Kerbfleet: A Jool Odyssey-CHAPTER 22 pg 2: Yet >another< narrative device!

[Mister Dilsby]

8 hours ago, Angel-125 said:

Love the Gumdrops, are those landers?

Yes--those are for Bop and Pol. Monopropellant only.  

3 hours ago, Alchemist said:

Somehow I suspected such result with the payload bay ramp the very moment I saw how the satellite was grabbed. Also the whole scene really reminds of one particular remote-controlled redocking of a Progress...

Yeah, I should have known it too. What I forgot was that like Bill said, I put the ports deeper into the bay to avoid interference when it closed. Oh well...

2 hours ago, KSK said:

Ooooh - lyrics! Can I play too? Will delete em if they don't fit the thread.

To the tune of 'Rock the Night' by Europe...

Geenyus! Don't you dare delete that!  

1 hour ago, Scotius said:

Chili con NOMmo? Jool Culinary Adventures continues

Hope we don't run out of food puns before we get there!

[Rune]

10 hours ago, Kuzzter said:

So...yeah, like Dilsby says, I'm sure I could dock the scansats eventually, most likely by controlling Intrepid herself from the docking port and flying her into the probe. I tried that for about an hour last night (that was of course my reference of "bringing the mountain to Mohammed") but no dice, and if I did that for all six probes (four scansats and two 'jooldivers' you'd be waiting a LONG time for comics. So I made the command decision to swallow my pride, give up and launch new probes.

Next up, we'll see if 2nd Looty Samantha can land that Derpstar, "good" or otherwise. And Tedus apologizes for stealing @Starhawk's tagline there, it seemed to fit  

Oh, I see the problem clearly now. Yeah, you could probably make it, but it's also probably not worth it, and at this stage, the extra 24 parts of six complete RCS thruster packs are kind of small change anyhow... The "fling" maneuver brought me memories of trying to get over bugged docking ports and Klaw bugs in general (to this day, I don't dock a Klawed ship if I can help it).

 

Rune. This is another example of that last 20% of engineering taking up 80% of the effort.

[Mister Dilsby]

44 minutes ago, Rune said:

Oh, I see the problem clearly now. Yeah, you could probably make it, but it's also probably not worth it, and at this stage, the extra 24 parts of six complete RCS thruster packs are kind of small change anyhow...

Yeah, exactly. But the part that hurts is having to carry mono fuel, which the Scansat J2's do not at present. I see a few options:

1. mount RCS thruster blocks (or single point) and a small axial tank (which might make them too long to fit in the bay, haven't checked yet)
2. mount RCS thrusters and a small radial tank that detatches after they're mounted
3. make a new right-angle-klaw tugbot that can get them in the bay (don't know if this is actually possible or not)
4. forget RCS: throw in a couple tiny LFO motors, use the tugbot to get close, then align using reaction wheels and thrust home. Repeat as necessary. 4a: add transnational capability with some Vernors, (overthrust may be a concern here, can't remember if one can  tune their output with a slider or not)

Leaning towards option 4/4a as it would require the least parts and mass. Mass is more of a concern for me than parts right now, I want these scansats to be able to reach Tylo polar orbit from a variety of shooting positions in the Jool system. They have a bit of margin for that now but I don't want to throw 250kg into the equation needlessly.

11 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Novbody in all the KSP multiverse, not even Jeb in his various versions, has more cool points than Tedus

And you still have typos. Given the lateness of the hour and the uncharacteristic finger-slips I'm going to assume a *clink* is in order  

[Starhawk]

Interesting.  I think I'd definitely choose option 3.

No RCS to worry about,  You can use the Scansats you've already sent so no need to send new ones.  Part count and mass stay the same.
And not knowing if it's actually possible is an upside.  You'll probably find out whether it's possible or not in the process.  Learning is good. 

Happy Concerned landings!

