kahlzun

It's actually really good, you've made a good product that I was looking for for **AGES**, and you're personable and approachable!

Most of my designs 'drop' the balloons when they cease to provide lift (have done experiments on optimal launch here) I should be able to get a no-drop to orbit pretty easily, will have a go shortly.. watch this space. edit: 18:30 Yep. Nailed it. First go In VAB: In orbit: .craft pending.

I don't know what changed, but this was a land-and-escape for the Mun: So pretty!!

Do you seriously have 'Doodbro Kerman'. dude. Bro.

Previously I had to run everything on 'low' graphics to keep performance up. Now i have it on 'high' graphics and it is running just as well as before, so yeah: noticeable change.

not really, no. If there is, let us know.

Those Cirrus things are awesome! Balloon lander dropped 5 tons, and improved performance! Sweet!

If you're running out of fuel, use the NERVAs. You can land on Duna using them if you need to, it's atmosphere is thin enough they are still super-efficient.

that must have been a sod to get balanced! well done.

Thankyou for that, I was more asking about a land-and-return craft than a one-way 'coloniser' craft.

Ok, been working on a design, and I have a new question: If I was to build a 'mothership' style IP stage, which went to -wherever-, and then flew back to Kerbin, how much dV would we need? From the earlier answers, dropping your orbit requires the most dV, so the return from Moho should be relatively light: would the deceleration from Eeloo be the killer in that instance? I guess Kerbins atmo provides a nice easy braking mechanism, but how much dV would i need to do it safely?

I'd like to see if more people can try this, see if we can get the 'sweet spot' for assisted launch..

As an unrelated side effect of this testing, I have figured out an ultra light-weight solution to all your 'heavy pod' problems: Little dude survived reentry (IN HIS FACE) and held onto the rocket during a launch hard enough to generate further entry effects.. unfortunatly, it got stuck suborbital, and, well... he went splat. But, as a proof-of-concept, it works great!

Try dropping the balloons when you pass the 0 lift, (11472m) point, see if it makes a difference. My results here seem to show earlier drops give noticeably better outcomes.

My conclusion from these initial launches is interesting, as it contradicts what i was expecting to witness: I was expecting the launches that started from a higher point (ie: the 0ms launches) to be more efficient, as they have less gravity and a thinner atmosphere, but they were reliably and consistently shown in tests to be less efficient than a 0.0 bouyancy launch. POSSIBLE ISSUES: *As the launch profile selected started its gravity turn at 10km, all launches were well above the turn start, and this may have contributed. *Probe core chosen has issues maintaining heading when not travelling precisely prograde, especially with the balloons mounted.

Experiment Profile #2: Identical setup to previous, however aerospike is swapped out for LN-1 'NERVA' engine. 0.0 Bouyancy height: 14700m 0ms height: 16074m Test results (same methodology): [table] [tr] [th]Methodology (Kerbin Test #2)[/th] [th]Result (Test 1)[/th] [/tr] [tr] [td]Balloon is maintained until the bouyancy is 0.0, then Mechjeb Ascent to 100km[/td] [td]Activated at ~14700m. Height: 100km X 100km orbit, 974 ms remain in tank +-50m[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Balloon is maintained until the vertical speed is 0.0, then Mechjeb Ascent to 100km[/td] [td]Activated at ~16000m. Height: 100km X 100km orbit, 856 ms remain in tank +-351[/td][/tr] [/table]

Experiment 1: High-efficiency, medium-thrust engine. Craft constructed as follows: 1x OKTO probe core 3x RTG 3x TT-38K radial decoupler 3x Envelope 'Ray' 1x T400 fuel tank 1x Aerospike Experiment Info: 'Ray' deployed to 100% from KSC. 0.0 bouyancy passed at about 15300m Apoapsis (0 m/s) at about 16650 Ascent profile for Mechjeb: Turn Start: 10km Turn End: 70km Inclination: 0deg Turn Rate: 40% [table] [tr] [th]Methodology (Kerbin Test #1)[/th] [th]Result (Test 1)[/th] [th]Result (Test 2)[/th] [/tr] [tr] [td]Balloon is maintained until the bouyancy is 0.0, then Mechjeb Ascent to 100km[/td] [td]Activated at ~15300m. Height: 100km X -147km +-20m[/td] [td]Activated at ~15300m. Height: 100km X -147km +-30m[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Balloon is maintained until the vertical speed is 0.0, then Mechjeb Ascent to 100km[/td] [td]Activated at ~16650m. Height: 100km X -164km +-15m[/td] [td]Activated at ~16650m. Height: 100km X -165km +-215m[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Balloon is maintained until the vertical speed is 5, then Mechjeb Ascent to 100km[/td] [td]Activated at ~16600m. Height: 100km X -155km +-15m[/td] [td]xx[/td] [/tr] [/table] Plan was initially to test efficiency of keeping 'inflated' modules on the side of the ship during ascent, but probe was unable to maintain direction control during ascent. Next experiment: NERVA engine variant.

Hi all! 0.20 has wiped a lot of my modded parts, and so I'm starting to rebuild my omni-fleet, which is designed to travel to (and/or) return from anywhere. Vital to the success of the Eve launch is the Hooligan Airship mod which adds buoyant parts, which allow you to climb out of atmosphere cheaply. I'm conducting a set of experiments to determine the optimal ascent profile when using this system, whether it is preferable to eject the parts when they are not providing lift (as they also have high drag), or to keep them on the ship as long as possible (as it effectively reduces vehicle weight, increasing TWR). I'll post my results and experimental conditions on here as they come up, watch this space..

Just for clarity: "KSP_OS/Parts" refers to your root folder? so, if I have C:\games\ksp_win, it is referring to C;\games\ksp_win\Parts ?

Developed a universal probe lander, and was developing a joint launcher for that + mapping satellite.

i have a rover system that can land you safely ANYWHERE you choose: tylo, eve, duna, anywhere. (tylo may require a 100x100 km orbit) the fuel tanks are mounted to sepratrons which launch them safely away, and on low-gravity moons, you can probably land-and-get into orbit again (~3500dV) Mechjeb is recommended for Tylo landing, the tolerances are a little tight... .craft here

I'm afraid I don't get it.. Can someone post an explanation video or something?

this link explains how the file works pretty well.. i believe it says how to 180 your orbit. Reversing an Orbit To reverse an orbit, you must do three things: 1. Longitude of the Ascending Node must be placed on the other side of the central body. LAN(new) = LAN(old) + 180 degrees. 2. Orbital Inclination must be rotated to point the orbit in the correct direction. INC(new) = 180 degrees - INC(old) 3 Argument of Periapsis must be measured from the new LAN position. LPE(new) = 180 degrees - LPE(old) For circular, equatorial orbits, you can get away with just flipping the Inclination to 180 degrees.

My game is haunted by the Jool-Headed Amorphous Ghost! WooooOoOooOOOOooOOOOoooo!

delta-V just boils down to minimising 'dry' weight, and using the most efficient engines possible. Asparagus staging FTW. After you pass 1800m in altitude (on Kerbin), the Nuclear Engine exceeds 390 Isp, making it (still) the most efficient engine (apart from ion). When doing a transfer, especially interplanetary, burn as early as reasonably practical. A small change makes a huge difference during a long trip: a single m/s deltaV perpendicular to travel in a journey of a weeks length makes a difference of over 600km from where you would otherwise be..