Search the Community

Now since it's orbiting Dres it's out of communication range so it has no control. I gave up on trying to get it to Dres orbit normally so I used Lazy Orbit by Halban on Spacedock. I did this since the purpose of this mission was to get a cool photo for my profile banner so I didn't mind. I hope you guys like the photo, until next time!

I'm thinking about diving deeper into the ion engines of KSP. Not only can I understand them better for KSP fanworks, in which the engine math would be described in great detail, but I can apply these principles for real-life. As a KSP example, the given values of the IX-6315 "Dawn" engine are: Isp = 4200 s Thrust = 2 kN Which is way higher than the real-life ion engines I've been seeing. Values I can easily calculate are: Mass flow rate for xenon propellant (kg/s) Exhaust velocity (m/s) Beam power (watts) Wet-to-dry mass ratios for certain dV requirements For certain phases, some parts will be jettisoned (e.g. I'm not going to carry an Apollo-style landing craft back home if I've already used it). Using this engine as an example, how do I calculate the specific power (W/kg) for it? With that value, I can divide it by the input power to get the mass of the power supply system required. Example: an engine with an Isp=2000s and a Thrust = 0.2 N. A value of 100 W/kg was given for the specific power, but I have no idea how they got it. mass of power supply system = (Power required in W) / (specific power in W/kg) This might not matter so much in KSP, but it does for real-life calculations. Plus, as an aerospace engineering major, I want to better understand what goes into xenon-powered spacecraft. If someone could help me, that would be nice.

The Jool-5 challenge. A classic KSP challenge. One of the hardest. And with this variation of the challenge, I want to push things further. OBJECTIVE: Land on all 5 of Jool's moons and return to Kerbin with a craft (or several craft) made out of nothing but 0.625m parts (except for crew modules). RULES: You should only use 0.625m parts, but for crewed craft, you may use a command chair/radiator combo, a service bay, or a fairing CM. No part mods AT ALL. No mining AT ALL. Modular craft are ALLOWED. Spaceplanes are ALLOWED. EVA pack should only be used to transfer between craft. Cheating is NOT ALLOWED (duh). If your mission takes advantage of a physics exploit (excluding Kraken drives) such as Stratz's OP heatshield wing then let me know. SUBMIT THESE: Craft info tab. (The design checklist thing.) Screenshots of the craft on Kerbin, in flight, and on all 5 moons, with the Kerbal on EVA having planted a flag (not needed if your craft is uncrewed). (You may also add some more screenshots.) Compilation vid of takeoffs, gravity assists, entries/re-entries and landings. EXTRAS (optional): More insight of the craft Craft download SCORING: formula: (1/mass + 1/cost + 1/partcount + 1/fuel dV used) * 1000 (+5% for full recovery of crew, +5% for reusability) Remember to include the formula in your submission. GOOD LUCK! (@Stratzenblitz75 @EvermoreAlpaca I know you can make something crazy out of this...)

I can mine fuel and mono-propellant, but are there anyway I can mine or get Xenon from space? is there any mod? My ion crew transporter is out of Xenon gas and it's suck in kerbol orbit.

I've published a new version of Gossamer Albatross [KerbalX] with enhanced balance & controls. UPDATE: Albatross has been retired. Please try Gossamer Anisoptera... You'll love it. I'm opening a topic on it because it's not so trivial to fly. The Albatross is a great tourist vehicle (24 pax) -- a "lo-grav flitter" -- to see the Mun et al. "up close and personal". Pre-flight check-list: AG7 extend sails RCS on stage the ion drive (you may need to create a dummy stage before it to make Space bar work) toggle AG0 and ensure that the Puff engines are shutdown AG8 hover mode SAS on, SFC mode, Radial Out Lift-off: engage full thrust (Z) climb to a safe altitude select SAS Hold (press and release F momentarily) AG9 flight mode Cruise: use F to defeat SAS Hold momentarily while adjusting the craft attitude use attitude to vector ion drive thrust AG0 to engage horizontal propulsion via the MP Puff drive Landing: by the time you get to this, you will have figured it out hint: you can use the throttle to carefully adjust your sink rate hint: you can use the RCS translate thrust for enhanced deceleration hint: if you get desperate, you can turn tail and use the Puff drive (AG0) to decelerate. hint: its got wheels. if you can't land like a chopper pilot, then align the wheels with your direction and land it like a plane. WARNING: THIS MACHINE TURNS INTO A PUMPKIN AN HOUR BEFORE DUSK. HAVE IT ON THE GROUND OR IN ORBIT BY THAT TIME AT ALL COSTS. The manufacturer claims to have orbited this machine from the surface of the Mun. With sufficient skill and iron nerves, it ought therefore be possible to land it, too. [Your speed may vary... [Although your altitude will always come back to zero!]] Refueling: via a Klaw to be attached to the small girder at the rear of the spacecraft. Deployment: Attach it to a lander via the top dock and sky crane it in OR use HyperEdit if you just want to joy-ride the machine. You won't be disappointed. OR *NEW* you can download a fully-equipped world save file: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/170734-lunar-ion-drive-pylon-course/ (UPDATE: the Albatross Pylon Challenge will be updated shortly to use the new Anisoptera...) Pireps made here would be appreciated...

