Warzouz

[quote name='KerikBalm']Well, its as green as the energy source.... If we had a 100% solar/wind/hydro energy grid (or throw nuclear, particularly fusion in there), it would be "green"[/QUOTE] Well you seems to be swiss so you might understand this sentence in french (I don't know if it translate well in English) : "Quand les poules auront des dents"

I like the green washing of that article : "this plane will be clean : H2 + LOx = water + energy" Please remind me from here H2 come from ? Ah, methane... And even if it came from electrolysing water, 85% of energy comes from fossil energy, mostly coal and gas. So basically this plane would run mostly on coal. :D

[quote name='SlabGizor117']I agree that this will help but I promise the joints between those parts are ridiculously unstable and I know that's the main problem. KJR won't completely eliminate that problem though.. Will it?[/QUOTE] KJR does solve ridiculous wobbliness. But docking rings plugged to parts will still bend, you'll need struts.

@Landge : very nice base

And don't hesitate to pack a lot of fuel. You'll be able to do multiple hops and finally use less fuel than a smaller ship that needs to refuel more often from space. My default lander has 3000m/s with only one small Rockamax tank and one terrier. BUT the new lighter ISRU may change that...

[quote name='cantab']If I remember rightly on my Moho trip I did a "pre-capture" burn a few hours before even entering Moho's SOI, to slow the ship down so I didn't go sailing on through.[/QUOTE] Yes I did that too : I had 2 missions to Moho (a space station and the return vehicle + lander). Missions departed at 2 days interval. I plotted course manually (using precise node like tool). Ships arrived in Moho SOI within [B][COLOR="#B22222"]5[/COLOR][/B] minutes (!) and PE capture was 35 minutes away and lasts 15 min each (IIRC) because of low TWR. "Houston we have a problem"... As soon as I figured that, I did a partial retro burn for one of the ships to delay its capture node. That's when I planned the PE too close to Moho and nearly crashed into it before having time to capture... I ended with a orbit passing through Moho, but I couldn't wait until AP, because I had another ship to capture. Hopefully, I always plan for the worst, so I had fuel for a quick and inefficient corrective burn. Finally all went well :D It wasn't the first time I got there, but that was my first real manned mission. [IMG]http://tof.canardpc.com/view/b88bc9d5-73e3-4257-8b5c-7b36c4746567.jpg[/IMG]

I also wanted to build a reusable lander able to refuel and do other trip down quickly. So I've worked with space station I came to that design : [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/132464[/url] The station is fully refuellable from it's parent body or a nearby object. Lander is generic and validated for most bodies (except Eve, Tylo and Laythe - you could land but not come back) but it could host dedicated reusable landers (for Laythe or Tylo). The miner is also the engine section of the station so it can move easily (as did my Joolian mission). The lander and miner have been tested on high slopes (27° for the miner on Bop) Typpical mission is sending the station and lander there with a return vehicle. 6 crew goes there and 3 return. Then I plan crew rotations. [CENTER][url=http://tof.canardpc.com/view/052d05b8-a4cd-4bd4-bd64-f92bd0bde15c.jpg][img]http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/052d05b8-a4cd-4bd4-bd64-f92bd0bde15c.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://tof.canardpc.com/view/8c5413fc-2ba4-48c0-b0d9-ef602c9d33ec.jpg][img]http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/8c5413fc-2ba4-48c0-b0d9-ef602c9d33ec.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://tof.canardpc.com/view/e4402384-66b4-4982-9cff-b9ec6edb33ce.jpg][img]http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/e4402384-66b4-4982-9cff-b9ec6edb33ce.jpg[/img][/url] [SIZE=1]Station orbiting Vall / Vaccum lander on Dres / Miner landing on Eeloo[/SIZE][/CENTER] Beware that wasn't fully recheck for 1.0.5. I'm waiting for 1.1

Returning is very easy if you have refueling capacity at Moho.

