Aeroboi
-
Posts
464 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Aeroboi
-
-
A gas giant close to the Sun. One that intersects Moho but outside of its plane closer to the ecliptic.
Preferably with some hot moons. I always thought it would be cool to add a gas giant closer to the sun.
The benefit of this is that you can make very radical gravity assists using Eve to get to the new gas planet.
It wont make the game easier since you have to be experienced to perform it and it will be a fun way to ride the solar system and adds immersion by having a preferred gas giant in a hot atmosphere.
Why do people always prefer the outer edges? Because it's cool there?
-
@The Dunatian I might apply for any of the challenges, however I have a recommendation for another challenge.
What if you were to launch a 30 part 18 ton vessel using rover wheels and drive it outside the launchpad and then make another rocket with a construction so it can rest on top of the former vessel to make i.e. a 36 Ton vessel while still using the prerequisite tech nodes and facility upgrades?
I haven't tried this but I'm sure people are willing to construct something out of the ordinary? Would this seem cool to people.
-
1.875m or 2.5m ion/plasma engine
-
On 2/5/2019 at 9:26 AM, KerikBalm said:
Why would a 2.5m rapier be OP? I can just use 4 rapiers and a quad coupler/2.5m engine plate in the quad configuration...
I do want a 2.5m (or 1.875m) rapier because of the very important *part count* parameter.
I have some large SSTOs that use 32-40 of these things... I would love to reduce that to 8-10, and save 24-30 parts on that alone.
Its the same reason that I want even bigger delta wings, and bigger LV-Ns
2.5M or 1.875M, either one is good, both is better
-
Generally its best to grandparent autostrut all the spacestation modules. Or other modules for any other vessel like a mothership that is constructed in orbit.
Usually the cargo that consists of any of your spacestation modules is on the top of your rocket, mostly encased in a fairing.
They are generally well connected especially when they're faired so the cargo usually doesn't require heaviest or root part autostrut for rigidity anyway. The lifter itself however which could be quite large has especial need for strutting to heaviest or root part.
A Spacestation itself also is under microgravity, or almost all lack thereof (in i.e. solar orbit) so it isn't under strain. Only when you interact with it by docking is there a physics interaction. IME having grandparent autostrut on all the modules is sufficient.You also have to plan ahead. If you want to make a ginormous spacestation but your center modules are connected with the 1.25m docking port then the center connection points are weak so you might want to plan ahead and only use the sr docking port if your intention is to make a much larger space station.
Remember that you can change root in the editor. It is best for the root part to be in the middle of your rocket. This is usually one of the center fuel tanks.
I personally never use rigid attachment. The only occasion where I used it was for a large contructional tug to haul heavy cargo on the surface made from I beams. The rigid attachment makes sure that any attachments are 100% rigid and cannot be bent. If I hadn't used the rigid attachment the construction would wiggle on the joints and the vesel would steer sideways, worse even clip inside and break apart.
Furthermore it's perfectly safe to use heaviest part on your spacestation. Especially if it's wide and sticking out with a lot of modules a center heaviest part connection point could be ideal for optimal rigidity.
However, you will have to plan ahead. If your intention is to dock vessels to that station that have a heaviest part that is heavier then the space station consists off then it will change and physics may rip it apart.
If your intention is to never dock anything heavier then a regular MK3 cargo spaceplane or 2.5m rocket ship module a heavier kerbodyne fuel tank on your station could be a good option. All you have to make sure is that you never dock a part that is heavier or as heavy as that heavier part, or you will have to re-strut all the heaviest parts back to grandparent if you do so.Remember that these physics bugs don't always surface, usually when the spacestation is part heavy or is over extended in height, width or length.
-
2 minutes ago, herbal space program said:
What comes to mind for me is an out-of-fuel Mk3 capsule/uppermost stage combo with a docking port, that is splashed down somewhere in the ocean at least 10 km from land. There would be no rule about the elevation from which you can ultimately ascend back to orbit, but of course you have to devise a way to get your cargo to the launch site from the sea. It would be like an Eve Triathlon -- swim, drive, fly. I guess I would have separate leader boards for lowest launch weight, lowest mission launch cost, and maybe lowest part count. I think that is a challenge that would not necessarily converge to one winning solution so quickly, but like you I don't know if I'm up for organizing it. The last time I did one, there were some initial positive reactions and then no entries at all, and it was a way quicker and easier mission than this one would be. I'll give it some thought anyway....
