First sattelite attempt

[strider3]

I picked the easiest one...an equatorial orbit around Kerbin. I built my satellite (or probe) to these specs...http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:_Basic_Probe_And_Satellite_Building.

My question is...won't all these non-aerodynamic parts burn off as I launch through the atmosphere?

 

 

Vic...slowly trying to NOT be such a Newbal!

[FancyMouse]

You'll be fine unless you deliberately do a very very flat gravity turn (which will be inefficient due to too much drag anyway).

Note that seeing aero effects visually doesn't mean it's close to burning up. It's still pretty far away from being a problem actually - you only need to worry about heat when temperature gauge starts to show up.

[Randazzo]

You would have to be going very fast very low to experience parts coming off.

However, that tutorial page is horribly outdated. That probe is:

1. Heavy
2. Expensive

Less of an issue if you're playing in sandbox, but for a career you'll want (or maybe you won't, who knows) to keep the costs manageable. Something like this is much cheaper:

Since the probe itself is lighter, it takes less to put it in orbit.

[Servo]

Another thing of note, it looks like in your design that your final stage (the LV-909) doesn't have any fuel supply. I'd recommend removing the engine altogether, and using RCS to reach orbit (H/N I/K and J/L can be used for directional thrust. H is up/prograde).

[Superfluous J]

If that page is more than a year old, it doesn't even take aerodynamics into account. Just looking at that pic tells me it doesn't

+1 to @Randazzo's satellite. Early career with small stuff, the BACC really shines.

5 antennas? You need 1. If that.
3 large batteries? Try 1 of the smallest, if that, and really just the OX-Stat panels is enough.
Monoprop? Totally unnecessary, as are the RCS ports. In fact they'd probably make a satellite that small HARDER to control.
And that final decoupler is unnecessary as well. If you don't tweak it down to 0 then your satellite will get (somewhat hilariously) THROWN out of the orbit you put it in. And if you DO tweak it down to 0, then your fuel tank will hang out close to the satellite and be space debris. Plus, if you ever want a satellite somewhere else, you may be able to repurpose this one if you leave it with some fuel and an engine.

[Chakat Firepaw]

Another note if this is for a career game:  Put a thermometer on it, it will pay for itself with the first "return science from space around Kerbin" contract to come up.

[Stone Blue]

Yeah, you dont have to worry about parts overheating/breaking/detaching on the rocket you got there.

Here's pics of the cheapest single launch rocket I could make for a 4 sat KEO RemoteTech network, using all stock parts. This is the first comms launch I do in career. Works out to just over $26k (just about $6600 per sat.)

Each sat is just 7 parts:

1 Comm 32

1 Probe Core

1 Battery

4 OX-SATs (could maybe get by with just 2)

They are mounted using just a single Jr. docking port.

This thing is NOT pretty, and it flies like a bucking bronco (minimal SAS & RCS), but it gets the job done cheap, and (relatively) early in career.

 

Edited April 14, 2016 by Stone Blue

[strider3]

14 hours ago, Servo said:

Another thing of note, it looks like in your design that your final stage (the LV-909) doesn't have any fuel supply. I'd recommend removing the engine altogether, and using RCS to reach orbit (H/N I/K and J/L can be used for directional thrust. H is up/prograde).

Servo, there are actually 2 torroidal fuel tanks on top of that LV-909.

Randazzo, Tell me about the aero "covering" you put over the probe? I have not used any of that yet and I'm curious about how these are installed and then released once in orbit to uncover your probe?

5thHorseman, what should I use instead of the decoupler, if I should choose to get rid of the fuel tanks and engine? I do like your thought of leaving them on for future use, though.

Thanks guys!!

Vic the Newbal

[Randazzo]

8 hours ago, Victor3 said:

Servo, there are actually 2 torroidal fuel tanks on top of that LV-909.

Randazzo, Tell me about the aero "covering" you put over the probe? I have not used any of that yet and I'm curious about how these are installed and then released once in orbit to uncover your probe?

