wisnoskij

Because getting off Eve is like getting off the Kerbin or the Mun just with a bigger rocket. Building bigger and bigger rockets, and working with more and more lag is not why I play KSP. I am interested in more complex and smart engineering and flying challenges. And a reason to do so. I landed on the Mun to unlock tech. There is no reason to leave Kerbins SOI for science/tech as there is more than enough there to unlock everything.

Hello Fellow Kerbalnauts. I have been playing through KSP for the first time, and I cannot overstate how much mods have added to the experience thus far. In particular SCANsat and RT2 added a feeling of progression and StageRecovery (along with RT2 again) are great for adding more engineering concerns and a level of realism. What I am wondering now is what next? I feel like there is not really any point in going to other planets. I have used most of the parts, and done most of the stuff the game has offered by simply visiting the Mun and Minmus. I looked at The Community Tech Tree, and it was exactly what I was looking for, an extension, but it was just empty branches and for some reason the main page did not even list which potential combinations of mods to use to fill it out. It was not clear if it recommended installing all supported mods, or some were more of an either or situation. And there in Interstellar, which has always looked interesting. Anyways, what are your suggestions for adding new technologies/things to do (in particular reasons to go to other planets) for someone who has done everything else.

@Kryxal: So go into target mode, zero velocity, then switch to orbit mode and burn along retrograde or prograde to lengthen or shorten period? I am not sure how I would zero vertical relative to Kerbin specifically.

@MarvinKitFox: Now that is an interesting idea. I would just target Kerbin and after leaving its SOI, switch to target mode and zero my relative velocity? It just hit me, in that position, i would have constant coverage of every single equatorial object, in particular my RT2 relay. So I can use the light 88, pick one at random and point it at it. Then have full coverage of the solar system, and point any incoming connections at that sat (so absolutely no need to worry about broadcast angle)

I am working with a very wide and light payload, and a very specific contract goal. And Just had a crazy idea. Setup: Trying to get an Dawn Engine Sat into a polar orbit. The satellite fits in an extra wide KW-Rocketry fairing designed to stick on a Rockomax stack, but flairs out even more. So for ascetic, stability, and I believe Aerodynamic reasons I want to stick a rockomax stack under it. But I also have a contract for Test Swivel at 10KM. I tried a 3 stage system with two reliants and two swivels, but they were jettisoned too quickly. So was wondering about using the high powered rockomax to get me up to speed and then ditching it, the center stage first. I think it could be technically possible, but I am not sure if it would be hideously aerodynamic (Over the mach hump and hopefully past 10K by then anyways). I am probably overthinking this, and i should just put a quadcoupler and a bunch of swivels on the bottom, or has something like this design has been tried and is not all that terrible? Also: Are there any good stock aerodynamic tutorials. I read like the release post or something and it was interesting but hard to conceptualize into practical data. For one Scott Mannly puts nose cones on the bottom of his craft's tanks. I am not sure why

Great information.

There are a load of resources for calculating darkness time for circular equatorial orbits. But What about polar? I have a nice group of contracts right now for setting up a satellite in polar orbit, and a RT2 interplanetary relay. I think they will work good together. The orbit I am asked to get is a roughly circular, roughly Mun sized orbit (12M by 7M), and is polar. I have two main questions: 1) I am not sure how long a mun/minmus eclipse would last. 2) Right now the orbit looks like it would never be eclipsed by Kebin. But I suppose relative to the sun the orbit will rotate around and eventually be getting eclipses? And these will be really long as I am quite far out. So the only solution is a highly eccentric orbit? Where I am high over one pole and very low over another? Do I just not even worry about battery power then, as it going to be out of position for most of the solar system then anyways? Lowing my P in a high orbit should be easy, I am imagining, as I am already traveling slow relative to a smaller orbit, so less V to negate. Is it possible for an orbit to be so eccentric that while your P is above 73K, the sides of the orbit are actually closer to the planet? An orbit that is 12 million KM wide and less than 140K tall? I never thought of ever entering the atmosphere with both a P and A above it, but it should technicality be possible.

Wow, I always wondered if we got any strange seasonal/polar sunlight. I guess it only makes sense. The planets all rotate perfectly on their poles and seem to have fairly flat orbital planes. SO the very top/botton of a planet should be pretty static. That said, I think the poles in my game have by way the lowest concentrations. Not sure exacly how averages work tho. Can a 1% biome contain 99% 0% and 1% 100% ore levels?

Thanks Streetwind. I noticed it seemed to be something like that. What would be nice is a way to set the cutoff, so if I had enough storage to last half the night I could say only charge when below 5%, and half as much fuel would be used. As it stands I only have enough storage for like 1% of the nighttime, so it does't make much difference either way. But they do need to be turned on to do that, I really hate how it costs 1,000,000 to unlock custom action groups, that was tedious. OK, some imperial evidence. I did manage a tiny hop to a vein 1% higher, so the numbers should be a little off, but I seem to be generating ore many times faster than I use up fuel. I don't know if the wiki is off, or I just screwed up a decimal place somewhere. But the fuel cells do no seem to use a significant amount of the generated fuel, and a single night time seems long enough to completely fill the miner and then some. - - - Updated - - - A good point Sharpy. At this point, sort of, if at all possible, as I am trying to fuel an expedition of the Mun. So a suborbital hop of two and then back to the refueling station. But that is something to think of. Are the weight of fuel cells worth the difference.

