capi3101

Question for y'all - is there a slip/skid indicator in the game anywhere? I've just today learned about the notion of coordinated turning with aileron and rudder; I had been turning by rolling and then pitching - behavior I've since learned can induce spins (and which probably explains why I've had a tough time with flying around in atmo to this point). Is there a guideline for how much rudder needs to be applied -vs- banking angle or anything like that?

Poor choice of words on my part. And may I say it's nice to see the two of you actually agree on something for once.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/28248-Is-asparagus-the-best-staging-system-%28might-contain-science%29?p=346702&viewfull=1#post346702 and on a related note, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/33381-0-20-2-Zenith-rocket-family-%28modernised-for-0-20-x-with-perfect-subassembly%29 I still like to design my own boosters despite having this particular resource available. Temstar's method for guesstimating how much thrust you're going to want (first link) works reasonably well for other types of staging, incidentally...though you can't count on having as high of a payload fraction. Numbers that work for me are 4% for single-stage rockets (easiest to build with payloads less than 45 tonnes), 8% for serial-staged rockets and 12% for onion-staged. It also helps to learn how to run the Tsiolkovsky equation backwards to figure out how much fuel you're going to want for a given target delta-V.

Delta-V is always more important than TWR. Always. That said, if your TWR is too low at launch, you will not be going into space. There really is no "best" setup - it's far too dependent on what you're trying to do to give you a single cut and dry answer. The best any of us can say is that its whatever works for you. Basics are simple - 4500 m/s of delta-V to make orbit, TWR best kept somewhere between 1.8-2.2 in flight but it can be lower if necessary at launch (1.6-1.7 at launch for asparagus setups, 1.2 for single-stage rockets, in-between for everything else).

Worked on ways to drop "weapons" from a plane. Good progress on the "bomb" front; not so much on the "unguided missile" front.

I've seen both; 9.81 is Kerbin's surface gravity so I use it. Don't know if it's actually right or not and to be honest it doesn't throw things off by that much either way.

Uh-huh. Sure. I believe you...

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:Advanced_Rocket_Design#Multiple_engines So add up your thrust - (120 + 50 + 50 = 220) Divide the first engine's thrust by the Isp (120 / 400 = 0.3) Divide the second engine's thrust by the Isp (50 / 350 = ~0.142857) And solve: 220 / (0.3 + 0.142857 + .142857) = 375.60976 s Combined thrust is just the total thrust of the engines...220 for your example case. EDIT: Semi-ninja'd - blizzy missed the fact that you had two of the second engine type in your example... EDITEDIT: and sciguy rounded.

^^^ Ve ≡ Isp * Go; don't want to confuse you - people tend to expand that one out.

Alright - to use your terms: ÃŽâ€V = Isp * g * ln(m0/mf) m0 = 22.36 mf = 16.36 Isp = 800 g = 9.81 (always use standard gravity here, regardless of the reference body) ÃŽâ€V = 800 * 9.81 * ln(22.36/16.36) = 2451.984 m/s Now, what you're trying to figure out is how much fuel you'll need for the 1000 m/s mark, right? So... 1000 = 800 * 9.81 * ln(x/16.36]), where x=m0 ln(x/16.36) = .12742 x = 16.36 * e.12742 = 18.58 tonnes 18.58 - 16.36 = 2.22 tonnes So when you're down to 18.58 tonnes, you have 1,000 m/s of delta-V remaining. Actually, let's try it this way instead: 1000 = 800 * 9.81 * ln(22.36/x) where x=mf ln(22.36/x) = .12742 x = 22.36/e.12742 = 19.68 tonnes 22.36 - 19.68 = 2.68 tonnes So you'll need 2.68 tonnes of fuel for the first 1,000 m/s of delta-V.

For the design I wanted to build I needed the wings closer to the back (at least far enough back to not interfere with the operation of the ejection system); I couldn't move the wings forward further and still had the center of lift well behind the center of gravity (off the ball). She flew, but not well, which is why I was thinking it needed more weight towards the back.

Started designing a bomber for the Simulated Attack on KSC challenge. Discovered it really does help to have most of the weight in the back of your plane. What I have took off but wasn't very fun to fly, and so far it has nothing that could be considered a bomb.

10 kN is it; technically it would be 9.81 kN, but that rounds up to 10 nicely (technically 10 kN would give you a TWR of 1.02 in the case of a one tonne rocket). Good luck building a rocket that light, though. 9.81 (not 9.82) for KSP. For purposes of the rocket equation that figure is a convenient conversion factor, and it's always the same regardless of the reference celestial body. The question about probe cores has largely been answered.

