Clamp-o-tron to clamp-o-tron connections are very weak and tend to cause my rocket to turn in to a noodle when launching.
How do you guys handle having docking nodes in the middle of your stack?
Struts. Struts struts struts struts struts. Or girders or I-beams.
As mentioned above, use decouplers to ditch 'em when it's time to undock.
-
How do I fight drones? Well, I run around naked on my lawn whenever a drone approaches or get out there with a mate and reproduce. That'll do it, unless there is a NSA agent who is really, really into graphical entertainment content that shows reproductive human activity in various ways.
Come to think of it, the future of PRISM is probably going to be NSA agents watching people pleasure themselves and silently mock them.
Already there: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo
-
The D7 struttage is a bit on the extreme side; the heavy lift nature of it meant that I initially had issues with rapid unplanned disassembly and landing gear failures during takeoff. Smaller planes don't need to be quite as spiderwebby.
But, hey, struts are cheap. Err on the side of excess.
-
At the moment?
Sails of Glory: http://www.aresgames.eu/category/games/sails-of-glory-games
-
Bobak Ferdowsi (AKA "NASA Mohawk Guy") is a known KSPer.
If you like Bobak, check out Geek & Sundry. He's appeared on both Tabletop and Spellslingers.
-
I'd like a "rescue a kerbal from the surface of the Mun" mission
I want a "rescue Kerbal from a rapidly decaying orbit". Add some urgency to the situation.
-
20m/s is an exceptionally high closing speed. That's okay when you're kilometres away, but by the time you get within a few hundred metres you want it down to the low single digits unless you've had a lot of practice at rendezvous.
Basic Rendezvous Tutorial
What to do when you get close:
Set the destination as a target and switch the navball to target mode. The yellow marker shows the direction that you're moving relative to the target (target prograde); the pink marker shows the direction that the target is actually in. Each of these markers also has an opposite mark showing the reverse direction.
If you burn directly towards the target prograde marker, you will increase your velocity relative to the target. If you burn directly towards the target retrograde marker, you will reduce your velocity relative to the target.
The simplest way to do it is to wait until just before your closest approach and burn directly at target retrograde (the one that looks like the normal yellow retrograde marker) until your relative velocity (shown at the top of the navball when in target mode) hits zero. Then point directly at the target (the pink marker) and gently burn towards him.
If you get the yellow marker on top of the pink one, that means that you're moving directly towards your target. To move the yellow markers, "push" retrograde and "pull" prograde. In other words, when you burn almost-but-not-quite prograde, the yellow prograde marker will move towards you. When you burn almost-but-not-quite retrograde, the retrograde marker will move away from you.
Once you get in close, keep your nose pointed at the target and use the RCS translation controls (JKLIHN) to fine tune your approach speed and direction.
PS: don't worry too much about your orbit during all of this. Once you end up next to your target with a zero relative velocity, you're going to automatically be in perfectly matched orbits.
How to get close:
First, get into orbit and match inclination, and set the station as a target. Don't worry about height yet.
Then, look at the target: is it in front of you or behind you? If it's in front, you need to lower your orbit to catch up (but not so low that you hit atmosphere). If it's behind, you need to raise your orbit to slow down. Don't bother about circularising, elliptical is fine.
Orbit until you get a close intercept (anything <10km will do), then circularise your orbit to match the target. You'll probably still be a touch off; add a small manoeuvre node (prograde if you're in front, retrograde if you're behind) that gets you a <1,000m intercept. Wait until just before closest approach, burn target retrograde to kill your relative velocity, then point at the target and gently approach. Watch the target/prograde indicators as you approach and burn or RCS to keep them aligned. Flip and kill velocity so that you come to a stop about 40m from the target and then dock.
-
Your CoL is to close to the center of the CoM, odds are your fuel is draining and causing the crafts CoM to shift forward.
Yes. All of the fuel tanks appear to be ahead of CoM (generally a bad idea), and there isn't enough slack in the CoM/CoL arrangement to get away with it. Once half the fuel is gone, that thing is going to try to fly backwards.
You'd also probably be better off with nacelles in place of the fuselage pieces that you've stuck the engines on. Less weight and a bonus intake.
-
One thing to be careful of with the twin boom design: the nature of KSP means that you have to build them like a tuning fork. Despite appearances, the only thing holding the back of the D7 together is a lot of struts. Brace carefully.
-
Also, I had trouble attaching the standard control surfaces to wings -- they seem to want to go on at crazy angles, not parallel to the ground as one would expect. I had no trouble attaching small control surfaces, though. Maybe the standard surface is designed for a larger wing than the one I was using?
The trick: stick one wing vertically on top of your plane (i.e. 90 degrees straight up). Put the control surfaces on; they'll usually still be misaligned to start, but it should be by exactly 90 or 180 degrees off, so it's easy to rotate to correct alignment.
Once the control surfaces are placed, take the wing off the top of the plane, toggle symmetry on and place them where you actually want them.
I Don't Get Spaceplanes
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
While I'm not disagreeing that this isn't how it should be: have you tried it with ye olde test pilot trick of spin recovery parachutes?