Teilnehmer

Well, yes. Disabling the precise control perfectly helps, Thanks! But why? So I understand nothing! Precise control has no connection with rotation/translation mode. I made 4 pictures: Rotation. Normal control. Rotation. Precise control. Translation. Normal control. Translation. Precise control. Look:

I’m making a test. The center of mass of my test craft is inside the ore tanks. 4 sets of vernors are located on the beam. I’m trying to turn the craft pressing W or S. (I also tried using monoprop RCS thrusters with the same result.) The result is: The thrusters near the CoM burn at full throttle. The farther a thruster is located, the less throttle is applied to it. Even when I disable or decouple the nearest thrusters, the farthest ones do not change their throttle. Why is the way the RSC is behaving so inefficient?

Is it legal to use the ion thruster? I made a 2 tonne ion ship (Δv about 10 km/s). Will that count?

Thanks. I’ll try.

The Editor Extensions mod allows you arbitrary snap angles. You can, say, set up 30° and 24° snappings and switch between them using the C key. However, it’s a rare case when you actually need that — only if you place something asymmetrically. Symmetric parts can easily be added to your 5 boosters and between them (180° angle).

Thanks for the precise figure!

KSP wiki says: What does that mean? Why 9.82? Aren’t Isp (in m/s) and Ispg0 (in seconds) strictly connected with each other with the factor g0 = 9.81 m/s2 by definition?

Кто занет, как по-русски называют heat shield? В википедии нет русской интервики.

Oh thank you guys! I’ve had the same problem with my Moon journey in RO.

Actually, you should offload both Given your payload mass is m, you need only 0.3 × (m + 7 t) of fuel. (7 t is the mass of Nerv (3t) plus empty orange tank (4t); 0.3 is the fuel to dry vessel ratio for 2100 m/s of Δv). The less excess fuel you have in your tank, the shorter burn you have. So if your payload is 1 t, you need only 2.4 t of liquid fuel (no oxidizer of course), and the burn time is about 4.5 min.

I’m making a similar web tool now. In contrast to the Meithan’s one, it plots graphs by a single parameter only, but you can choose which parameter to plot by: payload mass, Δv, TWR or pressurre. I also added SRBs to the engine list. The number of SRBs needed is calculated with taking into account both TWR and solid fuel amount.

A Jool flyby needs about 2000 m/s of Δv. You don’t need a large tank to do one. A single 1.25 m MK1 Liquid Fuel Fuselage with a Nerv engine can give you 2000 m/s of Δv when your payload mass is less than 3.6 t. Your acceleration will be greater than 8.7 m/s². So the burn time will be less than 3.5 min. You definitely can perform this with one pass. If your payload is a probe core, some scientific devices ans solar panels, then you can fill the MK1 LF Fuselage with only a half of fuel, and your burn time will be even less — about 2 min. BTW, the Nerv is too heavy for such a mission. A Spark engine or a cluster of 3—6 Ants do the job as well and make much less total mass (thus a smaller rocket is needed to bring the thing to LKO).

Thanks. So, it’s easier to make my own floatCurve out of these values than to find the one actually used in the game? What factors should I apply for the other planets?

I’m planning to make a tool for some calculations, so I’d perfer an exact solution rather than dealing with test data. Is it implemented with FloatCurves or something similar? Can I find something like { key = 0 1 key = 5 0.45 key = 10 0.18 key = 20 0.025 key = 40 0.001 key = 70 0 } somewhere in configs (or inside dll’s)?

Does the atmospheric pressure in 1.0.5 depends on altitude only? What is the exact formula of the atmospheric pressure at a given altitude?

Thank you, MarkusA380. PersistentRotation is one of my favourite mods. Is there a way to configure the maximum angular velocity applied to asteroids? I’d like to have some asteroids spinning really fast.

Wow! Just amazing! The Eve lander is so tiny! I tried something similar in 1.0.4 when there was no small ISRU and drills. My plane was 50 t, and I failed to do Eve. You Eve solution is brilliant.

No solutions?

I’ve made a test in 1.0.5. I dropped a probe with 4 ShockCone intakes (2 intake air units each) from above the atmosphere down to the ground. Its mass was 2.617 t up there. But while flying from 40 to 35 km, its mass rose to 2.657 t according to MechJeb Vessel info. So each intake air unit weighs 5 kg.

Before 1.0.5, there used to be the ‘Intake air’ indicator in the resource panel. And the intake air used to have mass. Does intake air still have mass in 1.0.5, or it was removed along with the indicator?

OK, I do that way too. But it would be great if Hyperedit could also rotate the vessel.

I use Hyperedit 1.4.2.0. When selecting another planet in the ‘Ship lander’ window, a warning message appears: “Landing on a body other than the current one is not recommended.” So I thought that was a known issue. Approximately in 2/3 of cases when I press ‘Landing’, I find myself crashed somewhere beyond the Solar system. The ‘Flight results’ window shows that my vessel has crashed into the planet I wanted to teleport to. In 1/3 of cases the teleportation works well.

Tylo is not an exception: [1.0.4] Burolyot Almost Grand Tour

My own test showed the opposite for some reason. The Advanced nosecones type A performed a bit better in my Eve rocket than the Ramp intakes did. The tail connectors type A performed even better a bit on top of the boosters, but were too heavy for the main stage.

I guess this question has been discussed already, so please refer me there. Why is interplanetary ship landing so unstable? And one more question. Is it possible to turn the vessel bottom side toward the surface when teleporting in landing mode? (If there is a problem to decide which side is the bottom one, one can consider the side facing toward the surface before the teleporting as the bottom side.)