Jump to content

APlayer

Members
  • Posts

    159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by APlayer

  1. Quick check against the checklist: (I have given each component an estimated percentage of the total efforts which it will take/took) What's done? (20%) Hermes (10%) Duna Ascent Vehicle (DAV) (5%) Duna Descent Vehicle (DDV) (5%) Hab (SOB, SP1) What's left to do (Probably in the order I will do it)? (2.5%) Life support surface presupply/ies (2.5%) Science instrument surface presupply/ies (10%) Rovers (5%) Survey sat/s, lander/s (5%) Relay sats (10%) Crew capsule (5%) Hermes resupply craft (20%) Launch system Summary: Mission preparations are done by about half! (45%)
  2. Hab and Presupply 1 finished. The presupply probe carries mainly the solar farm for the hab (it's working! Mini solar panels to carry around and equipment to build an EC net with them!), which is the surprise I promised. Some may find it trivial, but I am proud of it. Pictures: Hab: http://imgur.com/a/29pyW Presupply 1: http://imgur.com/a/5f0NG Not all landing pics included, Ike eclipses again. Also, I didn't assemble it, that would require landing an actual crew and both probes in one place. KRASH (My simulator program, like HyperEdit but with force-revert and costs funds in Career mode) does allow only one vessel landed at at time. But I am fairly confident it will work. I provided plenty of redundancy and I did this once before. Not quite like that, but similar.
  3. Sir, you should teach this kind of stuff.
  4. Consider this: I was able to do some easy ones. So, not difficult at all.
  5. Is it possible, or hard to implement a possibility to edit the reliability module of a part mid-flight? If so, you could make engines decrease their MTBF upon ignition. A bit of the decrease would be permanent. Example: Engine ignition - MTBF decreases to 0.05% of initial value (About 10h if it was 8Y initially). Upon shutting down the engine, MTBF restores to, say, 80% of initial value. This would require cfg tweaking to have low thrust, high ISP engines (Ions, for example) have much higher MTBFs than other engines, but I am willing to take this over, if necessary.
  6. Okay, I need to excuse myself. I just checked and indeed it turns out the last time explaining was on page 71. I thought it was more recent.
  7. Today I've had an idea for a nice touch: Why not make the booster rockets modular? E.g. two or three lower stages common for all the rockets, recoverable if possible. Optional boosters, probably parachute landed. And various upper stages, depending on the purpose, which would do nicely in combination with the payloads. This would allow me to have a standard booster while still being suited for most things the mission would throw at me. Also, it would mean a more or less similar launch timeline which would facilitate piloting. This is especially important since I hope to have them recoverable. Also, I started on the hab now. I have trouble designing a launch and landing system for it, it is from KBPS and thus non-standard form factor. And there will be one surprise which I found especially neat. :-)
  8. I know, and that's what I suggest to change. It would make sense to have an exception to this rule for reliability modules, which are obviously not involving the whole part, like reaction wheels for pods or ECLSS modules. And similar. My suggestion is to, by default, use the ECLSS module cost and mass (250 - 500 funds and 10 - 25 kg, IIRC?) for the high quality calculation, rather than the whole pod. And a smaller ratio for parts with many reliability modules - maybe in such a way that all reliability modules on high quality would result in the whole part's mass and cost increase by the current ratio? E.g. if a high quality reliability module adds +50% of mass and +100% cost, but there are five reliability modules in a part, then the part gains (50 / 5) % and (100 / 5)% mass and cost, respectively, per enabled high quality module. However, I still suggest to use the ECLSS module's mass and cost for reliability calculations (perhaps with a bigger default percentage) for high quality reliability calculations, because it just makes more sense that way. Also, I may repeat my suggestion to allow empty ECLSS slots and allow equal ECLSS modules be installed in one part. And a way to add ECLSS processes without having to attach an additional pod would be nice - for example via a copy of the chemical plant part, or just added to the old chemical plant. I tried to do this, but I failed horribly.
  9. Please read above. It has been explained at least three times while I watched, likely more.
  10. Duna Descent Vehicle (DDV) done! Pics: http://imgur.com/a/nxkyk I had some difficulties with the design, as I need about 400 m/s of dV after aerobraking just to raise my orbit to the altitude where the Hermes would dock with the DDV, and then to descend to the atmosphere again. RCS would not do. But I came up with a solution: No aerobraking. I am keeping the transfer stage and using it for those maneuvers. I will "only" need about 1 km/s of dV in it for a direct insertion and the descent. I will probably need a special transfer stage for this, I planned to use LOX for them, but it would boil off in this case. Also, the vehicle is about 10 - 15 tons below the maximum payload mass allowance, so I should be fine.
  11. ECLSS high quality settings seem multiply the whole pod's mass and cost. I think it would make more sense to use the ECLSS module's mass and cost in the calculation, because, if a pod weighs 5 tons and you want high quality ECLSS, you get an additional 500 kg for it. A similar nonsense happens for expensive pods. (The same pod costs 5k funds, but with high quality ECLSS more than 18k.)
  12. I returned from my holidays somewhat refreshed and ready to start playing KSP working! Thanks! The last time I did this, a burn took 8:50 hours. But back then, the burn was at 0.005 TWR and 2,863 m/s of dV. This time I have a TWR of 0.0075 and 2,975 m/s of dV - this extrapolates to roughly 6 hours. But these are the longest burns - the other ones will be shorter. Thanks! Let me be honest - I can't wait too!
  13. I guess your issue is time? If so, have you considered using a clean testing install with only a few relevant parts loaded (Not even all Squad parts, that is), so that the loading time is minimized?
  14. DAV pictures in the VAB, with breakdown: http://imgur.com/a/FmvvC No in flight pictures this time, sorry... I had to do some modifications to the vehicle during testing, to make remote control possible without relay sats, so the vehicle itself was more ugly than usual. Plus there was some glitch weirdness (A Duna year took less than two Duna days? Huh?? I blame mods. Need to test that once I return.) and Ike eclipses all the way through it, so it was dark often. The pictures wouldn't be any good, for short.
  15. From tomorrow and for a week, I'll be on vacations and not online, or at least not playing KSP. So this is probably my last update before I disappear for a week. Seeing that the Hermes parking orbit at Duna is 3000 km, and with this sufficiently far from Ike (~2880 km) to be noticeably asynchronous, meaning having a significant relative motion, and close enough to be influenced when passing above Ike, I figured this can't do. I have three viable options now: Look for a synchronous parking orbit, as far away from Ike as possible, so that the mission time is not enough to result in a close approach Raise parking orbit to 4500 km, resulting in a Hermes trajectory dV increase of 79 m/s and lander trajectories dV increase of 9 m/s Select a parking orbit around Ike I think I'll go with 2., considering the fact that this is just a cheap and safe approach with no potential difficulties. (Ike might get in the way while landing or ascending, but hey. Why did I leave myself 5 spare days? For looking at them, or what?? Also, I've built and tested the ascent vehicle. Pics coming in a few minutes, need to make them first.
  16. I noticed how the Oxidizer chemical process uses hydrogen, but the LiquidFuel one, if combined with electrolysis, does not. This feels wrong, somehow. EDIT: If you lowered the amount of generated water slightly, that would account for it, I guess.
