capi3101

Try flying IFR - I flew an Auk VIII to orbit the other night (12 minute trip in-game) VFR and it took over an hour; that's a 250 part, 75-tonne plane. Flew it again IFR and it was closer to 20 minutes. By IFR, I mean install KER if you haven't got it and use the Surface data for the ascent; when you start noticing severe lag, switch over to map view (you can do it without KER but it's trickier to judge IMHO; I think Mechjeb can provide you with the same data but I don't know for 100% sure). You'll have to switch back to open intakes but that's about it. Lag usually goes away for me around 36,000 m.

Captain Sierra was answering the example question in your original post directly - You have 1000 units of Liquid Fuel and wanted to know how much Oxidizer you wanted. X is the amount of oxidizer and the ratio is 9/11, therefore: 9/11 = 1000 / x 9 * x = 11 * 1000 x = (11 * 1000 / 9) = 1,222.22 Thus if you have 1000 units of Liquid Fuel, you should have 1,222.22 units of Oxidizer.

Also the Oscar-B. The Oscar-B is 45.03% Fuel / 54.97% Oxidizer, and the Round-8 is 45.05%/54.95%, so they're still comparable if you're talking about just a single tank; its when you start stacking them up that a problem arises. The rest of them are 45%/55% on the nose. What's of more use is the full mass of fuel tanks versus their dry mass - again, except for the Oscar-B and Round-8, the full-to-dry ratio for fuel tanks in KSP is 9:1 (for the Oscar-B it's 5.245:1; for the Round-8 it's 5.44:1). Since it's only the mass of the fuel you're carrying that changes when you're burning a rocket, that 9:1 ratio gives you a handy substitution you can put into the rocket equation - delta-V = ln(M/Mo)*Isp*Go = ln(9Mo+X/Mo+X)*Isp*Go, where X is the mass of everything in your rocket that isn't a gas tank. Again, that works only if you leave out Round-8s and Oscar-Bs. Why is that useful? Well, if you've got a target delta-V in mind and you know the Isp of the engine you're going to use (say 800 for a nuke in space), you can solve that equation for Mo, multiply the result by 9 to get the full mass (i.e. the amount of gas you're going to need for the amount of delta-V you want), and then divide that by 0.5625 (the full mass of an FL-T100 tank) to figure out what configuration of tanks you're going to want (an FL-T200 is the same as 2 FL-T100s, an FL-T400 is the same as 4 FL-T100s, an FL-T800/X200-8 is the same as 8 FL-T100s, an X200-16 is the same as 16 FL-T100s, an X200-32 is the same as 32 FL-T100s, and a Jumbo-64 (the big orange tank) is the same as 64 FL-T100s - a bit of a pattern there).

Actually, for your payload, you may have too much wing surface going on. As a rule, a pair of swept wings can generate sufficient lift for about six tonnes worth of aircraft. With the proper engine and intake configuration, you can fly that into space... Also, how many intakes do you have on that thing, and what type. Also, if it this is meant to be a spaceplane, where are your rocket engines? You need mostly jets but you'll have to have a couple of rockets if your goal is orbit.

Can't really tell from your screenie, but it looks like the wheels aren't on straight; probably causing your headaches. Generally if the wheels aren't on straight up and down they won't behave like you should. Case in point, last night I was working with a rover that wouldn't move for the life of it; problem turned out to be the fact that I had them all tilted ninety degrees.

Installed KAS. Played around with it a bit. Mainly spent the evening farting around attempting to build a crash cart for the Auk VIII, something to refuel it and haul it back to the end of the runway after it lands (just 'cause). Had issues with it - probably because I've never attempted to build a rover that massive before (case in point, the Burning Hearse 7, my large Kerbal bus, came in at about ten tonnes. This thing was topping fifty before it was set and done.

Do you have SAS on when you're doing this? I've heard of folks having problems with fuel transfers and SAS before; this sounds like that particular bug. EDIT: Ninja'd.

Decided it was about time I got back to working with my rockets. Successfully launched a Thunderbolt Very Heavy 7; I'm thinking I'll be using it to go on some long term missions in the near future. Did some tweaking to the Auk VIII design, flew it up into orbit on IFR; will probably send up an operational flight or four to fill up the T-Bolt once I verify the usefulness of the current set of tweaks.

Edit your initial post. You might have to go under advanced settings; there will be an option to change the initial status there.

I sense the genesis of a meme here...

My observation is that at speeds greater than 1000 m/s, you can still get descent performance out of a jet with as little as 0.05 to 0.07 units of IntakeAir. That's one reason why folks around here will tell you to load up on the intakes; the more you have, the more air you can collect at higher altitudes, and the higher the operational ceiling of the jets. I've had several designs make orbital velocity with the jets remaining at full throttle as high up as 30,000 meters, and its because I've got one intake per tonne of aircraft. It's nuts but it works.

