Jump to content

Enkiel

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    86

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Enkiel

    Are multiple satellite contracts too easy?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    I like to think that the mission for bases on X planet (or moon), are there to push you to establish one there, not just a "lets build this, and put it there, and grab money for it".

    About the satellite, i kinda agree... but on another hand, i already have 7-8 satellite in orbit around kerbin and its moon, i wouldnt like to see what would happen if i couldn't do 2 mission with the same satellite....

    What did you do in KSP1 today?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    Last night was one of those night where i felt like i did alot, but ended up being nothing ;

    i tested my Duna Express ; i was 45 days away from the window, so i couldnt land on it, but i did manage to get "close to it" with more than enough fuel for a landing and a take off (was close to 5000 delta V left).

    Once i knew that was gonna work, i decided to go do a tourist mission, where i had to go around the mun before landing on minmus. I wanted to try it in one launch. I did it, quite easily even, and didnt save.... didn't save.... so guess what happened when i entered kerbin atmosphere? yup, big ol' ball of flame....

    Is KSP too expensive?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    Look at it this way ;

    40$ is the buy now.

    with all the sales there is on Steam, anyone interested in the game but not willing to invest 40$ will just wait for one of those sale. Hell, i have 30-40 games on my wishlist that i'm just not willing to pay top price, and wait until they are 50% or more to buy,....

    Which means ; more money for the company, and everyone's happy.

    How to plan rocket power needed for mission instead of trial and error

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted · Edited by Enkiel

    Kerbal engineer is a must ;

    http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/18230-1-0-2-Kerbal-Engineer-Redux-v1-0-16-6

    then for Delta V ;

    http://i.imgur.com/cyV43I4.png

    http://i.imgur.com/Vi8H41I.jpg

    Edit ;

    and rule of thumb, always plan more than enough. If it takes 5050 to get to the mun, i plan for 6500. Sure, i waste ressource, but its much better to start this way, and trim the fat later, than to get kerbal lost in space all around.

    Help me improve efficiency

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    Yeah depending on what you mean by efficiency. My stuff cost a lot because of cramming all science instruments there (see lander itself $~184k, engines and fuel below are just worth 40k), and I can fit 5 kerbals in there. Usually I just do a batch of rescues with it, then shoot to Mun, land, do science, plant flags, then return.

    8000 seems overkill - mine is just enough for Mun landing + returning (~300 remaining) and a lot remaining if the same ship is used for a Minmus mission.

    Well, efficient compared to what i have :P

    My "Driving" is the main reason i need so much Delta V. I'm practicing getting better at getting into orbit of Kerbin ; i think its where i waste the most power, ending up with an Ap of 130 km and Pe of 80 km most of the time...

    To test, i took picture of each stage...

    I start with ; 8055

    kerbin orbit ; 3915

    Mun intercept ; 3057

    Mun Orbit ; 2675

    Mun Landed ; 1499

    Kerbin intercept ; 358

    I did this with 3 tourist, and a probe (to free up an extra seat for the tourist)

    Help me improve efficiency

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    I think i can say i've reach much better efficiency.

    Here is my new one ;

    220200_screenshots_2015-05-31_00002_zps5wwodk82.jpg

    8000 delta V, 213t and 79k $.

    compared to my old one ;

    8550 delta V, 378t and 133k $

    So far i landed on the mun without any issue, and did a pass by on minmus. Both time, i had plenty of fuel left (thank god, because when i tested with minmus, i only had one parachute).

    Next target ; Duna ! :D

    Thanks guys.

    Oh, for the record. I'm using mainsail. I did try skipper, but i was having trouble leaving the pad....

    Help me improve efficiency

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    My suggestion would be -

    Don't ever bother with Mk1-2 pod - it's heavy as hell. Mk1 lander can+hitchhiker is less than 3.2t with 5 crew capacity. Put another lander can or probe for control. Put another reaction wheel if you need it. This is already saving you ~3t payload.

    And forget about the XL chute - the most useful chute is the radial one. When fully deployed, Mk2-R gives 30.4 effective diameter for 0.1t, while XL gives 37.8 (about 1.5x area) for 0.3t (3x mass)

    And most importantly, as I said before, lander doesn't need to carry that much dV, at least to Mun/Minmus (not considering Interplanetary yet - that needs some different consideration).

