vidboi
-
Posts
96 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by vidboi
-
-
This whole thread made me wince. OCD isn't a character trait, it's a serious disorder (after all, that's what the d's for...). It's a much more complex problem than just being excessively neat. I don't want to come across as angry at anyone, but please treat these sort of issues with some sensitivity.
Anyway, I think the term you're looking for is "perfectionism". Thank God for editor extensions and vertical snap, trying to place my parallel boosters level with the core would be an aggravating task otherwise...
-
now you can try to build a 80m wingspan 300t plane in KSP and tell me if it's easy to land in KSP?
80m 300t is about the same as an A380 with zero fuel and zero cargo/passenger.
you'll probably have very good gliding ability in KSP with that long wingspan, but i am fairly sure even if you touchdown very gently, you are still prone to flipping/rolling over when you apply the brakes in KSP.
=================================
people... flying is never hard in KSP, because the thrust of your engines and the B9 control surfaces are very very strong. (even the stock ones... cos you can add as many of them as you please...anyways)
it's the landing and braking on the runway.
you can flip so easily when you brake, and the island runway is just too short for landing anything >70-100m/s airspeed.
What was that you were saying about the island runway?
Also power and control isn't something you always have an excess of... I successfully landed my C-130 alike after shearing off one engine and the ailerons on one wing, as well as a sizeable chunk of the wing itself.
Not that was a landing...
-
Apollo Style Moon Landing, STOCK, 2-3% fuel left total, bit my nails every stage of the flight...no, i didn't calculate it beforehand, just guessing. Nothing else came close to that.
Very similar to this, except it was also my first manual moon landing (yes, I used to be a mechjeb junky, please forgive me for my sins...). Designed a minimalist 1 kerbal Apollo craft which completed the whole trip with about 100m/s spare from launch to splashdown on a very tight trajectory. Landing on fumes was probably the tensest moment I've had in the game, and performing a perfect launch to immediate lunar orbit by eyeballing it and ending up with less than a unit of fuel remaining prior to docking was just the icing on the cake
-
I apologise to C7 in advance, but I really don't think the modelling and texturing on the new parts is very good at all. The modelling is very chunky, it lacks the crisp lines of the other parts of the game. For example, compare the new booster engines with older engines such as the LV-T30 and the skipper. The new engines are much lower res, the engine bells are thicker with the insides not corresponding to the outsides and the exhaust pipes just look very low poly. The fuel line down the side of the new large tank looks very rough, especially compared to the orange tank. I guess the texturing was done to make the parts look worn and slightly poorly made, but it just comes out looking amateurish. The tanks especially annoy me with their blurred paintjobs and off centre markings (the black/white stripes are rotated 2.5 degrees from the centre, incredibly annoying for lining up parts). It's kind of like comparing the old space centre with the new one. Next to the fantastic parts by B9 and Claira Lyrae they just don't quite live up to spec. Then there's the new KR-2 engine which is beatiful, and seems to have taken up most of the effort in this project. Only problem is it's pretty inefficient and makes my slower laptop lag just by mousing over the part in the VAB. Really I think all the new parts do need a little TLC to make them really good.
-
Hmm, just had an odd bug which caused the space centre screen to not load (i.e all black, time warp bar and KCT menu present). Series of events was launching a craft through the launchpad (probably a bad idea) to simulation, reverting to VAB, adding to the build list and then leaving the VAB. Threw a ton of null reference errors. Log is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6-QPW5ZXeYhaXBSQmJvTldHWGc/edit?usp=sharing
-
Am I the only one who only builds two-stage to orbit rockets? For some reason, I haven't built a three-stage to orbit launcher since 0.22.
Here's my 20 mT launcher:
http://i.imgur.com/zV5shtk.png
Staging. The second stage engines are two LV-909s clipped inside Aerospikes for better efficiency and thrust.
http://i.imgur.com/dIEzWKE.png
Payload separation. Here you can see the engines better.
http://i.imgur.com/2LVbBMD.png
Made it to 80km orbit with 200 m/s to spare.
