Jump to content

Duke Leto

Members
  • Posts

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Duke Leto

  1. Ok then, lemme see how well I remember this crap from AP Physics... The Torque force is being measured in kNewton Meters if it's like the Inline Stabilizers, which is synonymous with kiloJoules, I think, presumably representing the kinetic energy the brakes dissipate per second... and Explorer Plane 2 is 8.9 Metric Tons, so if I'm coming in at 50 m/s at the time of ground contact, that'd be 22,250 kiloJoules of kinetic energy to dissipate over 5 landing gear that taking 12 kiloJoules of energy each, assuming a simultaneous touchdown of all 5 gears. That would be a stopping time of 370 seconds. Which is obviously wrong. So either the displayed 12 is something other than kN m or I've lost my mathematical touch over 20 years.
  2. Well, after some more research and fiddling, I have come up with this design, which has been certified as being able to go from KSC to the North Pole on about 35-40% of its total fuel capacity. It also has excellent stability and handling. Hopefully the eventual availability of the Turbojet engine will improve its range still further and allow for the high altitude testing contract components without the need for an on board oxidizer refit, but until then, bored Kerbals in orbit will have to do for those. I must confess though that binary wing configuration was not my idea, and the credit for it belongs to the maker of this video: The craft file is here for anyone who wants to play with the design. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9jd9yihg5ptipc7/Explorer%20Plane%202.craft?dl=0 Thanks to everyone who's helped in this thread, most especially Wanderfound. One more question for the peanut gallery. Since I've started draining Monopropellant from cockpits with no need for the stuff, I've noticed that other parts have adjustable settings. In this case, the brakes on the landing gear have a default torque setting of 12, which can be set as high as 30. At first I did this but then thought better because I had no problems stopping this same airframe with a slightly different gear configuration with the gear torque set to 12, and it seemed unwise to screw with something I didn't really understand when it was working. So what's the deal with landing gear brake torque? Pursuant to my policy of light comedy, here's a snapshot of Valentina Kerman getting surface instrument data on the mountain biome using a variation on the HA Explorer Plane design: I'm guessing you can figure out how that landing was achieved...
  3. Well, that worked exactly as advertised, Wanderfound, excepting the part where it slammed into a mountain when I tried to land at a right angle to the coastline instead of parallel as your images showed. Embarrassingly, it actually was more of a plateau... Jeb and the cockpit survived though, so it's all good... I'm refraining from awarding Wanderfound the "Answered" thingee until I work out if the Kerbodyne Hiflyer can handle the distance runs or I work out a design that can that meshs it and the advice I've gotten in the thread. Thanks to Wanderfound and all others that have offered advice. - - - Updated - - - One more note to the above, I was able to circumvent the problem of no custom action groups by hotwiring the engine type switch to the Lights action group. The actual lights were wired to the staging sequence and the flamethrower was linked to the cigarette lighter.
  4. Worth noting, I've had these issues with service bays, but I've found that if you open and close the service bay the shaking parts inside will reseat themselves and then stop causing problems until you focus on another craft and or go to the Space Center. No idea why.
  5. It was semi-sarcastic self deprecation. - - - Updated - - - Quick question on staging for that lovely little design I fully intend to plagiarize, Wanderfound, I don't have custom action groups available for spaceplanes, but I'm guessing that the idea is to shut down the Wheesley and switch over to the Thuds when beginning the vertical climb, and reverse that on returning to atmospheric flight?
  6. That winking Kerbal smilee is one of the top five most disturbing things I have seen today. - - - Updated - - - Error... Could not reproduce. Using this guy to try your instructions: It's basically at an absolute minimum of weight without removing things that will interfere with its operation, and its ceiling using the instructions above is almost precisely 15,000 m. I'm going to try subbing out the nose air intake for a possibly more aerodynamic combination of an Aerodynamic Nose Cone and a XM-G50 radial intake, but I'm not optimistic. (With good reason, it didn't work. All the other wing configurations look to drop the mass <5%...) Looking at the advice regarding drop tanks, the solution actually may entail adding more pylons... Meanwhile my far more operationally questionable design for a longer range "scaled up" version of the same idea suffers from two aggravating in-flight problems: 1.) A tendency to spontaneously pitch straight up. 2.) A tendency to disintegrate completely. Kerthrop Kerman's B-2 Bomber design for the KSAF from stock parts is going to have to be recycled as wastepaper basket lining...
