capi3101

Yeah, I'm not wholly convinced I've got enough strutting on the thing either. I suppose somebody needs to play the guinea pig; might as well be me... I'm absolutely thrilled about the part count reduction, frankly; that and lack of time were what had kept me from making the attempt up until this point. My calendar still hasn't cleared up... Yes, those SRBs are seperatrons, yes I added them because the LFB's did not seperate cleanly (that flaring bottom kind of complicates matters) and I'm not convinced I have enough of them as yet. The plan had been to use the same set up I had for the Eve One (the pair on a fat, short I-beam on a decoupler), just to add a few more. I'll have to test that idea out of course. Nope. My assumption is that I will aim for a mountain and botch it so badly that I land in the ocean. I'm a pessimist. 11.6k actually seems a bit anemic to me but it occurred to me that I could move some of the fuel from the outer ring to the inner one, because obviously I've got thrust to spare there, and that fuel would get expended later in the flight - which should improve the delta-V unless I'm very much mistaken. I am using TAC, which I plan to use to override the fuel lines during the launch from Kerbin. I plan to send a supply mission ahead which will also include the return module. Dock in Eve orbit, refuel, land, do my buisness, try to take off. Wont be left with much besides Jeb in the Can if all goes according to plan. Have the return stage rendezvous with Jeb and bring him home.

OP would have to edit the original post, go into advanced mode and change the header there.

Decided to try a re-design of my Eve One craft utilizing some of the new parts, in particular the LFB KR-1x2 - just something appealing about having your tanks and your engines together as one part. Basically just took the same design I was using, swapped out the tanks and engine clusters and added an outer ring of drop tanks. Wound up with an 11.6k delta-V ship with too much thrust, having reduced the part count from over a thousand down to just 67 parts. I still need to add the extra accoutrements of course (lander legs, chute clusters, ladders), but that's not as big of an issue as it was previously (the part count was really prohibitive for Eve One). Thoughts, comments on the Eve Two?

Geschosskopf has a pretty good tutorial: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/62368-0-23-Tutorial-Mission-Planning-and-Ship-Design-for-SCIENCE%21 Long and the short of it is to shoot for Ike and Gilly. If you time it correctly and the Kraken doesn't strike, you can do both at nearly the same time. I'd suggest that after you've got nuclear rockets, you should make unlocking all of the science parts a priority before you head out. Minmus is a good place to grind out for Science - experiments there are worth more than they are on Mun.

No, that you don't host it directly from the ribbons site. He posted about it a month or two ago, IIRC, and it was because the number of threads was overloading something or other. I don't remember where exactly I saw that or I'd post the link.

Once you've generated your salad bar, you'll have to save it to an image hosting site (such as imgur) and then modify your signature (under Settings). Putting it in your sig is just like adding any other image to the forum. (They used to let you put a direct link to the ribbons you generated; it's not that way anymore on account of the site overloading its maximum threads or some such nonsense - the IP was being a bunch of jerks).

Oughta be. You'd probably need KAS. EDIT: Strike that - go with http://ksp.freeiz.com/, and add the six tonne mass of the 'roid to the end mass of the ship you send out there to grab it when you're making your calculations.

Doesn't Minmus's orbit cross Kerbin's equatorial plane at some point in it's orbit? I thought that's what the nodes indicated......and if you set up a maneuver node so that you get to Minmus at the same time it's crossing the equatorial plane, you should get an encounter, shouldn't you? Or have I not had enough coffee this morning? You're probably right; I haven't tried this myself so I shouldn't be recommending it to anybody - OP, if you go with any of my advice, go with the first method.

Collected data on the new parts. Am dismayed to find the wet/dry fuel ratio for the new fuel tanks is 8.2:1 instead of 9:1. Have begun considering using the new parts on my Eve ship, if for no other reason than to lower the part count. Am waiting for a KER patch to see if they'll work like I hope.

