Sleipnir
-
Posts
67 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Sleipnir
-
-
It's certainly Ferram.
I believe it's the fact that the pod has less drag and thus can go faster in the atmosphere, yet the Deadly Reentry mod doesn't realize that there's less drag so still calculates a corresponding rise in heat.
It's one or the other, I'm sure those problems will be addressed eventually.
Yeah, I just PM'ed R4m0n and asked him how I could edit his mod to work out this problem, I am gonna keep both mods tho, if he doesn't have a solution i might just raise the Max. Heat Shield Temp.
Once I got this worked out I will post the solution so others who run both mods can fix the problem too.
-
I tried your craft on the same descent profile as the one from my previous post and landed with no issues. It's probably something to do with ferram, since I don't use it (I don't fly spaceplanes much, and it makes it way too easy to launch rockets).
Also, I don't think that putting the heat shield directly onto a full fuel tank is a good idea. When the heat shield heats up it transfers heat to whatever it is connected to, and fuel tanks have lower heat tolerance than command pods (but strangely not lower than probe cores...).
oh ok, yeah I put the tank there to add more weight to simulate a command pod. thanks for the tips.
But that kinda sucks, i really like ferram, adds more realism.
Hmm so this means I have to find a more specific re-entry angle then since I am probably gonna leave ferram installed. Guess that makes it more realistic too then. Thanks for the advice tho.
-
Hmm, your angle is much steeper than mine. I linked the craft file and a pic.
http://my.rapidshare.com/8leggedsleipnir/2357
I use the KSPX, Ferram and Deadly Re-entry mods for that ship.
I saw R4m0ns youtube vid about this mod and he posted on there that he uses a PE of about 35km himself with no problem which is really weird. I used 1.3 version of the mod
-
I usually set my PE at around 35-45 km, depending on my speed. It seems to work fine, even for returning from the Mun.
hmm, didnt work for me, i just tried it. AP 91km PE 41km, I burned up instantly. I used a small test probe again
-
Hey all,
I posted this on another thread but no luck so far so imma ask again here:
I recently installed Deadly Re-entry (and i absolutely love it) but i am a bit stumped on how to get back. With my initial test re entry probe i followed someone's advice and set my periapsis to 60km, it worked like a charm and the heat shield only heated up to about a 1k degrees before cooling down.
When I launched Bob into orbit with a 1 man pod I tried the same thing; setting the periapsis at 60km, but unfortunately he didn't make it
. For some reason the shield heated up more than it did in my first test. So after launching a few other test probes I have learned thus far that the re-entry angle depends greatly on what your apoapsis (and possibly your mass too but not quite sure) is. Is there anyway to calculate the angle? The general "set PE to 60km" rule doesn't seem to work. I have a number of probes now stuck in permanent orbit since they "bounced" off.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
-
So what is the best approach angle then? I have tried setting my periapsis at 60km and it worked fine for my test probe, but once i tried it with a 1 man pod it didn't work and Bob died
. So the 60km thing is not the final solution. I am guessing the mass difference had an effect on it. Can anyone help? -
I like it most when people try to call Scott Manley a cheater and a noob for using mechjeb. Everyone else just replies 'type KSP Manley-mode moon landing into the search bar'.I just want the arguments to stop.Calling someone a cheater in a sandbox game is just silly. Sandboxes are meant to be played the way you want to play it. But sadly you're going to have your idiot try-hard gamers scream about "proper play" in an EARLY DEVELOPMENT BUILD, because god forbid you get creative and discover bugs to help the game's development process go more smoothly.Right now, all arguments are pointless. The real thing will show up as soon as there is career mode (thank god devs don't want to include achievements, just imagine "the madenings" that will bring) where using mechjeb or any other autopilot could be considered cheating.We're all forgetting the KSP is a game, not a NASA Management Tycoon, and hence you can play it however you want. You don't have to replicate was NASA does with space missions.There's an unfortunate streak of elitism amongst people that rail against the use of mechjeb/mods and/or use only stock components. I suppose it can't be helped, you're going to see that with any game and those types of people and their arrogant mentalities are just poison to the community (and new players) since as as far as they're concerned: "If you don't play like us you only have your inferior skills to blame, because obviously you would if you could."
Personally, I found mechjeb really useful as a tool for teaching me how to fly better, rather than try to fumble my way through and just end up frustrated. The more practice I had with playing the game, watching what the computer was doing, and performing flights, I started using the automatic functions less to the point now that I've come to use it for the information displays (not to mention flying better by hand and eye better than the computer's ability.)
This. I can only hope that it's a very loud .1% of the world's population...To be on topic:
I have no idea how you can cheat in a sandbox game. Play it however you want. I don't have time for chest-thumping elitists...
I agree with all of you
-
If you're so tired of the "debate", why bring it up by making this thread?