  7. I should add to the list of high altitude workarounds that visual surveys from low orbit totally count for anything "above altitude X", and I had cleared out a few contracts that way but forgotten that I had. Not sure if you can get away with temp and pressure readings 80k up, but I may check. - - - Updated - - - As was just noted.
  8. Well, one thing that had occurred to me was that I ought to add more structural pylons, but that's an obscure joke. I'll give both the larger plane (for longer range) and the near vertical approach a try.
  9. So I can put a Jeb on the moon but I can't ascend above 14,500 meters in a plane? OK, so I'm well into my 1.0.2 career, and I am now stuck. I started accepting contracts on Kerbin in atmosphere exploration, and I found that my old reliable exploration design (2 delta wings and two control canards strapped to Mk1 cockpit and fuselage tank and basic jet engine) now has an effective ceiling of ~14km no matter how I tweak it. In theory, it needs the turbojet engine, but that puppy is now WAY up the science tree. Just assumed I'd be able to get preliminary funding for them and complete them once I had the turbojet, but they are now 6 out of 11 Active contracts and new ones are not spawning. Two more involve sending idiots, I mean tourists, on Minmus flybys, which I do not want to do before the Kerbonauts go there on the unspawned Explore Minums contract, one is Explore Duna, which is simply not feasible, two are getting orbiting stations for Kerbin and the Mun into position. Most of the various remaining waypoints for visual surveys, temperature and atmospheric scans are not above 14km, but sufficiently far from KSC's Pseudo-Africa landmass as to be out of the operational range of any plane I can design. I have everything in the tech tree up to the 90 RP level inclusive plus "Heavier Rocketry", "Command Modules", "Advanced Exploration", and "Advanced Electrics". I also have 157 science and some unexhausted on Kerbin, plus lots of stuff to do on the Mun and Minmus. Short version: I've got a load of unfinished Kerbin Survey contracts that I can't complete that it would clearly behoove me to get out of the way. That they were available for me to accept suggests there is a way to do them at my current tech level. Can anyone tell me how?
  10. All right then, I'd just repeat my science tree balance suggestion: Move the TT18-A Launch Stability Enhancer to either "Start" or "Basic Rocketry". If collision issues with the launchpad are unavoidable with the physics engine, then the launch clamps are a basic requirement, not an advance easing use.
  11. Hi. I've just restarted my career to take advantage of the 1.0 release (now 1.0.2.842), and I've run into a problem using one of the early parts. This behavior MAY be intentional, but I don't think so. First, let the record indicate that I am running the Steam version of KSP on a Windows 8.1 64 bit installation. It is not immediately clear in any of the files I was instructed to look at whether the KSP installation is 32 bit or 64 bit, but the version number is clearly 1.0.2.842. Basically, I'm using the "Thumper" solid booster as a first stage to get my craft into orbital or suborbital trajectories in the early contracts where science and funding are thin on the ground. It's not usable as such because the engine is getting entangled in the grating on the Level 2 launchpad. It pulls free after a few moments or can be pried loose if you want to tilt your craft a few dozens of degrees off the vertical on the launchpad, but both come at the expense of a lot of wasted fuel. I have been able to get early access to the S1 SRB-KD25k "Kickback" Solid Booster through a testing contract, which does not have the above mentioned problem. An obvious workaround would be utilizing the TT18-A Launch Stability Enhancer to lift the rig off the ground, but I did not prioritize the purchase of "General Construction" and as noted above, science and funding are at a premium at the game start. If a player does not purchase it before "Advanced Rocketry", and does not get a testing contract allowing them to use either the "Kickback" or the TT18-A LSE, they are denied the use of Solid Boosters in the early game, which could be a major balance issue given the expense of Liquid Fuel Stacks. Here is a screenshot of the Test craft (designed to allow experienced pilot Kerbals to haul rich morons... I mean "Tourists" into space. (Should probably ditch the Science Jr...)) Here is a screenshot of the craft trying to lift off, but entangled in the grating. And here the craft finally pries itself loose from the launchpad. Note it has wasted about a third of its 1st stage fuel to go 11.5 meters! This is not a problem with the weight as the craft gains speed quite rapidly once it is disentangled. Craft File: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mswf5xx2qe8z5cb/Pseudo-Gemini%20Test.craft?dl=0 Save File: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a8nre4dsop6utmp/persistent.sfs?dl=0 DXDiag File: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0x17rdqen4uh9pv/DxDiag.txt?dl=0 Congrats to Squad, Felipe Falanghe and the KSP team on the official release and for all their great work!
×
×
  • Create New...