I know, I know, that was a joke. As I said before, I've been several times to Moho. Not a big deal. I like sending big stuff to LKO. When we go to Moho, we usually have a quite big inclination change dV and a very big capture burn. Those don't have to be precise burns, so low TWR is a good option. [OK, reasonably low TWR for capture, Moho SOI is small] Only the escape burn should be precise and a high TWR is preferable for "not high killed" players as I am. So building a quite high TWR in such condition is not much harder. On the other hand, it's possible to wait for a better encounter with a cheaper dV. but As I don't like to wait, I usually go for the first window and pack fuel for it. As I recover the launch stage (up to 600 tons payloads), price per ton to LKO is very low. But you're right to say that the stock node user interface is not precise enough to get to Moho in good condition. A node edition tool (precise node or MJ node editor) helps A LOT. The simple fact you can't easily access and edit a Kerbin node while focusing on another body is a non-sense. It seems the user-unfriendliness of the interface is sometimes was intended. As for error calculation, I'm not experienced enough to find them, but I'm used to replot every node after leaving SOI. I never noticed huge variations

(bad) Moho recipe : "When you've built your ship to go to Moho, double its dV"

I also had it once or twice.

[quote name='OhioBob'][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]I just tested the two scenarios using a simulation.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Calibri] [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] The test was for a hypothetical trip to Jool. [/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]I figured an 80 km parking orbit and a theoretical instantaneous Δv of 1990.4 m/s.[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] This Δv gives a hyperbolic excess velocity of 2800 m/s, which is typical for a Jool mission. [/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]I equipped the vehicle with a Poodle engine and gave it an initial mass of 51721 kg.[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] This mass was chosen because it yields a theoretical burn time of 312.47 s, which is 1/6[/COLOR][/SIZE][SUP][SIZE=2][COLOR=#000000]th[/COLOR][/SIZE][/SUP][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] of an orbit.[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] I started the burn 30[/COLOR][/SIZE][SUP][SIZE=2][COLOR=#000000]o[/COLOR][/SIZE][/SUP][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] before the maneuver node, i.e. half before the node and half after. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] In scenario #1 the thrust vector was maintained in a prograde direction throughout the burn. [/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]In scenario #2 the thrust vector remained locked in a fixed attitude in relation to the stars.[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] The fixed attitude was that of the orbit tangent through the maneuver node. [/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]Scenario #2 should approximate keeping the vehicle aligned to the maneuver node marker on the Navball.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] In both cases I terminated the burn the instant the hyperbolic exess velocity reached 2800 m/s. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] In both cases the actual Δv ended up greater than the theoretical, which is what we would expect.[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] However, the difference between the two scenarios was small.[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] Keeping the vehicle aligned to the prograde marker was slightly better at 2054.4 m/s, versus 2067.4 m/s for the fixed thrust vector alignment. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]In the second scenario, the vehicle altitude dipped as low as 75.26 km. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] Although both scenarios resulted in the same hyperbolic excess velocity, the resulting orbits were different.[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] Below is a comparison of the orbital parameters of the two scenarios and the theoretical ideal orbit based on the Δv being applied instantly at the maneuver node.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] As you can see, scenario #2, i.e. alignment to the maneuver node, is a closer match to the theoretical orbit. [FONT=Calibri]Of course, it is possible to adjust the start time of either scenario to improve the longitudes; however, if we stay with the practice of centering the burn on the maneuver node, then scenario #2 is better. [/FONT] [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] [TABLE="width: 575"] [TR] [TD="width: 147, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]Scenario #1 aligned to Prograde [/FONT][/COLOR] [/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]Scenario #2 aligned to Maneuver Node[/FONT][/COLOR] [/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]Theoretical Ideal Orbit[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 147, bgcolor: transparent"][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]Semi-major axis, km[/FONT][/COLOR][/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]-450472[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]-450473[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]-450459[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 147, bgcolor: transparent"][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]Eccentricity[/FONT][/COLOR][/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]2.58596[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]2.51543[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]2.50957[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 147, bgcolor: transparent"][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]Periapsis altitude, km[/FONT][/COLOR][/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]114430[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]82660[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]80000[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 147, bgcolor: transparent"][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]Longitude of periapsis, deg.[/FONT][/COLOR][/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]-7.506[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]-2.466[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]0.000[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 147, bgcolor: transparent"][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]Longitude at infinity, deg.[/FONT][/COLOR][/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]105.24[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]110.96[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent"][CENTER][CENTER][COLOR=black][FONT=Calibri]113.48[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER] [/CENTER] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 147, bgcolor: transparent"]Δv, m/s[/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent, align: center"]2054.4[/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent, align: center"]2067.4[/TD] [TD="width: 77, bgcolor: transparent, align: center"]1990.4[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] Nice data, as I suspect the test #2 is nearer the intended trajectory, the test #1 would need a more expensive correction burn, isn't it ? Do you have an estimation of that ? OR It should be possible to change the start burn time to achieve the same orbit as node targeting using prograde burn. Is it possible ?

