Jump to content

NicholaiRen

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    29

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by NicholaiRen

    What planet or moon would you most like an analog of in KSP?

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted

    17 minutes ago, RatchetinSpace said:

    Where are the SOI's in this scenario? Are you saying the SOI of the ghost is 1x1M or is it an infinite like Kerbol? It'd actually be pretty easy to find. Just slow your orbital velocity to 0, lowering periapsis to only a few meters and you'd shoot by a fake body getting an insane gravity assist.

     

    That gravity doesn't have to be very high.

    You could make it basically nothing. But even nothing would still get a capture if it had infinite Soi.

    But as for finding it, it'd still be between two stars, which would take hundreds of years to get to.

    So spending that time finding a gravitational center wouldn't be all that big.

    You get two stars, in exchange you can go visit a fake center if you want.

     

    What planet or moon would you most like an analog of in KSP?

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted

    On 10/17/2017 at 4:39 AM, RatchetinSpace said:

    If they could make barycenters work, the Duna/Ike system might be a binary. According to the wiki, Ike is about 1/16th the mass of Duna, whereas Charon is about 1/10th the mass of Pluto. I don't know if this would result in a binary system but it seems close to it!

    I don't know if they would/could make binaries work though.

    Fun fact: Duna is about 4x the mass of Pluto but is 3.7 times smaller in diameter!

     

    Well. I've been coding for a few years and maybe I'm missing something, but could a ghost center work?

     

    To explain you'd create a single spot, it could be as small as 1x1 kilometers, but I mean you could make it just 1x1 METERS. Then, you could either make it all black, or invisible. Either way, it's pretty remote anyone will ever find it.

    Next, you set its gravity insanely high. It's virtual. You can falsify it. The game doesn't care if it's just 1x1 meters, it just cares what number you put in the variable.

     

    So now, effectively you have a gravitational "center" that nobody can see. You put two stars into orbit around this little guy(DO MATH so that they align with the center at all times of orbit), and you simply extend it's effective gravitational pull to that of Kerbol or something like that.

    So now you have two stars, orbiting a single gravitational center.

    Now when you "escape" a star, then actually you just escaped a star-sized planet with many "moons" and those moons would be "planets" and the planets could have "moons."

     

    Basically, do a lot of embedding and messing around with unrealistic variables.

     

    Now.

    I know this wouldn't be really accurate because, in reality, the gravitational center would wobble, but it's a game. I could only change so much.

     

    Now this is all based off of a few assumptions.

    1: Planets use variables. If they don't, then that'd be insanely inefficient for the coding. SO they probably do.

    2: Moons can have moons. It's possible they can't, but if I can read the code long enough I could probably imbed it.

     

    What did you do in KSP1 today?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    I spent a VERY long time sending many probes  to duna for a new career.

    When I get there, I start sending the first one to get into an orbit for a contract.

    I literally could not do it no matter how hard I tried because for the orbit they wanted, I'd get captured at 4 different points by ike.

    Then the second one had the same problem.

    And then a third.

    Which meant inside of a NEW career, I had spent 900k on three interplanetary missions that were all ruined by a single moon that captured me no matter how hard I tried to avoid it.

    I was even at a 180 degree angle with it when I made the syncronized orbit, but within 10 seconds it had calculated another capture because I'm going counter orbit to ike.

    UGHHHHH

    The Alpha Delta Challenge

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted · Edited by NicholaiRen

    Hello guys.

    Today, I am presenting a new challenge.

    The Alpha Delta Challenge.

    I see spaceships with huge amounts of delta-V, but with 4 hour long burns just to escape orbit.

    I find that ridiculous. So. I have a new challenge to present.

     

    Come up with the ship with the highest Delta-V with the Highest TWR you can obtain. Your score will be:

    Delta-V * TWR ^ 1/4

     

     

     

     

    Enjoy guys. A screenshot must be taken with the ship IN ORBIT with Kerbal engineer telling you how much delta-V you have and how much TWR along with ISP Also, have your apoapsis height and periapsis height on the screen too so I can confirm you're in orbit.

     

     

     

     

    Weight Classes:

    Below 5 tons:

     

    Below 20 tons:

     

    Below 50 tons:

     

    Below 200 tons:

    αΔ  = 38988 @Teilnehmer

     

    Unlimited:

    1st:

     

     

     

     

    Every planet's surface sample in 1 go.

