Rematog

JEB is DEAD!

This game is to post things that Jeb might say or terms he might use, as translated from Kerbalish to English by the Universal Translater. Normal forum rules (esp 2.2) - No flames, etc. I'll start Jeb-ism for "Landing Gear" - Lithobrakes.

During launch or boost, alternately press Z and X in a steady rhythm. Makes fuel last twice as long.

Thanks Cantab, rep-added both you and Bacterius for it.

For the three antenna in stock (Comm 16, Comm DTS and Comm 88) other than cost/weight, what are the advantages of the three. From the Parts Wiki, The smallest uses the least power, but goes slower, the more expensive (and heavier) ones go faster and use more power/unit of data. The math on the Comm 16 doesn't add up? For the other two, the posted Electricity/sec and Mit/sec numbers compute to the Electricy/Mit. but for the Comm 16, I get 31.25 Electricity/Mit with a speed of 0.8 Mit/sec and 25 Electricity/sec? Is the transmission speed supposed to be 5 Mit/Sec for the Comm 16 (with a power use of 6.25 Electricity/Sec and speed of 0.8), or Net transmision speed supposed to be 5 Mit/Sec with useage of 25 Electricity/sec, so 5 Electricity/Mit? Is there some kind of range factor? I've used the Comm 16 from Ike and it worked. Why would I use the Comm DTS or Comm 88 rather than the cheaper Comm 16, aside from Looks. Even if the correct power useage for the Comm 16 is 31.25 Electricity/Mit, this shouldn't be an issue unless you have no power source except batteries (forgot your solar cells). I've always needed power for SAS anyway, so....always had a few solar cells to charge the batteries.

Not a jet, but I've developed two Atomic (LV-N) powered landers with either 24-77's (small diameter one Kerbalnaught) or Mk 55 radial (large diameter 3 Kerbalnaught) side mounted engines for vertical landings. The smaller "Eagle" lander weights 9.21 or 11.8 tons (for "stretch version w/more fuel) and can fly on Kerbin with 4x 24-77's with partial fuel (8.1 tons thrust). The bigger "Kondor" at 31.2 tons with 2 Mk 55's (24.4 tons thrust) can also fly with partial fuel on Kerbin. Using these landers so far on Mun, Minmus and Gilly (getting ready to go to Pol and Ike when I get a launch window), I've found the transistion painless. I've got one SAS, same size as vehicle, plus capsules SAS, and normally don't need the RCS on. I've a single bottom mounted Vernor front and rear and a pair of RV-105 thruster blocks at the front tip (longest moment arm) to use the "Free" monopropellent in capsule. Mainly use RCS for chute landings on Kerbin. I've found the transition easy enought, I kill horizontal/vertical speed with main engine, then use Action groups to toggle main engine off, and thrusters on (not having fully unlocked, I use "abort" for main engine and "lights" for vertical thrust). Do take care to keep thrusters at CG. I've designed ship so fuel full, fuel empty CG shifts very little. I'm really happy, especially when landing on slopes. Last nights Mun landing in crater I ended up on a steep one. None of my early game normal landers could have stayed upright! P.S., Playing Beta, as a first time player and going straight thru Career mode, totally stock, "Look Ma, No Mods"

Banned for not making coffee when taking the last cup!

A coffee mug borrowed with Jedediah, the Nintendo-64 shows a tiny gable of haze in a beautiful rainbow refrigerated container. Accordion to poplar myths, the N64 is absolutely waffle crumbs and would defiantly be played.

Does the orbit have to have Pe above Kerbin's surface?......

Here Comes the Sun......

A tiny mug borrowed from Jedediah, the Nintendo-64 throws a tiny table of rage in a spiteful rainbow refrigerated container. According to popular myths, the N64 is absolutely waffle flavored and should definitely be molested.

