Jump to content

Gahooligan

Members
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gahooligan

  1. I had something like this not too long ago. It doesnt always work and kinda relies on luck, but try to come in as shallow as possible. Then, wait until youre in the thickest part of the atmosphere, and youre just seeing mach effects. hopefully youre only going 500-800/ms at this point. Then, try to tilt your craft sideways so the side of it is facing your velocity vector. Try to use the body drag and lift to slow your decent. The point is to bleed as much speed as possible before you open your chute. Cut it as close as you can without pulling the ol' 'controlled decent into terrain' manuver. If youre using a single mk1 parachte you probably dont need to to open your chute untill youre at 2000-1000 meters, depending on your weight and the terrain height. It's a seat-of-your-pants manuver and it doesnt always work...but with enough quickloads im sure you can pull it off. That is, assuming your craft has the control wheels to muster enough oomph to fight the aerodynamic forces tha are trying to align your craft with your velocity vector. Even if you cant get sideways any amount of deflection will help you, maybe more than you'd think. Edit: seems i misinterpreted the question. Someone on the steam forums had this problem. Theier discription of thier problem was remarkably similar. For them it ended up being a staging problem. They didnt realize they activated the cute prior to reentry and couldnt figure out what was going wrong. The icon representing your chute should be white prior to and during the hot parts of reentry. It will be blue if it's been activated/deployed but youre too high up and it's waiting for some atmosphere. Then, yellow after it deploys as drogue. finally, green when its fully deployed. Red means bad stuff happened or you used it already. If you already deployed it out of atmosphere theres still hope. if you have an engineer on board they can EVA and repack the chute. Putting it back into it's non-deployed state.
  2. In my experience I have that problem when my gear isnt exactly plumb. or it may be slightly toe-in or toe-out. Maltesh's method is the one youre looking for. In cars, a slight bit of toe-out(thats then the front of the tires are farther apart than the backs) allows for more straight line stability at the cost of turn-in responsiveness and tire wear. Dunno if thats true in ksp. Though, now im curious.
  3. A standard tail fin or a wing with control surfaces will do the trick for ya. Place it near the back, behind the center of gravity. It should be smmoth fling after that. It's interesting though that at hish speed, its stable. Could you upload a screenshot perhaps? id love to see what youre workin' with.
  4. I wouldnt think so, it's listed with a max temp of 2000 i believe. Could be a glitch, did you try putting radiators on/near it?
  5. Well, yes and no. I dont think i'd call my vessel small, but small seems to be the theme. As you probably already know smaller craft are easier to manuver, more aerodynamic, and cost less fuel to get to, and maintain speed. I feel like if theres too much wing the drag would kill speed and cost fuel. Im on the cusp of getting a circumnavigation in under an hour, and ive found it's reasonably economical to jump in and out of the air intake's usable range. like a fish jumping in and out of water. You lose a little speed but you get 3-5minute chunks of no fuel consumption -- havnt worked out of its just better to do it that way or maintain altitude where the engine is on the verge of flameout. With a bigger craft i'd imagine getting it to speed would take a good but of fuel, and the mass of it would make manuvering a pain. But maybe not, it would be cool to see a design for a big circumnavigator vessel.
  6. Hiya! I'm planning a cuncumnavigation of Mun by rover. But I have a few concerns over my design. First, the craft. It's very heavily based on the Rocketpilot753's rover design. My concern is that it may be too closely related and could be considered to be copying them. There's lots of differences but the main mechanisms for locomation are the same. If it's too close I'll go back to the drawing board. Secondly, I use a good number of Ion thrusters. It could be argued that I could effectively fly over the surface with this many thrusters thus breaking the spirit of the challenge. Which is something I'd like to avoid. Personally, after a few tests I havn't been able to produce lots of airtime using the thrusters, and it doesnt fly. But off of the right slope, I can see where it it would catch decent airtime nonetheless. If it's too much I could reduce the number of thrusters or remove them completely to have a craft more in line with the intended idea of the challenge. You can see images of my rover here. http://imgur.com/a/xHOba Thanks in advance for weighing in.
  7. For rockets my go-to is the "swivel" good fuel economy, reasonable thrust, and gimballing make it the workhorse of my space program time and time again. But for my aircraft i absolutely love the whiplash. It's en enabler for my silliest and outlandish designs, and the most agile craft I can muster.
  8. Im rather unorganized, and i just name it something that makes me giggle that may or may not be related to its usage. For example Cungbungus Fletcher was my most recent moon landing craft But the comm sat for it is named PinkyPunch(brown I) I used to have a more organized system for naming and designating landers and launch vehicles but with my lack of consistancy half of them were just named "unnamed craft" so eventually i gave up. I start over alot so organization was never at the top of my list.
  9. Hokay, Second verse, same as the first! Little bit louder and a little bit wor-actually it went much better. Much better documentation this time around as well. Even beat my pervious time, with better fuel consumption! Efficency +1 http://imgur.com/a/6a54N I hope this does it.
  10. Thank you very much! I'm eager to be a productive member of the community.
  11. I made an attempt to get the badge. unfortunately i was a little over eager to get started and i spaced on taking a screenshot of the craft before flight. Dunno if that disqualifies me. I do have everything else and i think everything is in order. http://imgur.com/a/BbVTY i'd hate to have to do it again, but rules are rules, indeed.
  12. okay, yeah...dur. Kerballed...manned. I get it. I didnt make the connection at first. many thanks, also for the links as well.
  13. Im interested in completeing some challenges but many challenges require a craft to be "Kerballed". Can someone point me in the direction of a terminology page or explain to me what thet means? I feel a bit silly if i keep missing it. Any help would be appreciated, thanks much.
  14. Hiya! Ive been playin kerbal since a little while aftr they added manuver nodes. wheneve that was. I think, either way ive got a few years uner my belt. It was the prosepct of completeing challenges that brought me here, and im eager to get started. THe community here is great and im looking forward to some fun interactions, and collecting some badges. Just one qustion though. Can someone point me in the direction of a terminology page? Many challenges call for a craft to be kerballed, and im not sure what that means. So, till i find it im rather barred from completeing most challenges. But i can practice in the meantime. It's great to be aboard!
×
×
  • Create New...