TheSandDuna

I just wanted to post a recent mission I completed in the game, originally trying to simulate as best I could a real mission to Mars and how it might work with Kerbals from Kerbin to Duna. As I went along I made some decisions to stray from it being too realistic, but I feel like I have done a pretty decent job. If anybody is stuck trying to get to Duna and back, hopefully this will help them get some ideas to improve their approach. If anyone has questions about my design or how something works, I'd be happy to answer. All the images are on imgur, and the descriptions provide a lot of good detail into what is pictured and what I was thinking as I was playing. Follow the link to the gallery, and let me know what you think (its kind of huge at 97 images): http://imgur.com/gallery/QlHuU/new Some of my highlights:

I don't have a problem with it at all, without a contract it can help you because you sometimes make mistakes in staging that need to be fixed on the go. In reality things can be done in different orders too, so no problem. With contracts, the reason for the activation is not specified. If the contract said to activate a "new" part and expend all the fuel to verify that this part works as advertised, then you know what is being asked by the contract, and shouldn't be moving stuff around. But nothing is KSP says that level of detail. It could be that the contract is just to prove that the engine/part CAN be activated at a certain height and speed, in which case using it as a launch vehicle for its own test would be just fine. At least that's how I justify it to myself.

I think it would be nice if the nosecones and possibly fairings could actually help reduce drag, rather than add weight and drag as they currently do. I'm sure that's in the cards eventually or else they wouldn't have created the nosecones in the first place. The other aspect I noticed is that I can pretty much land anything with enough parachutes on Kerbin because of the re-entry atmosphere will slow me down. Even at ridiculously deadly angles and from straight up scary heights there is no penalty and you can land crafts right now. They could work on that.

I've tried something similar with regular rovers on the mun, ended up more like a space train than anything. Lots of disastrous train wrecks tho...

Still in progress, but I have managed to put orbiters around 4 moons already: Mun: Minmus: Ike: Gilly (With a landing since its basically just an asteroid): To be continued...

Bring enough fuel for a return. Lost a lotta good Kerbals on missions with not enough to get me to a destination and back.

Huh. Interesting. Thanks for the responses, I learned something new today.

Does anybody know (I'm assuming somebody does and I'm probably just an idiot) what the little buttons that look like a play button (such as you might find on a remote control) are for when you right click on the fuel tanks? When you click them they change to look like a red circle with a line through it, but it has no effect on my fuel, even when docked. I have successfully docked and transferred fuel by alt+right clicking, but what are those buttons for?

This post isn't necessarily physics it could be math or science or astronomy or anything, but this game is a great way to see physics and classical mechanics at work. I have spent plenty of time learning orbital mechanics for optimal spacefaring maneuvers, like using the vis-viva equation to verify orbital velocity or calculate my delta-v for good launches on career mode without mods (which gets very difficult for larger craft). What else do you guys like to verify about physics or even prove how the game is different from physics in the real world?

I can see why people dislike this method, however I think it is absolutely brilliant by SpaceX. First of all the entire point of a first stage is to get the payload UP, and overcome gravity, so the boosters that would land back at the launch site (or at some other location) would be traveling mostly vertically and only need enough fuel to combat descent. Which brings up another point that the landing site could be separate from the launch site, a predetermined location that would require less fuel to land at. All the booster would have to do is counter its own weight and minor horizontal forces. So by saving a small percentage of the takeoff fuel from the first stage in order to save a booster for multiple flights, this is a pure genius move. The rest of the rocket can be designed knowing that there is some extra weight for this purpose.

That launch window issue is a real problem. Trying to test different variants of vehicles or make minor tweaks takes so long because you have to time warp every damn time. Probably an issue with every interplanetary mission but I have only tried Duna and Eve. But I find that the Mun is one of the most annoying surfaces to land on, just because large craft still have decent weight on its surface but you cannot counter with chutes, so I inevitably make my lunar landers too large and burn too late and crash. Even though I have built plenty of successful interplanetary vehicles landing on the Mun is always a hassle.

If you're really far away from the ship, hover over it (may have to right click) to gauge how quickly it is getting away or coming toward you. If you are close by put your camera directly at the Kerbal's back and try to keep the ship stationary on your screen. Basically if the ship is moving left to right in front of your Kerbal use 'd' to jetpack right as well, matching its speed. Then just cautiously apply the 'w' and 's' keys to arrive back at your ship. Obviously this goes without saying but make sure you press 'r' to turn on the jetpack. Hope that helps...