Two stage to oribt is pretty cool. I've starting doing this rather than using parallel boosters, although I also like to add a third kick stage to circularise the orbit without reusing the second stage. Suppose that sort of counts right?
ok, i'm officially completely crazystill WIP
(i still need to add a few arms )http://i.imgur.com/6wxjO7p.png
Mini Saturn V (MK1 pod based - 1 kerbal only) ! (this version has already 685 parts - a full scale Saturn V with these would be horrendous in part count
)"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sgt_flyer again." Awesome!
-
Hi guys,
I'm trying to wrap my head around ISP, delta-v, TWR etc. I think I have a pretty good grasp of these concepts, but still there are many questions I'm struggling with.
1. Do you agree that delta-v is the single most important characteristic of a rocket? If it has a high enough TWR to achieve 100% atmospheric efficiency during takeoff, then basically all that counts is its delta-v budget. A launch system with a larger delta-v will be able to carry a bigger payload farther, and that's what matters.
2. I've been reading on the forum that many think that the new ARM engines are very powerful. If it is so, then how is it possible that I get about the same delta-v budget (around 10000) for an asparagus-staged rocket with 2 rings of stages (18+1 engines altogether) made of old LV-N parts, and for an asparagus-staged rocket with the same topology built entirely of the new parts? Why isn't the new rocket "better" (higher delta-v), when it should be vastly more powerful?
Thanks for helping me out - this stuff ain't trivial.
Delta-v is the single most important thing when you're in space.
For a lift vehicle, that's not the case, as all launchers should have a set amount of delta-v (enough to get into orbit). Other things like the rocket's TWR and aerodynamics (although not in the stock game) will determine what this delta-v requirement is, but it's roughly the same across all lift vehicles. Your real measure of a lifters efficiency is it's payload proportion - how much the payload weighs in proportion to the lift vehicle. A more efficient launcher will be able to heft a heavier payload for its weight.
On the topic of SLS parts it's only the engines that are more powerful due to both their highish ISP and very good TWR. The tanks themselves have the same wet/dry mass ratio as the older tanks, and so your rocket will have approximately the same wet/dry mass fraction for each stage and therefore similar delta-v.
Hope this helps your understanding!
-
while making a rocket to catch an asteroid i ended up making one that has 14,000 deltaV (if i did the calculations right...) with the engines at 25% power.
http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/3336347426959694544/9FF41F35D8FB544C088AA78DEEF5F90487750795/
maybe not... it was my first deltaV calculation, so i probably messed something up haha
Engine power shouldn't have any effect on delta-v so I'm not sure what you've done there... does look like it has quite a lot of delta v though!
-
Check the spoilers in UmbralRaptors's post on the first page of this thread; Ion's use 8.7/sec now for 2kN of thrust. IMHO, they didn't need a thrust boost, just an energy usage drop
That's interesting, in Scott Manley's demo video he showed the Ion Engines power requirements being the same. I guess there's some changes between the dev builds so I'm not sure exactly what to expect with the final release.
-
Are the new engines better than 48-7S?
I think that the ion engines may be too powerfull now, I would be OK with 4 times the thrust
OR 1/4 the electricity but both make the engine seem OP (Landers that use ion engines???)
Not quite. The new ion engines have 4 times the thrust for the same electricity usage (i.e. they still use 12/sec at full power). The OP just doesn't make it clear that the reduction is 1/4 of the amount of electricity per unit thrust.
-
The Soyuz spacecraft has an orbital module with anemities such as 5m³ leg stretching space and a toilet. The crew sits in the tiny reentry module both during launch and descent, but while in space they'll be able to use both modules.
Also IIRC the 2-day docking approach is/was actually the standard procedure most of the time. They're just trying for the fast rendezvous for convenience and, failing that, fall back to the normal one.
Yep, turns out despite outside appearances the soyuz spacecraft has quite a bit more internal space than the Apollo capsule. The soyuz re-entry module shape is specifically designed to be a good compromise between aerodynamic properties and to maximise internal volume for the surface area.