Considering this challenge currently runs it might be a good idea to launch one sooner then later. Perhaps further interest will follow. By the looks of it people are both interested in amphibious vessels plus rockets and rovers no mind construction to get it done so I bet a lot of people will be interested in this.
-
On 12/22/2018 at 9:38 PM, ManEatingApe said:
Thanks! This is an engaging challenge and a great way to push the boundaries of Eve lander design.
The variety in the various entries is interesting and should provide inspiration for future missions.
I feel everyone who participated so far has conclusively shown that an Eve ore contract is not just possible* but actually profitable!
* Having seen some of the inspired lunacy that happens on these forums perhaps I should say probable instead ;-)5 hours ago, Laie said:The purpose was to make everyone play the same challenge. Not that it was strictly necessary... without the requirement for sea level everyone would have gone to the same mountaintop, I presume. Anyway, the point was not that ore has to come from the lowlands, but that the lifter is supposed to be sea-level capable.
There was an attempt to reboot Eve Rocks, but not much has come of it.
For one thing, I don't think an Eve Return is as hard as it used to be; the other, it takes a special kind of person to keep a challenge like that running for years. You have to look at every entry with a critical eye. After half a year they all started looking the same and I found it hard to still pay attention. On top of that, for something as involved as Eve Rocks or Jool-5, checking a submission is easily an hour of work. Boolybooly or Ziv or (these days) JacobJHC don't get nearly as many kudos as they deserve.
There are also mission contracts that require you to return a stranded Kerbal from Eve including the wreckage.
I think a good challenge would be to retrieve a wrecked ship. The general challenge rule could be to retrieve a specific vessel from Eve surface using a specific savegame file and the one who uses the lightest and cheapest vessel wins.
Or divide the challenge into weight or volume classes and the best winner wins.
Various ways of retrieving cargo using a pusher or puller rocket or a internal Mk3 cargo bay. One should make a mechanism to dock with a stranded vessel. One should find a way to lift the cargo into a aerodynamic position. So a stranded mk2 vessel that doesn't fit into a mk3 cargo bay should be lifted vertically while resting horizontally on the ground.
I won't organize this challenge but maybe it inspires somebody else.
-
9 hours ago, bewing said:
A few tips then: you need canards on the front end of your plane, because you need positive lift to get out of the water. Trailing edge elevons are worthless for water takeoffs.
That depends.
Most water planes have trailing edge control surfaces like the Cessna 182. If you put wing incidence on your wings (Which I Would do anyway) the plane will takeoff without pitching.
In KSP the problem is that the CoM and dry mass tends to be further to the back then in real aircraft where the tail is a light construction work without fuel in it where in KSP it is usually a fuel tank plus a engine at the back. For that purpose you need a longer floater that extends further to the back then in i.e. a real seaplane to balance the floating point because of weight distribution, for that purpose it will be more difficult to pitch out of the water.
In KSP all you have to do is workaround those weight problems by re-balancing engines and fuel accordingly. For efficiency I would put wing incidence on the wings and just make sure that the seaplane SSTO can gather enough speed to climb out from the water horizontally. Also make sure that the trailing edge control surfaces are furthest to the back so there's is maximum pitching moment.
-
@mattinoz I very much agree about the aerospike. I Would first want to see a linear aerospike before that but a 1.25m aerospike has very little thrust so you need quite a lot on larger vessels.
I personally like the lego aspect of KSP. So part tweaking should be left out to mods. I Think a standard 1.875m rapier would allow larger airbreathing SSTO's so less parts will be used on larger spaceplanes. I want to add that a dedicated 1.875m intake should be added.
-
Since we have 1.875M tanks I thought that it might be a good idea to query if people would like a 1.875M rapier engine.
