HalcyonSon
-
Posts
197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by HalcyonSon
-
-
12 hours ago, Mycroft said:
I finished the first layer of a polar comms network with 34 relays scattered over the planet. Gonna build the next layer up in kerbistationary orbit with about 17 more satellites scattered around the Kerbin system.
Hmm... I read early on about the requirements for a proper KEO communication constellation, but I haven't yet found the need for it (I have all the ground bases turned on though). I've pulled enough "place a satellite" contracts in various orbits that I think my comm net would be pretty strong if I shut off ground bases now. Every contract calls for an antenna, but I've gone several steps beyond that. Each simple contract satellite has four C-16s, four C-16-S, and four HG-5s. I've found this setup to pack neatly on/around an Okto and a stack of Z-200s and OX-STATs. Now I have nearly a dozen communication satellites around Kerbin, two or three each around Mun and Minmus, and one on the very outer edge of the Kerbin system - all at zero cost to my space program.
-
23 minutes ago, Leafbaron said:
Well I thought I'd be cheeky and launch a minmus biome hop mission from my 18 ton SSTO. The Lander had enough dV to make at least 3 stops from the pole to the equator and back to kerbin. Well I got greedy and made 4 stops. SCIENCE DAMN YOU! After the final stop and back into orbit I had ~66 m/s of dV left and it was just enough to escape Minmus SOI but not nearly enough to make it back home....so Bob was
unenthusiastichappy to get out a push....a dozen time or more.That's the most Kerbal thing... and I didn't think to do it when Val ran out of gas on the way home from Mun. Instead, I launched a Klaw Return Vessel to grab her capsule, which took several days to reach her. If I had had her get out and push, she could have been home much sooner.
-
3 hours ago, icantmakemodels said:
@tseitsei89: Yes, no control of the craft after launch. I don't really expect the stock category to be possible, but it's there for completeness sake.
I don't have the skill for it, but a perfect gravity turn with something like an Ant pointing retrograde seems like it would work. Does it have to make a full orbit, or (like the tourism contracts) only have to pass the 70 km PE mark?
-
15 minutes ago, dangerhamster said:
Essential reading @HalcyonSon
6 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:@HalcyonSon First you'll need Hooligan Labs Airships mod (link is in the first post of the Heisenberg thread). That has the plugin and several airship parts. The Heisenberg pack is available separately from Hooligan labs.
Nice. I wondered if it was just hacked gravity and a lot of creativity.
I'll bookmark that for later. Hands full right now just exploring the Kerbin system (Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus) in my early 1.2 career.
-
19 hours ago, dangerhamster said:
As a bit of light relief from crawling across Mun in a rover....... gliding across Kerbin in airships.
After a few test hops Val took a transport prototype out, initially landing practice.
Followed by a speed test out over the ocean. And yes the antenna broke after someone forgot to retract it. Slowing down over the island for another landing temptation took hold and after much backing and filling the behemoth was tucked away in one of the hangers.
"I'm sure no-one will notice it's missing"
Guilt took over and the duo returned to base, writing the incident up as testing wether steerable nose gear would be useful.
12 hours ago, Angel-125 said:
The KSNS Massive has a beam of 30 meters. Twin airship hulls with aircraft elevators to the hangar decks. Somebody in the Heisenberg thread was asking about larger diameter hulls. I don't think it's necessary...
How do you make airships fly?!
Yesterday was a quickie contract night. Added a quartet of Sparks and a pile of Oscar Bs to the wings of a standard Kerbjet 2 (simple mid-wing, fixed tricycle gear, Juno powered Mk 1 aircraft) to boost the high-altitude capability. Managed to grab two out of three sub-objectives above 17,000 m in one go, and was just short of the third, so Jeb had to return and refuel to grab the third. Removing slightly more of the main tank LF may have given enough delta V on the Sparks to get the last 2,000 m needed, but the Kerbjet 2 Hi makes tidy, repeatable runway landings. Each outing costs just a few hundred units of LF and an even smaller amount of oxidizer.
-
Sent a rescue mission for my Mun Scrap Return mission... The Klaw vessel worked perfectly after a few... in-flight simulations... to nail down the landing parameters. After one slightly space-crazy Kerbal decided to manually activate the Klaw with his face, Mission Control was able to free him remotely and convince him that the next stay in his capsule would be a short one. The Klaw then danced a jig, did a few cartwheels, made a few pirouettes, imitated an eggbeater, and finally successfully grabbed the capsule, blocking the hatch. Unfortunately, a few more... simulations... showed that insufficient fuel remained to even reach Munar orbit. The rescue mission features a lightly redesigned first stage, plus a new transfer stage to ensure that enough fuel remains to take the capsule home.