It's fairly obvious this thread is only going to create more drama.
I never said I was tired of any debate. Fail. Reread my post properly before you reply to save yourself from embarrassment.
There's a relevant XKCD for everything. Even this very MechJeb thread.
This is not a mechjeb only thread, and I never said I was against drama yet creating it myself. Fail. Reread my post properly before you reply to me.
-
....please just stop. If you are reading this and have ever done it, it is not cool, it is rather effing annoying. This is a Sandbox game where everyone can play as they please, use mods and parts that they please. I see it countless times on many Youtube videos, especially on Scott Manley's, where whiners argue how mechjeb, quantum struts or other parts/mods are "OP" and then crying cheater and calling these mod users bad players etc etc. Srsly nobody -snip- cares about how good you are without those mods, and how everyone else should play the game the way you want them to.
This is a serious pet peeve of mine. If you are against using mods and going all stock that is absolutely fine, but stop trying to force your ways on others, especially calling them names, "bad" players and/or cheater. This is a Sandbox game, there is no winning or losing, its just an open world where you can do whatever the frigg you want, and if someone decides to use mods and super "OP" parts in their world just let em be, doesn't make them a better or worse player than you are in anyway.
I am convinced that the majority of KSP players worldwide AND on this forum are open minded and respectful to other players and their play styles and who don't do these kinds of things, but still I just wanted to put this out there in case a "straggler" does run across this and hopefully will change his/her ways of badmouthing us "OP No skill" mod users.
*end of rant*
Thank you ladies and gentlemen for reading.
PS: If this has ever been posted about before my apologies, but I needed to say it (again)
-
Alright thanks!
Wow thats awesome. cant wait
-
could someone explain to me what this flag thing is about? could someone link me to the original thread or article? I cant seem to find it
this sounds really interesting
-
I was launching yet another heavy payload into orbit with my favourite asparagus-staged rocket, and I was curious to know why there aren't any (that I know of) asparagus-staged rockets in the real world. Are they only more efficient in KSP than real life, or are they too expensive/complicated/dangerous to be used by any major space agency?
As far as I know Fuel transfers (and therefore "Asparagus" designs) are really really complicated and hard to do IRL, and as of right now only one rocket does it and that is the new NASA rocket SLS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System )
if I am correct
-
Oh boy oh boy, seems like i started a Sh*t storm here. Such a seemingly innocent question that has been answered within the first 3 posts turned into a full scale conversation in every direction. What have I done?
-
Sleipnir, unfortunately that turns out not to be the case. It is a common misconception.
There exists no technology that can convert heat into usable energy. That is forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics.
What does exist is technology to convert a heat gradient into usable energy. The point being that after it does its work, you have electricity but the heat is still there.
It's like a hydroelectric dam. It takes water at a different gravity gradient and converts it into usable energy. But after it has done its work, the water is still there. It is just that the water is downhill from where it started.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/thermodynamics.php
Ahh i see. Well then I guess there is still the option left of reducing the heat emitted by lasers and redirecting any leftover heat....well maybe to coffee makers or other parts of the ship that need heat. Maybe even "store" it somehow and releasing it somehow through the engines when they are firing to reduce the heat signature.
Nonetheless what we know is a Drop compared to what we don't know which is an entire ocean. I believe that anything is possible in the future, we just need to invent it. Think about all the stuff we thought off as impossible a few years ago that we use everyday today and take it for granted.....MP3 players and "superfast" computers anyone?
-
The trouble with lasers is that they also get hot and the firing craft needs to radiate that heat to space, so laser equipped craft would have big heatsinks and a heat signature, making them easy to detect and a target for heat seeking ordinance.
It'd take time for a laser to burn through a hull, enough time for a retaliatory shot maybe?
And while lasers are cool, there'd be a place for conventional projectile guns in space, with no gravity or atmosphere to deal with their effective range would be limited only to your targeting and tracking ability.
They wouldn't lose potential energy like they do on Earth, and also wouldn't generate enough heat to worry about while being able to do damage as soon as they hit, unlike a laser.
Oh and if you are really good, you could shoot someone on the other side of the planet if they didn't change orbit
Will since we already have technology to convert heat into usable energy (electricity), wouldnt it be possible in the future when this method has been perfected to use the heat and reconvert it into energy? That way no radiators are needed and you save on power too. I am sure this is duable. Or maybe design the lasers in a way that they dont create excess heat that is wasted
-
Or you can but a probe with a RTG on the last stage, so you can de-orbit it after the circularization
That is what i am going to do from now on. Altough i have to say the B9 Aerospace pack allows you to build spaceships of monstrosity size with relative low part count so I might try again to build some "Mothership" SSTO capable of Carrying heavy stuff
-
With proper wing balancing, you need surprisingly little lift factor total for your craft. I was told 1 "lift unit" per ton is optimal, but I've gotten away with about 40% of that. I see a lot of people just piling on the wings, but really it just needs a better balancing.