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    8 hours ago, AeroGav said:

    The rocket I attempted, used 9 Aerospikes , with an average of 520 units of liquid fuel oxidizer per engine but it was all asparagus staged.     The upper stage was a Terrier with an FT800.

    The lower stage got us to 17km at 200-300 m/s before running out of fuel.    The upper stage  not up to the job , having only 0.6 twr.  I was kind of hoping to be well on my way to space at this point , but i guess not.  

    Anyway, that fail rocket was 7.4 times heavier than the upper and it only got us to 17km

     

    It appears we've started our own ultimate challenge.

    Design the most effective way to get on and off of eve.

    The Mobile Moon Lander Challenge

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted

    23 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

    Promising challenge!

    Two questions: how is time measured? Play time or game time? Warp will be a big chunk of the time elapsed. Does warp count?

    Rule 3 says "you have to return from Kerbin" -- what does that mean?

    Do the surface samples have to be from different biomes?

    Game time. Warp counts.

    Return to Kerbin*

    I'll fix that, so when you look at it again that's why it's changed.

     

    Yes, they have to be from different biomes. 

    The Mobile Moon Lander Challenge

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Slam_Jones said:

    Welcome to the forums!  Take a look at the Challenge Submission Guide and make sure you challenge meets all the guidelines!

    It is also customary for the challenge-giver to post their own attempt, to prove that the challenge in question is possible.  :)

    I have not completed it yet but I've been trying inside of career mode, without everything that's available. 

    So I guess this challenge won't be done until I do it, so give me a little while to do it.

    Thank you.

    Other then that, it meets all the rules.

    Every planet's surface sample in 1 go.

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted · Edited by NicholaiRen

    The moment you realize all you need to get the first lander that will be part of the mother ship into orbit was a twin boar engine...

     

    screenshot9.pngI've never used the twin boar engine before so I figured I'd quickly test it before building a MULTI STAGE PAYLOAD ROCKET to get this Duna lander into orbit so it could be docked with. I figured it'd get to 20k feet and then I'd just revert.

     

    5 minutes later I'm sitting there looking at it floating around in orbit.

    Screw this I'm done.

     

     

    BTW I used the landers engines to get it to finish the orbit.

    The Mobile Moon Lander Challenge

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted · Edited by NicholaiRen
    Edited slightly to include more detail

    Hello guys.

    For this challenge, I want to see which of you can make a lander that can collect 10 different surface samples from the Mun. 

    Who ever can do it the fastest wins. 

    Rule 1: It has to be a single rocket. No docking in orbit unless you launch both parts up in the same rocket(basically, built entirely in the VAB)

    Rule 2: Stock game only.

    Rule 3: You have to return to Kerbin.

    Rule 4: No debug mode.

    Rule 5: Samples must make it back to Kerbin too.

     

    Time will be measured through game time, not play time. 

    Each sample must be from different biomes.

    Remember, there's 17 different biomes to choose from. Including the poles. 

    Good luck guys.

     

     

     

     

     

    Every planet's surface sample in 1 go.

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    27 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

    Right,  carrying anything you don't use is a waste.  :wink: (Of course I know that you use the nervs at some point. I suppose you get what I mean)

    Can't argue with taste, if that is the decisive factor for you just go with what you heart asks for. But...

    That impresion that planes are superior to more traditional spacecraft often appears. I have no qualms to say: not at all. Those are just different tools that are better suited for different tasks. A hammer is not a bad tool because it don't cut, a lander is not a bad tool because it don't glide.

    Also that impression most often arise from a misunderstanding of the limitations and, worse yet,  advantages of winged designs. Let me explain:

    For any spacecraft, winged or not,  weight is a hindrance (often referred as the ultimate cost). All else being equal a winged design will be heavier and, thus, less capable. To make things worse for the winged craft they also have more trouble with drag so even less capable (everything else being equal). 

    In any case, while subestimating the limitations of winged crafts happens, overestimating its advantages are by far more common (and I risk to say, more nocive).

    One common misconception is to consider lift as some kind of magical force that push the winged craft up 'for free'. In fact what happens (simplified for the sake of this discussion. Technically incorrect but close enough for the relevant point there*)  is that wings 'redirects' some forward momentum to upward momentum , the problems are: that 1.wings always produce more drag(resistance) than lift (useful force)2.only a fraction of the forward momentum will be directed upward. 

    At this point (if you accepted what I said so far**) you may ask what advantages wings really offer. 1st) better control over your trajectory, you can much easily follow the ideal path for your craft than if you didn't had wings 2nd) you can use weaker engines, as long as those can build up and maintain enough momentum to generate lift > weight.