I usually go to Minmus in a fairly inefficient manner. It's pretty easy for beginners though - here's what you do: 1) Once you're in orbit, go to the map screen and tilt the camera so that you're looking at Kerbin's North Pole. Target Minmus. 2) Turn the camera until Minmus is in at the three o'clock position. 3) Set a maneuver node at the six o'clock position and pull prograde until the orbit indicated touches the orbit of Minmus from that perspective. If you're lucky enough to get an encounter by pulling prograde, great; just do that. 4) Assuming you didn't get an encounter, place another node at either the ascending node or descending node, whichever one you come to first. 4A) If the node is past about a third of the way to Minmus, stop, delete your node, wait one orbit and try again. Do this as often as necessary. 5) Here you want to to pull normal or anti-normal; you want the value of the node to go down to zero, or at least to 0.1 or 0.2. Once it's there, you should see the close approach chevrons. Pull the prograde/retrograde markers until you get an encounter. If you still don't get one, pull on the radial in/out markers, or fiddle with the positioning of your nodes until you get an encounter. 6) With your two nodes set up, burn as indicated. Be willing to re-do the second node after the first burn. That'll get you there in the early going. Later as you gain experience, you can start attempting to combine the inclination and transfer burns into one. What just occurred to me is this - 1) Get in orbit, go to the map screen, target Minmus as above. 2) Set up a maneuver node any old place along your orbit. Pull prograde until 930 m/s is indicated. 3) Move the node around until a Minmus encounter is indicated. 4) If have sufficient time, burn as indicated. If not, try again in another orbit/half-orbit. That's going off the latest delta-V map that says you need 930 from a 70k orbit to a Minmus transfer, and unless I'm mistaken moving the node around will ensure that you find one of those spots where the burn occurs at the node. Something worth trying anyway.

You know, there's already a challenge for this - the Konstellation Program Challenge.

Today I farted around with the new parts. More importantly, I wrote down their specs. Tomorrow I'll add that data to my planning spreadsheet so I can start making some actual crap with some of these things. I'm curious if it'd be worth it to replace my Skipjack engine cluster with one or more of the new engines for purposes of my upcoming Eve mission. Launched an LES, small RGU and Z-1k batt into orbit in various new ways, notably with a KR-1x2 and a Jumbo64/KR-2L. Tried out a KD25k for the hell of it; couldn't steer so that one didn't make orbit though it got a pretty hellacious apoapsis.

Yeah, I've been wondering what kind of effects the new parts will have. I haven't had much of a chance to get in there and look at them to compare stats just yet. If I can get something comparable to the Skipjack in one part, that'd be frickin' awesome. Makes me wonder if the challenge of Eve will become "do it with pre 0.23.5 parts"...

Downloaded 0.23.5. Detected a couple of type-C rocks. Farted around with the new parts; will definitely have to get the specs on them for planning purposes and see if the fuel tanks continue to follow the general doubling/equivalencies of the older parts.

Usually this happens when something is blocking the thrust. Open up your flight log after you thrust and see if something is taking damage - if it is, that's what's causing your problems. Try extending them out on girders and see if the problem persists.

Forewent KSP today to focus on replacing the battery in my iPhone. Aside from severing the camera cable, it went well. Looking forward to the next repair job... Eh. If I had done something in KSP, it would've been more fuel deliveries. All kinds of exciting. Totally.

^^^ This. General guidelines- 1 Turbojet per 9-12 tonnes of payload 200-250 units of liquid fuel per turbojet 1 pair of swept wings or delta-wings per six tonnes of craft At least three Ram air intakes per Turbojet, no more than nine. The more intakes you have, the more of a payload fraction the turbojets can handle.

Key thing about spaceplanes is that once they're in space, they're a rocket. They fly just like any other rocket, too...it's just the launch and landing mechanisms that are different. So a flight to Duna is going to be about the same as it would be for a rocket; it'll need about 2,140 m/s of delta-V to it to make a round trip between Kerbin and Duna. You will need some additional fuel to finish out the ascent on Kerbin, of course...say around 200-250 m/s of delta-V if you handle the ascent correctly. Make it an even 2,400 m/s and you should be golden. So building one...general guidelines: One Turbojet engine per 9-12 tonnes of payload. The more intakes you add, the more payload you can get per tonne of craft. 200-250 units of liquid fuel per Turbojet. That'll either give you enough to do some flying around for a landing zone when you get back to Kerbin or give you enough to still make orbit in the event of a bad ascent. One pair of swept wings or delta wings per six tonnes of craft. No fewer than three Ram intakes per Turbojet. A 3:1 ratio will give you the 9 tonne per engine payload capacity; each full number increase in the ratio gives you an extra half-tonne of capacity to the maximum of 12 tonnes per engine at a 9:1 ratio. Assume a pair of nuclear engines for the transfer. A no frills spaceplane will have a Mk-1 cockpit, maybe a Reaction Wheel, a Z-1k battery and a pair of unshielded solar panels, its flight equipment and let's say....a pair of AV-R8 winglets for vertical stabilizers. Landing gear is mass-free, so we won't worry about it. You're looking at 6.175 tonnes plus the mass of the flight equipment as your payload mass in space. With a set of flight of equipment added for a light plane - one turbojet, two Mk-1 fuselages, three pairs of swept wings, four small control surfaces, and nine Ram Intakes - adds 3.83 tonnes to that mix. 8 FL-T100 tanks - or a pair of FL-T400s -would give you 2,552.867 m/s of delta-V (2,884.563 actually, since that mass assumes the Mk-1 Fuselages are full and they most certainly will not be once you've reached space), and your total craft mass would be just over fourteen tonnes. Laythe is going to be trickier, on account of the higher delta-V requirement - you're going to want a craft with at least 6,000 m/s of delta-V to it. 6.175 tonnes plus flight equipment...you'll need three sets of flight equipment (one engine, 2 Mk1 Fuselages, three pairs of swept wings, nine intakes) at 3.73 tonnes each, adding 6.69 tonnes...48 FL-T100s equivalent will get you the fuel you need to get there (6,048.8 m/s of delta-V assuming full tanks) and the craft will have a mass of 44 tonnes. You might be able to land that craft on Laythe and get it back again but your fuel is going to be tight. Anyway, those are general suggestions; do with them as you will.

