Jump to content

tsotha

Members
  • Posts

    254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tsotha

  1. I don't understand how you can talk about "second stage" engines in a vacuum (heh) like this. What constitutes a reasonable size for a second stage engine depends entirely on your payload and mission profile. I've used everything from the 48-7S to the KR-2L for a second stage and thought to myself "Self, this engine is the perfect size for my second stage". Same goes with landers. The only thing that makes the 48-7S, LV-909 and Poodle "lander" engines is their low profile. But you're making a whole lot of assumptions about what the lander looks like and its intended use. I've used at least a half dozen other engines on my landers as a result of this or that constraint. And I can't count high enough to number all the LV-N lander designs I've used myself or seen on forum/reddit threads. Now, if what you're really getting at here is the fact that there are thrust/weight gaps in the engine lineup, then I agree. I'd like to see something between 50 and 220 besides the aerospike, which you don't get until the very end of the tech tree. Preferably something that produces power, unlike it's smaller bretheren. But that's really the only gap I see. Here the mk 55 doesn't count because, paraphrasing the old Lay's tag line, you can't use just one. You've left out the third and most common option here, which is to use multiple smaller engines. You can use radial engines, engines on radially attached tanks, or with girders and COS. I mentioned I think there's a gap between 50 and 220 kN, but I can get 150 kN with three 909s or five 48-7Ss (for 1/3 the weight. Sigh).
  2. One thing to remember with LV-Ns is you don't have to wait until you reach orbit to use them. By 2000 meters an LV-N's ISP is already 411 (more efficient than a Mainsail in a vacuum), and by 20km it's 789. I usually fire them up as soon as the SRBs are clear, and that little bit of extra thrust over most of your boost can make a big difference in terms of what's practical.
  3. I don't normally use nukes for Duna, Eve, or Moho. Duna and Eve aren't much harder to get to than the Mun and don't require that kind of high efficiency. A skipper will do just fine. As for Moho, killing 3500 m/sec with nuclear engines is long and boring. I'd only use nukes if I were planning multiple assists to get me down to a reasonable closing speed.
  4. They're cheap, you can't forget to deploy them, you can't forget to retract them, they're more durable, and (most importantly) they provide plenty of power for most ships. I used to put the folding panels on all my ships (mostly because they look cool) until I realized I was using only a tiny fraction of the power they were providing. What takes power? Reaction wheels, probe heads, science transmission... average power use is minuscule. Throw on a couple batteries and you're set. Particularly since engines provide power when they're running. You can get to other planets with a couple batteries and no solar cells at all using a T-30. I really only use the folding panels for Karbonite installations, though you need them for ion thrusters and science labs (assuming you use those items).
  5. The problem with that is in the early game you need the money to do other contracts. So really that would just insert a step at the end, where you put the sat in the proper orbit and then warp until the contract is done. Also, if they did that they'd have to make sure it's actually possible. I've had contracts which have kerbin orbits can't be stable because they enter the Mun's SOI.
  6. You don't really need to use flags to mark the biomes you've visited. There's a tab in R&D that tells you what experiments you've run, and you can filter by planetary body. This has the added advantage letting you know when you visit a biome and forget to take a surface sample (or whatever). I only use flags to mark good landing spots. If I find a nice flat spot at sea level on Duna or a high altitude flat spot on Eve, for example, I'll put a flag there for the next trip.
  7. The problem is you may not be able to target the ship if you can't see it. You're so close together you only get one option on the map view, and if that isn't the ship AFAIK the only way to target the ship is to click on it from the staging view.
  8. Size doesn't matter for trajectory calculations in a vacuum. Beyond that, I don't think they calculate much of anything for ships that don't have focus. A few days ago I sent two ships to the same planet and tried to aerobrake them both at the same time. Only the one with focus slowed down. The other one continued on as if the atmosphere didn't exist at all. Also, I was able to defeat atmospheric friction at Duna by having the pilot go on EVA. Not sure what happened there.
  9. It's not really the same, though, because a satellite that still exists is a navigation hazard. At least in theory. I wish there were a contract mechanism that took all the sats older than ten years and bundled them up into a deorbit contract.
  10. This is critical. I found I can put parachutes overlapping the side and science instruments all around the bottom, but if I put something too wide on the top node he'll get flung off into space every time. I think when you push the EVA button the game detects a collision of the Kerbal's king-sized mellon and whatever you put up there.
  11. Class Es aren't that hard to capture into Kerbin's orbit, but I've never put one into Mun's orbit. Seems like it wouldn't be that bad once you capture it - you have plenty of time, anyway. As cantab says, you might be able to use the Mun and/or Kerbin for gravity assists or even aerobraking to save some dV. The key with these kinds of contracts is to realize an orbit is an orbit is an orbit. People get hung up on the idea a Munar (or whatever body) orbit has to be, you know, circular at minimum altitude, which would take ridiculous amounts of fuel in this case. You can certainly do that, but it's not required by the contract. Once you get something that stays in the Mun's SOI it's Miller Time.
