Bluejayek

Since these equations are going to help me with a few things I am trying to calculate, can you clarify a few variables for me... d(h) is what? And in that equation Fg, v2, and kd means what exactly? Pasl is some constant defining ground level pressure I assume? Any idea on its value? How does maximum_drag relate to partDragfactor and what are the values of these? Finally, any idea on how to convert the mass numbers of parts to usable units? Thanks, and I hope this isnt taken as a hijack of your thread, I\'m just trying to get some similar information

Umm... I can\'t tell if your serious, and are just very... confused about scientific principles, or whether you are joking. First of all, we will not explode in 0 gravity. In earth orbit that we call 'zero gravity' we are in free fall, this is true, we ARE being attracted by earth. However, there is no force holding us up. What we generally feel is really the \'normal force\' of whatever surface we are on pushing us up. In orbit, all things are falling at the same rate, there is no normal force so all structures in the body float freely. In true 0 gravity we would not see much of any difference. There are definite problems that are experienced in low gravity, such as loss of bone mass, changes in the cirulatory system, and recently discovered vision problems, but none of these make you \'explode\'. The other thing to consider is a vacuum, as would happen if a space habitat ruptured. In this case even so, you will not explode. Worst case is if you try to hold your breath, without the pressure of atmosphere around you will cause the air in your lungs to expand, damaging your lungs. Otherwise, the main cause of death is lack of oxygen. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html As per bubble analogy, your skin is a LOT stronger then the skin of a bubble. That also has nothing to do with gravity, and everything to do with pressure, which is relatively easy to deal with by filling a capsule with air, and will be not significantly different in low earth orbit, or interstellar space.

Very impressive Its amazing what can be achieved with such tiny craft, especially considering how large I\'m sure all of our first orbiters were (I know mine was more then 10x this size).

I got bored and left it sitting in aproximately 20,000kmx200,000km orbit. Kraken doesnt pull me in very fast.

However, it is Red\'s first post, so that was apropriate. AFAIK all landing legs activate regardless of stage when you hit g.

Does being assisted by stock ASAS count as manual?

Right, gotcha. I can stop worrying about dropping my orbit too low then

Disputed. According to this I should explode at 72,500K. This screenshot is proof that I am alive and well at 66,253K. Update: orbit currently 48,100K by 481,000K

Yeah, it lets me go over 2x, but periodically kicks me down to 2x. However, you misunderstand! There is no way I have fuel to enter this orbit normally. I am harnessing the kraken to do it for me! So far it is working slowly but well.

Perhaps I was not clear. I was NOT accelerating, I was simply at 100x time warp in orbit and it kicked me down to 2x. From reading on the kraken, apparently it is mostly in evidence only above 9000m/s and is a result of Physx throwing a hissy fit at high speeds.

Curiously enough, in this long process I am in I did once get a time warp message. While at about 73k from the star it gave me the 'Cannot go over 2x time warp while accelerating' message. What is your speed at that orbital distance? At 75000k I\'m clearing 100,000m/s, so I can see how the engine might have trouble. Harnessing the kraken, I have so far managed to pull myself into a 2600M by 77,000K orbit. More to follow.

It\'s not solar breaking because I can go on rails, and it doesnt complain that I\'m it atmosphere. Further, it is RAISING my periapsis, and lowering my apoapsis (dramatically). Currently I am around 140,000K, so MUCH closer then your farlander class. And the physics engine is seriously flunking. I am currently using this to put my craft in a 100,000K circular orbit around Kerbol.

Wow. There actually is solar aerobraking. This is awesome. Either that or the physics engine is imploding because I am 100,000km from kerbol. Whatever is actually happening, running at 1x through periapsis of 100,000km on kerbol my apoapsis moved from kerbin orbit, to about half that.

So true sjwt. Although, sometimes the struts only effectg particular stages. For example, my lunar rocket, the third stage has some SRB\'s on it. If they arent strutted together, the entire rocket will start to oscillate back and forth to the point where it will eject the srbs and start into a death spiral. However, notghing goes wrong on the earlier stages without those struts.

Thanks.. That would have been really nice to know beforehand! In that attempt I did manage to shed about 150m/s of speed in three thrusts, so I know it is enough fuel to land if I had just waited.

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=9767.0 Good video tutorial here.

aww... I want to do solar aerobraking. That would be awesome!