I, Hotel26, have created a pylon course on the Mun. It's a short, triangular course over some of the most rugged scenery the Mun's equator has to offer. Download this Lunar Pylon Course which is a save world to be unpacked in ./saves, next to your other worlds. It comes equipped with 1x Gossamer Albatross parked at the course start next to one of the 3x xenon/MP refueling trucks that mark the course [the "pylons"]. The Albatross is also available (for a limited time, so hurry) from https://kerbalx.com/Hotel26/Gossamer-Albatross How fast do you think you can fly the course? Note the MET (Mission Elapsed Time), take off, fly around the course (on the outside of the pylons!) and land back next to the truck at the origin. Note your MET again and compute your flight duration. Instructions for flying the Albatross are located here: This is the FIRST of THREE challenges I have planned in order to SHAMELESSLY SELF-PROMOTE the awesome power of IONS! [..depending upon audience response...continuing availability of xenon...bla bla bla] Go for it. Have fun! Don't let me hear those crickets now...

I've been exploring a lot of new things like the payload devices and Xenon engines, struts and using group actions. Got those things running pretty nice. My rocket is moving much more smoothly, higher speeds, lower, faster orbits. I've circularized orbits within a couple hundred kilometers, got my RCS working pretty well. I even matched my orbit somewhat to Eve's orbit and at no point did Eve's orbit cross my orbit. I had to tip my orbit pretty radically to be able to touch Eve's. Then I tried to get it even closer but I'm working from such a tiny circle compared with the distance and I'm just lining things up by eye with the sun in my eyes. This is from Kerbin orbit. Is it possible to go from Kerbin orbit to Eve orbit? Or is it required to hit all the objects in between? The orbital lines don't reach. I always get stuck orbiting the sun if I can't get an orbit with a node, but it seems like it should be possible with enough fuel to go from sun orbit to orbit another planet or at least make a tighter sun orbit. I've got quite a bit of Xenon fuel and 26 gigantor solar units for my 26 xenon engines. They can run for a very long time without running out of electricity. I did manage to get a descending or ascending node with Eve. Is that the point where I put another node and... I don't know. Sometimes with this game my brain just freezes up. Am I nuts to be trying to orbit these outer planets just by eyeballing things? Can I go from Kerbin to Eve or even further? If not what should I do first? I'm proficient at going to Mun and Minimus and back. Is there a way to make those orbital lines stretch out further or is there some other trick to know if you've got a chance to rendevous? What do you think of my long range space traveler with 26 xenon engines and 26 gigantor solar? Got rid of struts and am using the strut system that comes with SRBs. Attaching to grandparent. Does this method cause less lag or am I imagining? Which mods should I use and where are the best tutorials for those mods? I'm using Xenon for the phenomenal ISP. I think I managed to lift off from Minimus and get back to Kerbin but Minimus is very low gravity. I might have problems lifting off from bigger bodies like Eve and so I might have to complicate my landing vehicle eventually with stages or docking devices. I might even have to take things apart and put them back together again in space but that sounds like quite a formidable but attractive task. On the other hand getting to Eve and fiddling with the nodes just turns me off sometimes. Too much to go wrong and when you fail you have to go way back to the beginning.