[Mister Dilsby]

3 minutes ago, Starhawk said:

No RCS to worry about,  You can use the Scansats you've already sent so no need to send new ones.  Part count and mass stay the same.
And not knowing if it's actually possible is an upside.  You'll probably find out whether it's possible or not in the process.  Learning is good. 

Well, a couple of additional factors--one, I already rage-deorbited the two sats. Two, finding out it's not possible will cost us all at least a day and 2-3 more pages of fail. I can only make the same stuff entertaining for so long!  But 3 may still be the most elegant way to go, if it works.

[Starhawk]

2 minutes ago, Kuzzter said:

Well, a couple of additional factors--one, I already rage-deorbited the two sats. Two, finding out it's not possible will cost us all at least a day and 2-3 more pages of fail. I can only make the same stuff entertaining for so long!  But 3 may still be the most elegant way to go, if it works.

Yeah, learning also takes time.  If you do decide to go with 3, then bummer about the two deorbited sats, but Samantha can use the practice, I'm sure.

Anyway, whichever solution you choose, the brave crew of the Intrepid will make clever use of all the equipment and abilities at their disposal.  They always do.

So, if the last 20% takes 80% of the time, does the last 5% take 95% of the time?  Hmmm, seems like a trap.

Happy Concerned landings!

[WhiteKnuckle]

How about making a rack that holds all the scansats together and has limited RCS capabilities?

I'm thinking something like the 2.5m probe core, with docking ports on one side that line up with the ports in the bay, and the scansats docked to the other side. 4 RCS thrusters around the edge of the probe core and a small Mono tank somewhere. This would mean you only had to do one docking in the bay rather than multiple.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

Hmmmm, I wonder how long they have till they're attacked....

[Alchemist]

If you don't need RCS on the sats, you can always put the monopropellant tank between decoupler and docking port. You can even put the thrusters on the decoupler, if there's enough reaction wheels to compensate for that torque.

Oh well, at least you didn't make any new holes in the ship with such missed docking.

 

Also, did anybody tell Mort about who's landing the SSTO? Because it might get not any cheaper than expendable rocket.

[Nefrums]

44 minutes ago, Kuzzter said:

Yeah, exactly. But the part that hurts is having to carry mono fuel, which the Scansat J2's do not at present. I see a few options:

1. mount RCS thruster blocks (or single point) and a small axial tank (which might make them too long to fit in the bay, haven't checked yet)
2. mount RCS thrusters and a small radial tank that detatches after they're mounted
3. make a new right-angle-klaw tugbot that can get them in the bay (don't know if this is actually possible or not)
4. forget RCS: throw in a couple tiny LFO motors, use the tugbot to get close, then align using reaction wheels and thrust home. Repeat as necessary. 4a: add transnational capability with some Vernors, (overthrust may be a concern here, can't remember if one can  tune their output with a slider or not)

Seperatons!

Or attach a small decupler to the top of the sat, where the scanning module is, offset it a bit away from the scanner and add rcs/LF engins to it.   Will be horribly unbalanced, but the reaction wheels on the sat might be able to compensate.

 

 

[Starhawk]

4 minutes ago, SpaceplaneAddict said:

Hmmmm, I wonder how long they have till they're attacked....

Well, last we saw, Kenlie Kermulan was on his way back to Kerbulus from Eve.  Once he returns he'll tell the tale and then the SPQK will start working on a Jool mission of their own.

Kuzzter has indicated that the Kerbulans aren't as advanced in general as the Kerbals are (although they do have the bloaking device).  The long range ship Kenlie was flying was a prototype, after all.  So, while they will undoubtedly send something to Jool, it may take some time and may not be too advanced.

I'm certain that there are many surprises in store.

Happy Concerned Anticipatory landings!