Sent fuel cannisters up to my Eve supply and return mission all weekend. Finished two dockings before I realized I was sending the cans up to the wrong transfer stage. Will probably attempt a rendezvous between the two missions at some point; I mean, the fuel cans are still good...

By my observation, KSP does indeed model changes in gravity with respect to altitude. There isn't anywhere in the game where the g-force is ever exactly zero; I imagine a number of things would break if that ever happened. KER also lists a Current TWR when you're in space; it wouldn't be able to do that if the gravity was zero.

mhoram's already given you links to Temstar's design philosophies, so I won't beat a dead horse; I'll just recommend them as a way of learning how to do heavy lifting. Experiment on your own from there and see what works best for you.

Personally, I used '>Geschosskopf's method and targeted Minmus more than Mün simply because the way I understand it experiments are worth more Science there. Naturally, as far as picking technologies went I made a beeline for the Gravioli Detector as soon as I had all the Tier 3 techs, solar panels and fuel ducts. You can max out the Science if you have access to all the instruments. Priorities then were nuclear engines, heavy rockets, probes, spaceplanes and rovers; you can play that last bit by ear to suit your own gaming style, though. My order of unlocking techs: Start >> Basic rocketry >> Survivabity >> Stability >> General Rocketry >> Gen Construction >> Sci Tech >> Flight Control >> Adv Rocketry >> Electrics >> Fuel Systems >> Adv Electrics >> Adv Exploration >> Electronics >> Adv sci tech >> Space Exploration >> Heavy Rocketry >> Adv construction >> Heavier rocketry >> Specialized control >> Nuclear propulsion >> Landing >> Advanced Landing >> Specialized Construction >> Advanced Metalworks >> Composites >> Meta materials >> Precision engineering >> Unmanned tech >> Large probes >> Large control >> Very heavy rocketry >> Large electrics >> Specialized Electrics >> Aerodynamics >> Adv flight control >> Supersonic flight >> High alt flight >> Adv aerodynamics >> Hypersonic flight >> Field science >> Adv motors >> Heavy aerodynamics >> Adv unmanned tech >> Ion propulsion. Only had to hit the two moons about a dozen times before I had enough to go on the Ike/Gilly excursions, and there was enough from those to round out the tech tree for me.

Here we go: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Drag#Drag Basically, the only difference between KSP's default drag model and reality is that a mass proportionality is used in place of the cross-section area; the equation is otherwise 100% the same, but the difference is enough. It's unrealistic in that during an ascent (as I've mentioned before) your mass will be decreasing as long as you burn. It means that in KSP you can have a bunch of tanks, engines, and what-not set out radially and you can still expect a decrease in the drag; in real life, that wouldn't happen until after you've chucked off some stuff. It also explains why most real rockets are of the long, skinny variety, and at least partially explains the problems that some KSP players have with the notion of asparagus staging (when they say it's "unrealistic", that's the part they're talking about; there are some experiments with fuel ducts going on, so that bit's real). If you want to play the game with a drag model that uses cross-section instead of mass, there's a mod for that: Ferram Aerospace Research (FAR). I don't use it my own self, but a lot of folks do.

Grasshopper... #channel_Caine Kerbin's Gravitational Parameter (the Gravitational Constant of the Universe times the Planet's Mass, GM, or mu depending on the source) is 3.5316×1012 m3/s2. Its equatorial radius is, as mentioned, 600,000 meters. Therefore its surface gravity, by definition, is 3.5316×1012 / (600,000)2 = 9.81 m/s2 (g = GM / R2) At 70,000 meters (670,000 meters from the source), it's: 3.5316×1012 / (670,000)2 = 7.87 m/s2 And at 100 kilometers, it's: 3.5316×1012 / (700,000)2 = 7.21 m/s2 Short answer - it doesn't degrade much, but it degrades enough to not be able to treat the value as a constant. Unless you're doing some kind of instantaneous problem, and even then you'll need to calculate it based on altitude.

I suppose I should point out that gravity is only 9.8 at the surface; it is decreasing with altitude...