-
Posts
2,926 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by Spricigo
-
Part clipping & colliding
Spricigo replied to Yakko's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
I'm guessing there. But seems that the wing is snapping off due to overstress when you try to pitch. The fuselage weight have a noticeable long lever arm. If that's really the case you can try to move the fuselages and engines closer and see if it improve the things. But definitely you need to be careful with the controls and probably limit control authority. The mod Kerbal Joint Reinforcement may also help (I don't use it, but is often mentioned for this kind of issue). A few struts/autostruts may help or make the craft more brittle and worsen the problem. If all else fail, download the craft file in the video description.- 8 replies
-
- clipping
- stratolaunch
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
unknown rocket exploding
Spricigo replied to amateur astronaut's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Please, help us to help you. Give us a picture of the craft so we can see how it looks like. Also explain what you mean by "when I launch it explodes". It loads and explode or that happens after you press space? What the flight report says? Is this happening only with this rocket or any rocket you try? -
Part clipping & colliding
Spricigo replied to Yakko's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Well, only @Matt Lowne can tell which kind of issue he faced and how he solved it. His video is interesting also. But we need images of your craft (you know: the one you need help to fix) . As general advice: try to increase ground clearance, put some incidence and avoid weak joints.- 8 replies
-
- clipping
- stratolaunch
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
It seems like normal game behavior to me. You did the experiment (e.g. temperature scan) in the same situation (flying low) in the same biome (mun lowlands) before and transmitted(or recovered) it. Check in the R&D building. That was not enough to collect all science available from the experiment, but what is left need to be recovered to yeld science points. I guess your probe is not designed to return to Kerbin. In this case bringing a kerbal to collect the science will be necessary (that or redoing the mission). Pfff. Just do a few kerbaled mission to Mun/Minmus and you will complete the tree in no time. If you have trouble designing that mission just send a image of your current tech and we will help with a rocket and some advice.
-
Ant engine + OscarB tank: 245kg (dry mass 45kg) For small satellites it is a lot of deltaV (1500m/s for a 500kg satellite, medium sized by my parameters). I think is enough to 4-5 'put satellite in an adjusted orbit' contracts. IMHO a very good investment. I tend to do a lot of satellite contracts in early game for cash. Having a few variants of satellite and launch vehicles beforehand is a good way to make it more efficient.
- 10 replies
-
- 1
-
- mission
- unmanned probe
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
On by default in all preset difficulties.
-
Duna landing and return, Lander or Plane?
Spricigo replied to royying's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Can't argue about the cool factor. But in regards to fuel consuption the Lander is far superior. Putting wings in your craft will increase drag and weight. Your engines will need more fuel to overcome it. And you'll need a lot of wings in Duna to get a reasonable lift, which means more weight, thus even more fuel. Planes are interesting at Kerbin, where you can use super-efficient jet engines.* But at Duna's atmosphere there is no oxygen to feed jets. So I'd chose a lander. But a spaceplane to put the lander and the transfer in Low Kerbin Orbit is an option to consider. -
Welcome to the forums. Because the satellites are out of range of orbits each other. A common mistake. This is NOT the range off the antenna, just the range from the tracking station (or any ground station) To know the range between two craft you need first know each Vessel Antenna Power (5G for your satellites) and apply the formula: [Range]=SQRT ([VAP1]*[VAP2]) more details in this wiki article.
-
How to time encounters?
Spricigo replied to kyriewhatasnakesmh's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
welcome to the forums several option exist: https://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ http://ksp.olex.biz/ -
[1.3.0] Launch Numbering 0.4.0
Spricigo replied to Damien_The_Unbeliever's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Since you are looking into that, a few more option for numbering scheme would be welcomed. Lets take a design named "vessel" 2nd launch, 3rd variant some option may be: Vessel 2(III) Vessel III 2 Vessel 3.2 2nd Vessel III Vessel Bloc3 Flight2 -
Mun landing without mun orbit
Spricigo replied to MajorTomtom's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
And that's what I meant. So I'm technically correct, the best kind of correct. But I failed to make it clear. Thanks for the clarification. Maybe, but relevant point associated to this is the fact that in both situation we need to consider the same factor for a efficient landing (TWR, approaching trajectory, timing) -
Comnet mun for a newbe
Spricigo replied to bjerrang's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Signal strength. Anyway, the point is that we need a fairly large variation in orbital height to have a noticeable effect. If the orbit is thousands of kilometers high a few meters make no difference. Just like any other orbital height: Apoapsis 2.100.000m, periapsis 1.010.457. Each time you reach the apoapsis deploy a satellite and circularize. Result after 3 orbits: satellites evenly spaced in a 2100km circular orbit. -
Mun landing without mun orbit
Spricigo replied to MajorTomtom's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Technically you are not landing without an orbit. You enter in Mun SoI in a hyperbolic orbit with a periapsis very close to the ground. At the periapsis you circularize the orbit and procede to landing without a pause between the maneuvers. Notice that you periapsis is below the ground you will be less efficient because you need to raise the periapsis to ground level. -
Very simple commnet: 1 long range relay in polar high elliptic orbit. 3 short range relay equally spaced in equatorial circul orbit altitude higher than celestial body radius. Expanding that: 1 extra long range relay for the rare cases where the first one get occluded. At this point is pretty close full coverage all the time. Edit to add an image of the setup:
-
Comnet mun for a newbe
Spricigo replied to bjerrang's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
I wonder why you need such precise altitude. With stock mechanics, as long as the satellites are even spaced and altitude is higher than 200km (Mun's radius) you get 100% coverage of the equatorial surface. The value of a higger orbit is questionable., -
Build a booster for my mini shuttle !
