creator1629

has anyone tried using the new large docking port? im wondering if it is more stable and has less "wobble" than its smaller counterpart. im curious if its a valid replacement for the double or triple docking port set ups people use now to increase stability on their space staions

@EndlessWaves: oh hey thanks, yeah that would be very useful especially if i have to perform an emergency braking maneuver @HoY: oh hey yeah i had never thought of using a nuclear engine to propel my rover, but its high isp means i can run longer than with other engines. true, solar powered rover wheels are technically more efficient but what im really looking for is speed. you mentioned a pair of ion engines to produce the downforce, but considering the very low gravity of the moon, are 2 ion engines enough to get the grip you need for speed?

Thanks for the info guys, i had no idea a kerbal could repack parachutes, that is definitely good to know. Unfortunately as HoY said they don't really work if you are on the ground already, i learned that the hard way when i deployed them and they just disappeared. I guess i should just anticipate my goal and start applying the brakes early. Oh great to know HoY, thanks, i hadn't considered increasing the speed tolerance of the wheels that way. that should let me experiment with several more designs. the last problem is the downforce, im thinking of making a version for the mun by replacing the jet engine with a rocket engine. and since the mun has much lower gravity, the downforce is even more important. the lack of an atmosphere here will make using wings obsolete though

hello, i am trying to design a jet powered rover for the purpose of... well... just going fast really and i had some questions regarding how to go about it 1. the actual rover wheels seem to suffer failure after exceeding certain speeds, which of course causes a major crash, is the only way around this, using the landing gear as wheels instead of the actual rover wheels? 2. i want to somehow generate downforce to keep my wheels stuck to the ground much in the same way that race cars do, but the wings in the game only generate upward lift. is there another option, like angling my main jet engine pointing down a few degrees to press the craft to the ground while driving fast. or having secondary auxiliary engines on the rover pointing straight down to generate the downforce? 3. braking at high speeds is a bit slow when using the conventional braking systems. im looking for other options around this, but the only ideas i have come up with are either having a secondary engine facing front which i can trigger with an action group, or using parachutes, but the problem is that they aren't reusable. do you guys have any other ideas?

thanks guys these tips have been very helpful. what im concerned about is the low gravity of the mun which means a small bump on kerbin wont knock you up very high but on the mun it might just be enough to flip you over. also another concern i have is that i am sending many unmanned rovers to multiple destinations, and so while a a manned rover can just have the kerbal come out and fix the tire if it gets damaged, an unmanned rover does not have that option, and multiple tire failure crash could effectively put it out of commission

cool thanks for the info guys. what is the best way to attach more RAM intakes into a plane? besides attaching more fuel tanks on the wings i mean which seems to add too much weight. are bicouplers the way to go to get the 2 RAM intake per engine ratio?

hello, i have tried many rover designs on the moon, but the problem is when achieving max speeds, hitting a small bump or irregularity will cause it to flip or bounce and crash. i was wondering if you guys had any design tips that would let me build a rover capable of maintaining high speeds. i have tried to apply general principles such as making a wide rover, keeping it relatively flat, making it have a low center of gravity, also i have tried adding girders sticking out the front/back/sides to prevent it rolling over. any ideas you guys may have, or even already built yourselves? basically id like a design where i can just hold down the forward button and not worry about it too much

hello, i am designing my first SSTO spaceplane and had a few questions about using the turbo jet engine - when i look at the amount of air i have under resources, there is just one number, does that mean that the plane gathers air from all intakes into one giant air "pool", and that it doesn't really matter where i place them? like they don't have to necessarily be right infront of the engine? - when a turbo jet engine says it has a flameout threshold of 0.10, does that mean that on a plane with 2 turbo jet engines they will both flameout when the air level drops below 0.20? - under the description for an intake, like for example the RAM intake it has a value that says intake air 0.2/0.2 what do the first and second values correspond to exactly? - i notice a lot of people post their spaceplane pictures and they almost always have the RAM intakes, and i was wondering why that is, because comparing the descriptions to the circular air intake it seems they are identical, is there some other statistic im missing?

i have a question, once you are in mohos orbit, how much delta v does it take to get back into kerbins orbit. i have around 2200 m/s of delta v left and im wondering if i can make a go of it or if i should send a refueling tanker

im comparing the phase angles the protractor mod gives to the phase angles recommended via ksp.olex.biz/mechjeb and i notice that they seem to be different by more than 10 degrees, does anyone know what accounts for this difference?

hey RoboRay, i installed the protractor mod, and it works great. but i do have a question, when going to moho which has a somewhat elliptical orbit i notice that the protractor doesn't seem to compensate for it and my maneuver seems way off the mark. how do you get around this, do you wait for the next launch window when moho isn't in a particularly "elliptical" point in its orbit?

