Jump to content

Spricigo

Members
  • Posts

    2,926
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1,168 Excellent

4 Followers

Profile Information

  • About me
    Literally Nobody
  • Location
    Not here

Recent Profile Visitors

9,300 profile views
  1. Sometimes during eva construction the kerbal is pushed by the part they are picking but in my experience those are noticeable but gentle push. What you describe seems way more dramatic. In regard to loss of control, if memory serve me well, you need to exit construction mode to move your kerbal.
  2. Are you playing in a console? If so you can find the control schemes for KSP in console Here for xbox and Here fo PS4 If you are playing in a PC go to main menu > Settings > Input to see and adjust your controls Notice you may be unable to throttle because lack of craft control or some technical issue with your controller.
  3. well..it's actually a function of both. Vt=√(2mg/dACd)m n g and d depends on the atmosphere* while m, A and Cd depends on the craft. Which indeed means that such chart wouldn't make sense if only the atmosphere is referenced. There is a table that give the terminal velocity for a imaginary body in diferent elestial bodies there https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Atmosphere Using the formula above, I suppose. I guess an spreadsheet would help. Seems a bit impractical for me. mm,mmno, there is no chart like that. Look for yourself. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Kerbin The chart there with density and pressure for altitude may be used to construct the chart you talking about but as pointed above you also need the values for the craft. At the time KSP was at beta and had a very different and unrealistic drag model. Anything from that time regarding drag have no use for today KSP. *technically g depends on the celestial body and height. However so is d ...technically
  4. is an old bug, I have experienced it myself several times. Still..just not what is happening in the videos above. I get that you were not in doubt but for future reference the easiest way to confirm that bug is looking at the orbital period when no thrust is applied. However, no idea how to actually reproduce the bug. (maybe it need be two bugs that love each other )
  5. Well, the craft in the training scenario "Basic Flight" is a flea with 98 units of solid fuel. I assume your is full (140 units).
  6. AFAIK once you dock everything together it become only one craft with only one root part. I suppose the savefile will have some hints about it.
  7. I'd argue not quite that bad. We can extract a lot of information from what is show there . If you pay close attention you will notice that ctbram does indeed cut the thrust when the relative velocity is 0.0m/s. At this point we may observe the relative velocity is not constant. Exactly what he want to show us. But what catches our attention is something else: A moment later the engine is reactivated when we are not expecting . That is because ctbram is relying on SAS to point the ship retrograde and he can't do it with speed below 1m/s. "inefficient"? Maybe, but it is not the "mysterious" acceleration ctbram is referring to. It distract us for a moment but as soon we notice what is happening it becomes irrelevant. Let's get back to the situation where Barlin Kerman is chasing the Target and he just cut the thrust. Ctbram's question to us: why, at this moment, the relative velocity is not constant? Considering: K position of Kerbin B position of Barlin T position of Target ab acceleration of Barlin in the direction BK due gravity at acceleration of Target in the direction TK due gravity. db distance between Barlin and Kerbin dt distance between Target and Kerbin Given the angle BKT, make sense to reescribe at as: atcos(BKT)r + atsen(BKT)s where r is the direction BK and s the perpendicular direction to BK within the orbital plane. (For the sake of simplicity let's assume relative inclination is zero.) considering some numerical values for at and BKT: at BKT atsen(BKT) 9.8m/s2 1º 171.033mm/s2 9.8m/s2 0,1º 17.104mm/s2 9.8m/s2 0,01º 1.710mm/s2 9.8m/s2 0,001º 0.171mm/s2 as we can see the acceleration component in the direction s approaches zero as the angle BKT approaches zero. In fact at for BKT = 0 (B, K and T are collinear) we have: atcos(0)r + atsen(0)s == atr But wait. This is acceleration due gravity: g=GM/d2 where GM is constant and d is the distance between the central body (Kerbin) and the orbiting ship. we want to find the situation were ab - at = 0 GM/db2 - GM/dt2 = 0 1/db2 = 1/dt2 db =dt Conclusion: to have exactly the same acceleration due gravity (amount and direction) Barlin and Target need to be in exactly the same position relative to Kerbin. The acceleration you observe is the acceleration of the non-inertial frame of reference due Kerbin's gravity. PS: the special case were both craft are in the same perfectly circular orbit is left as an exercise to the reader