Hell yes I'd like a Rock-o-max sized atomic motor, with say a thrust of 400 kNt and ISP of say 775 sec (they wouldn't be likely to give bigger thrust without taking away a little ISP... But, I'm making my first run (Training mission to Mun & Minmus with 3 rookies to get them to Skill 3 in one go) in the "Kondor" lander, which has 2 LV-N's and a dV of 5,561 m/s. It's full fuel acceleration is 0.36 gee (0.66 gee for the last ton of fuel). But, it's easy to add "Moar Nukes". With 3 LV-N's I get .55 gee & 5,113 m/s (0.99 gee for last ton of fuel) and if I go to 4 LV-N's the Kondor has 0.68 gee full fuel acceleration ( 1.18 gee for last ton) with a still respectable dV of 4,672. Still, not going to land on Eve with it, but... good for all the small worlds..... and it's a Small World after All! hmmm... never really thought about it. But guess by stated diameter of "Small" of 1.25 meters, which a single capsule fits, and IVA view showing KerbanaughtTM fitting into the capsule in sitting position, so give sitting height of 1 meter, (get out tape, measure my head height to floor, 80% of my full height), so Kerbals are about 1.25 meter, or just over 4' tall, little green men, then..... It's a Kerbal World, after All!

Good thinking Mythos, you'd get 100% recovery cost on the capsule too.....

The Damn Engineers! by SS General Joachim Peiper, after being stopped by the 291st Engineer Combat Battalion at the Battle of the Bulge. I recommend the book by that name "The Damn Engineers" by Janice Holt Giles.

Wrong. All Kerbal Spacemen know that with enough delta V, anything is possible. Wait until Kerbal Space Port is pointing at Duna and blast straight up until your in Kerbol orbit...... The H E double hockey sticks with Holmann, thrust away (we are playing Starbell Krek, right, infinite fuel.....) Founding member of Kerbal Astronautics Office of Safety....... KAOS

Jeb's favorite ride....

Has anyone tried to "rescue" a Kerbal trapped in orbit by flying close by (to be able to take control), then using jet pack to de-orbit burn and aerobrake in, using jet pack to assume safe landing angle (faceplant) and retroburning just before "touchdown"...... How high do they bounce? - - - Updated - - - Wrong organization, It would be Kerbal Astronautics Office of Safety, KAOS....... duh duh duhhhhhh, duhhh!

After reading the claims that a light weight engine (say LV-909) beats ISP (LV-N), went to my spreadsheet for Rocket design.... "Those Damn Engineers", (Gen. Joachim Peiper about the 291st Combat Engineers at the Battle of the Bulge) For my Atomic Powered Eagle lander, (LV-N, 60kN thrust, 800 isp, 2.25t) my base design has a gross weight of 9.21t (0.66 gee accel. at full fuel) and a mass ratio of 1.7. It has a dV of 4,143 m/s (and costs $23K, has 2 ea myst goo, Sci Jr & Thermo's) Yes it's a single seater, Jeb loves it! Substituting the LV-909 (50kN, 390 isp, 0.5t), the design now has a gross weight of 7.46t (0.68 gee accel. at full fuel w/this motor) and a mass ratio of 2.0. It's dV drops to 2,701 m/s (for a cost of $15K). This is 2/3 the dV, so clearly not better. By the way, I have a "stretch" version with an extra FL-T400 to get a mass ratio of 2 and a dV of 5,590 m/s (base design has a single FL-T800 fuel tank). I use drop tanks (asparagus staging) to increase the "range" to a whooping 8,653 m/s using my single LV-N. This lander can get you there (it's a belly lander using four side mounted RM 24-77 to make the final drop after the atomic motor brings the ship to a hover at about 500-1000m. I return entire lander, LV-N and all, to Kerbin and soft land near KSP to recover most of the $23k cost. Don't need but two radial chutes to do this, between lander legs and a bit of thrust. Yes, it's a low gee planet lander (>0.3) I'm going to try it on Duna soona, have to add an extra chute (Jeb's no Damn Engineer) - - - Updated - - - Hmmmm..... ISP........PB-ION with 4,200 isp. 2kN.....x40 = 80 kn..... hmmmm.... Damn Engineers!

Graph does not go up to 800 for LV-N

Great, thanks for the mission plan, much appreciated. I'm currently finalizing my 3 seat Atomic powered belly lander "Kondor", so need the test flight anyways. I'm planning on it and it's single seat predecessor "Eagle" to explore all the small bodies in the system, i.e. with gravity of 30% Kerbin or less. Jeb just got back from a fast trip to Gilly. Wasn't in launch window, used 4.9 kps burn to fast track home. I love aero-braking... Jebs coming in hot. My mental "back story" for Kerbal Kind is that Kerbin has a mantel with more uranium and thorium than earth . So Ker-life is much more resistant to radiation exposure. They are green and can get a little "life support" by photosynthesis. Most important, Kerbals have a natural ability to hibernate, so that while I'm X1,000,000 thru a long trip, Jeb is hibernating so that his time perception of the voyage is only a bit more than my game playing time. Solar power keeps him warm and a sunlamp going while he snoozes, when I travel to the deep black, I’ll take a thermopile. Jeb's had quite a week (subjective), eh?

