martincmartin

I'm trying to make my first space plan and failing miserably, everything I make explodes on the runway. Here's my latest: There are elevons on the back of the wings. So my question is: what's the simplest space plane I can make? How can I launch it? By "simplest," I don't mean lowest part count, I just mean easiest to build / fly / understand. Would be great if it only used level 4 tech, the level with "Aviation" which cost 45 science.

So i just ran it again, and in the log it does say that the science jr exploded due to overheating. There was no warning leading up to it, and I was careful to keep the ship pointed surface retrograde. @Brian444444 I can't think of why it would work for you and not me. And why it's worked fine for me so many times in 1.0.5 but not in 1.1. My laptop has low end graphics so I've had to turn the graphics options all the way down, but that shouldn't matter, right?

I don't think so. How would I know for sure? There's a red bar that appears on one of the parts, but I don't think it fills all the way. I could check...

Yes and yes.

I have a simple ship with a parachute, MK-1 command pod, Science Jr., service bay (goo, barometer, thermometer, battery) and heat shield. In 1.0.5 I could land this no problem. In 1.1, it breaks up on reentry. I just did a test from LKO, going about as slow as possible, and it broke up going 1900 m/sec, forget the height maybe 35 km. I used to bring back Science Jrs all the time, now it looks like there's essentially no way they'll survive reentry?? Has 1.1 made ships a lot less stable in atmosphere? Image of ship

I want to land on the Mun and do a full science survey (of instruments I've unlocked). Last time I tried, my lander kept falling over (yay quicksave!). So I need a wider base. Here are two designs. Thoughts?

Thanks! I added KSPUtil.dll to my references and now my simple plugin is up and running again! I updated the "Setting Up Visual Studio" wiki.

Is there a post some where on how to get started with plugin development in 1.1? I'll update this page once I get the info: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Setting_up_Visual_Studio For example, what version of .NET do we want, 3.5 or 4.x? Which dlls do I add as resources? From KSP_Data/Managed or KSP_x64_Data/Managed ? Visual Studio says it can't find the 'Vector3d' class, has that been renamed or moved? How do I find the new GUI classes? Is there a rough mapping from old classes to new ones, to help me update my mod?

I'm looking to update my plugin for 1.1, and make a new one. In 1.0.5 I used AeroGUI for inspiration, but that's now incorporated into the game, so I can't see the source code. I've tried looking at KER, but because its so configurable the GUI code is very general and indirect, so hard to follow. Any suggestions for a mod which displays a bunch of text during flight / VAB, which is a good example to learn from?

I've written a Python script to help me find the best rocket for a given payload in career mode. It computes a number of different staging combinations, different amounts of fuel for each stage, computes delta-v, cost and TWR at launch. I can't be the first person to do this. Is there a mod or other program that suggests good rockets to achieve a delta-v?

In 1.0, administrative strategies were famously not really worth it. Have they been revamped for 1.1? Should I look into them again?

It would be cool to write a simple program to generate .craft files. For example, I have some spreadsheets that help me choose the best stages for my crafts (fuel tanks + engines) by calculating the delta V of all possibilities and sorting them by cost, then I visually scan for an entry that has enough delta V. Next step would be to write a simple Python program to do that. Outputting the .craft file would be the next logical step...

Sometimes, having 3 Thumpers is just too much, I want 2. But I don't want to use radial decouplers, because they're expensive: 600 each, and Thumpers cost 850! So, I'd like a stage that's 2 Thumpers, without using radial decouplers. I've tried using 4 or 5 Modular Girder Segments stacked vertically, and attaching the Thumpers to them, but the girders are really wobbly, and the whole rocket tends to lean to one side or the other, and the inline reaction wheel isn't enough to counter act. So I can't get a decent gravity turn out of it. Thoughts? Think of it as a challenge: Can you build a 2 Thumper first stage for not much more than the cost of the 2 Thumpers?

Yep. I got the technique from maccollo in the challenge I posted: My main goal is to save $. A stack decoupler costs 400, as much as a Hammer and almost as much as an FL-T400. Why is that? It burns off in a fraction of a second. I highly suggest you try it, it's a lot of fun. Confuses the hell out of Kerbal Engineer Redux though, it doesn't realize the lower stage will disappear when the upper stage starts, so it thinks my stage 2 mass includes the empty stage 1, and thus tells me a much lower delta V. But in VAB, I can put in a decoupler just to measure the delta-v, then take it out again before I launch.