The Xenon thrusters in the game are pretty weak, you'd think that someone could've/would've/should've figured this out. I do understand that they are still pretty weak and are supposed to be, i just want one with better trust

Today i made my first mod that adds a second Xenon+Electric powered engine. it gives really little thrust, but because of that you can make really accurate adjustments and it is also really efficient! there is a video showing it on Curse (link below) Click here to go to the download page (Curse) -Thanks shinevision

Today i made my first mod that adds a second Xenon+Electric powered engine. it gives really little thrust, but because of that you can make really accurate adjustments and it is also really efficient there is a video showing it on Curse (link below) Click here to go to the download page (Curse) -Thanks shinevision

So I've been building a massive mothership that mostly runs on Xenon gas and the design includes a mk2 ring. I was wondering if anyone has made a mod that adds a mk2 Xenon tank? Even if someone just had the model files without the cfg, that would be fine. I could edit one of the existing tanks but it wouldn't be the same. Thanks for any help, Benji13

The Story So Far: Prior to KSP v1.0, mass ratios of tanks varied wildly. For some fuel types, there was a consistent progression across tank sizes, for others, there was not; and across fuel types, there was no consistency at all. In KSP v1.0, Squad made the decision to standardize all the fuel tanks in KSP to a mass ratio of 9:1 - meaning one ton worth of tankage holds 8 tons worth of propellant. All the fuel tanks...? No! A small holdout yet remains in the northern reaches of Gaul in the form of the xenon tanks. Their mass ratio still sits at 2.2727:1 - meaning one ton of tankage holds just 1.2727 tons of propellant. It's almost a fifty-fifty split between dry mass and xenon! Why It Matters: The rocket equation consists of two parts that are multiplied with each other. One is the effective exhaust velocity, which we know in the derivative form of specific impulse (Isp). The other is the vessel's mass ratio. Therefore, the mass ratio is at least as important as Isp for the performance of a rocket. You can argue that it is even more important, because while Isp only defines the rocket's dV, the mass ratio defines the rocket's dV in the same way as Isp does, and in addition to that, also defines the rocket's TWR. A better mass ratio gives you both more dV and shorter burns. Another consequence of the mass ratio going into the rocket equation lies in the maximum dV any given rocket stage can achieve with a specific engine (more precisely, with that engine's Isp). Because even if you add the entire observable universe's mass in terms of fuel to a rocket that somehow weighs zero kg despite having an engine and other stuff, you could still not exceed the mass ratio of the tanks you are using. Therefore there's a hard limit of dV you can never exceed with any given engine, and it depends entirely on the tank's mass ratio - and the way it curves towards that limit with increasingly diminishing returns depends on it, too. Why It Should Be Addressed: In real life, the mass ratio of a fuel tank depends on a great many factors, including the physical properties of the propellant itself. So you could argument that it is realistic that different fuels have tanks with different mass ratios. However, for xenon specifically, real life tanks are not anywhere near that low. In addition to that, as mentioned above, Squad made the conscious decision to remove all tankage mass ratio differences from the game (except xenon, which as it would appear was forgotten). And there's good reasons for doing this, reasons I've experienced myself multiple times while helping out with the mod Near Future Technologies. One pack in this suite of mods introduces new engines, which run on several different new fuels. I'm doing the balancing of those engines, and over time, I've tried various different approaches. Among them were approaches that had all the fuels at different tankage mass ratios. Although this offered increased freedom in assigning stats and part niches, it also made everything a whole lot more complicated to manage and balance properly. But that's not the main reason it was a bad idea. No, the main reason is that none of the players noticed it. None whatsoever. Not a single person who hadn't followed the dev thread discussion ever admitted to being aware of these differences. And, I mean, why would they? Fuel tanks are just fuel tanks. When you build literally any other spacecraft in KSP, you plop down the payload, you plop down a number of fuel tanks, and then you sit down and start comparing engines for thrust and Isp. Engines, not tanks. So the only thing those players noticed was: some engines just had better stats than others, no matter how you turned it. And these players then came to the mod thread and complained that their favorite engine was underpowered, or that another one was really broken, and that our balancing was super bad. All in all, mucking with tank mass ratios turned out to be unnecessary complexity that didn't add any depth, only confusion. Squad, I wager, knows this full well, for they have a forum full of active users who