-
Yay! Another one! But, Soyuz is the spacecraft or the lifter?
In fact, it's both the name of the spacecraft and the R-7 derived lifter. The spacecraft is only ever launched with the soyuz rocket, but the lifter itself is also used for other payloads.
-
I'm building a rover that will be put into a very low (Less than 10KM) orbit around Minmus via an orbital assist stage, which will then do the retrograde burn before separating off. The rover will then fire it's Rockomax 48-7S and land under it's own power. How much dV will I need to just land, that is ONLY landing, not the retro burn or taking off.
From a 10km orbit, landing in Minmus takes an absolute minimum of 184m/s. This is of course an ideal case, so I'd take atleast 250m/s to give a reasonable margin.
-
Mission control, we have a guidance problem, losing pitch and yaw control...
...ah...
-
If you have a look at the ascent profiles of rockets such as the saturn v (e.g. below) it sheds some light on how they work.
The first stage mainly propels the rocket upwards and gives it a large time to apoapse. The later, lower powered stages just follow and extend an approximately ballistic trajectory. During the orbital insertion the rocket is actually falling back to Earth, but as it gets closer and closer to orbital velocity the effect of gravity gets less and less.
-
In any case, what's Delta-V to various locations like Laythe and Boplet?Under 2k for sure. I want to say Laythe is around 900-ish. Pol should be a bit more; 1200-1400ish (only been there once and lost the lander due to terrain map being scaled down but not the planetary mesh). This is while using Bop as a moonlet around Kerbin. If you're talking about Bop as a moonlet it's around 700-ish.
Actually it's quite a lot less than that. I've calculated the optimum delta-v values to travel between any two moons in the Alternis Jool system, but in practice they seem to turn out even less than this (I expect due to some approximations not entirely holding in the small scale of the system)
From\To Minmus Laythe Mun Kerbin Pol Bop
Minmus 3.24E+00 5.53E+02 9.11E+02 1.18E+03 1.46E+03 1.54E+03
Laythe 6.11E+02 5.55E+02 5.80E+02 6.37E+02 7.40E+02 7.76E+02
Mun 4.49E+02 2.37E+02 1.84E+02 2.26E+02 3.80E+02 4.44E+02
Kerbin 9.43E+02 8.76E+02 8.45E+02 8.35E+02 8.54E+02 8.68E+02
Pol 7.05E+02 5.25E+02 3.69E+02 2.09E+02 3.63E+01 7.29E+01
Bop 6.16E+02 4.83E+02 3.66E+02 2.44E+02 8.36E+01 6.32E+01 -
The part you are looking for is the EAS-4 Strut Connector. It is found under the structural parts tab. Use this knowledge well young Kerbonaut
-
Been working on a PPTS/soyuz/singularity-mod inspired spacecraft purely for the aesthetics. I've finally been able to attach the boosters without it breaking the craft file (I had to save them as subassemblies and reload them to prevent the duplication when placing groups of clipped parts bug) and it's almost working flawlessly now! The sound of the first stage engines spooling up is also glorious
-
Well done, I like it. I might have to copy I mean reverse engineer it for my own use.
Haha, go ahead!
Looks really good! Maybe try concealing a nuclear engine inside? Most of the rocket engine can bee hidden inside with just the nozzle showing, but TWR will be significantly reduced. It will have an ISP of 800, though, so it is worth it since it's interplanetary. I also see you used your vernier rocket pods on it, it looks really, really good! The interplanetary stage reminds me of the Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (or Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage as used by Orion MPCV on SLS Block I) Sorry for all the information but I hope you appreciate my praise for your work! You're turning into quite the rocket builderNormally I stay away from nuclear engines on all but the largest of crafts. I'll have a look though, and if it works I'll release a nuclear powered version as well. They aren't actually thruster pods, they're just rover bodies that I've used to improve the aesthetics (the more I use them, the more I appreciate just how handy they are in a lot of situations). And no problem, thanks for all the support! I've got quite a lot of crafts that are quite near to being finished, so I'll likely be releasing more over the next couple of days.