I know a 2.5M variant was asked before but that might be to Op. Maybe a 1.875M fills in a wished for gap.I know the 1.875M variant tanks and attachment parts are linked to making history and are not related to futuristic engine variants but since we now have this form factor I wonder if people see pleasure in a new rapier type engine of 1.875m size.
This may reduce part count on larger SSTO spaceplanes.
-
What are your launchpad and vab facility levels? If both are level 2 (I would assume) you should have enough part and weight restrictions to make a multi part vessel. If you have 7 sites to visit one single surface vessel (rocket) should normally not have enough Dv to hop to all 7 areas.
Instead you should pack 2 identical rockets or 3 if necessary with about ~2000m/s of Dv (more or less depending on how far apart each landing area is) Alternatively use one single rocket with the science equipment with with a fuel tank in Munar orbit to refuel.
Remember that you only need a capsule, FL-T400 + a FL-T200 (or a FL-T800), a terrier plus the science equipment. Let's not forget the landing legs. If you are confident with landing you might install rover wheels on the rocket so you can use it as a rover on the ground. Don't land to hard to they might break.
You want to launch with 2 or 3 MEM's in a fairing or a single MEM instead of 2 or 3 but with a larger fuel tank in orbit to redock with once in orbit of the Mun. You want to position this vessel into a polar orbit and then retro burn one of them as the target area zips underneath. In all likelihood you will see the surface target drift away due to the Mun's rotation. Try to guesstimate where you'll end up and thrust normal or antinormal to follow the target in the map view. With F5 and F9 you should be able to land pretty close but I'm a pilot and someone else might not. Use that same vessel to hop over to any of the other surface areas. Launch back into polar orbit and meet either the other MEM or the fuel tank to refuel with and then repeat the process untill all areas are visited.
-
I build a W.I.P 1260Ton spaceplane with 99 or 104 Rapier engines that can lift up to 1100Ton weighing 2360 Ton.
It can format 5m diameter tanks or 2 x 3.75m tanks next to each other or a 5m fairing with a max width of 6 meters, up to 7.7meters if I find a way to raise it further above the ground. Max cargo length is up to 70 meters and can support fuel tanks of that size across the total cargo format.
It currently consists out of 374 parts including the cargo but I'm confident I can modify the part count somewhat more.
Also comes with 2 small sidemounted MK 3 cargo bays to put smaller stuff in.
Fps is relatively ok with about 1 second per 1-3 fps on a 8700k
Dummy weight is 1040 Tons.
Pics:
I probably put it on KerbalX once it is finished.
-
I build a W.I.P 1260Ton spaceplane with 99 or 104 Rapier engines that can lift up to 1100Ton weighing 2360 Ton.
It can format 5m diameter tanks or 2 x 3.75m tanks next to each other or a 5m fairing with a max width of 6 meters, up to 7.7meters if I find a way to raise it further above the ground. Max cargo length is up to 70 meters and can support fuel tanks of that size across the total cargo format.
It currently consists out of 374 parts including the cargo but I'm confident I can modify the part count somewhat more.
Also comes with 2 small sidemounted MK 3 cargo bays to put smaller stuff in.
Fps is relatively ok with about 1 second per 1-3 fps on a 8700k
Dummy weight is 1040 Tons.
Pics:
I probably put it on KerbalX once it is finished.
-
55 minutes ago, GRS said:
Normal Jool 5 may take something like 10-11 years, a quick lap...at least faster than that, but you better do it efficiently, except if you mean "Jool 5 in one sitting" or such.
Not in one sitting, I specifically mean MET.
Think about a direct transfer using ION propulsion and direct encounters with the moons rather then using gravity assists.
I will also try to make it reusable. It's a bit of a cross relation but it's my desired design goal. -
I never did a JOol 5 before but I'm thinking about planning such a mission.
I personally like to set a rule to do a quik lap, to get there and do it in the fastest amount of time possible. Has anyone done this before? Is it a whole new challenge altogether?
-
52 minutes ago, MisterKerman said:
I generally use a 1-way plus a 4-way to make a 5-way, and then put those 5-ways on either side of the craft (a total of two 5-ways) where most appropriate for docking on a spot inbetween my wet and dry CoM to compromise for versatility's sake.
