Jump to content

SaturnV

Members
  • Posts

    278
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SaturnV

  1. In the description, the com-16 has 0.4(second) interval, 0.8 thoughput; DTS-M1 has 0.3 interval, 0.6 thoughput; 88-88 with 0.2 interval and 0.4 thoughput. With some test I found All type of antenna can only transfer up to 2Mb per tick. So 10Mb goo data need 5 tick, 25Mb SC-9001 data need 13 tick. The electricity on description panel is energy needed per tick. For DTS-M1, 25Mb data = 13 tick = 13*15 = 195E, while com-16 needs only 130E. Interval is the delay between two tick, DTS-M1 needs 13*0.3 = 3.9 seconds, com-16 needs 13*0.4 = 5.2 seconds So IMO, the throughput should be 2Mb/0.4 = 5Mb/s for com-16, 6.67Mb/s for DTS-M1, 10Mb/s for 88-88. Thus I can't understand what the 0.8/0.6/0.4 thing stands for.
  2. Read the description then you know that the goo thing is recycled from trash pile
  3. I tested it, seems useless. Maybe it's a placeholder
  4. When you try to make a new report the game says 'overwrite' So how the pod store those reports? Only different ones or only the last one? The 'review report' can only show one, but the final result seems contains overwritten reports. I hope there are someway to check all reports and samples you have...of course a computer! Limited storage size & analysis progress is possible to add
  5. READ the post. You even didn't watch the first image? I feel sorry for you eyesight
  6. First you need to know, the direction of the vehicle is determined by the control module For instance, the OKTO2, the direction with white text OKTO2 is the UP side. The rest is shown on the image above. If you put a OKTO2 on a rover horizontally, push 'pitch up' button (my key mapping may be different from yours), all four wheel move forward (green arrow) If you put wheels like the right one, push 'pitch up' will lead him to right, I don't know why. Another test: Let's do a simple rover Put to ground and try to move left, wheels on the front act different from those on the another end, but you can see it's a moving-left shape. Let's rotate wheels a little, shift+rotate 8 times, it's 40 degrees (lesser than 45) OK, still good. What about 2 more rotate, then it's 50 degrees (greater than 45) Weird thing happened, what's more, your wheels try to move to opposite side.
  7. But thrust vectoring is way more effective than RCS/winglet/reaction wheel for heavy rocket, if you can handle the wobble
  8. My full stock (except MJ thing) station, with control center, fuel supply, living quarters, science module, docking bridge and 4 workers (Tadple-22D) 365 parts (including workers), 285t in total (196t fuel)
  9. Attach some winglet to increase the heat transfer area, that helps
  10. Hey guys thanks for the tip! I did more tests, finally found the key point: right after decoupling, the drone‘s controller is mostly the root part which in my situation is a dock port, that's why I thought it's related to the root part. After manually change the control to the probecore, the direction is then what I expected. I hope there's a way to set the ‘default‘ controller of a sat/drone/rover, then it's no need to set it every time you release one
  11. I was trying to sent some worker ship to my station, however when I‘m ready to dock I found my worker not behave as I expected: when I push H key to translation forward, it just move backwards. After some experiments I can tell the ‘front‘ is related to the root part of a vehicle if the root part is a docking port or some vertical connection part, but if it's a fuel tank and you attached it around your lifter, I didn't found the relationship of the front and the direction of the root part. So, can anybody explain the ‘front‘ mechanism to me? I also need some advice for making workers and rovers move as expected.
  12. Dirt sample from Duna/Mün, more likely
  13. Jeb, Bill and Bob are now in LKO station, safely. So other 'normal' kerbonaut are not so safe when they're in mission, especially when I'm short of delta V and trying to cut anything that is not 'necessary', such as parachute...
  14. I suppose he means the appearance? It's all empty in that thing, its shell is also very thin and no visible moving unit, it doesn't seem to provide or provide enough torque Since every ship needs at least one control unit, manned or unmanned, they are all SAS-equipped, I can't think out the use of SAS-equipped reaction wheel or stabilizer