I just sent a small miner to the Mun. From what I have heard there is 70320 seconds of consecutive darkness on the mun (apparently a Kerbin eclipse adds a few minutes). A drill takes 15/s, and the converter takes 30/s. With 4 drills, that is 90/s. So 4 gigantic solar panels cover it during the day, but I would need about 6400 1K batteries to hold it over night...... Or 60 of the first level fuel cells. OK, slightly more doable. They have the same conversion ratio as the big ones 0.0016875/s+0.0020625/s=>1.5/s or 0.10125/s+0.12375/s=>90/s With a lvl 2 engineer, on the richest deposit I could find (most of the surface seems to be covered with an identicle %), if I know what I am doing (it is entirely possible I do not) I am getting 0.034/s*4 = 0.136. So something like 95% would be used to run the machine.... Another strange thing I am using ScanSat. And have been running the narrow band scanner. And really only saw a few numbers. Half the surface was 6.xx%. Now That I have landed, and turned on that surface one there seems to be a more diverse array of numbers. Only up to 10%, as far as I can tell. Is there a way to search for high numbers? So presumably, I could get up to 50-45% efficiency, if I move over to the 10% vein. but then, those were invisible before I landed. Also, how do these fuel cells work? They will automatically turn on when I run out of power and the ship is inactive? They would be pretty useless otherwise, but it doesn't say.

You don't need KER parts with an engineer or upgraded tracking station, and I will have both. But great suggestion. That would make it easier. But I am almost wondering if attaching some "Thuds" might overall make the craft more efficient to land. If I am thinking straight, a TWR of 4 is only 3/4 efficient, While one of 8 would be 7/8s efficient. Which should be far more important than a few pounds and ~20 ISP. They even could be attached to the miner. - - - Updated - - - OK, turns out I was actually in much better shape than I thought I was. Those miner tanks were not connected to my main rocket. So I can give my miner a TWR, capable of doing small suborbital hops, with some terriers, increase my Dv dramatically, and make my overall TWR go through the roof. All while giving my miner the ability to do small suborbital hops theoretically.

OH, so 1.0 TWR is a thrust equal to gravity. That makes sense. But the problem I was having, I can slow down, you just don't have very long to slow down in a 10K circular orbit. OK, so changing the body I have a ~4TWR, and enough fuel. And sure, I see how it might be possible to land theoretically. I don't know if I will be able to do it, I ended up crashing into the ground at about 70 m/s. It seems I will basically be starting a suicide burn directly from a 10K orbit, and if I let off that throttle for a second I will be going to fast to survive. I cannot see how a 1.2 TWR would ever work; 4 really seems like the bare minimum.

Also, I will be shedding the scanning sat on top before landing (and I plan on removing the nose cones with KAS/KIS in orbit). But that is only like 1t total.

So do you just always want 1 TWR for landings/launches without atmosphere? OK, so I am under-powered. I am trying to do it with poodles, because they have great stats, but I need to do some experiments to see exactly how much using a less mass/ISP efficient engines will effect it. The KW Vesta is the next best thing, and I think that Dv is potentially manageable (it seems a little low). - - - Updated - - - Aren't those FAR numbers? Or did the atmospheric update make stock numbers closer to FAR numbers?

Hello all, I am finding a lot of data online, though most of it appear potentially outdated as it is most from far before 1.0. The RT2 Planner (http://ryohpops.github.io/kspRemoteTechPlanner/) is fantastic for any sort of battery/solar calculation, but does not work for landed structures. This (http://i.imgur.com/UUU8yCk.png) Seems to be an up to date Dv chart. But what I am really struggling on now is more required acceleration. It is completely doable to create a Mun lander with the required Dv, I am just not sure how much thrust I need to not to crash into the surface/take off.

You would not being saying that if you saw what it did to my probe.

Oh, ...., the narrow band scanner spins.

I am hoping it is balanced enough. But I don't know if it will fly straight at all.

Ah, I had no idea about this root part thing. I always wondered why the subassembly window rejected most of my designs. Now All I need to figure out is how to fit it, it is rather wider than I thought (and impossible to balance). Do I read this right? The Narrow band scanner does not do long term mapping, it is just for real time looking closely at landing sight locations?

I am at my wits end on how to do this. I tried subassemblies, I tried merging. I tried stack decoupelers, I tried redial decouplers, I tried docking ports. Nothing wants to stick. I cannot even seem to add a docking port onto a docking port in the SPH. I can add a decoupeler directly onto the hanger by itself, and then stick an engine on that, and so on and so forth. But there does not appear to be any way to add pre made assemblies.

Ahh, interesting. I thought it was acting strange.

My problem is not fuel use unbalancing the craft. All of my tanks are connectioned (I have three stacks of the second level plane parts), jets on the outside, reliant's on the inside. The jets take their fuel from the rocket tanks, then when I start my rocket engines, for some reason it cannot even access most of the fuel and promptly runs out of fuel to burn (that is can access). Is there a way to use fuel lines on already connected tanks to redirect which tank a particular engine will prefer to take fuel from?

Hello All. I am having huge problems with managing the fuel of spaceplanes with both LF only engines and LF+Ox engines. I have TAC Fuel Balancer installed, and one solution seems to be to set my rocket tanks to IN for both Ox and LF, but is there a stock solution to jet engines taking LF from your rocket tanks?

But then, I think it actually takes less fuel to go from the surface of Minus to Mun orbit than from the surface of the Mun to a Mun orbit?

And idea for which is optimal Snark? Would a small mining operation be harder to get into orbit than enough fuel to fuel 15 landings and taking-offs?