-
Further testing on the Mun Scrap Return... and that's it really.
Turns out that throwing some landing legs on a basic Klaw Retriever works pretty well in simulated Mun grav. Replaced the 0.625 m reaction wheel and 2 x 200 EC batteries with 2 x 1.25 m reaction wheels and 4 x 100 EC batteries and removed the RCS tanks and nozzles. Now the vehicle will stand up pretty while attached to a 1.25 ton dummy load. Haven't figured out how to hack atmo for vac sim, but KER shows that the vehicle plus load should have plenty of delta V to make Munar orbit, and Kerbin rendezvous.
The Mun Scrap Return vehicle (previously Klaw Retriever 2) now consists of the Klaw, 2 x 1.25 m reaction wheels, 4 x 100 EC batteries, 4 x base flat solar panels, Okto Probe Core, 2 x base extending combineable antenna, FLT-400 LFO tank, Terrier engine, 4x base landing legs, 2 x drogue chutes, and 2 x Mk 16 chutes. This setup gives well over 2,000 delta V. The plan is to burn for Mun, land upright, gently lay 'er down, skid in for the grab, stand up on reaction wheels alone, and burn for Kerbin. My only fear is that the scrap recovered will add enough extra weight that my Kerbin rendevous burn will fall short.
-
14 hours ago, Triop said:
Brilliant, why didn't I think of that, it's like the Russians using pencils in space in stead of ballpoint pens
Umm... turning on the brakes works too.
-
Not much last night.
The Klaw Retriever 2 tech demo was a success. Wrangled and returned a spent first stage that made it to a highly inclined Kerbin orbit with enough fuel for re-entry, but insufficient battery to make the burn. Being approximately five empty FLT-400s and fins and a swivel, that first stage was incredibly light and difficult to grab at the CoM. Initial Klaw de-orbit burns were extremely awkward, because the spent stage engine decided to ignite at the same time as the Klaw engine. Re-establishing attitude control and re-orienting to a CoM grab used all of the Klaw's monoprop, but reaction wheels were sufficient to allow a jerky but "stable enough" burn. The Tracking Station responded by immediately terminating all debris in Kerbin and Mun orbit.
Continued testing for my Mun Surface Scrap Return mission at the launchpad and runway with gravity hacked to 17% to simulate Munar conditions. Several variants of Klaw Rover proved uncontrollable due to an excess of reaction wheels and improper orientation of the klaw and probe core. The most successful variant removed rover wheels in favor of a RCS only approach. This allowed very user-friendly airplane-like control in a very compact and lightweight package. It also brought up the possibility of using a lightly modified Klaw Retriever 2 for Munar surface missions. What could go wrong? Just toss some landing legs at it...
-
2 hours ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:
And you know what it would be difficult for me to care any less, , all it is is a vague resemblance of an LCS nothing more was never intended to be, and was just a handy subject on which to test the plugin,,, and spends most of it's lives being blown to bits and sunk
Sounds about right for the LCS after all!
-
21 hours ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:
Umm... hate to tell you, but your naming and propulsion are all wrong. That ship most closely resembles the US Navy's LCS-2 Independence class, which have four waterjets and are roughly 127m in length. The scaling, particularly in the superstructure, is also off but it is only a game
-
As Tex_NL alluded to, WET (full fuel) and DRY (zero fuel) screenshots showing the CoM, CoL, and CoT in the Hangar are helpful in diagnosing takeoff and landing problems. If a plane lifts off at all, a variety of in-flight problems can be prevented by varying fuel load in the Hangar as it would be used in-flight and checking the CoM and CoL.
-
Building funds and my astronaut corps. Rescue missions left and right, plus tons of tourism. Testing a new unmanned Klaw retrieval vessel so that I can justify terminating the pre-total-recovery-design space junk cluttering my skies. Working on a means to retrieve a stranded Kerbal and his scrap from Mun surface to Kerbin surface.
Occasionally, contracts work out quite neatly, so that a routine automated tourist flight can be scheduled to also retrieve an amateur Kerbal stranded in orbit. These coincidences never fail to please Gene Kerman. He can use a single four-seat launch with two or three paying tourists to acquire a new astronaut, who is usually quite grateful. This also results in wonderful juicy PR.
Several sub-orbital tourists are getting a free ride to Mun because it's simpler and cheaper to launch one mid-size rocket with six Kerbals and let the contract hang out for a few days than it is to manage several small launches that won't fully complete the contract. The advance was nearly double the cost of a rocket to send six Kerbals to Mun orbit and back, plus the sub-orbital sub-objectives paid for the rocket on their own. This one contract will be quite lucrative. It's a very simple dual-1.25m tube design with the rather uninspiring name "Early 1.25m Mun Pax V.2." V.1 was a success, but almost ran out of EC, and took nearly a week to complete Kerbin re-entry due to a shortage of delta V leaving the periapsis too high for effective aerobraking. V.2 includes new KER technology, more solar panels, and more delta V for a faster turnaround. Both V.1 and V.2 are completely automated, testing the trust of tourists in their space program.
