creator1629

actually the difference between these 2 measurements comes from the fact that the tools use slightly different ways to calculate the ideal angle. when i first started to use these tools as well, i experienced similar differences, sometimes up to 10 degrees difference for targets like moho. so i experimented and and tried using both values, and surprisingly they were both able to get me an intercept with the target planet (of course mid course correction burns were necessary, but not a lot). in the end, what i do usually though, is use ksp.olex.biz for the phase angle, while i use the protractor mod to determine the ideal ejection angle

@ impulsespacecenter: good for you man, yes that is the proper attitude to have. don't let anyone tell you how to play or enjoy your game. as for your question, i have played around with it before myself, i like using the ships torque to adjust my pitch, yaw, and roll, while saving the rcs for translational movements and docking. i had a ship with 2 probe cores each having a rotational value or torque of 0.5, so 1 in total, and the ship was 20 metric tons in weight. i could move it but it was extremely slow, so i had to start moving/aiming my ship 2 minutes before i hit my maneuver node. im guessing a better ratio would be 1 unit of torque for every 10 metric tons of ship, or better than that, though i still have to test it out to make sure, in the end it all depends on how slow is too slow for you. i would recommend checking out the command pod parts list to see how much torque each part gives and how much it weighs to see how it affects your ratio (the cupola pod has 30 torque i believe). also when adding more pods to your ship don't forget to check your thrust to weight ratio because too many pods will add up in weight.

i notice landing gear on your craft, if you do plan on landing on gilly, i suggest you be very careful, its gravity is so low that if you land even with a few meters per second too much speed, you will end up quite literally bouncing off its surface. i know on my first manual landing there i bounced 3-4 times before finally coming to a stop. remember the quicksave

oh ok, wow 2000 delta v is a lot. youre right, ill give it a go at 120 km and see if that is enough to stop me, thats what quick save is for. i agree, better a few extra orbits than a fiery crash

i am currently planning several missions to get to the moons of jool, and for this i will first get into an orbit around jool then make my way to each moon from there. what im currently trying to compute is how much delta v i will need to get into each moons orbit. but if i use aerobraking to get captured into an orbit around jool first i will save a bit of delta v, but my question is approximately how much will i save? so that i can factor that in to my current ship design. also what is the ideal altitude to areobrake around jool without crashing into it, 100 km, 110km, 120 km?

this sounds interesting, please do tell

oh ok thanks a lot for the info guys. i have been able to design a 22 metric ton lander + rover, with 2956 m/s delta v, it has a kerbin TWR of 1.8, and is equipped with 4 XL parachutes, that should get me to any of the celestial bodies in the system. next step, design the tug to get this thing into the targets orbit

yeah i have made many customized landers for different targets and i figured i would challenge myself by making a lander that could land on anything, then sending a whole bunch of them en masse around the solar system. for eve, that TWR requirement of 1.7, can that be offset by adding more parachutes?

oh yes tavert, thanks, thats exactly what i meant. its just a probe rover im landing, and its not meant to come back at all. so im guessing tylo is the target with the highest gravity among the celestial bodies without an atmosphere?

oh sorry i should clarify, i just want to land on the target i dont need it to get back into orbit, as all im doing is depositing a small rover. cuz i think that 12,000 figure is for getting back into orbit around eve isn't it? landing there shouldn't require too much as it has a thick atmosphere and i can attach a few parachutes

hello, i was planning on designing a lander that could be used on all the planets and moons (except for jool of course) and was wondering what is the most delta v i would need for a landing? most moons have low gravity so that isn't generally going to be a problem, and for planets with stronger gravity they usually have an atmosphere which helps with aerobraking and parachutes. but the places with relatively strong gravity but without an atmosphere might be a challenge, so my question is, theoretically what is the most delta v i would need for a landing assuming i already have a stable orbit around my target?

that makes sense, ill base it off those values then, and adjust as needed. ill just experiment off of kerbins orbit before i commit to any long term interplanetary voyages. thanks again chris, you have been very helpful. (i wont refer to you by your full handle because it feels like i am offending you hahaha)

oh hey thanks chris, thats actually good advice, i had not considered the actual torque to weight ratio. yeah the cupola pod is the heaviest one. do you happen to know what a good torque value per metric ton ratio will give decent maneuverability? i want to measure the total weight of my ship, then add probe cores till i get the desired amount of torque.

i noticed that the cupola pod has the highest torque value. so i was wondering, if i put several of these pods on my interplanetary ship, does the torque value add up? i would like to be able to change my pitch and yaw angles without having to rely too much on my rcs thrusters and save the monoprop fuel for translational maneuvers during docking. also when i want to use my asas to hold my heading without needing to have the rcs active for those long 20-30 minute burns, since that uses up monoprop fuel like crazy.

