Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Spricigo

  1. nor the game. But we like the game and some of us like what mods can bring to the game. Is that useful?
  2. Not in stock but there a number of quality of life mods that deal with science gathering and management. The question is: Which one is @maddog59 using? mind you, that is pure speculation: Not by control point priority, since not all science containers are control points (and not all control points are science containers). Labs and actual science storage units could be given reference but most likely the science container closer to the root part seems to be the most obvious option.
  3. I see that you have an hypotheses. However, with the limited info you provided so far, it seems more like hopeful guesses than an informed assessment of what is really happening. I understand if you prefer to figure it yourself but is not unlike that you are so focused in something that is not the actual issue and missing something other person would spot in a glance. The keyword there: spot. a good picture of your craft in the VAB or the launch pad can go a long way toward a solution. While KSP have a few visual cues, not everything is made explicit by those. There is no indication of Center of Drag or a easy way to figure out when the airflow velocity and/or angle of attack becomes too much for your controls to handle. As said: the trick part is to notice where the draggy stuff is.
  4. Personally..Yes. As you said, it boils down to how we play KSP. Is not the extra fuel required for an "inefficient" launch that bother me, but rather the extra effort/attention. So, I take my time to design LVs capable of automatically following the same flight profile each time. Then is a matter of selecting the LV, wait/warp to the launch window, fire and forget. However, I'm in full agreement with what seem to be your main point : Is often a good idea to compromise some "efficiency" to be "effective". More often than not, are the missed opportunities that make you inefficient.
  5. oops! which image? @si2504 is not the OP. si2504, how about starting a new question to avoid further confusion? I think we already provided the 'generic advice' but with further details maybe there is some specific we can provide help.
  6. Been there...In fact lack of patience with those issues is what is preventing me to build anything bigger than the Kataklysm. Your craft is already 50% more massive than my current limit. Still, quite small limit as demonstrated by others. I'm not sure if the best advice at this point is about how to build massive crafts or about how to accommodate your goals to something not so big. Only you can judge that. But Is good to remember that you don't play the game to get frustrated.
  7. If it is just at loading you may try to activate Unbreakable Joints and No Crash Damage, load it, wait for it to stabilize and deactivate the options. But, is not unlikely for further problems when you try to fly the thing. Beside the aforementioned KJR, I recommend mods with big parts (reducing part count helps a lot, as stronger joint also do) and patience, lots and lots of patience.
  8. Some people have no shame. None at all!! Food for thought: The Rhino happens to have more thrust ASL than all but 6 stock engines. (Mammoth, Clydesdale, Twin Boar, Thoroughbred, Mainsail and Mastodon)
  9. Yes. I often bind it to an axis custom group but wheel throttle and wheel steer also works just fine.
  10. I see your point. The problem is that one is already deep in the land of diminishing returns at this point and may easily fall in the trap : moar booster > moar fuel > moar booster. (Throw in some moar struts and moar bugs for seasoning) . In practice is often simpler to put some crude propellers than fine tuning the rockets.
  11. Is not that the easier part? Currently the 1st stage propeller is the way to go. (jets don't work and a hand full of rockets barely do)
  12. I just like to mention that, back when I was a new player, took me weeks to realize that option was in the main menu and not the in game menu.
  13. When you warp each craft is put 'on rails' in it's orbit, and physics interaction are not calculated. Just happens that the debris inside the cargo bay is considered another craft by the game, and it go right past the cargo bay wall during warp.
  14. First, as my not answer, I'd say it is about the efficiency, reaching the objective with small expenditure of resources. Now, there is the catch: you are the one that decide what the objective is and what resources are valuable for you. Someone playing in science or sandbox would not care for Funds and even in career many are more worried about their game time. Find what works for you and go for it. now "an actual answer": Thinking about mission phases and making the stages somewhat correspondent with those phases makes the design process a lot easier. It allow to focus in the different aspects the are important for each phase/stage separately, favoring the creation "specialized modules" that can be reused for similar tasked in the future. It makes sense to design the stage in the reverse order of use, since the first stage will need to carry the later which will then be used "in standalone". For the same reason , small adjustment in a later stage will probably have a cascading effect all the way to the launch vehicle. Finally, the hallmark of a good design is simplicity. If any part is not necessary remove it. (But notice that in KSP "needs" is largely a consequence of "wants". having some extra fuel for a safety margin, a stronger reaction wheel for faster steering or some 'cool parts' is not a problem, unless it is not allowing to do something else that you want more.) oh, if a old but still good tutorial interest you, this one will probably give insights that goes along with the principies that you elected.