love to discuss engine balance while equipped with many different variants of half the data. And with the introduction of such things as the monoprop engine, and the move of the LV-N to be liquid fuel only, KSP moved rapidly towards a situation where engines could not be directly compared to each other anymore. So they made LF/Ox, LF-solo and Monoprop tanks all have the same mass ratios. Voila, engines could now be compared again! Except, you know, the often-forgotten Dawn ion engine. What The Actual Effects Are: The Dawn has so wildly different stats from all other engines, both in thrust and Isp, that comparing it to other engines is fairly straightforward on the surface: the dV you get is simply just "higher", and the thrust you get is simply just "lower". It clearly gives the Dawn its niche. However, if you sat down and compared the actual stats, you'd quickly discover that this engine doesn't perform the way you think it does. Namely, it always significantly underperforms compared to what your on-paper math says it should do. And the more fuel you add, the worse it gets. To illustrate, I've done some math on a vessel that is comprised of 10 tons of dry mass, including a Dawn engine. I've added enough fuel to hit several different propellant fraction targets (percentage of vessel mass that is fuel). At each of those targets, I determined how much more dV and TWR the vessel would get if its tank mass ratio was 9:1 instead of 2.2727:1... and then converted that into how much less "effective Isp" and "effective thrust" the Dawn gets compared to a hypothetical LF/Ox engine with the same stats. I also calculated the difference in total mass between the vessel with the LF/Ox tanks and the vessel with the xenon tanks. Spacecraft mass is important when designing your lifter, after all... and that difference is the extra mass you have to lift just because you're using xenon (in addition to being responsible for the drop in effective thrust). Base Stats 4200 s 2.00 kN n/a Propellant Fraction Effective Isp Effective Thrust Vessel Mass Difference 15% 3739 s 1.80 kN 1.38 tons 20% 3564 s 1.73 kN 2.09 tons 25% 3378 s 1.66 kN 3.04 tons 30% 3175 s 1.59 kN 4.36 tons 35% 2952 s 1.53 kN 6.29 tons 40% 2703 s 1.46 kN 9.44 tons 45% 2417 s 1.39 kN 15.45 tons 50% 2072 s 1.33 kN 31.50 tons As you can see, the Dawn effectively drops to barely half the performance a player would infer from looking at its stats alone by the time the propellant fraction hits 50%. This is not the Dawn engine's fault. It's the xenon tank's fault. What I Propose: Simply put, adjust the dry masses of the xenon tanks to fall in line with all the other fuel tanks in KSP. I've even gone ahead and calculated the numbers - you just need to put them into the configs: - PB-X50R: 0.03143 becomes 0.005 - PB-X150: 0.055 becomes 0.00875 - PB-X750: 0.4125 becomes 0.065625 Meanwhile, doing this obviously results in a massive buff to the Dawn engine. But consider the following: because of the poor xenon tanks currently in the game, the Dawn engine needs to have artificially inflated stats (in both thrust and Isp) in order to deliver the performance that it is designed to have in typical usage scenarios. As such, there should be no problem with adjusting those stats down once the tanks are no longer killing it. Since the Dawn engine is a direct nod to the NSTAR ion thrusters on NASA's Dawn spacecraft, currently in orbit of Ceres, why not take the Isp directly from that? Instead of 4200s, it would now have 3120s. Looking at the table above, that falls pretty much straight in the middle of what you effectively get right now anyway, on average... a perfect fit. The thrust could be set at 1.5 kN, a nice round number that's also reasonably near the average effective performance today. 1.6 kN would also be valid, but from my gut, I'd choose the lower value. Xenon-fueled spacecraft are already getting another stealth buff in requiring less lifting power to put them into orbit. In Closing: From my amateur viewpoint, I consider this change to be simple, straightforward and requiring only little testing - it doesn't affect many game systems, and the required changes are so few and simple, a ModuleManager script could do it. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts and comments on it!

I know this may sound silly, but there should be some way, to get xenon from some sort of air intake or something. Also, maybe some different solar panels/ ion engines? I love all of these things. I love efficiency, can you also maybe add just overall more efficient engines? Oh ,and stock life support if u have time *wink* I understand that it has to be realistic, to me the more realistic the better anyway, thx -Me-

here is a neat idea for a part, a xenon scoop that you could unlock shortly after the dawn engine that would deploy like a solar panel and collect very small amounts of xenon, enough to keep it running almost indefinitely. if the game ever went interstellar this would be a low-tech - relatively speaking of course in comparison to warp or near ftl - solution to rudimentary exploration of worlds beyond. another feature that would complement interstellar nicely would be a fog of exploration, like in sid meier's civ, where you could only see within a certain range of where you've been.