Thanks, that's perfect! The only down side is that I switch stages in the middle of a circularization burn when getting into Kerbin orbit, and this slows down the staging by several seconds, as I have to switch from map mode back to ship mode, right click, toggle the settings, then switch back. But it's not so bad, I can just start my circularization burn a little early. Thanks!

I try not to use decouplers when I have an engine on the other side, as starting the engine will burn off the earlier stage. However, if I have 2 liquid stages, the bottom stage draws fuel from the top tanks, so I have to transfer fuel back to the top tanks before burning the higher engine. Is there a way to stop that, so that the bottom engine only draws from the bottom tanks? To be concrete, I have a rocket like this: Command Capsule Tank 2 Engine 2 (e.g. terrier/poodle) Tank 1 Engine 1 (e.g. swivel/skipper) No stack separator in between.

I made this and posted it to the internet 25 years ago, people had fun with it: Suppose the following message was received by a radio telescope. It consists ofa number of bursts that last either one, two or three tenths of a second, indicated by S, M and L (respectively) below. The space between two bursts is either one or two tenth of a second, the longer pause marked by an X below. There are 1442 Ss, 1249 Ms, 853Ls, and 142 Xs, total time is 1018.4 sec. Can you figure out what it means? MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXMMMMMMMMMMSMMMMMMMMMMMMMXMMMMMMMMMMSSMMMMMMMM MMMMXMMMMMMMMMMSSSMMMMMMMMMMMXMMMMMMMMMMSSSSMMMMMMMMMMXMMMMMMMMMMSSSSS MMMMMMMMMXMMMMMMMMMMSSSSSSMMMMMMMMXMMMMMMMMMMSSSSSSSMMMMMMMXMMMMMMMMMM SSSSSSSSMMMMMMXMMMMMMMMMMSSSSSSSSSMMMMMXMMMMMMMMMMSSSSSSSSSSMMMMXMMMMM MMMMMSSSSSSSSSSSMMMXMMMMMMMMMMSSSSSSSSSSSSMMXMMMMMSMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMX MMMMMLMMMMSMMMMMMMMMMMMMXMMMMLSMMMMSSMMMMMMMMMMMMXMMMMLLMMMMSSSMMMMMMM MMMMXMMMLSSMMMMSSSSMMMMMMMMMMXMMMLSLMMMMSSSSSMMMMMMMMMXMMMLLSMMMMSSSSS SMMMMMMMMXMMMLLLMMMMSSSSSSSMMMMMMMXMMLSSSMMMMSSSSSSSSMMMMMMXMMLSSLMMMM SSSSSSSSSMMMMMXMMLSLSMMMMSSSSSSSSSSMMMMXMMLSLLMMMMSSSSSSSSSSSMMMXMMLLS SMMMMSSSSSSSSSSSSMMXSSSMMMMXSSLMMMMSXSSLSMMMMSSXSSLLMMMMSSSXSSLSSMMMMS SSSXSSLSLMMMMSSSSSXSSLLSMMMMSSSSSSXSSLLLMMMMSSSSSSSXSSLSSSMMMMSSSSSSSS XSSLSSLMMMMSSSSSSSSSXSSLSLSMMMMSSSSSSSSSSXSSLSLLMMMMSSSSSSSSSSSXSSLLSS MMMMSSSSSSSSSSSSXLLSSMSSLMSSLMMMMSSLXLLSSMSSSMSSLMMMMSSLXLLSSMSSLMSSSM MMMSSLXLLSSMSSSMSSSMMMMSSSXLLSLMSSLMSSLMMMMSSLXLLSLMSSSMSSLMMMMSSSXLLS LMSSLMSSSMMMMSSSXLLSLMSSSMSSSMMMMSSSXLLSMSSSMMMMSSLXLLSMSSLMMMMSSSXSSS MLSMSLSXLLSSMSLSMSSLMMMMSSLXLLSSMSLSMSSSMMMMSSSXLLSLMSLSMSSLMMMMSSSXLL