This is still my closest attempt. As you can see, I managed to be extremely efficient with fuel, having that much left to land. However, I seriously botched the landing as I burned off my fuel at about 2000m rather then going \'SRB style\' as you say.

Cooly, I recomend trying to turn over sooner. With this craft you really need a continuos turn starting from somewhere between 8k and 13k altitude. You should be fully turned over by the time your apoapsis reaches 50k, as it will keep rising on a horizontal burn. Even with this, you generally will have to bring your apoapsis to just above 70k, then wait until you are at apoapsis to burn to bring your periapsis out of atmosphere.

Woops. I copied the text because I was too lazy to rewrite the labels, and forgot to modify the titles. Fixed. I agree with sgt that making one large tank rather then stacking little tanks would be very nice.

To update this thread: The challenge is now to successfully put this craft into orbit, complete at least one orbit, deorbit, and bring the kerbals safely back to earth. I am convinced it is possible. I managed to get into a ~70km orbit, complete an orbit, de-orbit by dropping my periapsis to ~50km and aerobraking, and have a small ammount of fuel left for \'landing\'. However, I balked on the landing and burnt my fuel too soon. With proper landing fuel use, this should be possible.

I ran across something odd in my quest for the minimal orbital vehicle. Lets take a look at the stats of the FL-T250 and FL-T500. (Credit to UmbralRaptor for bringing this oddity to my attention) FL-T250 Total Mass: 1.25 Dry mass: 0.2 Fuel Capacity: 250 Subtracting dry mass from total mass, Fuel Mass: 1.05 Fuel Mass per unit of fuel: 0.042 FL-T500 Total Mass: 2.5 Dry mass: 0.3 Fuel Capacity: 500 Subtracting dry mass from total mass, Fuel Mass: 2.2 Fuel Mass per unit of fuel: 0.044 Thats right... The mass per unit of fuel contained in the two tanks differs by a not insignificant 5%. This does have implications for craft design. It means that it will ALWAYS be more efficient to put any half tanks on the bottom of stages, rather then the top, as the fuel burnt for the same amount of thrust from the larger tank will dump more mass off your craft. I am curious as to what you guys think about this.

I contend that this is the smallest craft that is capable of achieves stable orbit. Further, if done properly I believe it capable of entering orbit and returning (unsafely) to the ground, thus preventing build up of space junk. This is the entire craft. Command capsule Full LFT Half LFT Lander engine. A few notes: 1) It is too heavy to initially take off as is. You have to let it sit until it burns off the top 10% or so of its first tank before it can launch. 2) The order of the tanks matters. Fuel in a full tank weighs 0.0044 per unit, while fuel in a half tank weighs 0.0042 per unit, as strange as that might sound. Therefore, you are better off burning the full tank first. Here are some pictures from my successful orbit. Thanks goes to Romfarer and UmbralRaptor for their tips and suggestions on getting it into orbit, and credit goes to Romfarer for being the first to successfully launch it into orbit in the challenge thread http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=10172.15. And we made it! Successful orbit! Too bad there\'s no return.

I definately believe you, but pictures are always nice! Preserve the flight for all time so future generations can stand in awe of your brave astronauts achievments while looking at the faded pictures in the Kerbsonian museum of aeronautics! FACEPALM! I did not know about precision mode.... This makes flying so much easier without an ASAS.... Thank you.... With this knowledge I chucked the modded ASAS module and flew this thing manually for the first time (More on that later) While some of what you have posted I knew already, it is all apreciated. More detail is better then less, as one can always skim through what they don\'t know. Thank you. Using your tips, I flew this craft and managed to make it into a 281640m by 73430m stable orbit! One modification I made was to flip the order of the tanks as suggested by Umbral. For my ascent profile, I started turnover a bit earlier then you did, around 8km. After this, I constantly turned over at 90 degrees, keeping pointed on the leftmost edge of the *GREEN* flight direction circle. After my apopsis bit around 50km, I flipped over completely horizontal and burned until it was over 70km. Then, I cut engines and waited until just before periapsis and burned the rest of my fuel. Some pictures follow. And we made it! Successful orbit! Too bad there\'s no return. Further, I believe with this ascent profile done correctly, if I am more careful when I enter orbit to not raise my apoapsis above 70km, it will be possible to deorbit this craft, and MAYBE crashland with kerbals intact. I will get back to you on this.

But its accepted that kerbals use photosynthesis! Thats totally ruining the lore! I\'m in for this though, sounds like a fun idea