you could also modify the cfg file so that instead of an absurd amount of xenon in the tank, you could give the ion engine an absurdly high isp

i was looking at a topographic map of kerbin, and i was interested in the north and south pole because i was looking for a place to test my rocket powered rovers for a land speed record. on the map they seem relatively flat but i have never been to either so i dont know. are they very flat or do they have a lot of bumps here and there? i was hoping for a large area like the runway at KSC

ok so basically when you are attempting to dock there is a part where you are using your main engines to approach your target and when you get close enough you stop using your main engines and use primarily your rcs to orient as well as move your ship. at 1000 meters you should still be using your main engine, by the time you get to within 100 meters or so that is when you start using rcs. note that this value is just an approximation an can be changed depending on the circumstances. at 1000 meters you will want to burn towards your target as indicated by the marker on your navball, note the relative speed of your craft to the target which should be displayed above your navball. this speed is what you have to control, for example if your target is 10,000 m away and you are moving at 100 m/s toward your target, thats fine, but if you are only 1000 m away then you would close that gap in 10 seconds which is clearly way too fast. so here is the order, burn towards the target, close the gap a bit, then turn your ship retrograde and burn again to kill the speed, the closer you can get to 0 m/s relative velocity the better. then point at the target and burn once again noting not to let it get too fast, then burn retrograde again to kill the speed. so its burn towards then burn away (rinse and repeat, but each time the speed of approach gets slower as you get closer) until finally you get within 100 m or so. at this point you will want to switch to pure rcs. remember to get familiar with the controls, and to make it easier, push the "v" button till you get the chase camera. note that the WASD as well as the Q and E keys will control your pitch, yaw, and roll, while the translational movements are controlled with IJKL (as in shifting your ship up down left and right without changing orientation). the H key moves you forward while the N key moves you back, which makes it easier to slow down now since you dont have to turn your whole ship around to slow down, just hold the N key. now with these controls you inch your way towards your target. remember to always try to kill your relative velocity so you dont fly off too far, for example for every shift to the right, tap left, for every shift up, tap down. its all about gradual controlled movements, and rotate the camera often to confirm your orientation especially when you get close. you can also use the "[" and "]" keys to switch to your target vessel and turn it so its docking port faces your other ship to make the approach easier.

what specific problem are you having, is it getting a rendezvous between the 2 ships? or is it the docking procedure itself? how close are you able to get before you have problems, within 1000m? 100m? or is it a problem that happens within the last few meters?

oh wow i didn't know about that conic patch draw mode thing. will definitely give that a try, thanks for the info guys

around kerbin i like having equatorial 0 degree inclination orbits, and i was wondering how to do this when intercepting other planets. whenever i get a planetary intercept the inclination degree seems to vary significantly and it rarely ever is an equatorial orbit. i have done burns to correct my orbit after i get my planetary intercept, but this always consumes way too much fuel, and i was wondering if there was a way to determine if a planetary intercept would be the one i want before i hit it, or at least is close enough so that when i do a correction burn it doesn't use so much fuel

well what i have done is modify the rover cfg file so that instead of the wheel failing when it hits 60 m/s it only fails at 300 m/s which gives me a nice margin seeing as to how my rover isnt stable on uneven terrain above 150 m/s. another problem is that at high speeds, instead of the wheels failing they just get detached from the girder holding them to the main body, i have somewhat rectified this by adding struts between the wheels and the girder segment, but im still looking for ways to increase the stability further at high speeds

for me an accomplished ksp player would be someone who has done the following 1. used a rocket to create a nearly circular orbit around kerbin 2. landed and returned from the mun 3. landed and returned from any other planet 4. docked any 2 things in space manually 5. created a working SSTO spaceplane other things, like manned vs unmanned ships, space stations, planetary bases...etc for me are more advanced versions of the skills you acquire doing the things i listed and is usually just a matter of time and practice. well this is just my opinion of an accomplished player anyway

oh ok cool. what do you mean by outrigger?

yeah maybe cruising at 100 m/s on the mun and have it be stable is asking a bit much. maybe something along the lines of 50-60 m/s would be better. instead of 4 nuclear engines on each corner how about just one in the center angled up 10 degrees with the rover frame built around it? with the newly released rover wheels having 30 m/s top speed, i would only need a little extra throttle to hit the 50-60 mark thus conserving fuel. what do you think?

awesome, that was one of the things i was really looking forward to, it seemed strange to have large structures attach to such tiny docking ports before. though i wish they had added a large version of the Rockomax Hubmax Multi-Point Connector to accommodate the new large docking port