So I transferred some fuel back from docking pier - left it at 70% full (amounted to about 10% of the Liquid Fuel and 15% of the Oxidizer). Filled the foremost jet fuel tanks to full, filled the NERVA tanks, set the center tank to flow out. Attempted to land. This happened: Obviously my ILS needs a few more markers. But overall I'm not complaining too loudly. I did go ahead and take the wheels off; they were indeed throwing the center of mass forward in the SPH. In truth, with the original fuel configuration the center of lift was 100% aligned with the center of mass, and there's only so much accuracy you have with the SPH tweakables. I probably was trying to fly with the CoL ahead of the CoM and didn't know it. Okay...so on to your last two posts. Basically, the landing went about like what you recommended. I may have had more fuel aboard, but nevertheless, that's about how I handled it. I did make the mistake of pulling up too hard and stalled; I was able to recover it, though. Was a bit hairy there for a second. Second post - I needed the pitch authority; the stupid thing was acting like a lawn dart with two sets installed. It was only after I added the third set that it finally took off. That may have still been when I had the control surfaces outboard; I'll go ahead and play around with it a bit. The forward RCS tank is empty at takeoff to shift the CoM further back; are you saying I should go ahead and fill it up? Since I'm now free to make further tweaks, would there be any utility in either moving the fins out to the edge of the wings or adding another set out there?

By taking some of the fuel I delivered to my docking target back, I was finally able to successfully land Auk VIII. Didn't need to take back a whole lot either. I probably will still go ahead and try to iron out the kinks in the design just for the sake of future knowledge.

It probably is 9.82; I think what's happening is that people are using Kerbin's surface gravity for go, which is listed in the wiki as 9.81 m/s[sp]2. Old debate; does not need to be rehashed on this thread Earth surface gravity (i.e. RL standard gravity), incidentally, is 9.80665 m/s[sp]2...

Headlights have relatively low impact tolerance; you land funny on one of them and they're liable to blow up. Quite spectacularly too. If you're seeing other explosions and you've installed RTGs on it, it'd behoove you to make sure they're all still intact. Their ends can stick through structural panels, making them vulnerable when you think you've got them secured. Same goes for small battery packs.

Odd...the plane I'm flying still has Standard Canards for tail fins; located on the inboard edge of the dorsal outboard wings. I'll check to see if for some reason the fins got removed. I would like help with fixing the issues. Bottom line, though - the current flight is unsalvagable? At least not without putting some of the fuel I delivered back into it? That is a possibility - my quicksave is set to where I'm still docked to the pier.

I haven't tried taking the gear off the model; I'll do that and see what it looks like. I'll also try firing up the engines at 20k though I've read elsewhere you should wait to 400 m/s before firing them up, see if that saves the current flight. When the plane goes out of control, it flips, heads towards retrograde for a while, prograde swings around and continues going out of control. Attempting to compensate is generally ineffective. The one time I managed to briefly regain control, I was fortunate enough to be relatively level to the horizon with the nose around prograde. That's when that oscillation occured. I might've been able to land the craft had I left SAS on.

If the debris is an object indicated in the map view, you could just go to the tracking station, select it and hit "Terminate Flight". Unless I'm mistaken. Get out and push is one option. You might also try impacting it with an object at a rate of speed higher than its rated impact tolerance, though that would more likely than not create a larger debris field.

There have been discussions of this topic before; bottom line is that it's too dependent upon the design of your craft and the way that you fly it to answer definitively. Myself, when I want to estimate how much delta-V a rocket utilizes during the launch stage, I just use the atmospheric Isp rating. It means I underestimate the amount of delta-V the booster has available to it, and if I've calculated that it will make it, then it should definitely make it. The same cannot be said when you go with the vaccum Isp (i.e. if you overestimate it). EDIT: Somebody will suggest "just use KER" or "just use Mechjeb"; I use KER, and I still go with the method above.

I've revised the craft file for the Auk VIII in my Dropbox to the latest version. Controls are the same as before. For good measure, I've added the target craft as well; it's a single stage rocket with a self-cleaning booster - basically some empty fuel tanks of various types cobbled onto a custom docking pier I built to add to my Mir replica for the Constellation Program Challenge (so I could dock with something other than a Sr. docking port). Anyways - the lift marker does come in right near the center of mass for re-entry. The end of the flight has gone something like this so far - after docking with the pier, I offload the remaining fuel in the center tank; all the jet tanks are dry, the RCS in the centerline cylinders is offloaded and I go ahead and refill the NERVA fuel tanks to full. After docking, the aft RCS tank has about 670-700 units of Monoprop still in it; this gets shifted to the forward tank and the other RCS tanks are locked down. I cut loose from the pier, do a 100 m/s burn to deorbit with the nukes. All told I have about 325 units of LiquidFuel and 397 units of Oxidizer left at that point. I shift the fuel into the central tank and lock down the NERVA tanks, lock down all the jet fuselages except for the forwardmost pair, fill them to full and set the outboard tank to transfer out (I have TAC, so I leave it like this). Reentry is generally shallow, no more than 10 degrees or so. Intakes are open for drag, I'm facing prograde, keeping it level and the solar panels come in when I hit atmo. Loss of control generally happens around 17,000 meters or so, surface velocity around 800 m/s - it starts as a pull to one side, which I attempt to correct by applying opposite rudder; this usually fails, the plane whips around, and from there it generally plummets out of the sky. PARE doesn't work; I suspect either I'm applying it wrong or that KSP's aerodynamic model neutralizes that technique. I do think the rudders still aren't far enough back and I mentioned replacing the nukes with Aerospikes last night (since the only place I intend to go with this plane is Kerbin orbit); I'd drop 1.5 tonnes from the plane and it should throw the mass further forward unless I'm mistaken. I'd just burn more fuel getting into/out of orbit.