Spricigo replied to AeroGav's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Wing incidence make a vertical launching 'interesting'. Some ideas: 1.no incidence. One less aerodynamic force to counter. 2. Wings on the boosters with negative incidence. 3.Put the whole thing inside a fairing, on top of a rocket with a lot of tail wings. -
Wobbling is often caused by excessive control authority(gimball, control surfaces, reaction wheels) Reducing authority may help to keep the rocket from wobble.
-
Probably you end up worse than with a pure chemical lander. A lot of weight, cost and complexity for a still low TWR. Also, unless you drop parts, chenical before nuclear will yeld more deltaV.
-
Need help building a large Mk3 plane
Spricigo replied to TheNoobHunter24's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
I'm blind or the horizontal wing/elevon in the tail is missing? -
nice webapp: rocket calculalor and transfer planner.
-
There's also a few ways to remove parts that become obsolete (e.g. RCS thrusters after the module is placed), like: KAS allow an engineer to remove it. Extraplanetary Launchpad let you recycle
-
Retrograde Kerbol orbit
Spricigo replied to Tarsirrus's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Big fuel tank, small everything else. Put something in LKO and setup maneuvers nodes to get an estimated deltaV requirement and tell us about the other stuff the contract asks for (science gear) . With this we can help designing something. -
[newbie] Mothership burning issues
Spricigo replied to GuyWithGlasses's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
what the heck you are considering the smallest scale? Certainly not the same I consider a small scale: probes under 1t. Lets recap: -I pointed out that under some circumstances the nerv is not the better option. And I pointed out some advantages of other engines with better TWR (anything but the down) -You quoted the my comment about engine TWR and claimed I was wrong because: 1. except at the smallest size , no matter how much deltaV is required, the nerv is better. -I pointed out that you cannot generalize that conclusion to any case. And again pointed out that under some circunstance the nerv is not the better option exemplifying with the case where someone start to use multiple nervs to have a better thrust. -You insisted that the nerv is better, no matter deltaV, no matter thrust. you claimed that only Isp matter. And you added a demonstration. -I pointed out that Isp not the only factor and that you demonstration just show a particular case. I give an example where your conclusion are incorrect. -you are arguing that I'm misinterpreting you. ok let tell you what I'm interpreting: I claimed that under some circumstances the Nerv is worse, under other is better; You said I'm wrong; I patiently tried to clarify my point, show what are the factor I'm considering and that I didn't claimed that the nerv is always worse but under some circumstances is. You keep avoiding any argument I present, keep ignoring my point and telling I'm wrong. Now you are claiming that I'm misinterpreting you? Really?! You are claiming that I'm wrong., Show me some evidence that, no matter the required deltaV, no matter the required vessel TWR the nerv engine will be superior to the poodle. And what the heck are the engines in the smallest scale if the Poodle, a LARGE engine, is included in it? -
[newbie] Mothership burning issues
Spricigo replied to GuyWithGlasses's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Take a look at the rocket equation: So are you arguing that 800X will always be greater than 350Y, no matter the value of X and Y. You didn't checked if the math backed up your assumptions and it cleary don't. The OP had 4 nervs engines, that is 12t. He stated that the low power of those (240kN) is a issue for him. I just presented more powerful chemical options, namely a pair of Poodles (500kN, 3,5t) or a single Rhino (2000kN, 9t) something the OP may explore instead of more (heavy and weak) nervs. And that was never intended as a comparision of the engines TWR because the nerv is pitfull in that regard. Terrier, poodle and rhino not only have better TWR, they have better TWR at sea level than the nerv at vacuum. No, I didnt left it out. Exactly the opposite, as I said, that is the variable to consider. And make all the sense to keep it as a variable. What would be misleading is to assume a incorrect value. Simple and totaly irrelevant. 1. I never said that cases where nervs are superior don't exist (or even are incommon) and you just picked cases where it happens. It just 'proves' the incontested obvious. 2. The TWR of the vessels with Poodle and Rhino are bigger by a lot.* make a comparison of vessel with similar TWR and see how the nerv fares. Well your idea of a fair comparison is Okto2, fuel tank, engine, let me try it with tiny tanks: nerv+Mk0Fuselage+50LF+OKTO2=556m/s; Rhino+OscarB+18LF+22Ox+OKTO2=72m/s; Poodle+OscarB+18LF+22Ox+OKTO2=352m/s; Ok, seems that nerv is superior, however the Poodle variant is more powerfull and ligther, lets try with poodle with an extra OscarB: Poodle+(2x(OscarB+18LF+22Ox))+OKTO2 =675m/s still more powerful and light than the nerv let use a FL-T200: Poodle+FLT200+90LF+110Ox+OKTO2+smallReactionWheel+HG55+2solarpanels+ScienceInstruments=1300m/s, it can flyby Duna or Eve to collect some science. *Intersting that you previouly tried to imply that the weight of those more powerful engines would shift the TWR advantage in favour of the nervs and your example show quite the opposite. **You probably guessed that terrier, spark and ant are even more efficienty in this envelope. So stop to ignore the math. Design a reasonable vessel for the Kerbin-Duna transfer with nervs and similar one with poodle and see what MJ says about it. if the one with nervs is better for you fine, but dont just assume the poodle can't compete because the only stat you cared to look at is Isp. False. just some point to you consider: 1st: 4km/s to a transfer to Duna is not an advantage but a hindrance. More than half of this is just dead weight and will not be used unless a murderous inefficient trajectory is chosen. 2nd: For the necessary deltaV, depending on the payload mass, the chemical transfer vehicle will be considerable lighter then the nuclear transfer vehicle 3rd: Not everyone like to fly gargantuan vessels that take ages for the slightest trajectory adjustment.