Since photons are a form of energy, when that energy is more than what is required for electrons to jump into the conduction band and start flowing (as is the case in PN juntion solar cells), the energy is wasted for current generation purposes. Having too much energy applied all at once will cause that photon to be lost as heat mainly. So even though you have shielded the PV panel from the heat, applying too much high frequency (and thus high energy) light will overheat your cell by itself. At least that is what my knowledge of solar cells would lead me to believe. But like K^2 and VirtualCLD said, an ideal cell is basically a diode capable of passing a constant current, so if you were able to cool your solar cell you would reach a maximum current of Isc by connecting the terminals or a maximum voltage Voc by simply applying light. A good site for studying PV cells is this one.

I think they are already planning to incorporate money, so you could just set a hard date for yourself and play as if there was an apocalypse on that date and play away. That is what many of the challenges on the forums here are for, in the absence of built in missions. But I do agree being able to set goals for specific missions or overall for yourself would be a great aspect to build into the game, it will be interesting to see how much freedom of choice we have with missions when they are implemented.

It would be much appreciated if the way science was collected was changed. Too much emphasis on sending Kerbals and returning to Kerbin. This wasn't a problem at first in career because almost every mission gets some science. But once I started building a Mun base, science was hard to come by. Even though I was successful in landing multiple ships in the same vicinity, I basically wasted my time because I already gathered science from that site and thus even though I have gained experience in landing and put many science gathering parts and Kerbonauts on the moon, my overall science is the same as if I had landed an unmanned probe 1 time. I also wish unmanned probes like orbiters and something like a Voyager would give more science since they are so valuable to real life science, and I think those kinds of vehicles provide very meaningful science, more than the current version of KSP gives credit for.

I feel your pain. That is actually the worst feeling after having deliberately quicksaved so that you can avoid redoing the entire mission, and then all that work and forethought to save goes away with a quick press of F5. Done it myself too many times.

Interesting I did not know that those stats were already tracked. Even though it does not change the rocket engineering part of the game, I think there are other reasons people enjoy playing KSP. One big reason is because it is nice to know you are improving as a player, and so tracking yourself and possibly comparing yourself to other players is fun, at least it is when I check out what I have done compared to other people on the forums here. So I see tracking good flights/missions as adding something to the game. I also think that people are drawn to KSP because of the hilarious reactions of the Kerbals. The game wouldn't be the same without their reactions in the cockpit or their clumsy low-gravity stumbling. A HOF would be a way to please people who just launch virtual rockets recreationally, and pick their favorite Kerbal for tougher missions a lot like other videogames let you create a character. But who knows, maybe its already underway...

I haven't used MechJeb butI just started using Engineer Redux, very helpful tools but I think it is good to know where those numbers are coming from before you accept them, so I like to do some calculations by hand if I can. OK, those answers make sense. But other than watching Scott Manley videos all day, is there any way to decide on a good method for achieving orbit with minimal delta-v losses? It seems possible to just boost vertically straight up to your desired altitude then boost horizontally to a good speed, but that is obviously not as efficient as turning your vehicle until it hits that sweet spot (2277 horizontally) during the ascent. Usually I just fire at max thrust until I hit 15-20km, then shift over to a 45 degree angle until my apoapsis is around 75km. Then shut down the engines until I am near the edge of the atmosphere and boost horizontally based on my own judgements until I get into orbit. Are there any more exact ways of doing it? Since each vehicle has a different TWR each will have its own optimal maneuvers, I just want to know where to look for some advice to see if I can make interplanetary trips as lightweight as possible.

So I have a question regarding the delta-v equations that are all important to this game. I know a few things about orbital velocities, but what I do not understand is why a certain delta-v in the atmosphere is different than delta-v in a vacuum. For example, to reach a circular orbit around Kerbin at 80km, you can use the vis-viva equation to find the orbital velocity--> v=sqrt(6.67e-11*5.29e22*(1/680000))=2277m/s. Makes sense, and when I reach that orbit I do get that speed. But delta v is change in velocity so in a vacuum you could accelerate from 0 m/s to 2277 m/s with a delta-v of 2277 m/s. But from Kerbin, you need a delta-v of 4550 m/s to achieve this. Other than drag, what causes this discrepancy, and is there a good (easy) way to calculate the delta-v from the surface of a planet to orbit on planets other than Kerbin? I'm sure this has been discussed before but any explanation would be great.

Im not sure if this has already been proposed, I didn't put much time into looking for a thread. But I think there should definitely be a building or list of famous kerbonauts for their outstanding bravery in missions. Or at least give them a medal for reaching milestones like first landing, first return trip, farthest distance travelled, most time in space, etc. To distuguish the grizzly vets from the knock-kneed rookies. I would even be fine with a manually populated list, so long as the kerbals get the credit they deserve. Then you can send your favorite kerbals on the most dangerous missions and come back (or don't) a hero.