SLMSLSMSSSMMMMSSSXLLSMSLSMMMMSSLXSLSMMMMSSSXSSLMLSMSLSXLLSSMSLSMSSLMMM MSSLXLLSSMSLSMSSSMMMMSSLXLLSLMSLSMSSLMMMMSSLXLLSLMSLSMSSSMMMMSSSXLLSMS LSMMMMSSSXSLSMMMMSSLXLLSSMSSLMSSLMLSMSLSMMMMSSLMLSMSLSXLLSSMSSLMSSLMLS MSLSXSLSMMMMSSLXLLSSSMSSLMSSLMMMMSSSXLLSSSMSSSMSSLMMMMSSSXLLSSSMSSLMSS SMMMMSSSXLLSSSMSSSMSSSMMMMSSLXLLSSMSLSMSLLMLSMSLLSXLLSMSLLSMLSMSLLLXSS SMLSMSLSXSSSMLSMSLLXSLLSMMMMSSSXSLLLMMMMSSLXSSLMLSMSLSXSLLSMMMMSSSXSLL LMMMMSSLXSSSMLSMSLSXSSLMLSMSLLXSLLSMMMMSSSXSLLLMMMMSSLXSSLMLSMSLSXSLLS MMMMSSLXSLLLMMMMSSSXMLSMSLSXMLSMSLLXLLSSSMSLSMSLLMMMMSLLLXLLSSMSLSMSLL MLSMSLLSMMLLSMSLSMLSMSLLLMMMMLLSSSMSLSMSLLMMMSLLLXLLSLMSLSMSLLMLSMSLLS MMLLSMSLSMLSMSLLLMMMMLLSLSMSLSMSLLMMMSLLLXLLSLSMSSLMSSLMMMMSSSXLLSLSMS SLMSSSMMMMSSSXLLSLSMSSSMSSLMMMMSSSXLLSLSMSSSMSSSMMMMSSLXLLSSMSLSMSLLML SMSLLSMMLLSLSMSLSMSLLMLSMSLLLMMLLSLMSLLSMSLLLMLSMSLLSSMMMMLLSSLMSLSMSL LMMMSLLSSXLLSMSLSMLSMSLLSMMLLSMSLLMLSMSLLLMMLLSLMSLSMSLLLMLSMSLLSSMMLL SLMSLLMSLLSMLSMSLLSLMMLLSSMSLLSSMSLLSLMLSMSLLLSMMMMLLSSLMSLSMSLLMMMSLL LSXLLSSLMSLSMSLLMLSMSLLSMMLLSLMSLSMSLLMSLLLMMMMLLLSMSLSMSLLMMMSLLSMSLL LXLLLSMSSLMSSLMMMMSSSMSSLXLLLSMSSSMSSLMMMMSSLMSSSXLLLSMSSLMSSSMMMMSSLM SSSXLLLSMSSSMSSSMMMMSSSMSSSXLLLSMSLSMSLLMLSMSLLLMSLLSSMMLLLSMSLLSMSLLL MLSMSLLSLMSLLLSMMLLSSMSLLSSMSLLLSMLSMSLLLLMMMMLLLLMSLSMSLLMSLLSMMMSLLS LMSLLLLXLLLLMSLLSMSLLSLMSLLLSMLSMSLLSSLMSLLSLLMMLLLLMSLLMSLLSSMSLLSLLM LSMSLLSSSMSLLLSSMMLLLLMSLSMSLLLMSLLLSSMLSMSLLLLMSLLSLSMMMMLLLLMSLSMSLL MSLLSMSLLLMSLLSSMSLLSLMSLLLSMMMSLLLLMSLLSSSMSLLSSLMSLLSLSXLLLLMSSSMSSL MSSSMSSLMSSLMSSSMSSLMMMMSSSMSSSMSSLMSSLXLLLLMSSLMSSSMSSLMSSSMSSSMSSSMS SLMSSSMSSSMMMMSSLMSSLMSSSMSSSMSSSXLLSSSMSLSMSLLLMLSMSLLSMMLLSSSMSLLSMS LLMLSMSLLLMMMMLLLMSLSMSLLMMMSLLSMSLLLXSSLMLSMSLLLXLLLMSSSMSSSMMMMSSSMS SLXLLLMSSSMSSLMMMMSSLMSSSXLLLMSSSMSSSMMMMSSLMSSSXLLLMSSLMSSSMMMMSSSMSS LXLLLMSSSMSSSMMMMSSSMSSLXMMMMMMMMMMMMXSSSMLSSMSSLSLMMMMSSLSLXSSSMLSSMS SLSLLSMMMMSSLSLLSXSSLSLLMLSSMSSLMMMMSSLLSSXSSLSSLMLSSMSSLMMMMSSLSLSXSS LLSLSMLSSMSSLMMMMSSLLSLLXSSLMLSSMSSLSLMMMMSSLLSXSSLSMLSSMSSLLMMMMSSLSL XSSLSMLSSMSSLSLMMMMSSLLLXSSLSMLSSMSSLSLSMMMMSSLLSSXSSLLSMLSSMSSLSLSMMM MSSLSSSSXSSLSLLMLSSMSSLSSLMMMMSSLSLSSXSSLSSLSMLSSMSSLSLSMMMMSSLLLSSXSS SMLSSMSLSMMMMSLSXSLSMLSSMSLLMMMMSLLMLSSMSLSXSLSMLSLMSLLMMMSLLSMMMMSLLM LSSMSLLSMMMSLSXMSSLLSSMLSLMSSLSLSMMMMSSLSXSSLSLSSMLSLMSSLSSLMMMMSSLSLL XSSLSSMLSLMSSLLMMMMSSLXSSLSMLSLMSSLMMMMSSLXSSLMLSLMSSLMMMMSSSXSSSMLSLM SSLMMMMSSSLXSSSLMLSLMSSLMMMMSSSLSXSSSMLSLMSSLSMMMMSSSLSXSSSLSMLSLMSSLM MMMSSSLLXSSSMLSLMSSLLMMMMSSSLLXSSSMLSLMSSLSSMMMMSSSLSSXSSSMLSLMSSLSLMM MMSSSLSLXSSLLMMSSLSMMSSLMMSSSMMSSSLMMSSSLSMMSSSLLMMSSSLSSMMSSSLSLMMSSS LLSMMSSSLLLMMSSSLSSSXSSLSLLMLSSMSSSLSLLMMMMSSS http://martincmartin.com/seti-puzzle/