    Now, the 2nd advantage is often misunderstood in the sense that is considered something that wings can always exploit.  But that only happens when winged crafts can use very efficient engines (jets for Kerbin and Laythe, maybe nervs in some circumstances {I really don't know}) and at the same time those engines are not powerful enough to be used by crafts without wings.

    Considering all that, using a spaceplane to liftoff from Eve is pretty much out of question. Your craft will be too heavy and draggy; you don't have super-efficient engines to exploit; and the horizontal trajectory that make wings useful will hurt the engine performance (efficiency drops with pressure). Let alone other problems of lifting off Eva (drag/gravity losses and overheating).

    You can still use wings for your advantage,  to land in a high enough spot so you will be above the worst part of Eve atmosphere when lifting off. Maybe to pick better landing sites while 'biome hopping' and maybe ( in a stretch) even for a very short first part of your ascent to orbit. But traditional, non-winged, staged rockets will be, by far,  the best tool to put your crew back in orbit. 

    Given the WallOfText let me provide the TL/DR version:

    In most circumstances winged craft are objectively worse, but there's some where they offer significant advantages and can have the upper hand. Those situations are, in no particular order:

    -pickings a precise trajectory (in particular a precise landing site) on planets with atmosphere. 

    -travelling at around,  including to  space/orbit when jet engines are available.  (Kerbin and Laythe)

    -possible edge cases (nervs at Duna? Ion or nuclear engines at extremely high altitudes?) . Arguably,  not practical to explore.

    *if necessary I may clarify it, just ask.

    **by all means don't just accept it. Check it and see if you reach the same conclusion. 

    I'd assume you've heard of spaceX using rocket boosters that can land again upright.

    What if, I made a rocket like that. I had detachable wings so that on entry into eve it would slow me down and I could jettison them when they're no longer useful. So that I'd save fuel on the landing. And then, the rocket's ready to take off again as a single multistage rocket again.

    The wings would serve the purpose of slowing down the massive rocket and helping to direct where it lands.

    Would that be a valid idea? Because mainly what I'm getting out of this is that while space planes are helpful that doesn't always mean they're as good as they seem. But what about the wings? Surely they could serve some kind of purpose in that. If not, then okay.

    I've yet to return a mission back from Duna. So I'm still working on interplanetary flight on a small scale.

    I'm practicing my orbital maneuvers and landers on minmus and the mun. Eventually I want to go to Jool and go to multiple moons there to get lots of science. But I suspect that by the time I get to that point, I'll have my entire tech tree done.

     

     

    Minmus Lander Design Problems

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted · Edited by NicholaiRen

    39 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

    Your picture still isn't showing and I'm likely imagining your craft wrong.  Can you try linking the picture again so it shows, or at least a link to it?

    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GxJpgjIySBA/Wbvf86BJ6VI/AAAAAAAAA6M/3LJHF4QM2oYeraf_PfEf0wrmttczPiyhwCL0BGAYYCw/h720/screenshot8.png

     

    screenshot8.png

     

    I love those big legs.

    I  touched down at 30m/s(about 20m/s sideways) and not one of them even blew up. 

    Also, this is the second version. So there's a few changes.

    Minmus Lander Design Problems

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted · Edited by NicholaiRen
    Update

    17 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

    RCS is based off of your "Control From Here" point.  Usually if I need to control a vehicle from an obscure spot, I'll slap a Jr. Docking port in that spot so I have something to click on and select "Control From Here"

    So you could slap a docking port or probe core on the side, which would be the "top" when it's landing, and you should get correct control over your RCS.

     

    That'll be what I do for the lander 2.0.

    Also, the vector engines are pointed in the wrong direction.

     

     

    It got back to Kerbin, and safely landed with all crew and science modules.

    So of 5 tests, it works.

    It can be sent to orbit.

    It can land on minmus.

    It can take off of minmus.

    It can return back to Kerbin with a generous amount of fuel left(25%), from the opposite of ideal timing(took off at the worst time on purpose)

    It can operate very well in space with RCS.

     

     

    Based on this, it's designed to land on a moon, fly around for a while, and then return back to orbit and dock with a interplanetary tug.

    Which I've yet to design. 
    It can refuel with the tug.

    So the port was going to be added anyways, I just didn't realize it'd be so much more useful as a control point.