Also @AeroGav
Sounds a bit fancy for me. If I carry just a little unburnt oxidizer with me it's not the worst thing in the world. I've never had much of an issue balancing fuels, but then again I've never had much of a successful cargo SSTO either...
My way of doing things.
For small craft I put 2 x 4 one way rcs ports clustered together on both sides inside the 1.25m service bay. This way you can reduce drag of the entire rcs system. The only issue is the angle inducing cosine losses. I generally use very little fuel when docking and only use rcs for translation so I personally don't care. 8 parts may be a bit heavy but it's the lightest weight option and reduces the drag entirely. Additionally you can put the other stuff into the same service bay.
This is what I mean...
-
Minimal amount of engine is best to avoid excess dead weight in space, that means as little rapiers as possible. To achieve this you want to minimize drag. Best ways to avoid drag is using only cockpit, fuel fuselages, intakes, engines, wings and landing gear that are to be exposed to air. That means all the other parts are best to be tugged into cargo bays.
(A) In your case I would put a deployable solar panel inside a cargo bay. Why all the parachutes? You want to go to Duna? They won't be needed on Kerbin and it doesn't seem capable of reaching Duna. I never use parachutes because you can land planes safely at 50-60 m/s and Maximum wheel brakes (set to 200 in the editor) should stop most craft. If it isn't capable of stopping using wheel brakes you can use add friction to the wheels, always make sure the friction settings are a little higher on the rear wheels. Assuming your front wheel is for steering its friction should be lowest so it doesn't steer across the surface like a crazy animal.(B) Since your capable of breaking using wheels I also see no reason for airbrakes. Are they needed in your design case? I use to pitch over and pull up violently to arrest speed close to the runway. I assume you use airbrakes for the final descent? I would discard them unless you find it is cool.
Another way to minimize drag is to minimize the frontal cross section. If the spaceplane travels through the center of the prograde reticle the cross section is lowest as the fuselage will be dead center in the direction of travel.
This never happens if the wing chord line is perfectly horizontal parallel to the fuselage. This is how most people attach their wings, which is straight on.
Luckily you can put the wings on a incline (Wing incidence) so that the spaceplane can stay in level flight or even climb while staying on prograde to minimize all excess body drag.
This in turn means less required engine to go through the sound barrrier.(C) Additionally always try to configure wing incline on the fwt and aft wings/control surfaces so that it stays level flight without key controls. If the incline fwt <> aft is mismatched the spaceplane will either tip over or pull up natively, this means any of the available control surfaces has to be extended which causes additional drag if this balance is mismatched.
This balance is further affected as you burn fuel and CoM shifts. I try to build my spaceplanes so wet and empty mass is at the same place. IME you have to be experienced to know where and how to organize your engine mass and fuel mass in relation to the CoM.
The general rule to further reduce body drag is that if you need more then one engine at the end of a 1.25m stack is that you'd better use a adapter like a bi-coupler rather then bolting 2 new stacks on the sides as the added cross section of a added stack will be greater then the extended surface of i.e. any engine adapter.
For that reason I would discard the MK0 liquid fuel tanks and use the larger 400LF MK1 size at the front or back at any of the available 1.25m stacks. Alternatively you can use the BiG-S strake that holds 100 LF. It also has the lightest dead mass in relation to it's wing lift so it's the best wing piece out there to be used if you want the maximum wing lift for the least amount of mass.(D) MK 1 fuselages are the least draggy on the frontal cross section. MK2 may look prettier but it is draggier. Because it is draggier you are normally required to move your main wings further to the back to compensate for this in order to achieve a controlled re-entry. Using MK1 your are less draggier and you generally have your wings moved more to the front as you wont have to deal with the drag of a Mk 2 cockpit fuselage on the front.
(E) Why two Mk2 drone core? isn't 1 sufficient? It isn't like one of them breaks randomly lol
(F) Why 4 reaction wheels? Isn't 1 enough? In a spaceplane you are constantly under aerodynamic stress. This stress is so great that the reaction wheel torque is completely futile. It would fly as good as it would without any of them. Furthermore, according to the size of your spaceplane 1 reaction wheel is enough to tumble freely in space, so why even 2, let alone 4?