Payload fraction should be about 15% or so. I've gotten up to 40%, but its painfully slow to get to orbit like this and you have NO margin for error on your orbital vector climb - a single flight can take 30+ minutes just to reach orbit with some knuckle-wrenching level out periods. After this I just said "f-it" and went back to rockets for anything over 8 tons.
Thanks for sharing your insight man, yeah i am going back to rockets as well. As someone else suggested i am gonna attach a probe and then deborbit any stages that way that are in a permanent orbit. I have been trying for a while now to replicate the Venture Star which irl should have been capable of lifting decent sized loads, but currently in the game I can't find an engine that meets the thrust and efficiency requirements
-
One thing to note in most of these cases of Sci Fi vs reality in terms of ship design. In most cases, Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica and others, they have "Grav Plating" in their decks. Which generate an artificial gravitational field inside the ship, and Inertial dampeners which "Cancel out the force of inertia within the space of the ships interior" Again all made up technologies but in the sphere of the reality where these fictional event occur they allow for the Cruise Ship design factor be be viable.
Examples like Babylon 5 where their warships and space stations had large rotating parts for artificial gravity were closer to reality. Though in the case of B5 there were more advanced races like the Mimbari who had "Grav Plating Tech" which we saw on their ships as well as in the later WhiteStar Fleet.
So given the existence of the Grav plating, Inertial dampeners and such fictional tech. Those ship layouts aren't unrealistic, they are what I would expect to see in that technological sphere of thinking.
Even if you look at some designs today such as the space shuttle it is not designed like a "skyscraper", but rather an aeroplane or a "starship" from the movies since it is needed once the Shuttle glides back to earth. So seems like that the movie ship designers got it right as long as they implement that "magic" technology
-
We do hear about some rocket projects, but it is not common, mainly because most believe it\'s gonna be a dud. I mean, how is a small country like us going to reach space?
These guys truly are an inspiration. Science and exploration shouldnt be about monetary profit. Its a human endeavour. As the opening scene of Star Trek says, Space IS the final frontier and we are all on this journey together! You got the wrong attitude about this man, doesn't matter if Denmark is "small", it also has many brilliant minds that are as we see with Copenhagen Suborbital more than capable of building rockets. The number of "amateur" rocket builders and building companies is ever increasing as the years go by.
Its truly a good thing and amazing to see that we are no longer relying on governments with their "out-for-profit" type organizations to bring us closer to the stars and with that to the future as well.
-
The Hollywood misconception that really annoys me is that most spacecraft are laid out like a passenger aircraft, that is, with the direction of "down" at ninety degrees to the direction of thrust. In reality, the crew quarters of a spacecraft will be arranged more like a skyscraper than like an aircraft. You will feel like the direction of "down" is in the same direction the exhaust is going.
I disagree with your statement. Look at the spaceshuttle for example, certainly not laid out like a "skyscraper", it may seem that way on launch but the interiors are all laid out like an airplane. This is needed since it comes back like one. Spacecraft can be laid out however they are needed, since when the engines are thrusting everyone should be strapped into seats anyway. In fact this "airplane" layout would make the most sense for a spacecraft that will land on a planet, since its much easier to attach wings and or VTOL engines than if it was designed with the "skyscraper" layout
-
The M27 cockpit really reminds me of the AT-TE cockpit from starwars
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070113145250/starwars/images/0/0a/ATTE-ST.jpg
-
Why would you want a SSTO for cargo lifting???
Heavy payload require an efficient vehicle, so having a large fuel tank required in SSTO result in a large dead weight once the fuel reserve drains out.
Ideally you want to jettison this dead weight to keep your TWR optimal.
SSTO is good for reusable vehicle, used for personal delivery, not heavy lifting.
That is true, but I want to minimize the debris i am creating, so an SSTO or atleast a semi reusable like a Space shuttle would do that. I know I could just edit the cfg file to delete debris but thats cheating and i dont want to do that
-
Indeed.
That is AWESOME! what kind of cargo does it lift? Kerbals only or actual parts?
-
Can a rocket land vertically on kerbin just using its engines?? has anyone ever done that? I just want to limit the amount of debris I am creating and conventional rockets just don't do that. Plus it adds a challenge, I dont want to cheat anymore and have the "debris" slider set to zero anymore
. For some reason the shield heated up more than it did in my first test. So after launching a few other test probes I have learned thus far that the re-entry angle depends greatly on what your apoapsis (and possibly your mass too but not quite sure) is. Is there anyway to calculate the angle? 
Deadly Re-entry what angle to return safely? (SOLVED)
in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted
ok, do you know if I can edit the re-entry visual settings? do they have a config file?