Actually, I wonder if the loss of control on landing problem stems back to poor yaw authority. I need to run to work now, but I'll post more after a bit.

Crashed the Auk VIII four times last night. I'm kinda annoyed - though as I wake up this morning, I think I may at least know what the problem is.

Mainly I have them for mass balance I guess. I probably could move the CoM a little further forward by swapping them out with a lighter engine. Yet were I to do so, I'd probably go with Aerospikes (lighter still, better Isp than the RAPIER in rocket mode, generates power). This evening I'm perplexed. I've rechecked the original model in the SPH twice using the tweakables to show me where the CoM is going to be compared to the CoL for the ship in its post-delivery configuration, I've set the plane up to that configuration, everything shows like it should be good - and yet I loose control of the plane coming in around 18,000 and can't regain it. The one time I did, the plane developed this weird side-to-side oscillation. Turned SAS off and I was out of control again. Crashed the Auk VIII four times now and still haven't figured out what went wrong. Docking was a thing of beauty.

The docking and landing parts of its maiden test flight are planned for this evening. I've scrapped two cargo haulers already due to loss of control on re-entry. That was the reason why I added the RCS ballast system on the VIII; I tested the various fuel tank configurations for its entire flight and I'm optimistic about being able to land it safely. I will let y'all know how the rest of the mission goes.

Hell with it - I'm bored. Let me see if I can figure out your station fragment mass on my own: Looks like you've got the following: 1x Protective Rocket Nose Mk7 (0.4 tonnes) 1x RC-L01 RGU (.5 tonnes) 1x Jumbo-64 Fuel Tank (32 tonnes) 1x Large ASAS Module (0.2 tonnes) 2x FL-R1 RCS Fuel Tank (6.8 tonnes) 1x Z-4K Battery (.2 tonnes) 12x Z-100 Batteries (.06 tonnes) 9x Clamp-O-Tron Docking Ports (0.18 tonnes) 8x PB-NUK RTGs (0.64 tonnes; took me a couple of tries to figure out what those were, also answers my question of where your solar panels are) 8x RCS Blocks (.4 tonnes) TOTAL MASS: 41.38 tonnes. Two of them put together would be 82.76 tonnes. Does that sound about right? A few redundancies are obvious in the design - you don't need both batteries and RTGs (unless you intend to transmit data). I'd also submit that it would take a very long time for you to go through the amount of fuel contained in two large RCS tanks, but you do what you want to there. The nose cones are also not really necessary - you could do something more useful there such as swap it out for something functional such as a senior docking port. Overall though that's not that much in terms of mass - if you send two fragments to Duna seperately, you can rendezvous them in orbit. Your transfer stage only needs enough delta-V for a one way trip (~1100 m/s). Say 1400 for a nice margin of error. Four nuclear engines mounted off the bottom of FL-T100 tanks, mounted radially to the side of an X200-16 tank and connected with struts and fuel lines, will give you 1379.66 m/s of delta-V, enough to make the trip comfortably with a little to spare. Go with FL-T200s on the sides if you'd like a little extra for the rendezvous. Total Mass would be 62 tonnes. I'd recommend a '>Zenith IX booster (they still work despite not having been updated for a few versions). The Zenith VII would be pushing it despite what it says (could be how I pilot it, of course). EDIT: Incidentally, that 1100 for the transfer stage is what you need for your transfer craft; the trip from Duna to Kerbin takes much less (even with a comfortable margin for error). 1300 makes Duna orbit. Your 1489 craft oughta be able to make the trip as is. The only questionable bit is whether it has sufficient TWR to lift off of Duna. With three NERVAs, 61 tonnes is your absolute limit; you're less than that, though over the 38 tonnes you'd want for a nice 1.6 TWR. I might suggest putting an I-beam outboard running parallel and alongside your nukes, with the lander legs attached to the end of them - that'll widen your base and make it less likely you'll tip over. Yeah...so far you have a good looking system. Five Kerbal lander too. It's just a matter of figuring out how you're going to refuel the Duna station.