The only reason I can see is if you have problem during landing or takeoff. During landing and takeoff the airspeed is very low so then the reaction wheels will start to have effect. As you increase speed the torque generated by control surfaces will become greater. For this reason a aircraft becomes more maneuverable as it increases in speed which is why you are capable of controlling your vessel using your control surface only past a certain speed while it wouldn't be able to takeoff or land if it hadn't the available reaction wheel torque.(G) I would always go rapier unless you have very draggy cargo that is enormously large. In such a case it might be difficult to breach the sound barrier. Whiplashes have more thrust at transonic speeds so using them will get you past 400m/s. Usually a combination of whiplashes and rapiers is used. (1) so that you have closed cycle mode on the rapiers so that you wont need additional engines, another tip is to amount only the least amount of whiplashes in relation to rapiers to achieve the maximum air breathing speed. Another reason might be to use whiplashes if your aircraft cant take off past the runway. But IMO that is a design mistake as any sized spaceplane should be able to lift off the runway using any engine layout by properly placing landing gear.
P.S. : 1 rapier per 20 Ton is to be expected at the top of the table. Most people struggle doing 10-15 Ton as it is crucial to learn how to reduce drag. I expect 25Ton is the utmost using a proper balance of all the drag inducing parts and a proper climb<>dive<>climb.
-
20 hours ago, Nigel Cardozo said:
What about real launchpads?
Optimized for specific launch vehicles. So one launchpad would suffice for one particularly sized rocket. Alternatively several launchpads be used for a variety of size/weight types of launch vehicles. We could have a facility 2 launchpad be build next to the facility 1 launchpad and a facility 3 launchpad be build besides the facility 2 launchpad. ~18Ton rockets would still be launched off of the facility 1 launchpad even if you have the facility 2 or 3 unlocked/build. Furthermore the launchpads should be remodeled because why not? Aren't they ugly as is?
Furthermore, KSP has set the tone for how stock realism can be expected. IMO there isn't realism to be expected because none of the features are very realistic.
Realism as in RO isn't to be expected because nothing of that sophisticated realism was added ever into the stock game. This game already exists for over 6 years, go figure what to expect?
So it is futile to assume the developing route will go there.
No problem for those who can install mods, but I can expect console players would really want additional features to compensate realism, I'm afraid you'll always be stuck to play the stock game unless you hop over to the pc. -
I think the reason a shroud is left out is because the ant engine represents something like a small or even micro satellite engine. These satellite are often encased in fairings in relation to real life rockets while the other available stock KSP engines are actual lifting engines which would be used in the default interstage shrouds/fairings. Because of that I think the ant engines has no use for a shroud. However, this game is a building block game and should allow full user independent creativity, for that reason the option should be allowed to cover the ant engine with a shroud IMO. I hope that in future updates such functionality would be added to the Ant engine, especially as Squad promised to focus on part revamps I wouldn't want the ant engine to be left out.
-
You aproach the SR docking port at a angle relative to the other SR docking port. Have you tried aproaching it from a mirror symmetrical angle? The docking ports behave (not act) like magnets and IIRC when docking at a angle the magnetic effect may repel the opposite docking port. Always take in mind rotation, don't stare blindly at translation as it is often required to emulate proper rotation against the relative target i.e. the other SR docking port or any other docking port for that matter.
This may solve the problem as I had repelling effect of 2 docked ports together myself in versions prior to 1.6 and 1.5 which I can't remember tbh. IIRC I believe my aproaching angle was to great, by any chance this effect still persists and proper rotational alignment might solve your culprit.
-
@KerbService The point with autostrut is that the different options have a purpose. You couldn't autostrut to a "default" part because what part would that be then?
Heaviest part or root part is notoriously used to create rigidity on parts attached to other stacks as these will often autostrut to a center stack using heaviest or root as that is where root or heaviest parts are often located. And while that is often the obvious locations for root and heaviest part it does depend per vessel. If any vessel had it's "Heaviest part" at a spot near the bottom it would be rigid with the parts at the top connected to it, but if that heaviest part would be near the middle or near the top then that rocket wouldn't be as rigid anymore, probably even wobbly.Since there are to many variables in vessel creation I cannot foresee a algorithm that can be written or even conjured lol.