[Rune]

1 hour ago, Kuzzter said:

Yeah, exactly. But the part that hurts is having to carry mono fuel, which the Scansat J2's do not at present. I see a few options:

1. mount RCS thruster blocks (or single point) and a small axial tank (which might make them too long to fit in the bay, haven't checked yet)
2. mount RCS thrusters and a small radial tank that detatches after they're mounted
3. make a new right-angle-klaw tugbot that can get them in the bay (don't know if this is actually possible or not)
4. forget RCS: throw in a couple tiny LFO motors, use the tugbot to get close, then align using reaction wheels and thrust home. Repeat as necessary. 4a: add transnational capability with some Vernors, (overthrust may be a concern here, can't remember if one can  tune their output with a slider or not)

Leaning towards option 4/4a as it would require the least parts and mass. Mass is more of a concern for me than parts right now, I want these scansats to be able to reach Tylo polar orbit from a variety of shooting positions in the Jool system. They have a bit of margin for that now but I don't want to throw 250kg into the equation needlessly.

And you still have typos. Given the lateness of the hour and the uncharacteristic finger-slips I'm going to assume a *clink* is in order  

Actually, go crazy and pick option 5: remove all LFO and trust in monoprop! It may have lousy Isp, yeah, but as you inadvertly say when complaining about weight, it is very compact. So you could have decent mass ratio and, say, ~3km/s in the probes, with a MR of 3.5 and the Isp of the maneuvering thrusters alone (240s). That may sound like a lot, but it's something like this when you put it together:

Which I think is smaller than what you had originally, if anything, and I'd be willing to bet it gets similar dV (3,051m/s, even tough KER refuses to make the calc with RCS quads ). And you don't even need the battery if you use RTGs, of course, but I splurged to make something similar. How much do you need to get into a Tylo polar orbit anyway? You can likely get away with just two tanks... (to save you time, that would be about 2.5km/s). It would also be very RL-like, where probes get monoprop systems not only because of storability, but also because of density and commonality between main engines and maneuvering thrusters.

1 hour ago, Starhawk said:

So, if the last 20% takes 80% of the time, does the last 5% take 95% of the time?  Hmmm, seems like a trap.

My friend, I think you just figured out the source of all engineering delays in the history of ever... as Einstein said, time is relative, but you should see just how relative it can be on a schedule!

 

Rune. Hope that helps!

Edited February 25, 2016 by Rune

[Mister Dilsby]

1 hour ago, Rune said:

Actually, go crazy and pick option 5: remove all LFO and trust in monoprop! It may have lousy Isp, yeah, but as you inadvertly say when complaining about weight, it is very compact. So you could have decent mass ratio and, say, ~3km/s in the probes, with a MR of 3.5 and the Isp of the maneuvering thrusters alone (240s). That may sound like a lot, but it's something like this when you put it together:

Hm. Hm! I'm going to test that. I didn't think I could get enough dV from mono only, but maybe I can with such a light, all-fuel ship. And if I have a TWR problem I can always put on O-10s. Thank you!

We'll close the chapter here. Not that 'flight operations' are finished, but I think this is already long at 34 pages, and hopefully I can finish up quickly in the opening to the next chapter. Plus, I like ending at this point for now  

Edited February 25, 2016 by Kuzzter

[Geschosskopf]

8 minutes ago, Kuzzter said:

Hm. Hm! I'm going to test that. I didn't think I could get enough dV from mono only, but maybe I can with such a light, all-fuel ship. And if I have a TWR problem I can always put on O-10s. Thank you!

Mono-only is a very viable option for small ships.  The OPTC's Gilly probe lander was mono-only and had enough dV to go from low Eve orbit to Gilly, land, and return to Eve, although I just left it at Gilly because there wasn't any more need for it.

[Kobymaru]

Just a little note: "Bingo Fuel" in military speak does not mean the fuel is empty. Bingo fuel means that there's only so much left that you can make it home.

[Mister Dilsby]

Just now, Kobymaru said:

Just a little note: "Bingo Fuel" in military speak does not mean the fuel is empty. Bingo fuel means that there's only so much left that you can make it home.