  15. Inline Reaction Wheel and Inline Advanced Stabilizer in game have exactly the same torque, same radial size, same max temp, same impact tolerance and same electric consuming rate, both SAS-equipped. While Inline Reaction Wheel cost like half of IAS (600 to 1100), and it's 40% lighter than IAS! Is there ANY reason choosing IAS instead of IRW? Another question, why big fuel tank is SO expensive while they have the same efficiency(dry/full mass ratio) Say, X200-16 is 1/4 of a Jumbo-64 tank tank_______cost______fuel____dry/full ratio_____cost/fuel ratio X200-16____1800____1600_____1/9____________1.125 Jumbo-64___12500___6400_____1/9____________1.953 ??!!!
  16. I like this idea. Imagine if we can repair slightly broken engine with a chief rocket engineer, or we can re-attach RCS thrusters with a experienced mechanic!
  17. Sub-assembly Loader, mining and FAR-like air drag improvement is on the go, then I think some mechanical arm/piston/attachment system thing is a MUST to make complicated and functional structures (gates, robotic arm, etc) Nothing else I can think up is as important as this
  18. Fly box. Dare you say the drag system currently is reasonable?
  19. Well, I‘ll got lesser than 0.88 FPS with such monster
  20. Hey guys, good discussion here K^2 's derivation is still too complicated for me, so I did some numeric simulation, the result shows that stick to terminal velocity is practically optimal Since I only care the ascend, profiles are compared with delta V used by resistance when they hit the same altitude, the less unnecessary consumption by resistance, the better a profile is. This way we can avoid simulating the whole journey since we can tell which is better earlier. Simulation parameters 0.001 // step 1ms 999 // record every 1 second(1000ms) 0 // stop after fuel runs out 0 // start altitude 0m 10000 // stop if hit altitude 10km 5.29158E22 // kerbin mass, kg 600000 // kerbin radius, m 5000 // kerbin scale height, m 1.223 // kerbin sea level atmosphere density, kg/m^3 0.2 // rocket drag coefficient. cross-section area is not included now, because currently the area is calculated by 0.008*mass 15E3 // start mass, kg (mainsail 6t + X200-16 9t) 7E3 // dry mass, kg 544 // fuel flow rate, kg/s (sea level, consider it's constant while it's not, but I only concern the low altitude optimization, so let's make it simple) 1500E3 // thrust, N Flight report: Ascend 0, thrust is always maximized Time: 14.7060 s Max. Height: 5434.0120 m // max height this rocket hit Max. Velocity: 661.8994 m/s Max. Thrust Acceleration: 214.2710 m/s^2 Max. Drag Acceleration: 144.5729 m/s^2 Max. Net Acceleration: 90.6002 m/s^2 Start ÃŽâ€v:2101.4891m/s ÃŽâ€v Left(5434 m): 0.0000m/s ÃŽâ€v used by resi.(5434 m): 1439.5897m/s // delta v used by gravity and air drag Fuel Left:0.0000kg(0.000%) Ascend 1, thrust controlled to make velocity close to terminal velocity by a simple degeneration controller (proportional factor only) Time: 63.9200 s Max. Height: 10000.0295 m Max. Velocity: 267.8369 m/s Max. Thrust Acceleration: 103.7592 m/s^2 Max. Drag Acceleration: 15.3129 m/s^2 Max. Net Acceleration: 90.6002 m/s^2 Start ÃŽâ€v:2101.4891m/s ÃŽâ€v Left(10000 m): 599.5070m/s ÃŽâ€v used by resi.(10000 m): 1234.1452m/s Fuel Left:1700.0723kg(21.251%) Ascend 2, thrust controlled to make velocity close to terminal velocity by a advanced prediction module controller Time: 64.1270 s Max. Height: 10000.1547 m Max. Velocity: 267.7240 m/s Max. Thrust Acceleration: 103.7592 m/s^2 Max. Drag Acceleration: 9.8077 m/s^2 Max. Net Acceleration: 90.6002 m/s^2 Start ÃŽâ€v:2101.4891m/s ÃŽâ€v Left(10000 m): 600.1021m/s ÃŽâ€v used by resi.(10000 m): 1233.6630m/s Fuel Left:1701.9503kg(21.274%) Unnecessary delta V consumption: Ascend 0: 1439.5897m/s Ascend 1: 1234.1452m/s Ascend 2: 1233.6630m/s You must noticed that if you simply max your thrust all the way, you even can not make it to 10km, however small fluctuation won't make a difference, if you get to terminal speed close enough high performance is achieved. Here I only shows you 3 picture, but I also tried the profile of close-to-terminal-velocity-minus-10, close-to-terminal-velocity-plus-10, high-twr-ascend, low-twr-ascend and so on, result is, as expected, the terminal velocity ascend is always the best.
  21. Those data is taken from my game log. Main assembly loading time not included (3.24 seconds) Obviously, texture loading hurts, anyway to improve that?
  22. Your station is big, but I can see only 5 Jumbo-64 tanks, and many small ones. Watch mine Half done for the current step. It can provide 6 Jumbo-64 tanks per fuel bridge, fully extendable. 2 bridge means 12 tanks, 3 means 18, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...