donfede

While Monty's pushing ahead exploring ion craft that don't require solar panels , my head is still spinning with 'optimal solar panel layout'. I'm putting out this post to help collect my ideas (which I hope to shape a bit more; constructive input is welcome). # Goals The goal of optimal solar panel arrangement is to provide maximum power to ion engines, ideally with the least amount of solar panels (either in part-count, or in mass). The best case scenario is where ion engines can run at maximum throttle all the time. # Terminology (helping us think and talk in common terms) http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Terminology#Ship_Orientation FIXME: add pic w/ terms # Extreme Ion solar panel designs tri arrangement (Monty's Hades 1 , Mike's Xenon Impulse) 2x T arrangement (bi arrangement?), with some perpendicular (K08ia, jumpyed's Snail Ion) snow-flake arrangement (Jasonden_craft FIXME: get name) star arrangement (Lump_craft FIXME: get name) mono perpendicular plane MPP (metaphor_craft FIXME: get name) box ( jumpyed's Box craft ) # Variables and constraints There are two main variables/constraints we have to work with. 1) Foremost is the thrust-vector, which is fixed by the intended craft direction. The related variable is the craft ability to rotate about the thrust-vector (ex: using the Q and E keys). I found with my long craft and 2x T design (with a gap), that I could significantly improve electricity generation by rotating to certain positions. 2) We have the additional variable of solar panel arrays rotating around their mounts (except for the OX-STAT panels). # Observations Most Extreme Ion craft have a plane of solar panels perpendicular to the thrust-vector. This arrangement works best when the sun is front or aft of the craft. The worst scenario for these craft is when the sun is perpendicular to the thrust-vector (port, starboard, nadir, or zenith). Simplifying possible sun arrangements, the third scenario is when the sun is positioned somewhere in-between the two extremes. metaphor's Ike lander ion craft flip-flops these extremes, as its solar panel plane is inline with the thrust vector. Jasonden's solar panel layout can switch between a close approximation to a snow-flake, and a plane (or pair of planes). The tri arrangement, especially as configured by Mike, appears to be capable of the densest solar panel coverage. # Example Craft Below is an ordered listing of craft types in various sun arrangements. # tri, sun front/aft http://i.imgur.com/J3sawcW.jpg http://i.imgur.com/tggwOns.jpg # tri, sun perpendicular to thrust http://i.imgur.com/35ocfRF.jpg # tri, sun in-between http://i.imgur.com/0wSClC8.png http://i.imgur.com/p9PQGOS.png http://i.imgur.com/uVjGP2l.jpg http://i.imgur.com/gddy4AM.png # note shadow on 1/3 of plane # 2x T (bi), sun front/aft http://i.imgur.com/7BIKn4v.png http://i.imgur.com/9fRjBcl.png http://i.imgur.com/Uiwo4Fk.png # 2x T (bi), sun perpendicular to thrust http://i.imgur.com/8ZKt03q.png http://i.imgur.com/PscVcnM.png # 2x T (bi), sun in-between http://i.imgur.com/KUqToe4.png http://i.imgur.com/5fnJAJc.png # snow-flake, sun front/aft http://i.imgur.com/MKRN9Fs.png http://i.imgur.com/uVL1b6d.png # snow-flake, sun perpendicular to thrust http://i.imgur.com/pGkocsH.png http://i.imgur.com/hGSKiH8.png http://i.imgur.com/pw6QRYR.png # snow-flake, sun in-between http://i.imgur.com/1ajn7tJ.png # note power generation vs http://i.imgur.com/uVL1b6d.png http://i.imgur.com/UkJY1DJ.png # star, sun front/aft http://i.imgur.com/p2ECTLm.png # MPP, sun perpendicular to thrust http://i.imgur.com/kOPFbBM.png # MPP, sun in-between http://i.imgur.com/KqXvHT5.png # Questions - perpendicular solar panels? - 'wavy plane' instead of flat plane? - best way to mitigate shadows cast by craft? kdonfede -- "Adding K to every word..."

The Flight Results log is great for showing off mission accomplishments. Unfortunately, as of v0.23 there is an essential piece of information missing -- the craft name. Reviewing many Flight Result logs quickly becomes a mess (possibly via kerbal intent ). Including the craft name in the Flight Results log should be an easy addition, and would help the many kerbalnauts that may forget to include their craft name in any mission reports or pictures . thank you for a great program, kdonfede -- "Adding K to every word..."

In-line with Kasuha's comment, my fuel flow rates are in reference to transfer from one tank to another when docking or refueling. I don't believe I've experienced any problems with fuel shortages using fuel lines (seem to work well enough for asparagus). kdonfede -- "Adding K to every word..."