    All these payload mass reduction has cascading effect, as you might figure that it might be possible to use just a LV-909 as landing engine, and then you can save engine/fuel mass, causing an even lighter lander.

    To test your theory, i used my lab lander without a return home (decreasing the landing pod to 16t). When i reached Mun, i still had my last orange tank over half full...

    Help me improve efficiency

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    Wow, so many answer, thanks guys.

    Since nobody else has, I will be the one to say it: MOAR BOOSTERS

    Now that we've gotten that detestable expression out of the way, I'll add some pointers from a serious perspective:

    - Those radial engines you have on the lander are somewhat inefficient. If you can, swap to an undermounted engine with higher Isp instead. My Duna lander worked great despite only having ~1.1 TWR on launch. I recommend the poodle for you, as a single one of those is similar to two of the radial ones, but with better efficiency and lower mass. It's also fairly short, so it's good for landers. My landers are normally built on Poodle, LV-909, or Aerospike, depending on the thrust needed.

    - Consider scaling down. That pod plus the hitchhiker can should be a total of 7 kerbals. Do you need that many? An MK2 lander can is both cheaper and lighter, with only one seat less.

    I had the poodle at first, but the legs were too short, so i had to move to side engine, that's pretty much the only reason i got the thud. Now that i have the longer legs, maybe it could work.....

    about the hitchhiker, the problem i had was that 2 weren't enough (most mission i had, at least 3 or 4 kerbal were in tow....), and yeah, 7 is too much. And it is much cheaper (i think) to do one big trip instead of 2 "medium". Since the travelers mission seems to be more rare now, i guess i could remove it!

    What-all's in the Service Bay? Materials, Goo, Thermometer, Gravioli, Barometer, and Seismometer? Anything else? 'Cuz if that's all, you could try moving the Materials Bay to between the capsule and the parachute, then switching out the 2.5 metre Service Bay for a 1.25 metre Service Bay and moving it there too. That'll knock 0.2 tons off right there.

    You ARE stripping out nonessential Monopropellant, right?

    If you only need to move five tourists, keep the Hitchhiker, but replace the 3-man pod with a 1-man, and add a probe core for control. They're not paying for a GUIDED tour.

    Maybe try rotating the outermost boosters inwards, so from above it looks more like this:

    1 2 1
    3 4 3
    1 2 1

    Service bay have everything. I use the big one because i found the small one between the pod and the cone, it was f*ugly.... yeah, i make decision choice on look sometimes....

    Uhm, wait.... the engine i have right now need oxidizer, no?

    right now its something like this ; 

        1
        3 
    2 4 5 4 2
        3 
        1

    No middle stage eh? If that center tank is supposed to take you to Duna, maybe you should put a Poodle on there.

    No real middle stage, except like you said, the center tank which is usually almost full when i'm in Kerbin orbit.

    To start with, switch the Mk55 Thuds with the Terrier or maybe a single Poodle (with a 2.5m fuel tank at the bottom to make things more aerodynamic). It will give your craft a bit more more crash tolerance too -- a single parachute might be too fast for the Hitchhiker can.

    You also have far more total delta-V than you need. Around 7000 should be plenty to get to the Mun and back with some room for mistakes. This means that you can remove your first two stages and still have more than enough for a Mun trip and return.

    Finally -- you're actually using Skippers all throughout by the look of things. I love those engines, but a pair of mainsails might be appropriate here, and it would let you reduce the width of your rocket

    I actually have 5 parachute, there's 4 around the pod.

    you mean, i should move from 9 tank to 5 ? that seems pretty extreme...

    the engine are all mainsails underneath (unless i took a wrong picture...)

    Okay. So at 24 tonnes, you need 39.12 kN of thrust for a 1.0 Munar TWR, 58.68 kN for a 1.5 Munar TWR. That's really all the more thrust you need this thing to have. At the moment, you've got a Mun TWR of 9.202...far above what you really need. You'd benefit in many, many, MANY different ways by swapping out those Thuds for something else. Hell, a Terrier would give you the thrust you need easily. Scale it down from 24 tonnes with 3 Thuds to a single Terrier; your new mass becomes 21.8 tonnes, your Isp increases to 345, your Mun TWR is 1.689 - and you suddenly have 2700 m/s of delta-V. Your cross section decreases in the process - and you're a lot less draggy as a result. 2700 is a bit low for a Mun transfer, landing, launch and return but it is doable.