I love my belly lander. It keeps my Atomic Rocket motor out of the dirt without all those ugly struts and girders. But yes, I do use radial mounted engines on the sides facing down (trick is to put them at the CG and design craft sofuel full/full empty CG doesn't change much ). Nice thing is, only need a couple of chutes (also at CG) for return to Kerbal, use thrusters to get below 12 m/s and get my whole lander back.

I've played Beta for a bit (mid-upper tech, Science center needs one more upgrade). I've been sending probes and Jeb on solo missions (Jeb don't do ride share!). Now want to train a new three kerbal crew for missions. If I sent the crew kerbals to orbit, then to Mun (all 3 plant flags) and on to Minmus (all 3 plant flags) and return to Kerbal, will they get exp for all three tasks, or only one. Also, is exp divided by three (number of crew), or do all 3 get full points? I love my atomic rocket landers, >10 kps delta V on the space center pad and soft land entire lander, atomic motors, all science packs etc on Kerbal. I wish there was a RockoMax sized atomic motor, 2-3 ganged are needed for decent acceleration with 3 kerbal crewed "Kondor". Test last night with 2 motor version had a bit over 15 minutes burn time with on-board fuel only (about 5 kps delta V). Adding drop tanks, I'll need 30 minutes of burning to get thru all my fuel.

I'm fairly new to Kerbal, but just recently "completed" (never really done) a Atomic rocket powered lander that flips to it's side and lands on radial mounted thrusters (see "What I've been doing" about a page or two before last). I was thinking about "I want to use hi isp Atomic rocket, but don't want klunky beams/girder legs. Normally, my first step is to fire up Excel spread sheet I've created to add up parts weighs and fuels and calculate dV for the ship and hand calc the thrust to weight so that it can get off the pad (forgot this once, short flight). Then make sure I have game saved, build rocket, test, fail, repeat until I: one - get it right, two figure out that this idea was not so good. I'm really happy with my new "Eagle" lander (Space 1999, kinda looks like it, a little, if you squint), just calc'ed that I can use it to land on Duna, Dres and Vall, as well as my original targets of Ike, Gilly, Pol and Bop (and Mun/Minmus). I think I can add a bit of fuel (add a FL-T400 to the FL-T800) and the new "Extended Eagle" will be able to get me home from Moho and Eeloo. In all cases, I'm using asparagus staged "drop tanks" to do the landing. By the way, using 2 radial chutes, I get it slow enough to use thrusters to make a <12 m/s return landing on Kerbin (got to remember to keep a tiny amount of fuel in the tank, or not such a soft landing.... Jeb, remember, it's worth 25K credits) Yes, I really, really, need to learn to do docking. But with an Atomic Transfer bus, I thinking I can do all these with a single launch vehicle. With Two pairs of 400's on the 800 main body, I get a total dV of 9,465m/s on the Extended Eagle. Warm up the platonium, Eeloo here i come.... hmmm, better test fly the Extended Eagle..... PS, It's a single capsule. Jeb don't do ride share.... ahhh, I haven't gotten around to unlocking three man......

I play no-mod, no decline spam (my game, my rules) and try not to time warp too much (How long until old age kills Jeb?). I do get 2-3 satellite contracts. I'm currently using a Atomic rocket powered transfer motor to go from orbit to orbit to polar orbit. (Three satellite missions had built up). For larger orbits, say >500km over Kerbin, is just stopping in place (going to zero orbital velocity, i.e. the node shows the "drop like a rock" trajectory) and then re-orbiting in polar, the most efficent? All the burns to tilt an orbit seem to be greater dV, but haven't checked. I did this for a two satellite mission to Ike.... thats how I earned the credits to get facilities upgrade to unload Atomic Rocket.... By the way, I've posted a Description of my Atomic Rocket powered "Eagle" (think Space 1999) lander on "What have you been doing" thread. It's for Ike and Pol landings.