Yeah, I know. Was wondering when someone would point that out  I started out using the term incorrectly and unwittingly, then some time ago learned the right definition. But decided to keep with my incorrect one, because (1) it sounds really cool and dramatic, and (2) as it happens I run out of fuel completely on landing a plane a lot more often than I exhaust my margin for a return--if I even bother to calculate such a margin--and if such a margin is even meaningful, since I typically use ISRU. So, you could argue that for Kerbfleet if they called anything 'bingo' it would be this.  

[ExplorerKlatt]

Love the Air Service song. Being an Air Force veteran I immediately heard the melody playing in my head 

[Alchemist]

How hard was the landing? I mean it might not be the piloting fault. I've seen my share of anomalies of this kind with these parts - placing gear on these wings on mk3 hull on a large plane sometimes can result the ship disintegrating on touchdown no mater what. An easy way to test: attach launch clamps to the plane and place it a few meters above the runway and drop it - if it survives consider that nominal, if there are structural issues all over the craft... blame the Kraken.

And a note about airbrakes - better place them on the top. Why? Because creating drag near the tail means downward torque when you are trying to keep the nose up. Placing them on top reduces this issue. Look at the Space Shuttle with its split-rudder airbrake - now that's the way to really keep the nose up (you may as well make it of 2 bigS tailfins. note that their behaviour in the editor may be incorrect, but they should properly deploy in flight)

[Drethon]

26 minutes ago, Kuzzter said:

Yeah, I know. Was wondering when someone would point that out  I started out using the term incorrectly and unwittingly, then some time ago learned the right definition. But decided to keep with my incorrect one, because (1) it sounds really cool and dramatic, and (2) as it happens I run out of fuel completely on landing a plane a lot more often than I exhaust my margin for a return--if I even bother to calculate such a margin--and if such a margin is even meaningful, since I typically use ISRU. So, you could argue that for Kerbfleet if they called anything 'bingo' it would be this.  

 

And bingo fuel for running out is a bit more Kerbal.  We don't fly until we have just enough fuel to get safely home, we fly until the aircraft will no longer stay airborne!

[Alchemist]

Bigo fuel Kerbal way: if the craft needs shallow, powered approach - its the minimum it takes to stabilize level flight near the ground; if the craft can do shuttle-style glissade - then it's zero.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Alchemist

[Starhawk]

Wow, I really, really enjoyed that one today!

That's Kerbfleet training for you. 

The song and the crash were both excellent.  I must say that I was looking forward to seeing if Samantha could land that thing and I was richly rewarded.

Thanks!

Happy landings!
There's plenty of time for concern later.

[Mister Dilsby]

54 minutes ago, ExplorerKlatt said:

Love the Air Service song. Being an Air Force veteran I immediately heard the melody playing in my head 

Thanks, and thank you for your service. So now we've seen this, and the KSMC song ("From the red, red hills of Duu-U-na!") and the first couple of lines of the Fleet song "Launch Clamps Away" which Gene used to wake the crew of the Hummlebee a long, long time ago (yes, I know it's 'Anchors Aweigh'. No, I do not think one 'weighs' a launch clamp. Yes, I have written the rest of the song and will play it for you someday.  ) So, will we ever see some Kerbalized version of the US Army's "Caisson Song?" Don't know, probably not in this comic. Fleet Service gets there by ship. KSMC goes on the ship, and drives on the surface when they get there. Air Service does planes, space or otherwise. I suppose my Army equivalent would have to be kerbals who explore on foot. Maybe this "Foot Service" or "In-foot-erry" were the ones who carried goo canisters out onto the launch pad and runway long, long ago to get Kerbfleet's first science points. If I ever do a flashback to those early days ("Kerbfleet does YAML!") I'll be sure to feature them, and will write the appropriate songs at that point  

50 minutes ago, Alchemist said:

How hard was the landing? I mean it might not be the piloting fault. I've seen my share of anomalies of this kind with these parts - placing gear on these wings on mk3 hull on a large plane sometimes can result the ship disintegrating on touchdown no mater what. An easy way to test: attach launch clamps to the plane and place it a few meters above the runway and drop it - if it survives consider that nominal, if there are structural issues all over the craft... blame the Kraken.

