frenchie16

OK, so it\'s not a 'Hovercraft' in the conventional sense of the word, but. I was playing around with KSP Silisko Edition, and decided to have some fun with those extra-powerful RCS thrusters and the lightweight SAS. The rocket is very simple: an SAS atop the pod, with 8 RCS modules on it; below the pod, a standard RCS tank (better fuel to weight ratio than the service module) with four lander legs on it. To fly, simply toggle SAS on, toggle RCS on, and use the translational controls. The SAS counteracts any torque from the RCS, so you can basically fly wherever. Tilt your camera down a bit and it becomes very easy to land on any of the objects around the launchpad. There is just enough gas to reach the VAB. By stacking RCS tanks and adding more RCS modules below the command pod, you can greatly increase the range. Now time to try flying into space… Images attached. .craft file not really needed, it\'s so darn simple…

This sounds like it\'s referring to the method 0.12 will use to prevent issues with PhysX when you\'re landing on something that\'s moving really fast. Basically, it sets the frame of reference to the nearest celestial body, so when you are near the Mün, the Mün isn\'t moving. This shouldn\'t change anything as far as getting there and landing goes, though; it should be totally invisible when you\'re playing the game, as newtonian physics work the same regardless of your reference frame. Unless it refers to something else?

Nope. It\'s an ellipse.

Here\'s my attempt. It can send the lander and ascent stage to escape velocity, as well as land on Kerbin, so I think it\'ll make it to, and possibly be able to land on, the Mün, as well as get back into Mün orbit. Not sure it\'ll be able to return to Kerbin, though… Has anyone calculated the delta-V needed for flying to the Mün, or written an explanation of lunar transfer orbits for those of us who aren\'t experts on orbital mechanics? That would be a very helpful thing with 0.12 on its way.

Your orbit is perfectly circular iff (not a typo-if and only if) your periapsis and apoapsis altitudes are exactly the same. You can\'t have a circular orbit with the center not being at Kerbin\'s center. All orbits are ellipses. An ellipse has two points called foci. If the two foci are in the same place, the ellipse is a circle. In the case of a spacecraft orbiting a planet, the planet is always at one of the foci of the orbit. What this means is, your orbit is NOT at all a very circular one. I wouldn\'t call it circular unless your apoapsis and periapsis altitudes are within a few thousand meters of each other (how much the difference can be depends on the altitude of the orbit, of course), and it\'s certainly possible to get within a few hundred or even a few dozen meters of perfectly circular, especially with the addition of RCS and translational controls. For more info on orbits, read the wikipedia article on Kepler\'s laws.

Well, because there\'s no atmosphere on the moon, you could accelerate horizontally directly to orbital velocities, assuming you have enough thrust/a long enough runway. Based on my understanding of the Oberth effect, a horizontal takeoff might actually be the most efficient way to leave the Mün\'s surface? (On a mostly-unrelated note, you\'ll be able to do things like enter a lünar(?) orbit that just barely misses the surface. That should be fun.)

From the main page of the site: That said, I don\'t really see what\'s so appealing about the site…

I understand why engines overheat, just not why they overheat in this particular situation, but not if you add winglets or (apparently?) an SAS module. I guess it makes sense that the extra parts act as heat sinks… I always thought of overheating as just 'don\'t put too many engines at full throttle right next to each other', but I guess it\'s a little more complex than that.