I have a space station with 16 RTG around Vall / Dres / Eeloo. Even one of my Moho ship is power by RTG (one ship to rule them all...). I didn't notice any overheating. Space stations where in place since 1.0.4 BUT I didn't played 1.0.5 much and didn't used the on board ISRU since then.

There was a reduction in part number support between beta and official release. I hope we'll get back there. Best hope is for memory management in 64 bits so we can have some improved existing planets and additional planets. And get a proper sound design ! Don't forget that 1.1 will improve wheels and add a basic communication gameplay

[quote name='5thHorseman']While a good reason to put the setting there, it's a better reason to make game settings patchable by ModuleManager. (dreaming in pseudocode) [code] @GAMEGLOBALS { CONIC_PATCH_LIMIT = 8 } [/code][/QUOTE] Sorry 5thHorseman, but I didn't get the true meaning of your message :/ Does you "code" work in reality ? If yes, I'll add if to my personna tweaking instead of modifying official files(and forgeting) each version. Thx

Long burns have also another side effect, except burning more fuel : you could cross the atmosphere, or hit the planet. I remembered a slowdown at Moho. I set a PE at 50km, the burn was so long the the PE reduced a lot. I don't remember precisely, but I think It ended at less than 20km, the I had to continue burning after PE and the actual orbit crossed Moho. I had to fix it at AP, the redo another PE burn to circularize. Now, I keep a larger distance with Moho... Anyway, capturing is an easy manover, you only lose fuel. Departure is more delicate because you have to be on he correct course. I remembered messing with a departure and being off course by 10°. I ended burning a lot of fuel to fix it. Bur again, that was a long time ago, in the beta. As for burn angles I'm happy if the whole burn is under 30° (2.6min for 80km orbit, up to 9.4min for 1000km)

Buring prograde is not loosing fuel, but your PE won't be at the same location. Thus your AP won't be where you want it to be. You may burn less dV BUT you'll be off course. With the speed you gained, you correction burn may be expensive. Personally I always stick to Node. If your burn is long, you'll waste fuel (some kind of anti-radial, then radial), but you'll be much near you target course. The ideal way to do it is to do multiple short burns at PE. The issue become the timing, but it's more accurate and fuel efficient. You should target specific orbit AP with know orbital revolution duration, so you can manage timing correctly. I find that uneasy for my skills. The other solution is to change interplanetary stage to a higher TWR, which is easier to manage, but usually more expensive (more engines, more fuel, more LKO stage.