And a note about airbrakes - better place them on the top. Why? Because creating drag near the tail means downward torque when you are trying to keep the nose up. Placing them on top reduces this issue. Look at the Space Shuttle with its split-rudder airbrake - now that's the way to really keep the nose up (you may as well make it of 2 bigS tailfins. note that their behaviour in the editor may be incorrect, but they should properly deploy in flight)

Good points, brakes on top would certainly have helped keep the nose up. I think she hit at 10-12 m/s vertical, so yeah maybe not the Kraken. Looks like from the wreckage everything other than the wings, gear and tail engine survived. Even the RAPIERS made it! So all things considered, Samantha did all right. 

22 minutes ago, Starhawk said:

That's Kerbfleet training for you. 

The song and the crash were both excellent.  I must say that I was looking forward to seeing if Samantha could land that thing and I was richly rewarded.

Thanks! You know what the funniest thing is? I actually had a pilot available and didn't need Samantha at all-- Gregmore, veteran of Eve: Order Zero, the kerb who's most remembered for being easy to forget. Oops. But I'm glad it worked out this way. I wanted a female Air Service pilot at some point anyway so as not to make it a completely kerbstosterone-ridden outfit. Unfortunately there's no billet for her on the Intrepid, but likely there will be some sort of action back home during the long, long Jool mission and I'll be sure to bring her back for that.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Kuzzter

[Geschosskopf]

1 hour ago, Alchemist said:

And a note about airbrakes - better place them on the top. Why? Because creating drag near the tail means downward torque when you are trying to keep the nose up. Placing them on top reduces this issue. Look at the Space Shuttle with its split-rudder airbrake - now that's the way to really keep the nose up (you may as well make it of 2 bigS tailfins. note that their behaviour in the editor may be incorrect, but they should properly deploy in flight)

Yeah, airbrakes on the upper surfaces all the way at the back.  Or put them on opposite sides of the vertical tail for the "split rudder" effect.  Both will help keep your nose up.

But there were also flaps.  I hate how flaps "work" in stock KSP, as in usually they really don't.  There are no area-increasing flaps at all, which is what you really need for a big, heavy, highly wing-loaded plane.  Instead, KSP flaps are just normal control surfaces that hold a deflection, no different than trim, just on a larger scale.  Thus, for example, on a delta wing where the control surfaces are on the trailing edge, you have to make your flaps go UP, not down as in real life.

Because of all this, stock KSP flaps are generally worse than useless.  Deploying them increases drag and usually also decreases lift.  This is because part of the plane's overall lift value comes from the control surfaces, and the deployed flaps usually get into a less-advantageous AoA so don't produce as much lift when deployed.  Thus, the net effect of stock KSP flaps is the exact opposite of what they do in real life and usually they make the situation worse.  The are effectively area-DEcreasing speed brakes, nothing more.

IIRC, FAR has some magic method of modeling area-increasing flaps.

[Mister Dilsby]

1 minute ago, Geschosskopf said:

Because of all this, stock KSP flaps are generally worse than useless.  Deploying them increases drag and usually also decreases lift.  This is because part of the plane's overall lift value comes from the control surfaces, and the deployed flaps usually get into a less-advantageous AoA so don't produce as much lift when deployed.  

Yep, exactly. Did not mention in the comic, but I only used flaps to slow down in upper atmosphere--they were retracted for landing. The one time I've noticed them to work well for increasing lift as advertised is in the takeoff of the Skimmeroo from water. In that case, the AOA with nose parallel to ground water is only about 5 degrees (due to wing offset), so the deployed flaps will have a steeper angle but not too steep. I retract them immediately when I clear the water and start pulling the nose up.

[Chemp]

4 hours ago, Kuzzter said:

I already rage-deorbited the two sats

I hope this doesn't come too late. I had the idea yesterday but had no access to my computer until today to test if it works - and it does!. You don't have to redesign your scansats, the claw can grab them if you open the scanner and hit it with the claw dead center, like so: