Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by antipro

  1. Test Launch of the 3rd of three vessel projected to complete the "plant a flag on Eve" contract. Vessel name: eve transfer Vessel purposes: launch into 80Km LKO + RV and DOCK with "eve lander" at 120Km LKO + transfer "eve lander" to Eve. Status: still testing. Launch test video 6x: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kelq11jvqzjfu81/eve transfer test launch.mkv?dl=0 Ortho
  2. "The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be." Douglas Noël Adams "forty-two" Deep Thought
  3. ok I think I solved. In few words: - change sepra direction = not possible if not using two sets of sepra = eyeballing symmetry. - sepra match or close to CoM = not working cause west-sided tanks need more push on the top. - add separators between engines and tanks = works. "no longer crashing debris" video: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ozv68jlidzk2ps/added sepa.mkv?dl=0 So, I'm now fine, no more debris collisions. Thanks all of you dudes.
  4. here's just few screens proving I'm working on it. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c0qgngjyb5l3s96/AAD9RrACa8lrBlv4ypFYM61Ka?dl=0
  5. Already tried yesterday before posting: nothing changes. The screenshots was only my last assembly try. Anyway those 2 west-sided boosters need more push power or they will crash into the 2nd stage If I've understood well, you're talking about to change the 2 symmetrical sepra direction in order to reduce the roll. Uhm.. yes good idea. I'll try this too. Thanks
  6. uhm.. ok one moment, I have to intensively use the translator. So you don't care about the high sea's pollution due to many micro-fragments? or even at the risk of destroying buildings or killing kerbals when the debris hits the ground? eheh.. no come on I'm just joking. Yes is correct, already mentioned 2 times, at the separation time the rocket has a certain AoA. And yes, that's the reason why I have to use 3 sepra instead of 1 only. I'm quite pretty sure that even if I went perfectly Surface-Prograde, those slanted cones would be a problem at that low altitude/high pressure atmo, usually I solve by adding a single vertical slanted sepra. This mission involves three hi-mass vessels, and normally I always point as much prograde as possible, but this time I just can't. How? All 3 sepra are pointing externally. Ok, I'll try to match their CoM, but it is probably close to and not "far" from the bottom. yep, that's what I'm trying to solve. That east-sided couple of boosters, that rotate so much cause of AoA, independently by what I do with sepratrons, is the main problem. Thanks, you made me think about another solution.
  7. Thanks for this confirmation, I've asked it cause long time ago, I read a negative Steam review regarding MH DLC. This Steam user was talking about that limitation, but it was obviously false. I'm fine, I'll buy them on the next sales, especially for the MEM. ok I stop to derail from the main thread subject.
  8. I can't, is a GT managed launch. Of course, if they hit the main vessel the mission instantly fails. And have you ever seen 2 boosters collide IRL? As I said it's a GT handled launch, also if I reduce thrust I'll lose efficiency and by the way I'm not sure that will help cause the real problem here is that those "boosters" have an angle of attack in the moment I separate them. Not sure I've understand, are you saying to separate them 2 or 3 at time? If so, how do I do it? all the separators are linked, I would have to rebuild them by removing their symmetry. This could be a good idea, thx I'll try it. I've not so much gap to do it, anyway already tried. I think the problem is that when I detach them, they have an angle of attack. This sentence made me reflect and come up with another idea: add a separator between their engines and the tanks. Or maybe I just replace the slanted cones with symmetrical cones. I'll try soon. Thanks
  9. correction: I said "replace the "Mk1 Command Pod", but I was wrong: in the 1st ss, I recognized the Mk2 as an Mk1 Pod. I have no DLC so I've never see it before and by the way it looks like an Mk1. I apologize. Anyway, now I have a question concerning the DLC Pods, such as Mk2 and M.E.M.: If I buy Making History, will I be able to use these pods in career mode like any other part, or they can be used only in stand-alone missions, like those ESA ones?
  10. Hi, I'm usually able to solve these kind of things by myself but this time it's driving me out of my mind, so please give me some suggestions. if there is one thing that bothers me during a launch, is to see separated empty tanks collide with each other. I've already tried to move sepratrons and change their solid fuel amount, but every time I launch, the two tanks on the east side of the ship, always collide. So can you please give me some advices in order to avoid that collision? Collision video: https://www.dropbox.com/s/v469qy9fkoak9st/2021-09-28 02-06-13.mkv?dl=0
  11. ok, ye that's correct but isn't it exactly what I've said? I said "I've just tested myself with 1 pilot+probe core and with 2 pilots only" and "using 2 pilots or 1 pilot+probe core" it was implicit that I didn't assembly the RC-001S on top of the MK1-3 when I've tested it with 2 pilots. so, ok no problem, thx for your clarification.
  12. right, but I think you need two pilots into the mothership. or 1 pilot and a probe core. the mothership need relay antenna. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Probe_Control_Point#Requirements Probe control point Command module capable to function as Probe Control Point At least 1 Pilot on board (depends on the Command module, see table below) Relay Antenna Remote ship A probe or command pod with the "remote pilot assist available" feature If it's a command pod, a capable kerbal (scientist or engineer) must be aboard Any antenna to establish the CommNet link I've just tested myself with 1 pilot+probe core and with 2 pilots only and it works but I've never tried with the Remote Ship as a Command Pod. https://www.dropbox.com/s/p5r6350lzme7isy/2021-09-26 10-06-37.mkv?dl=0 So if I'm not wrong, based on your ss, you have to switch antennae, the relay on the "Mothership" and any antenna on the "remote ship", and replace the "Mk1 Command Pod" with a "Mk1-3 Command Pod" or "Mk2 Lander Can", using 2 pilots or 1 pilot+probe core.
  13. I call that "airfoil parachute" or "aerodynamic parachute" or "wing parachute". are you still talking about IRL? Cause I've just seen a YT video where a guy landed by only acting on the strings, modifying the shape of the wing, without therefore having to "flare". ok maybe in the following video, the wind has helped him a bit, but I'm quite sure it is possible to do it. I know what you mean, I never use parachutes in game or IRL, but if you turn 180° or 360° just before landing you can kill the speed without increase the altitude. these are my last 3 tries: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xuyrk72fd14ixbk/2021-09-26 08-41-54_edit.mkv?dl=0
  14. yes, I just tried right now, without a particular technique, other than slowing down a few meters from the ground. or maybe I didn't understand the question well..
  15. easier than doing an addition? https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Technology_tree "Unlocking the entire tree requires 18 468 Science" Tech Tree Points + Current Points = Total Points. 18468 + 86250.1 = 104718.1 or just few additions/subtractions? ye, I think you have to add. but what is the purpose of knowing that?
  16. I get lost in calculations, formulas and I don't know how really mining works but looking at wiki, it says: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/'Drill-O-Matic'_Mining_Excavator#Uses While the drill is active, it extracts ore depending on the type of celestial body, the ore concentration in the area, the core temperature and the presence and level of an engineer on-board. The ore extraction rate is B·c·T·m where: "B" is the base rate of 1.5 ore/s on a moon or planet surface and 5.0 ore/s on an asteroid. "c" is the local ore concentration between 0 and 100% "T" is the thermal efficiency displayed in the drill menu (100% at 500K, less at higher or lower temperatures). "m" is the multiplier supplied by the level of the highest level engineer on-board. These are as follows: Level Multiplier No Engineer 5% ☆☆☆☆☆ 25% ★☆☆☆☆ 45% ★★☆☆☆ 65% ★★★☆☆ 85% ★★★★☆ 105% ★★★★★ 125% The drill displays B·c as "Ore rate" and T·m as "X% load". The effective ore generation rate can be calculated by multiplying those two values. Note: charge used = T·m·15 = "X% load"·15 ⚡/s. Hence it varies greatly, scaling up gradually with thermal efficiency (as the drill core warms up), then from 0.75 ⚡/s with no engineer to 18.75 ⚡/s with a 5 star engineer (while at 100% thermal efficiency, on a planetary body). Asteroid harvesting mode consumes a flat 1.5⚡/s under all circumstances (while there is space to store ore). So, idk maybe you are able to calculate it yourself, or just wait for someone who knows.
  17. you're surely right, I'm gonna try to replace fuselage orientation. thx well, changing the remote guidance unit by 90° solve the problem with the frontal wings, but is it really necessary? I don't like to have the RGU in that way, is asymmetric, anyway I still have the issue with back side wings. I can't realize how to turn those damned fuselages. I gonna thinking I will rebuild it from scratch. ok the problem was twofold, first I added and re-root an MK1 cockpit, this for solving frontal wings. about the rear wings I had to re-attach the tt-38 decouplers with symmetrical mode and all went good. The choose is to use a cockpit or having the RGU rotated for an asymmetrical 90°. anyway, once I've attached gears, panel, lights, batteries, etc on the wings and on the fuselage, I can remove the cockpit and all the pieces remain well placed. (yes but navball will be messed up) errata corrige: the RGU must be oriented in the way the game wants or the navball will be messed up. This is the only way: Flying:
  18. no, it switch automatically, like you said. to avoid the rocket moving following prograde marker you can: - stop point at prograde marker but use SAS only or - use a mod like MJ or Gravity turn. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Navball#Point_of_reference As all movement in space is relative, the point of reference determines the object from which all distance measurements and velocity vectors are made. Clicking this area will toggle the point of reference between Surface, and Orbit, and Target. Target mode is only available if a target is selected. To land on the surface of a planet or other celestial body, it is important to have the reference set to Surface to account for the rotation of the celestial body. For orbital maneuvers (i.e., not landing), the planet's rotation is unimportant, except in the case of a synchronous orbit, in which case the point of reference should be set to Orbit, which is like Surface but without accounting for the planet's rotation. no, don't switch to orbit, let the ship to follow the marker when it changes or just use SAS only. The aerodynamics will keep you in the correct direction until you want to change. again
  19. When I've nothing to do, sometimes I build airplanes(that never fly well) for fun. I'm usually able to place landing gears correctly, under the wings, or solar panels on top of them, but not today. One of the gear or panel is placed upside down and I do not remember how do I fix it.
  20. just for info, I've tried it right now and apparently it has a limit too. I cannot extend the truss more than 1100m or so.
  21. I'm sure you'll find it very Aladeen. ok you're saying SLS boosters are the evolution of STS's ones. well, ok but I was wondering only why Nasa didn't change their cones to some inclined ones. isn't it better to have less pressure between main tank and boosters?
  • Create New...