Very interesting in multiple ways Monty ! Definitely looking forward to seeing the Dark Side ion craft. best, kdonfede

How come you brought along 3x Mk1 Command Pods? I could see maybe using 2x, one for the Laythe lander and another for the ion lander. I hope it was not because of Monty's post: I checked (after the fact) with Monty per my sharing the Mk1 between landers, and he was OK with it. kdonfede

Thanks for sharing your craft file. (nudge Monty, if you can share yours ) If we're open to discussion, some items I noticed included: - no reaction wheels : were you able to maneuver the vessel when loaded with fuel? - no probe : requiring docking operations to be all performed from 1x vessel! - no rcs : surprised how the docking operations went without it - very few batteries : looks like I brought along many more batteries than others Also curious why you used the fuel lines, and the support struts? Xenon fuel appears to ignore most normal fuel paths (ex: disable crossfeed does not stop xenon from passing). I briefly tried it without the struts, and it seemed ok. Currently exploring potential flight plans and designs... we'll see if I can squeeze more out of my potato-cpu regards, kdonfede

Sorry, the lower score in the post is correct (adding the multipliers together; I accidentally had them multiplied together in the PM).

OBJECTIVES: 50 1. Reach Laythe with ships provided in scenario (50 points) 20 2. Find out why there is no communication between Kerbin and Laythe (20 points) 3. Investigate the status of Saphire station on low Laythe orbit. (50+100 points) 150 4. Search for DCMS Ark Roayl and MCLEC Anicetus. Report status of ships, rescue crews. (200+200 points) 200 200 5. Commence search and rescue operation on Laythe surface (300 points for each Kerbal) 300 300 6. Go investigate unknown signals around Jool systém, provide informations (100 points for each) 100 100 7. Provide informations on status about Gamma orbital station. (100 points) 100 8. Return all Kerbals to Kerbin/Kerbin orbit (500 for each) 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 * 500 * 500 * 500 * 500 500 500 8020 sub-total Multipliers: 1.5 1. Fleet operations – bring more than one ship to Laythe in single launch window (1.5x) 1.2 2. Leap of faith - bring KADF Valiant to Laythe and back. (1.2x) 2 3. Scavenger – finnish all objectives without launching refueling mission from Kerbin (2x) 2.5 4. Home sweet home! – return all Kerbals from Joolian system to KSC! (2.5x) “land capsule with them directly on KSC“ Max. multipliers are adding to each other. 7.2 sub-mult 57744 total Mods used: TriggerTech's Kerbal Alarm Clock Mission on v0.23 I submitted pictures and more details to the OP. PM me if interested in the link. thanks for the fun challenge, kdonfede -- "Adding K to every word..."

Fuel flow is a challenge that can quickly devolve into micromanagement and waiting. A couple 'simple' improvements to the fuel transfer flow from one tank to another (ex: liquid fuel, mono-propellant, or xenon gas) are: a) Allow for 'quick' fuel transfer by clicks on the progress bar by the user. The behaviour would mimic that of tweakables in the VAB. There already appear to be different fuel transfer rates, depending on the size of tanks being used. A jumbo-64 tank transfers fuel much more quickly than the little bit of mono-propellant in a command capsule. Unfortunately, it seems that the slower rate always trumps in the current version (0.23). As both tanks can pull or push fuel, different transfer rates could be used, depending on the initiating fuel tank. Transferring fuel from a jumbo-64 to a t100 tank might be fast, while initiating the transfer from the t100 would be slower. thanks for the excellent game, kdonfede

Nice show Mechanic. I stopped considering Laythe after 24x ant engines. How many did you end up using for that portion ?! May have to give that KSPX mod a peek (or hopefully we'll see more of those parts in 0.24 )... Curious what people have explored per solar panel arrangements? Looking briefly on the web, RL was exploring flower like arrangements for a while, but as efficiency of solar panels improve efforts in layout appear to be dwindling. My thinking has been to model a snow-flake. Key constraints we have to work with are the 1x 'axle', that ion crafts may spin about (their engine thrust). launch-on, kdonfede

Spoilage caution plz... (2nd time in this thread so far ; maybe PM the OP)

Does one need to get within 2.5km to another craft with a kerbal, or might a Probodobodyne be sufficient (ex: using the torpedoes/probes attached to cruisers)? thx for the fun in-depth challenge, kdonfede

Score: Launch Mass (LM): 100 / 40.57 = 2.465 Staging (S): conventional = 2 Kerbals (K): 1 + log_2(2) = 2 Total score: LM * S * K = 3.756 * 2 * 2 = 9.860 Mods used: TriggerTech's Kerbal Alarm Clock Craft are stock; designed and mission on v0.23 koptaMOR2u craft Clearly this was the heaviest mission, as it required an additional 1.3t of mass for the return craft. It would be interesting to see talvert's 1 kerbal craft morphed into KOR and MOR, and/or to see how a 3 kerbal craft can fare. thanks for the challenge, kdonfede -- "Adding K to every word..."