Just made an attempt at this. Got all the way into the exact right orbit, after 2.5 hours. Ignited SRB, and it overheated and exploded a few seconds after ignition. > > > > I really should have read the earlier posts in the thread..... Anyone want to explain WHY, without winglets, this happens? ??? Here\'s my log: SL-PI 001 (Satellofter-Precision Impact 001) Mission: Orbit Kerbin at least once, deorbit with one standard SRB, crash as close to the space center as possible. Plan: Attain highest orbit possible while using as little propellant as possible, then transfer to such an altitude that the orbital velocity is equal to the delta-V of the final stage. When above the space center, activate final stage to come to a complete stop relative to Kerbin. Calculations: Delta-V of final stage: 1629.818m/s Orbital Altitude: 729061.1m Log: t+00:47:09 achieved initial stable, circular orbit of 586.2km at 1725m/s flying \'by feel\'. initiating hohmann transfer to 729.061km. Accelerating to 1773.478m/s... t+00:47:38 hohmann transfer insertion complete. Expect final orbit insertion at t+01:26:39 (or slightly before, accounting for burn time)... t+01:14:27 preparing for final orbit insertion, passing over again to the dark side of kerbin (into second orbit). Expected final orbit insertion parameters: initial v should be 1582.9 at altitude 729.061km, accelerate to 1629.8m/s t+01:30:04 after a lot of painstaking adjustments, orbittinga t 729065m, dead 0 vertical velocity, 1629.8m/s. If only I were 4m lower... but I\'m happy with it. Now, ve play ze vaiting game. Well over the dark side, but sun still visible, so... it\'ll be a while. t+01:31:35 sun JUST disappeared beneath the horizon. Probably could use that to calculate exactly when to drop, but I\'m not in the mood for THAT much precision (and by \'precision\' I mean \'trigonometry\'). t+01:59:07 tiny bit of orbital maintenance. Altitude down to 728.69km, velocity up to 1630.2. Adjusted to very-small-positive vertical velocity and 1629.8 overall velocity. t+02:19:17 same as last t+02:25:19 getting very close to drop point. Will perform final adjustments to orbit and prepare to activate the SRB. t+02:25:19 just about there. Velocity 1629.7, vertical just a hair above 0. Performing deorbit burn now or in a few secs. t+02:26:27 Darnit. SRB overheated and exploded after only a few seconds of burn. What the heck? Will see where I land, not optimistic. Velocity 875m/s, angle about 3-5 degrees below horizon. Not happy about wasted 2 and a half hours.

Yup. Sometimes I forget to check for additional pages before posting a reply >.< I need to start getting more sleep. Anyway, working on doing the same thing myself (I did come up with the idea independently of him, after all). I\'m leaving out the SAS on the last stage for a delta-v of 1630m/s which should result in a MUCH more manageable final orbit of 729km and less mass to boost there.

Just made a version based on the proposed 'Evolved Lift Capability' SLS. It uses the same mods as the regular one plus NovaSilisko\'s lander parts and Captain Slug\'s PLF parts (for the 3m fairing). It can fairly easily get Nova\'s lander to escape velocity. I\'m too lazy to take pictures, but .craft is attached.

Plan: calculate exactly how much delta-V a single SRB with command pod and SAS has, get into whatever orbit has an orbital velocity of exactly that, and then use your SRB to stop dead right over the launch pad. You\'d need to time it perfectly, the orbit would probably be an insanely-high one, and it\'s very hard to be precise about when you are over the pad...

Yeah, spaceplanes in particular, with their wings causing strange aerodynamic forces in the upper atmosphere and lots of rotational inertia in space, are extremely difficult to fly at high altitudes without SAS. My \'delta-glider\' style spaceplane uses, I believe, 6 of Sunday Punch\'s vernier pods to help with rotation damping in space. As for this challenge-wouldn\'t it make more sense, and be more challenging, if you also had to return?

A bit, but struts quickly fixed that. Unfortunately, though my use of RCS modules to make the SRBs a more realistic length makes the rocket more maneuverable immediately after launch, it also kills your crew a few minutes after ejecting the SRBs. Fortunately, as of 0.10.1 this no longer actually ends your flight, but it's a bit annoying... 0.11 should fix it with dedicated RCS parts, hopefully! After further testing, it can easily make circular orbit at about 80km with half a tank left in the K2-X upper stage, not to mention the full command pod tank. I'd imagine it'll be able to send Kerbals to orbit the mun and return them safely to Kerbin. Not so sure if it could send an entire lander, though.

So yesterday (I think?) NASA announced the SLS, which looks like basically an Ares V IV, but they claim it's new. Anyway, I built one in KSP and was surprised to find that, though I built it purely for aesthetics, it flies really quite well, and might even be capable of flights to the Mun, whenever that's added. Image: Requires Sunday Punch 1.09 and SIDR&SD 1.3, and KSP 0.10.1. May work with older versions of any of those, as well.

In the OP....

Yes it is! Check the OP.

Oh, psh, that. Right. Knew I was forgetting something >_> Coming right up. Should be there by the time you read this.

I don't think precision mode does anything with joystick controls. It just affects how quickly digital controls (gamepad buttons, d-pads, or the keyboard) change the virtual joystick. For instance, with precision off, pressing 'w' makes pitch go to full almost instantly, whereas it takes about half a second with precision mode on, making it possible to emulate analogue input by quickly pressing and releasing the button.