    Did the math on a trio of Sparks; the mass savings isn't worth it in this case on account of the lower Isp of Sparks.

    So then you go through Temstar's asparagus design process for 21.8 tonnes; 15% payload fraction, so assume your rocket will have a final mass of around 145 tonnes. 1.5 launch TWR these days - you want in the ballpark of 2131.5 kN of thrust at launch. 22% of that in the core = 468.93 kN; you want a Skipper in the core. The rest distributed to six boosters = 277.095 kN - Skippers, or to eight boosters = 207.82 - Reliants. Let's say you go with eight Reliants and a Skipper - you have 13 tonnes of engines and 21.8 tonnes of payload... leaving 110.2 tonnes, which works out to a little over 12 tonnes per stack. In the center, use a X200-16 and X200-8 tank with the Skipper. For the boosters, try two FL-T800s and one FL-T400 per stack. Adjust the thrust of the boosters as necessary to give you your ~1.5 with each stage. Take any mass saved by my rounding errors here and use it for nosecones, fins, adapters and decouplers.

    Yes, Temstar's method was for KSP 0.20, and produced a rocket with 4500 m/s of delta-V as a rule. I've found that the addition of the nosecones and fins usually lowers things down to the 3500 regime though, so it's still a valid method of building good asparagus. The only problems with 1.0.x asparagus is A) asparagus staging is generally more costly unless you play with a mod like StageRecovery (which is awesome, BTW) and B) you have to be careful to keep things to where most of the mass stays closer to the nose, or you're going to tumble out of control. I usually achieve this these days by keeping the core stage up higher than the boosters as much as I possibly can; that way by the time you're flying on the core alone the drag is too low to flip you around.

    Start with those design changes and see what happens to your craft. Out of curiosity, what all do you have in your Service Bay?

    That's alot of changes... The first thing, i'm not too fond of booster, especially 12 of them (if i count correctly?) I know that real one had it, but i dunno, seems like it was good at first, now, i'm less inclined to use them. I'll try the Skipper in the middle to see what it does with my middle tank... should that one be running during the aspartagus stages?

    Here is a quick version of the ship. The price is a bit under 100,000 funds.

    http://jltsiren.kapsi.fi/ksp/1.0/example_ship.jpeg

    The design principle was "don't touch the payload".

    You were apparently using the Thuds for landing at Kerbin, as a single parachute isn't enough for a safe landing. It's more efficient to use Terriers instead of Thuds, and replace the nosecones of the engine nacelles with parachutes. It also turned out that you get more delta-v from the entire rocket with two engine nacelles instead of three, so I removed one of them. Finally I removed the unnecessary monopropellant from the pod.

    The launch vehicle is a simple 2.5-stage rocket. The upper/transfer stage uses a Poodle, the lower stage uses a Skipper, and the boosters use Mainsails. The adapter/nosecone combinations look ugly, but they generate less drag than 2.5 m nosecones.

    Wow, that's kind of what i'm thinking... maybe i'm overdoing this and just end up weighting more and adding more power to compensate? I'm trying to find the middle between single craft that just goes in the air, and big thing that is too big for its own good.

    I really like the simple design of this ship, but its a case of "i'm scared to flip it"...

    - - - Updated - - -

    EDIT :

    i just tested, and the poodle is too long for the current legs i have....

    - - - Updated - - -

    EDIT 2 :

    with the poodle tho, i'm down to 16 t, after removing the hitchhiker and the side tank replaced with a x-200 that gives me the same delta V.

    Help me improve efficiency

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    So here it is ;

    lander is 24t, with 2000 delta v.

    2015-05-29%20Lander_zpst2meuri8.jpg

    Whole thing is 378t with 8550 delta v.

    2015-05-29%20whole_zps7k2vw86e.jpg

    My lander is the shortest i could make it, with all equipment and a hitchhiker. And considering the following quest, i doubt i'll ever take the hitchhiker out....

    2015-05-29%20mission_zpsbmfcykm6.jpg

    - - - Updated - - -

    Just noticed there's some stage missing...

    S0 1.52 2,065

    S1 1.04 2,201

    S2 1.40 1,073

    S3 1.50 2,408

    S4 1.55 1,335

    S5 1.58 0,581

×
×
  • Create New...