The "Early Klaw Retriever 2" has nearly 2,000 delta V on tap after reaching orbit. It has successfully demonstrated the return of a crew module from Mun orbit to a safe Kerbin landing. Funny thing is that Gene Kerman swears he didn't authorize the launch of an empty crew module. The next tech demonstration will include the uncontrolled de-orbit of multiple pieces of debris around Kerbin, plus the safe return of the Klaw Retriever for re-use. This tech demonstration will allow the Tracking Station folks to routinely call for termination of any debris remaining in Kerbin or Mun orbit. It will also allow for the safe return of stranded Kerbals in the safety and comfort of their own capsules.
-
I have a very similar contract in my (still early) career game right now. Thanks for the ideas.
Since I don't even have 2.5m parts unlocked yet, this should be a real challenge. I'm thinking of either using two small unmanned klaw rovers to provide balance, or somehow turning a manned pod onto side rover wheels and going brute force. The Tracking Station shows the stranded Kerbal separate from the part to be recovered, so I'm not sure what to expect yet. Oh, and yet more fun... this is on the south pole of Mun.
-
I agree with you. In the meantime, you can select that debris in the Tracking Station and change the type by double-clicking the name in the info button.
Ugh... also agreed on the control point after separation. I tend to bury probe cores, so trying to find a suitable orientation if things are spinning can be a nightmare.
-
On 9/29/2016 at 10:09 PM, Blaarkies said:
* You can bring with a tiny empty ore tank + a tiny ore drill to hollow out the asteroid. Just "jettison" the mined ore from your tank until the roid is empty...the roid should become at least 80% lighter -> more dv for you
Good advice in your post, but this bit bugs me. Was it meant as a joke? If you're going to bring along ISRU equipment, you may as well turn ore into fuel for further dv.
-
2 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:
That's accurate behavior for a non-rotating craft in space, actually.
Hmm, so that means every satellite pointed at the Earth has some initial rotation to keep it pointed "down." Simple enough in reality I suppose, given that all the other orbital parameters are known. Impossible in stock KSP from what I understand. Time warp and re-loading killing all rotation... plus SAS wanting to kill rotation whenever it's on.
Fixing persistent rotation and preventing antennae from transmitting / receiving through satellites would make things a lot more interesting with SCANsat and Remote Tech.
-
20 hours ago, Stoney3K said:
Those AV-R8 winglets have way too much control authority to begin with. You can turn the control surfaces of those winglets off and control the rocket with the gimbals of your Mainsail only.
SAS sometimes has trouble determining which control surface acts in which direction, that's why it frequently goes off course on planes. Either turn the control surfaces off or dedicate them to one axis of control only.
Ah yes, I forgot about that. On aircraft, it's very important to decouple the control axes. Elevators should control pitch only, Ailerons roll only, Rudders yaw only. They'll get crossed up and give bizarre control inputs and tons of drag otherwise. The same can happen to a rocket - if you're trying to roll and pitch at the same time, those are two different directions of engine gimbal.
20 hours ago, parameciumkid said:This sounds a lot like the old SAS behavior, and I do want that back as an optional mode. In fact I'd like two new modes:
- Hold the current bearing as tightly as possible; if the ship is forced away from it, turn back as soon as it's possible to do so again.
This would help a lot with things like asteroids where the centers of mass and thrust are out of alignment and the ship starts to swerve during long burns. Rather than having to manually reset the heading, it'd be nice to have the SAS do it.- Hold the current bearing relative to the parent body / navball; if the pilot turns to face, for example, heading 225 degrees at 30 degrees above the horizon, maintain heading at 225 and 30 even as the craft moves around in its orbit.
This would be very helpful in reentries and aerobraking maneuvers, in which the ship is likely to need to hold a specific angle relative to its descent path even as that path curves around with the terrain.Alternately the old SAS behavior could be toggleable for all available SAS modes.
I think there's a mod for most of that... Persistent Rotation maybe? I always thought it was bizarre that some spacecraft in this game will be facing prograde on one side of an orbit, and retrograde on the other side. That just doesn't seem right.
-
15 hours ago, panzer1b said:
MK1 structural fuselage does not shield anything inside it (in terms of aero), it does protect from heating though.