  17. Thanks a lot, but I meant VAB options. To edit the configs is comparatively simple.
  18. It would be nice to be able to either add a part with more ECLSS slots, or add ECLSS slots at an additional cost and mass. I considered adding ECLSS processes to the chemical plant, but failed at it horribly. (Module Configure documentation would be nice... )
  19. I figured I am wasting time with that script. I don't think it makes sense to waste so much of it for this challenge. Lesson learned. Anyway, then the backup plan is used: Start from a high orbit, so that the burn takes no longer than 1/3 of the orbit. In other news, I found a suitable launch window, which allows me to plan a mission timeline: Y1/D127 - Y1/D177: Launch and assembly of scouting and relay probes Y1/D177: Departure of scouting and relay probes - they arrive ahead of the rest, trajectory Δv: 1.9km/s --- 14 days break --- Y1/D189 - Y1/D239: Launch and assembly of other components except Hermes Y1/D238: First Kerbin - Duna launch window occurs, departure of other components, trajectory Δv: 1km/s (aerocapture) --- 207 days break --- Y2/D19: Scouting and relay probes arrival Y2/D19 - Y2/D69: Scouting probes and landers deployment, building relay net Y2/D69: Arrival of other components, aerocapture, precise landing, deployment --- 333 (lucky!) days break --- Y2/D403 - Y3/D26: Launch and assembly of Hermes Y3/D26 - Y3/D31: Launch of crew, docking with Hermes, last minute preparations and checkout Y3/D31: Crew departure with Hermes, trajectory Δv: 4.6km/s --- 288 days break --- Y3/D319: Hermes arrival Y3/D319 - Y3/D324: Docking with descent vehicle, last minute preparations and checkout Y3/D324: Crew descent & landing with descent vehicle Y3/D324 - Y3/D354: Component assembly, surface operations, ascent preparations Y3/D354: Crew ascent with ascent vehicle Y3/D354 - Y3/D359: Docking with Hermes, last minute preparations and checkout Y3/D359: Hermes departure, trajectory Δv: 4.6km/s --- 98 days break Y4/D31: Crew arrival with Hermes Y4/D31 - Y4/D36: Re-docking with crew capsules, last minute preparations, crew descent Y4/D36: Crew recovery Trajectory details: Scout probes: Departure: Y1/D177 Arrival: Y2/D19 Time of flight: 268 days Parking orbit: 100 km Ejection Δv: 1,145 m/s Insertion Δv: 776 m/s Total Δv: 1,921 m/s Other components: Departure: Y1/D239 Arrival: Y2/D69 Time of flight: 255 days Parking orbit: 100 km Ejection Δv: 1,046 m/s Insertion: Aerocapture Total Δv: 1,046 m/s Hermes (Kerbin - Duna): Departure: Y3/D31 Arrival: Y3/D319 Time of flight: 288 days Parking orbit: 7000 km Ejection Δv: 2,975 m/s Insertion Δv: 1,629 m/s Total Δv: 4,604 m/s Hermes (Duna - Kerbin): Departure: Y3/D359 Arrival: Y3/D319 Time of flight: 98 days Parking orbit: 3000 km Ejection Δv: 2,756 m/s Insertion Δv: 1,887 m/s Total Δv: 4,643 m/s With that settled, I can begin planning and building the probes and vehicles.
  20. I could do it, if you like. I already announced once that I want to make a big compatibility patch pack for Kerbalism, so consider I am taking orders.
  21. 1 - Naturally. They both do the same. 2 - What parts do you mean? 3 - Kerbalism adds an own communication system which works completely different from CommNet. 4 - Click on your probe core or pod and then on the data button. 5 - You can find it in your KSP install folder under GameData/Kerbalism/settings.cfg. There are all the settings. 6 - Please read what I wrote right at the top of its description.
  22. ... and now they stole my work ... No, J/K. Glad you did it before I did. Because, actually, with the new aspects that got added, I even prefer Kerbalism's LS system over TAC-LS. Also, @ShotgunNinja, I noticed you misspelled "rescue" as "resque" (Too much french today? ) in your configs.
  23. It had a lot of errors, but I am fighting out the last bits. I am just having trouble with one or two formulas (Of around 25, so that's very little!) and I am done for today again. I expect to finish it tomorrow.
  24. I never knew that, will try it out sometime soon. Thanks a lot for the suggestion!
  25. Humm, is there a workaround? Because the same thing happens upon saving and reloading the ship, and thus I need to empty all the tanks (There are about 20 not including the symmetrically attached ones) after every slight modification before saving, else I'll end up launching them filled...
×
×
  • Create New...