  12. I think it depends on where you switch over. If you switch over manually at 25km the air is probably still thick enough that the drag will have some effect on your fuel consumption. If, on the other hand, you're milking your engines up to 55km then I doubt closing intakes will have any noticeable effect whatsoever. I think at one point if you left the intakes open your engine would use fuel even if it had flamed out, but I haven't noticed that to be the case.
  13. That's what I do. I don't think I've ever missed a transfer window, though I have wasted small amounts of dV when I wasn't in the mood to mess with it. If you really need to minimize fuel consumption, playing pinball at Jool can do wonders.
  14. I suspect that message is a red herring. I get it on capsules with no other external reaction wheels when the SAS is actually directing it to do something. IMO t's most likely what's going on here is you're bobbing because your reaction wheels are fighting each other. This happens a lot when you have a ship that has any "bend" in it - it's pretty common to have to disable SAS when you dock to a station to prevent the thing from shaking itself apart. Ideally you want all your reaction wheels in the same spot oriented the same way. Failing that you should think about disabling any that you don't need.
  15. I've been dealing with this frustration too. So far the best solution I've found is the NavHud mod, which essentially overlays the nav ball onto the staging view. That way you have a 360 degree view of the nav ball. If you ship is pointed up you can look down and see what's on the other side of the nav ball. Actually using it to land in the right spot takes some getting used to, but it's doable.
  16. The only way I could actually place my node was to use Precise Node and put the time in directly.
  17. I think the Duna contracts unlocked when I completed my first "escaping Kerbin" contract, which showed up relatively early.
  18. Sigh. I'm having this problem tonight. No matter what I do I can't place a maneuver node until after my encounter. This can't be that hard to fix.
  19. It works from the side, but it's a pain. The easiest thing to do is click on the root part (or shift click anywhere on the ship), use the aswd keys to flip your ship so the docking port is pointing up, then hold down alt while you attach the other port. Make sure when you point your ship back up it's in the same orientation relative to the VAB. Otherwise 90 degrees won't be to the right when you go to launch.
  20. Yeah. 5th Horseman has a neat video where he attaches wings, a tail, and wheels to an asteroid with claws and proceeds to land it on Kerbin. Attaching to something with a claw makes it part of your ship.
  21. I can't figure out how to hit waypoints with any accuracy in stock except with a plane. If you're on a body without an atmosphere you generally need to burn away from your target, so it's always on the other side of the nav ball as you're coming in. I've considered putting an upside-down probe on my ship just so I can guide my ship in.
  22. I don't see anything there that would drain power unless you left the SAS on.
  23. This is a critical for parts testing. There's no reason to drag an empty (or even full) BACC to orbit to test. Just make sure you have one still attached to your stack when the test conditions are right. A good strategy for this test is to use the BACC to launch and then complete the orbit with radial engines (assuming you have them) without decoupling the BACC. In general newer players tend to assume they're under restrictions that aren't really there: Reiterating - you can test a part you used already by selecting "run test" from the right click menu, or, if it isn't available, add an empty stage below it and "stage" it. This saves you tons of dV. An RT-10 test at 30,000 meters requires only three parts - capsule, parachute, and RT-10 (assuming you adjust the throttle to make sure it's going at the right speed at the right altitude). And you can stage it for test purposes when it's still running. The part needn't be configured to actually work. By that I mean you can stage an engine that doesn't have any fuel. That never had fuel, in fact - you don't have to wait for Xenon tanks to test an ion engine or air intakes to test a jet engine. You can set the thrust limiter to zero so that when you stage it it doesn't actually do anything even if fuel is available. This can be handy if the contract calls for staging a part that's still buried in the stack. You can complete the test without wasting fuel or damaging the part below it, then select "shutdown engine" from the right click menu, change the thrust limiter back to 100%, and move it to the stage where you'll actually need it. This way you can, for example, complete an LV-909 test at 10,000 meters during a Mun shot with an engine you won't actually use until it's time for your Munar descent. Take all "Landed at Kerbin" contracts, since they literally cost you nothing in time or money. A "landed at Kerbin" KR-2L contract can be fulfilled with a single probe/capsule and the engine itself. Hit the space bar and recover your craft. There's no fuel so it never goes anywhere and you get 100% salvage on the entire "rocket". But by the same token, read the contract carefully enough to make sure it's actually "landed at Kerbin", since testing a heavy part landed at Ike is a whole different kind of contract you may want to schedule with other activity on the same body. EDIT: I was able to get this into a 105/72 orbit. Splashed it off the coast of KSC (97.8% recovery) for a net cost of 3767 The thrust limiter on the BACC is set to 69%, and the RT-10s to 54.5%. I doubt this is optimal, but it's close enough to do the job.
×
×
  • Create New...