The bottom one. If it was the top one, it would instantly overhead & explode the bottom one. Believe me, I've gotten it wrong many times.

According to both Kerbal Engineer Redux and AeroGUI (and all the other times I've played KSP), the following rocket should lift off the pad. In fact, it should have a TWR of just under 2.0. However, a few seconds into flight, it still hasn't lifted off. What's going on?? Also, it tilts to the left, despite being symmetric and having fins. Something is horribly wrong. The rocket is very simple: two thumpers and a Stayputnik, with 4 fins on each thumper. Update: exiting KSP and restarting it has fixed the problem. Still a mystery as to why it was happening, or how to notice something like that is happening again, with other rockets. Imgur albu

Thanks Snark! I'm reading Ways to Spaceflight as suggested by Waxing_Kibbous and enjoying it, I'll try to check out those others.

Hey Bill, any word on this book?

I'm trying to get the speed at apoapsis from an Orbit. I see getOrbitialVelocityAtUT() and timeToAp, but what is Universal Time? Does it start now? At the start of the epoch? How do I get the current time since the epoch?

You can read about that here: Unfortunately, it's only true for the old, pre-1.0 drag model, where drag was proportional to mass. That simplified things, because gravity is also proportional to mass, so that mass term drops out, which is handy because you get the same answer (terminal velocity) no matter how much fuel you've burned. Once drag doesn't depend on mass (as in real life and KSP 1.0), it gets more complicated.

True, but hopefully a lot of the "lessons learned" are similar. Especially with the updated aerodynamics in 1.0.5, with a mostly proper aerodynamic model and a Cd * S that changes with Mach and (pseudo-)Reynolds number. And in the end, if I end up learning stuff that applies on Earth but not in KSP, well I still learned something interesting.

Good questions. In KSP I'm currently wrestling with ascent through an atmosphere. How do you trade off wanting to get out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible (to minimize losses due to gravity, i.e. get as much delta-V at high speeds as possible) vs wanting to minimize aerodynamic drag, which gets worse as you go faster? How did they figure this stuff out in the 1950s and 1960s with computers that were less powerful than a FitBit? I'm looking for a mental framework to help think about these things. As for mathematical competency, for now you can assume I have a solid undergraduate education in math, especially calculus and linear algebra. That was mostly true 20 years ago, and I could try brushing up on those again if need be. Thanks!