I'm curious about that. I radially attached a Mk 0 RCS tank, probe core, and battery to the side of the Mk 1 Structural Fuselage and then clipped them inside. They don't poke out anywhere, so why wouldn't they be safe from aero effects? If it doesn't protect from aero, how does it protect from heating?
I tried clipping them up and in from the end node, but that results in a weak 0.625m connection to the rest of the 1.25m parts. Highly undesirable.
-
You sir (or madam) deserve likes... unfortunately, the crazy screengrab thread stole all of them.
-
20 hours ago, Vectura said:
The problem may be with low TWR. The thing is, if I have the rockets on max thrust they go supersonic very low in the atmosphere, then they get re-entry flames, causing me to lose control (usually using probes, and playing in 1.2). That aside, when going too fast I tend to lose some control authority.
General guidance is to aim for TWR = 1.5 at launch. A few tenths higher or lower are okay depending on the size, weight, and shape of your rocket. I usually hit 50 m/s around 2000 m for a 5 - 10 degree tip over. I just launched a comet rendezvous mission with three Mansails that I built to go single stage to orbit and return the booster on parachutes. I had to turn the gimbal down to 50 on all three to prevent oscillation.
-
On 10/1/2016 at 11:25 AM, Vectura said:
Though I would like a mode for flying planes, I don't think that is the problem. The issue most likely lies in my rocket design, but I though this SAS mode could rectify it. The problem with a lot of my rockets is when doing my ascent, the attitude creeps down. If I so much as tap any rotation button the entire craft dips down up to 20 or even 30 degrees. I then have to hold a key to get it back to the prograde marker, but when I first hit that key it dips even further, then I waste even more fuel trying to correct. And when I get it back to the correct direction, there is a good chance the craft will just drop right back down again when I let go of the controls. I do not believe the problem is a lack of control because holding a rotational key causes the craft to fly around far faster than I would ever need. When this occurs in planes I can just angle the wings slightly to fix it, but for an inherently front-heavy thing like a rocket it is a problem.
If your rocket is losing pitch with every control input, it probably means your TWR is too low. By the same token, if it gains pitch with every control input, TWR is probably too high. If it oscillates, either effect is worsened. Lowering the amount of movement allowed on gimbaled engines or fins can help with oscillation.
-
Pulsejets in action... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
-
29 minutes ago, fourfa said:
OK? we do already have a 1.25m cargo bay; I'm just reporting how it is. If you want it different, submit a feedback report on the tracker. The devs don't read these forums.
We do? I've seen a 1.25m Service Bay, but not a Cargo Bay in stock.
What did you do in KSP1 today?
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted · Edited by HalcyonSon
Additional thoughts
Theobles' rescue from Mun has proven much more of a challenge than originally thought. Since his crash site is near the south pole, neither the first or the second attempt at a rescue had sufficient dV remaining to return Theobles and his capsule to Kerbin. Additionally, neither on its own had sufficient fuel to bring itself and the capsule to Mun orbit. A bit of creativity, and a lot of simulations, brought out a partial solution. Thanks to the legendary flexibilty of the Klaw, the second mission (~700 dV remaining without payload) was able to grab the first (~500 dV remaining without payload) while the first held Theobles in his capsule so that he couldn't run amok on Mun. The resulting abomination launched surprisingly well (thanks to the combined gyroscopic stability of four 1.25 m Reaction Wheels and the capsule). The second mission was staged off and allowed to impact the Munar surface at nearly orbital velocity. The first mission maintained control of Theobles and his capsule, and continued on to a ~ 20 km Munar orbit. A third mission was dispatched, minus a reaction wheel and any unnecessary landing equipment, to rendezvous in orbit and complete a Kerbin return burn.
...I also made things more difficult on myself than necessary... The abomination launched due east out of habit from Kerbin launches... Didn't realize it until I had completed maneuvers on several other satellites... Should have launched due north. Third rescue mission would have required MUCH less dV if it didn't have to make a 78 degree inclination change. So the original third rescue mission became a pre-positioned Munar Klaw Return, and a new third mission was launched with more tweaks to gain further dV.
In other news, Kerbals are terrible at designing and flying float planes. Jeb constantly flips the Kerbjet LD2 Sea on landing, and all attempts to right it for takeoff fail miserably. Val has fallen into the habit of destroying the landing gear on the Kerbjet LD2 in each of its variations (base, Sea, and Sci). The Sea variation results in a unique sprawl of pontoons and wheels bobbing in the aircraft's landing wake in the KSC harbor. The original mission spec requiring a float plane was found to be incorrect... Val believed that a stripped-down and streamlined version of the Sci variation would have sufficient speed and range to avoid the need for a sea landing. She was correct, and managed to complete the needed research over the southern polar sea and return before her presence was required back at the KSC to advise on a technical point for a long planned satellite maneuver.