  8. No idea, If I needed to guess I'd say root part or CoM. Mind If I ask why it is important?
  9. Oh, I guess you got some valid points there. No need for apologizes. In any case, precision is limited both on your maneuvers and the displayed information. E.g. 0.0m/s may be 0.0000041592653589793... (or maybe as much as 0.0499). So, while there is way to reduce that imprecision (matching orbits instead of only reduce relative speed, using less powerful engines, doing the rendezvous at higher orbit, etc...), keep in mind that there will still be some drifting happening just under your nose.
  10. Yes, without an external force those crafts would be moving with constant velocity in a straight line. Are they? Given the game's limitations (it is a game after all) the physics is quite accurate, what you experienced is what is supposed to happen. You just got confused because the non-inertial referential, gravity is acting upon the crafts the whole time.
  11. 3.4km/s with twr~1.5 is a convenient rule of thumbs. However keep in mind: those are "rookie numbers". I'd say an experienced player can consistently archive orbit with less than 3.2km/s and do it with less than 3km/s if really trying. Ironically, with enough experience we stop to follow our own advice.
  12. I was about to say almost the same, just 20km instead of 10km You mean Spricigo's Technique*? Just that turning after launch still require a bit of skill/practice to be consistent, turn it before leaving the VAB and hold it with launch clamps. How much you turn varies with the rocket (More TWR, shallower angle) If you are precise enough with the design/setup you don't even need SAS or launch clamps e. g. Still, is a tradeoff, you get consistent turns at the cost of more time spent at the design phase. *Certainly others came up with the same idea independently. Still, I'm using it for almost every single rocket except launch since 2016 and sharing crafts designed to do it since 2017, I guess my case is pretty good.
  13. It is very possible. In fact you have so little payload (1 kerbal) that it could be done with chemical rockets. Example given: With the dawn you can get even more deltaV or just have the required 10km/s in a much lighter craft. maybe you just need to drop some dead weight or better use the staging. Pst a screenshort of your craft and we can see what can be improved.
  14. Well, that is not difficult in KSP. However if you designed something that can go that fast in water is not unlikely it can fly also (maybe it only can hurl itself a couple meters in the air and crash immediately after, which is bad enough). At this point your option became; 1.design it to fly well and land safely 2.design it to not fly (You may also just suffer, but I will ignore that "option"). Here an example of the later: For a craft of that size the 2 Juno engines are just enough to give TWR about 1, if anything It need just a tiny bit of lift to fly. Indeed, flying straight is not a problem to this "bird", despite being a few degrees away from an uncontrolled spin. But that really don't matter because I made very hard to take off with it: -The Center of lift is far behind the Center of Mass; -There is a pair of Delta-Deluxe winglets at the rear below the centerline; -The Line of Thrust is a hair above the Center of Mass; -4 elevons below the surface further stabilize the craft; -Reaction wheels are disabled and pitch authority is limited to pair of elevons to avoid SAS overcorrection -Center of Mass well between the Wheels/Keels. All of that combined makes for a very stable craft, It can maintain 30m/s with 4x physical warp. (You'll notice it oscillates but it stay in the water) It turn very easily, just roll in the desired direction and it will pivot around that keel. On land it can technically go much faster but flat terrain is required to do safely. All in all, quite a fun craft to play with but unfortunately boats are limited in scope and usefulness. Mind you, for a seaplane you need something very different, the craft must be able to raise from the waves. The CoL will be much closer CoM, same with keels(better yet to not even have it), wings with incidence and enough control surfaces for a decisive pitch up when you get up to takeoff speed.
  15. Since you mention possible drag issue I get that you want to land it somewhere with a atmosphere.(not Duna) We can also see that the landing apparatus is disposable, so you are not planing to take of later. It seems to me the obvious solution is to strap some parachutes in the top of the rover, keep some much smaller engines to steer it to the correct landing spot and decelerate the craft enough so you can open the parachutes. What I'm missing there?
×
×
  • Create New...