In the process of updating my Delta Pigeon to use 0.10.1 parts, I made somewhat extensive modifications to it, so I renamed it the Gamma Pigeon (Backwards, I know, but Epsilon didn't sound cool enough). It now features better looks, better handling, and horizontal takeoff capability! If you're planning on flying it, I HIGHLY recommend a joystick, ideally with a twist axis or some other way of controlling all three axes. Here are the changes I made: [li]updated to SIDR&SD 1.3 and C7 1.3, still uses Wobbly Rockets 1.09[/li] [li]moved vernier pods around to look cooler[/li] [li]fixed landing gear a bit: a very precise landing on the grass around the space center *MIGHT* not cause any explosions! This is a major breakthrough.[/li] [li]added a taxi stage capable of tipping the plane onto its wheels and taxiing it over to the (grass next to the) airstrip. (taking off from the airstrip itself is possible, but as soon as your wheels touch it you will start bouncing like mad, and lift off as soon as you apply power. It's a lot more fun to take off NEXT TO the airstrip, on the grass.)[/li] Pictures: On the pad. Roll right (such that the plane rolls left-it's very counter-intuitive and confused me at first, but that's how it's supposed to be) and pitch down until... You land on your wheels. If explosions happen, try again. If not, let yourself roll/bounce off the pad (if you fall off the side it's usually fine)... Now you are on your wheels. Throttle all the way down and activate the first stage. Then throttle up and use yaw controls to head over to the airstrip. Line yourself up and stage to release the taxi stage. It'll likely explode, but hopefully your plane will be unharmed. Throttle up, and stage again... Now, head for orbit! The solids will burn out after a bit. You can't drop them, just leave them be.

I have done this with C7, SIDR&SD, and Wobbly Rockets parts in 0.10, which is obviously a lot easier than in earlier versions and/or with stock parts. I used a single-stage spaceplane, did one orbit around Kerbin, and then, halfway-through my orbit, entered a hohmann transfer down to 34,500m. This put me in a perfect position to glide in, using the rest of my fuel as necessary to stay in the air, landing on the 'special' space center grass, which is MUCH easier to land on than regular terrain, or, for some reason, the landing strip.

After 0.10 introduced articulating fins, I finally decided it was time I tried to make a spaceplane, so I grabbed C7's latest pack and set to work. I started with C7's example orbiter, but quickly decided it was too difficult to control on account of having no rudder. Adding a rudder on the top causes any attempts to yaw to actually roll you, and in the wrong direction to boot, so that was out. I settled on a vaguely-TIE-fighter-ish design, with two inward-swept stabilizers with rudders on them attached to small SRBs on the tips of the main wings. Thanks to the ridiculously-overpowered mini fuel tank in C7's pack (which seems strange given that the other fuel tanks in the pack, and the engine, are all relatively balanced), it is able to make orbit with fuel to spare for deorbiting and precision landing. Thanks to this, not only was the first flight of the Delta Pigeon my first non-parachute landing from orbit, it was also my first successful return to the pad after completing an orbit! (I did just miss the airstrip, though.) I had to make a few tweaks of the landing gear on account of the lower stabilizers hitting the ground BEFORE the landing gear on my first landing, causing a worrisome explosion, but it should be fixed now. Not that I actually TESTED it or anything... Required packs: C7 aerospace 1.2, Wobbly Rockets (sunday punch) 1.9, SIDR&SD 1.2 Images: On the pad: In orbit: Landing (old design, note the missing lower stabilizers):

I have now recieved my pre-order confirmation. Thanks!

It is amazing how little fuel it takes to perform Hohmann transfers, especially if your orbital vehicle is quite small. It's also amazing how, to get just a bit more mass into orbit, you need a much, much larger rocket, because for each extra engine and fuel tank you add, you need even more engines and fuel tanks, because now your rocket is heavier! Nice job building something that big and yet reliable from the stock parts, by the way. I gave up on trying because you just can't build large rockets without having dozens of stacks connected radially.

To add to the long, long list: I got almost the same letter as everyone else, the difference being that it said '72 hours' instead of 24. Never received the confirmation, and I donated $7. I got the email on August 13th.