Score: Launch Mass (LM): (100 / (LM-i + LM-ii)) * 4rth_root(2) = (100 / (14.66 + 17)) * 1.189 = 3.756 Staging (S): conventional = 2 Kerbals (K): 1 + log_2(2) = 2 Total score: LM * S * K = 3.756 * 2 * 2 = 15.025 Mods used: TriggerTech's Kerbal Alarm Clock Craft are stock; designed and mission on v0.23 koptaKOR2u-i craft koptaKOR2u-ii craft Took me several tries to get both mission halves into LKO efficiently (and deciding how to distribute mass between the missions). thanks for the challenge, kdonfede -- "Adding K to every word..."

Score: Launch Mass (LM): 100 / 30.08 = 3.324 Staging (S): conventional = 2 Kerbals (K): 1 + log_2(2) = 2 Total score: LM * S * K = 3.324 * 2 * 2 = 13.298 Mods used: TriggerTech's Kerbal Alarm Clock Craft are stock; designed and mission on v0.23 koptaD2u-KMk2 craft Credit (and thanks) to talvert and his 12.6t craft, which inspired this (and the following) missions. I saw his post, and initially 'thought' I could best it, by 'using the mass graphs' I saw online recently... n00b me, had not realized that talvert was the author of those graphs (it's great to see the KSP community learning together). thanks for the challenge, kdonfede -- "Adding K to every word..."

It was almost like kerbal space soccer, and dribbling a CM. For the long segment (kerbin return), I let the capsule get up to 6km away. Most of the time I kept it 0.5 to 2km. During physics warp the CM was nice and secure. Caution, the CM can explode if it's clipping parts when time warp stops.

Score: Days to rescue: 123 Parts used: 57 Career mode unlocks used: 10 Total score: 123+57+(10x50) = 680 Mods used: none (how I missed TriggerTech's Kerbal Alarm Clock ) Craft are stock; designed and mission on v0.23 kheliosJRp craft One might shave a couple career unlocks by dropping items (noted with ? in Calcs pic), or replacing the Probodobodyne with a kerbal (I'm OK with this craft and mission). best, kdonfede -- "Adding K to every word..."

While I'm familiar with career mode and the technology tree ( http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tech_tree ), could you provide some more details on how "Each career mode unlock" scoring would occur? For example, how might a basic craft with the following components be rated: 1x LV-T30 # tree level 1 2x FL-T100 # tree level 2 1x LV-909 # tree level 3 2x TT38K # a different tree level 3 1x Jumbo-64 # tree level 8 thanks, kdonfede

(40 kerbals * 1000) / (39 / 60) = 61538 Had much more success using EAS external seats, instead of the 'bucket of kerbals' approach. The craft could probably handle 10 more kerbals. # time score shot http://imgur.com/a/xPOZu#20 # kerbal standing on the ring http://imgur.com/a/xPOZu#31 # album Mods used: TriggerTech's Kerbal Alarm Clock Craft are stock; designed and mission on v0.23 kbulbx-KMk4 thanks for the fun challenge! kdonfede -- "Adding K to every word..."

No success to report yet, but wanted to share my attempts at this challenge. Instead of using a standard capsule, I was building a 'bucket of kerbals'. Unfortunately this turned out to be unstable, due to kerbals bouncing around, clipping into the craft, and causing kaos (before takeoff, while loading up). Later attempts struggled with TWR, and last with the combined delayed impact of several dozen kerbals. Setting this approach down for now and thinking about different strategies. Mods used: TriggerTech's Kerbal Alarm Clock Craft are stock; designed and mission on v0.23 kbulbx kbulbx-KMk2 kbulbx-KMk3 kdonfede -- "Adding K to every word..."

Would a hydrofoil design be acceptable? Similarly, would kerbal alarm clock be an allowable mod? I don't expect to use it much here, but not sure about uninstalling/reinstalling it. nice challenge, kdonfede

Minmus, Vall*, Pol, Bop, Gilly 4350 x 1.5 = 6525 Mods used: TriggerTech's Kerbal Alarm Clock Craft are stock; designed v0.22, mission on v0.23 K08ia craft K08iaT-KMk2 craft 4 and a half KSP years. 16 Earth days. The craft was based on my ion lander, which works well, but had only been used for single landings at a time (often propelled there by liquid fuel). Fuel management and craft reconfigurations were a big part of the mission (and could have benefited from more planning). Apparently too much fuel was brought along, though that may have been due to the aggressive aerobraking. Design on an improved vessel, with greater TWR, has begun; but, Jeb may leave that trip to Bob or Bill. best, kdonfede -- "Adding K to every word..."

Interesting challenge. Ion is one of my favorite elements of the game, encouraging pushing design limits. Some questions: a) Must all celestial bodies be visited in a single mission, or may multiple ion/ant missions be deployed? If multiple missions may be deployed, can a "subset" craft be used for simpler bodies (no need to bring LF to The Ionic-4). c) There is no specific mention of RCS. Could RCS be used for orbital docking operations? [expect not, but good to be clear] d) How far must Jeb be returned to Kerbin: KLO , landed , $X ? thanks again for the challenge, donfede