  15. Mind you, may be tricky trick to pull off due heavy engines at the very bottom of the craft. In practice, you don't even need to turn SAS on in the first place. (shameless plug: https://kerbalx.com/Spricigo/Yuri250-70 ) Now, certainly is not so easy when carrying a bulky station and dealing with a considerable amount of flexing between the parts. May exist imbalances in drag and weight distribution because of how the station is designed and all the issues due to eventual limitations in tech/facilities available. A popular solution for the problem is to build a somewhat overengineered craft around the station, use plenty of struts/autrostrus to improve structural strength and ascent to a higher altitude before turning to orbit. The idea behing this is that Station tend to be draggy and not so heavy(dense), moving the draggy things back and the heavy things forward helps to improve aerodynamic stability and the more vertical ascent profile avoid a big chunk of the aerodynamic forces that could otherwise twist the craft out of control or/and into a rapid unplanned disassemble. As other said, pictures are welcome. If you may also inform us about limitations of tech/facilities that is also good.
  16. Problem is: "as high as possible" is not a quantity. If I understood correct your hypothesis can be rephrased as: With an initial ejection burn of no more than [valueA]m/s , using only one assisting body, you cannot get enough energy to raise you apoapsis above [valueB]Gm If you provide valueA and ValueB (along some other restriction I could have missed), then we can look for counterexamples of that. Otherwise we simple have no way to test it. Inability to test don't prove the hypothesis correct, only make impossible to demonstrate if it is wrong.
  17. How much energy "a perfectly prograde ejection" is supposed to be?!! Also "I hope you agree about the thing you are asking about" is not convincing. I asked because I don't see the argument/evidence that made you get from [I will use a gravity assist] to [Kerbin will not help enough]*. Conversely, it seems I'm not able to present you what makes me think it may not be the case. As I said in the previous post, that is an impasse I don't how to resolve and at this point I'd rather let it be. * I get that is not exactly what you said, just pointing where is the missing link.
  18. *grabs the flamethrower* Your data is probably being shared in a similar manner by another company anyways. Including in my case my employer: The Government. PS: is this really a 'gameplay' question?
  19. Well, we are not in agreement then. It may surprise you how far, far away that point is. K-E-K-K-J is a think not because K-K-K-K-J is not possible(or practical). It is a thing because Eve is more massive than Kerbin and as such can give an assist bigger enough to compensate the need to lower the orbit to make it happen. Also, you can wait for Eve to get in a more convenient position (while you need to settle for resonant orbits for Kerbin) and see the closer approach marking while you depart from Kerbin. Eve is a bit mroe practical, that is it. Anyways, at this point I really don't see how to settle the divergence other than careful testing. This can be quite laborious, my game time is limited and I rather not tell how would you expend yours. Thus, I rest my case.
  20. @OHara @camacju if i get it right this time: Is a matter of practicality. At some point the cost of correction burns is more than what you get from the gravity assist. Oh well... That is why I go for a high energy transfer if I can afford the deltaV cost to pull it off. Burn like a madman and get done with it.
  21. What can I say? Done. Despite the lack of any maneuver after the initial burn the orbital energy changed with each subsequent encounter with the same celestial body. No encounter with a different celestial body also. Granted, the resulting trajectory is not as useful as what I can get a few course correction along the way (I'd rather reach Jool in the same century) but that is besides the point. Perhaps what is throwing me off the track is that you are talking about things that don't change in regard the assisting body when I'm talking about what happens in regard to the parent body?
  22. Yes, I do. That is why I'm asking. I follow what you are telling will happen if you meet the body a second time with the same velocity of the first encounter. But what I'm wondering is why you apparently assume you will get the same velocity in both encounters to begin with. As @Zhetaan points out: velocity is a vector, has both a magnitude and a direction. All it takes is to meet the celestial body slightly ahead/behind in it's orbit and the velocity will be in a different direction, it will be a different velocity. It really appear to me that you are not taking change in the direction in account. The point is that it took me a small, but noticeable, lesser amount of deltaV in the initial maneuver to make it in 2 consecutive flybys instead of a single one. Shouldn't that be preferred if the idea is to use the lesser amount of deltaV? Oh well, it will hold forever if you don't get an encounter with the celestial body. It's the encounter with the celestial body that breaks the cycle. The encounter with the celestial body will push you from the blue orbit to purple orbit and then again to green orbit. Every subsequent encounter will change your orbit(the velocity, the energy) in some manner. So, I don't get why we are talking about what happens in between the encounters when we are interested in what happen during the encounter. If nothing happens in between the encounter is inconsequential.
  • Create New...