    Minmus Lander Design Problems

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted · Edited by NicholaiRen

    15 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

    I'm biased here because I despise the Nerv and never use it, so I definitely agree with @dave1904. That being said, I recognize it's usefulness and respect it's capabilities. However, that mostly applies to long-distance, interplanetary travel; to take advantage of it's high isp. With a lander, you instead expose all of its weaknesses. It's big, heavy, weak, expensive, and doesn't gimbal. Note that a Terrier has the same thrust but 1/6 the mass and 1/25 the cost. It's much shorter and has a gimbal as well; making it much easier to control. The Terrier is an ideal engine for landers and return stages. Though I can't see your screenshot (try using postimage or imgur; the you can post your pic directly into the thread so everyone can see it), I suspect the Vernors are unnecessary (unless you just like them). I realize your ship is already built, so I'm not advising a complete rebuild, just giving some suggestions for future consideration.

    It's a sideways lander. 

    As in, it's not a single tall ship with lander legs at the bottom, it lays on it's side like a log, with lander legs at the top and bottom.

    But I'll definitely take that into account next time. Mean while, the RCS hates me because it's set for a vertical vehicle, not a horizontal one.

     

    It has however, landed and survived in perfect condition, with tons of fuel left.

     

    Also, the nuclear engine is so that I could get twice as much fuel on for the same weight as a terrier engine.

    I've found that in space and no atmostphere planets with low gravity, a lot of fuel and a little thrust is better then little fuel but high thrust. It's a lot of efficiency. And it's working amazing at the moment.

    I've used the terrier engine, but they use up fuel so quickly and in my opinion, they're better for vertical landers.

     

     

     

    The idea here is to design a lander quite capable of just about anything on moons. 

    Minmus Lander Design Problems

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    Hello guys,

     

    I've designed this to land on Minmus. It has a nuclear engine on the bottom, 6 venor thrust engines, some RCS Blocks, and the top disengages(command pod, crew cabin,science junior) for reentry. It has a heat shield.

    p0r76an93ktkibbuhq2dgd61fba3sqg7n?pid=64

    Now I have a few questions.

     

    1. Is there a way to make this picture smaller? 

    2. Is this enough to take off from minmus and fly back to kerbin?

    3. Do the vector engines fire at different levels so that the ship will go up when I press H? Or will it simply go nose up since the center of mass is towards the back?

    4. Can the crew cabin store surface samples? The idea behind this is to get as many surface samples from different biomes, and then return.

     

    Just curious. And any tips?

     

     

    Every planet's surface sample in 1 go.

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Zhetaan said:


    @NicholaiRen:  I'll say this for you--if you want to advance quickly, you've well and truly vaulted the bar if you're going to try an Ultimate Grand Tour.  I've seen most of these kinds of missions done with a mothership that carries different landers.  Eve gets its own dedicated lander, and usually Tylo does, too.  Laythe may get a plane but anything that can land and return from Tylo can land and return from Laythe if you put a heat shield on it.  You can usually get away with a general-purpose lander for the other planets--though a lot of missions took several if for no other reason than that landing legs break.  A lot of these missions start by going to Eve:  Eve land-and-return takes so much rocket that it's worth going to Eve first just to get rid of the mass of the Eve lander.  I saw one mission that put the mothership in orbit of Gilly, took the lander to Eve, returned, grabbed another lander, and went to Moho before coming back simply because it would take too much fuel to go to Moho with the mother.  You don't have to set it up that way, but you can.

    If you want to use planes, know that it's difficult to design a single plane that will fly well in every planetary atmosphere:  you can often get away on Laythe with designs meant for Kerbin, but if you take the time to make planes that are designed for the planets they're going to fly over, I think you'll find them fun.  Duna planes, for example, require a lot of wing (to make up for the lack of air) but they're an absolute joy to fly.

    Actually, I was thinking of using planes for Eve and Laythe(still not sure, but Laythe has a thick atmosphere right?), and then a special type of space plane for the others.

    For the special space plane. I want to use a reaction wheel, and RCS thrusters, to allow me to land on planets with virtually no atmosphere. When I need to slow down, I'll burn retrograde, and when I need to land I'll use RCS Thrusters to keep me up right when I land. And then if I can figure out how to use mining equipment(I just got them) then I'll try to find a way to refuel the space plane so I can refuel the rocket.

     

    Basically, I think space planes are much more advanced and cost efficient then landers. Plus, I absolutely despise landers. I don't know why. I just hate them. It's probably how I design them tough.

×
×
  • Create New...