Mün's at 12,000,000 m, isn't it? I'll second the suggestion for an orbit closer to Kerbin; you could always transfer back your Mün and Minmus mining operations and aerobrake them into somewhere close to the station's orbit. The same cannot be said for a craft headed the other way.

Here...let's see if this works. Pulled it from the video. So basically KSC is a big dart board, is that right? I might have to give this challenge a go; it looks like fun. Might be more so because I really just started figuring out how planes worked this past week... Can't really read the point values for the R&D buildings and the satellite receivers in the tracking station.

I had a polar orbit last time I visited Duna (during the Constipation XI mission). I handled it by burning just enough to escape Duna's SOI - once in orbit around Kerbol, I set up a transfer back to Kerbin same as I would've had just left from Duna's equator.

I've got one at 25 kilometers over the Mün; haven't established one over Minmus yet but I imagine it'll be about the same altitude. Same notion.

Probably antennas. Tonnes of antennas. So many antennas the core module looks like a porcupine... I'm surprised there's no mention of antennas in the scoring rules, to be honest.

^^^ See, this is how I'm reading it - though If you also had to have everything docked together by the end of the day, it would be more of a challenge. This is starting to sound interesting.

Success - I just had to move the rear gear forward and out on the FL-T400s, and flip them around. For good measure I went ahead and replaced the large elevons with two smaller ones per wing. Took off about halfway down the runway, after my speed had gotten up to 100 m/s. Worked like a charm; got into orbit, circled around a couple of times and came back down. Overshot the KSC runway on entry but I was able to come back around and land; first time landing from an ocean approach (runway 27). I'm now trying to figure out ways to build a spaceplane that can do moar stuff - which for the moment means "transport more than one Kerbal at a time". I started in last night on the design of the mighty Auk II, a seven-Kerbal shuttle capable of round-trip interplanetary travel (Duna, Eve, Dres). As you might imagine, it's a pretty massive craft and I've discovered that I haven't got enough intakes on the thing (flameouts start around 16,000). I don't have screenies of the ugly monstrosity yet; it's got five turbojet engines for the ascent, two ram intakes and fourteen radial intakes. I had been under the impression that you want about three ram intakes per turbojet and the numbers on the wiki suggest the radial intakes are capable of providing more air, but that seems to not be the case. What am I doing wrong here? The Auk II really is gawdawful ugly; I let it fly off the end of the runway because it seems to be the best way to avoid tail-strikes with it. Has some other issues too - namely the ejection system is currently incapable of safely returning the crew to Kerbin in the event of an emergency and it isn't capable of recovery from flat spins. It does fly at least.

Uh...okay. I could use some clarification there. The way things have been worded, I can make a single launch (the space station core module) and that's it, right? Or did you mean I can't launch any new pieces into space after the first 24 hours? It becomes a tad difficult to dock things if you're only allowed a single launch (seeing as how a craft is not allowed to dock to itself and all).

Uh...okay. By "send a Kerbal to the Mün", you want us to do a landing, or just a flyby? You might want to re-think point entry number 4. By which I mean assign it an actual point value. As for doing it Apollo-style without docking, I say its tricky but possible. Would like to see the OP's entry...

Probes = how you test rockets without killing/stranding Kerbals in the process. Do not use if you are a sadist. Mechjeb = a piloting, construction and navigational mod. Issue opinions about it at your own peril.

Resolved the issues I was having with the Auk I spaceplane (namely getting it to take off before it reached the end of the runway). Landed it at the KSC runway successfully - first landing coming in from the ocean (overshot the runway on entry); overall a successful flight. Decided to use my new-found spaceplane knowledge to try and build a seven Kerbal shuttle, the mighty Auk II. That one...well, let's just say I think I need to start a little smaller. Actually, it took off (had an annoying problem with tail strikes) and did well up to about 16,000, where I discovered that I hadn't added enough intakes. Eject system never worked properly - at least not well enough to save the entire crew had I'd actually flown it manned.

Still can't find the original posting of the new delta-V map, so I'll put it up on my imgur. If the original creator will let me know where it is, I'll take my copy down and replace it with the proper attribution/link. Meantime: Note that this one has the plane change delta-Vs. @Regex: haven't had time to review your post yet; I'll probably have questions when I do. There's probably some substantial rounding going on...I calculated the ten kilometer orbital velocity for Mün at 556.94 m/s; that could be rounded up to 560 easily. Precision isn't exactly required for a delta-V map; it is just a planning tool after all. Of course, it says 580. So I wonder what's up with that.