Another things is that ships that dock or undock from one another will have it's heaviest or root part change causing physics to krakenize the game.
A default autostrut function allowing random locations of heaviest or root part will seriously annoy you with kraken type things when doing docking.
The only solution is auto-strut grandparent part by default.However, that usually doesn't really make the vessel rigid especially if it has stacks hanging on it's side. So it wouldn't deliver anyway.
It you want auto-auto strut you can use the Kerbal Joint Reinforcement mod. -
@Loren Pechtel Giving us a picture of the craft greatly improves your chances of receiving direct tips, tricks and methods to solve/remedy your problem.
AFAIK length of a craft shouldn't make things more difficult.
Flight characteristics of a long craft with one stack means it is more aerodynamic so aerobraking through body drag will be less effective. As long as you use other methods of aerobraking besides the use of the body it doens't matter how thing it is.
I also never use any heatshielding to protect my nose or anything when retrieving upper stages. The most simplistic working design is a stage that does no flipping at all. It just stays retrograde with the engines facing the fire.On another note...
@Snark Gave a brilliant solution that I use myself, very often. Control surfaces have very high 2400k heat tolerances so they can be extended during aerobraking. Using them to slow down high in the atmosphere will keep critical temperatures of bottom engines below overheat threshold. And consequently it will keep your rocket oriented the way you want.
Personally I don't see the use of grid fins in stock KSP unless your using KoS and you want to land at a specific spot. In ksp it doesn't matter whether you land on the grass, runway or a small hill. Grid fins can be used to show off VAB, Helipad or barge landings but that is proof of concept, gameplay wise it's not really gamey. I do use a lot of vernors myself to orient the craft before touchdown to help with rotation near touchdown.Then there is the fairing staging trick. You can cover elevons inside a interstage fairing to make the top of your rocket very draggy when staging off the fairings. This creates drag to aerobrake and makes the engines pointing downward.I used both methods on a test craft, which took me a few minutes to build.The first set of pictures on the album below show off the stage fairing trick.
The second set of pictures on the album below show off the control surface method advised by Snark. I took it another step forward by rotating them and "change deploy direction" in flight for a even greater deflection angle by the elevons. -
5m stacks also save in part count when trying to lift heavy cargo. One could use 3.75m parts to lift something worth of 500 Ton into LKO but one could also use 5m parts that hold more fuel and thus saves part count.
Also, parts aren't always used traditionally. While it isn't functional to do this one could use the fuel tanks as empty assemblies to add bulkiness to your spacestation for looks.
On another note, people play with mods. Some have planet packs with larger Dv requirements and you would need more fuel to get to places. For this 5m parts are practical. It may also contribute to part variety when mixed with other 5m parts of part packs. All we need now is a 5m engine.
-
The next bit should be a mod as it stresses hardware. What I always wanted is more variety and greater density terrain scatters.
Variety could mean rocks, bushes, pebbles, animals, trees (other varieties)
Density meaning a greater density setting on the default "Terrain scatters" slider option on the main menu.I have a 5.1 ghz 8700K so I want something like this to be.
Moar Boosters Challenge - To the Mun and back, speed competition
in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
Posted
Fun challenge.
From experimenting with heating I"ve done a while ago it seems a deflated inflatable heatshield has the most heat resistance. All you have to do is make sure that all the stacks are 2.5m or smaller and have the heatshield mounted on the side of the heatblast.
The deflated heatshield is also draggier then most nosecones so should have some stopping power. My idea is to make a very narrow thin aerofoil using a proper fairing shape so I can punch through the atmosphere ASAP to waste as little seconds getting through the atmosphere back to the surface.
A deflated inflatable heatshield should be able to survive ~2000m/s near sea level as long as it covers the frontal cross section. All you need is a few elevons and one parachute activated prior to impact. I expect this could shave of ~30-60 seconds from your normal flight time.