-
can i have sub.craft for that
sure, here you go!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6-QPW5ZXeYhUHNIX1lrRkFGNDA/edit?usp=sharing
I look forwards to seeing what you might use it for
-
Alternis Kerbol is indeed quite cool. The reconfiguration is neat and it's nice to have a such a vast system right outside of Kerbin.
It's certainly very cool. I just had a load of fun testing a craft by doing flybys of Laythe, Mun and Minmus (and a near encounter with Bop) using multiple gravity assists, and it's all just in arms reach of Kerbin!
See the opening post for the new craft that I was testing
-
Do you have the Alternis Kerbol mod installed?
Yep, currently everything's being made and tested in Alternis, so expect launchers to have plenty of dV to spare in the stock game
It does indeed look really cool. Is the parachute on the nose upside down? I've thought about that technique as well , great minds think alike!Yep, stuck in on top of a mini octo probe core to give it some clearance, then attached the docking port on top. Indeed they do
Looks really cool! I like the Hi-def Pictures! You might want to work on the fairing though.A protective boost cover for the capsule? (I tried that, but I didn't like how it looked without using a lot of parts) Or has something got wrong with the interstage fairings, that would be just my luck
Nice orbiter. It looks like it was inspired by Orion.It takes a bit of inspiration from Orion (I think that's what it was originally based on), but a major source of ideas was the Russian PPTS. A photo of that with the solar panels at a slight angle was what gave be the idea to wrap the solar panels round the service module.
Also, here comes a screenshot dump from a fly-by mission of Laythe as well (I planned to fly by Minmus as well, but got another (unintentional gravity assist from Laythe which luckily put me back in Kerbin's orbit).
-
From\To Laythe Vall Tylo Bop Pol
Laythe 5.55E+02 5.80E+02 6.37E+02 7.25E+02 7.65E+02
Vall 2.83E+02 2.37E+02 2.74E+02 3.88E+02 4.51E+02
Tylo 8.17E+02 7.84E+02 7.74E+02 7.88E+02 8.04E+02
Bop 4.81E+02 3.21E+02 1.68E+02 6.00E+01 8.93E+01
Pol 5.25E+02 3.92E+02 2.49E+02 7.51E+01 3.75E+01Here's a table (sorry for the lack of formatting) of optimal hohmann transfer delta-v costs in the joolian system. Due to the reversibility of orbits, the delta-v cost to decelerate into orbit at the destination is just the same as the transfer burn going the other way, although of course with aerobreaking this can be greatly reduced. Hope it helps!
-
A large, 6-kerbal (maximum capacity) orbiter. The Explorer is ideal for short ranged interplanetary trips and travel between moons. The explorer is not rated for launching or returning crew from orbit and so should be launched unmanned and crewed separately on orbit.
Stats:
Mass - 21.0t
TWR - 1.05
Delta V - 1745
Action Groups:
1 - Deploy solar panels and antennas
Download:
A medium size 3-kerbal orbiter and re-entry vehicle, the MO-IVB is ideal for Kerbin orbit operations and has the delta V capabilities for Munar orbit and return and short interplanetary trips.
Stats:
Mass - 12.7t
TWR - 1.73
Delta V - 1374
Action Groups:
1 - Deploy antennas
8 - Deploy main parachutes
9 - Deploy drogue parachutes
10 - Jettison LES
Abort - Fire LES and separate from lift vehicle
Download:
-Orbiter with LKO lift vehicle
Marathon IVB orbiters are launched using the Apex modular lift system:
Navball question
in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted
This should be in Gameplay Questions and Tutorials, but I'll answer nonetheless.
Basically, you're thinking of a traditional compass which is designed to show you the direction to other things. However, the navball shows you the direction you're pointing in, which is slightly different, and so East and West are swapped. (You only notice this as North and South because the default orientation on the launchpad is East) Some orienteering compasses are designed like this for exactly the same purpose.
Also, the Orange half points radially down (as in towards the planet you're oribiting) and the blue half up, as simple as that.