[quote name='Polnoch']I'm sorry, I steel don't understand, how can I do it :( If I try to use olex tool:[/QUOTE] You can't really use olex tool to get a proper encounter with Moho. It'll only work with Duna, Eve or Jool (which have nearly no inclination, very little eccentricity or very big SOI). This tool only gives you an average window. You should launch before and find a proper encounter around the date. For Moho or Dres, encounter can have a very different dV cost. Again, I don't care about ejection angle any more, I figure it by tweaking the time of the burn node. When the orbit is the highest (for outer planets) or lowest (for inner planets) the ejection angle is fine for me. Then I tweak orbit after orbit until I find a tangent encounter on the other side of the Sun. Further more diffent tools can have some very different calculation results. For example "KAC" which implements a variation of Olex Tool have 2 caluclation mods (model or formula) which can have a 10 days variation. I don't understand the math behind all that, but for navigation, I don't tru. Even with Launch Window Planner ([url]http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/[/url]) I don't get correct encounter even fixing the node at the exact time provided. Sometimes, I'm not even close. I'm probably using it wrong. I found my own method. I only need some way of fine tuning the node parameters. The stock game doesn't provide a user friendly way to do that. "Precise Node" or "Node Editor" from MJ do. Rules I use for an efficient encounter - Encounter near 180° of your SOI body - Encounter as tangent as possible - Shift Node time to get most efficient orbit change for your dV, then fix prograde value to tangent target orbit - Use radial burn only for small adjustments, prefer shifting node time orbit after orbit. For inclined objects. - Try to meet at AN/DN - If you can't try to have AN/DN as far as possible from the center of SOI. For eccentric objects - Try to meet near AP for inward objects or near PE for outward objects. The testing vehicle. - As KSP doesn't let you do some pre-calculation, have a satellite in departing orbit to test your flight and evaluate the dV you need. EDIT : After rereading your post I noticed you may have misunderstood "retrograde" for phase angle. Your orbit around Kerbin is always prograde (you save fuel that way), but you will burn prograde to Kerbin SOI, with a phase angle which will make you do a retrograde burn relative to Kerbol SOI (but this burn will be done in kerbin SOI... Olex tool then call ejection angle "retrograde". I also had hard time to understand what I had to do. Then looking at what MechJeb planned with the "adavance transfert" tool, I understood what had to be done. I figured my own method because MJ never gave me a clean encounter. Navigation, even to Moho, can very easily be done without calculation mods. Try MJ "Node editor" feature. It helps you to be much more precise in changing the node parameter and, most of all, it allow to add ONE orbit to the node any time you want, of shifting a node precisely (I think you can do only 5 times in stock). This stock node interface is hell on Kerbin.

I agree 100% with Geschosskopf, refining for LKO departure may be funds rewarding, but will take a lot of time. It's much better to recover most of your LKO stage, as I do. Sending fuel WITH you interplanetary ship may not be fuel or cost efficient, but It's very time efficient. Sending a refueling/mining capacity along with your interplanetary exploration ship is also time efficient, because you're able to refuel within few hours instead of waiting for the next window and interplanetary travel time. As my playtime is quite short, I run for the quickest way to enjoy the game ;)

[quote name='GeneCash']What? you can't go to Moho with only 7,217 m/s delta-v using 2 Eve flybys and 8 Moho flybys over 10 years like this guy? [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74375-Lowest-Delta-v-to-Moho/page3[/url][/QUOTE] I've a simple return vehicle. It's not optimized, because I want him to go to Moho nearly anytime. I've packed it with 6650m/s from LKO to LMO (quite a huge margin, i think). Ageter refueling, the return trip is 5300m/s (with a pre slowdown befor entering Kerbon atmosphere.)

Arsonide, is it possible to have some more reasonable tourists contract ? I usually get some which want to land on Eve then go to Vall and do a Duma flyby. And other tourists on the same contract want to go elsewhere. This is quite boring. It's more like a TOUR mission (which are much fun and RP) Tourists contract should be : bring N tourists to XXX planetary body and do some flyby.landing on its moons. N could be big so we would have ot create some "bus" vehicles.

Personally I send space station with refueling capacity around nearly every planetary bodies. With a "Miner" part of the station, I'm capable of refueling the landers and return vehicles easily (even on Eve, using Gilly). Si I can fully explore any planets when I want. The other advantage, is you don't need to bother of return fuel IF your return ship is capable or returning. So I can drain the return ship fuel when I going there. I'll refill them when they dock at the station. the only fuel you have to keep is fuel need to land and return to the station with Ore Check here : [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/132464[/url] And Here for my first failure : [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130691[/url]

My 70tons space station mission to Moho The return vehicle and landers were send on a separate flight that meet there (within 5 min at SOI enter, braking was complex...) [IMG]http://tof.canardpc.com/view/017d2bde-716d-4ca8-a3b2-050147fd4dff.jpg[/IMG]

Space station should require engineers and scientist !

This could be nice if the ship list was [B]sorted[/B].