yeah i had that same problem too, once the orbit becomes too elliptical the time to get back to the periapsis can take days, as a result you may miss your launch window, so i try to estimate and start my kicks several degrees before the actual launch window, though this can have a large margin of error. hey i have a question, i have been using mechjeb to determine the planetary phase angles but as to the ejection angle i have been generally eyeballing it. which mod do you guys use and is the best/has the most complete information when determining planetary intercepts?

awesome this all makes a lot more sense to me now, thanks for the info guys. regarding an extended burn of several minutes using a maneuver node, a portion of it is done prior to the actual node and a portion is done after it has passed. my question is regarding which way you point your craft during the burn, say for example the maneuver requires a prograde burn, before you hit the node, the maneuver node marker is a little ways off the actual prograde direction, then when you hit the node, the marker and the prograde direction are one and the same, then after the node they start to separate again. so during the whole burn process, do you follow the marker as it moves along, or keep the direction fixed on the prograde marker knowing its a prograde burn?

i have a question regarding periapsis kicks. i have been using the website ksp.olex.biz to determine the ideal phase angle and ejection angle to rendezvous with a planet. but the ejection angle seems to be based on a rather circular orbit, how is this factor affected by my orbit being very elliptical as a result of multiple periapsis kicks?

oh wow that looks cool, ill definitely give that a shot, thanks for the info guys, much appreciated

i just finished docking a large fuel payload to my interplanetary ship for refueling. my problem was that it took a bit longer than usual, because to be specific, when i say large, i mean long. my payload was 2 jumbo 64 fuel tanks on top of each other, and when i was trying to align the docking ports, it always felt like i was looking down the end of a long pipe, and no matter how i tried to rotate the camera i couldn't find a point of view i was comfortable with and still see both docking ports clearly, do you guys have any general solutions to this problem? i really wish there was a camera from the point of view of the docking port, that would be great

cool thanks guys this has been really helpful info. i was wondering, do you guys have a rough rule of thumb on how to many periapsis kicks you do for a certain amount of delta v needed? like say for example 1 kick per 1000 delta v or something like that. not an absolute rule but just as a general reference guide

thanks francesco. yeah my purpose is for the interplanetary ship to carry a small lander to the target, drop it off to land, have it take off and re-dock with the interplanetary ship, and then return to the orbit of kerbin. when you say a series of periapsis kicks, do you mean i do a short burn at the periapsis, stop, let the ship complete the orbit until it reaches the periapsis again, do another burn, stop complete another orbit... in a sequence like that?

wow thanks a lot for all the info guys, this is really helping me develop my interplanetary ship. i have another question though, a lot of people seem to mention that a ship with a TWR of 0.4-0.5 or higher is a good way to go about it, but what if the ship has a lower TWR like 0.1 or 0.2 but the majority of the weight is due to fuel rather than other equipment, does that fact help balance it out in the end? also which destination in the solar system is the most fuel/delta v intensive, because if i design my ship to be able to go there and return, i will know it can go anywhere

hey Temstar i have also had the same problem, been trying to get to moho but the delta v requirement to get captured by moho is usually around 4500 m/s and as a result of that massive burn i don't have enough fuel to bring jebediah back home. may i ask what ship design you're using? how many atomic engines and how much fuel you bring?

oh ok thanks for that. i had never thought about it that way, yeah you do lose the fuel weight when doing a burn so a 3/7 rule would make a lot of sense. but how do you break your burns into 2 parts? like when trying to get an intercept with moho, how do i go about splitting the burn, do i do one burn to bring my orbit close to mohos orbit then a second one to actually make contact? or is there another technique?

what rover controls are you using, is it the default WASD? because i had a similar problem until i changed the default rover controls to IJKL

hello, im fairly new at this game and was wondering regarding interplanetary travel. it tends to require a lot of delta v so i decided to use the atomic engine which has a high isp and is therefore very fuel efficient. what im wondering though is what is the right ratio of atomic engines to fuel? i tried a set up of 1 jumbo 64 fuel tank, a tricoupler and 3 atomic engines, but when doing maneuvers that require more than a thousand delta v, it seems to take forever and by the time im finished, i seem to be a bit far from where the maneuver node started so the accuracy seems to suffer. i also tried a set up of 7 FL-T800 tanks each with its own atomic engine, but when going all the way to moho i found i didn't have enough fuel to return to kerbin. i guess my question is what is the ideal ratio of atomic engines to amount of fuel carried to maximize efficacy. or rather, what do you guys use on your interplanetary ships?