5thHorseman, what should I use instead of the decoupler, if I should choose to get rid of the fuel tanks and engine? I do like your thought of leaving them on for future use, though.

Thanks guys!!

Vic the Newbal

The actual benefit of fairings in 1.0.5 is dubious at best. They may make the design more aerodynamic, but they also make it heavier and can generate lift* too high up on the rocket. On the same token, sometimes you need that forward weight to help the balance of the craft. I mainly use them just because I prefer the aesthetic.

I generally stage them off ~25-30k when the atmosphere is getting very thin and the weight of the fairings is costing more dV than the aerodynamics are saving.

* This is a bug; not the intended behavior.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Randazzo

[Superfluous J]

5 hours ago, Victor3 said:

5thHorseman, what should I use instead of the decoupler, if I should choose to get rid of the fuel tanks and engine? I do like your thought of leaving them on for future use, though.

You should use nothing. Just leave the fuel and engine on there. I've never left fuel and engines on a satellite and regretted it, but I HAVE tossed perfectly useful stuff aside and realized later it would have been nice to have.

But if you really want to disconnect it (aesthetic and all that) then you can tweak the decoupler force to 0 (is that an option in stock? It used to be TweakableEverything but they implemented a lot of that into stock) or use stack separators, which are heavier and leave more junk in orbit. Or, you can figure out how much speed the decoupler will impart on your satellite and set up your orbit to require a burn of that many m/s. Then use the decoupler to initiate that "burn." I've done it, but it's not worth it IMO. Especially because that was one of the satellites that I realized later I'd need to move.

[Servo]

9 hours ago, Victor3 said:

Servo, there are actually 2 torroidal fuel tanks on top of that LV-909.

...

Huh. Didn't notice that.

 

However, this brings up the point of how efficient the stage is for its mass. If you use a half-ton engine to burn a quarter-ton of fuel, that's not very efficient. It may not look as pretty, but a spark (whichever one the .625m one is) engine will do a much better job for its mass.

[wumpus]

On 4/14/2016 at 9:31 PM, 5thHorseman said:

If that page is more than a year old, it doesn't even take aerodynamics into account. Just looking at that pic tells me it doesn't

+1 to @Randazzo's satellite. Early career with small stuff, the BACC really shines.

5 antennas? You need 1. If that.
3 large batteries? Try 1 of the smallest, if that, and really just the OX-Stat panels is enough.
Monoprop? Totally unnecessary, as are the RCS ports. In fact they'd probably make a satellite that small HARDER to control.
And that final decoupler is unnecessary as well. If you don't tweak it down to 0 then your satellite will get (somewhat hilariously) THROWN out of the orbit you put it in. And if you DO tweak it down to 0, then your fuel tank will hang out close to the satellite and be space debris. Plus, if you ever want a satellite somewhere else, you may be able to repurpose this one if you leave it with some fuel and an engine.

Note that the BACC should work with the octoprobe.  Don't try it with the stayputnik (unless you have 4 winglets as fins).  Note that while all "real" satellites discard the engines (presumably they are worried about explosions?), there is no reason to do so in KSP.

Don't worry too much about aerodynamics.  Try to keep things behind a nosecone and keep things symmetric (more to balance mass, but it helps with aero as well).  If you are running Kerbal Engineer, you might have to crank the TWR down to 1.8 or so.  Blowing things up on the way up typically means you are going *way* too fast.

[Wemb]

11 hours ago, Servo said:

Huh. Didn't notice that.

 

However, this brings up the point of how efficient the stage is for its mass. If you use a half-ton engine to burn a quarter-ton of fuel, that's not very efficient. It may not look as pretty, but a spark (whichever one the .625m one is) engine will do a much better job for its mass.

Yup, what he said - the Spark engine is perfect for satellites, and with even a FL-T200 tank you'll have thousands (nearly 4,000) of m/s of dV on a probe core with a couple of solar panels and an antenna on - note you probably don't need batteries, unless you're running remote Tech or similar.  If you really want to save weight, and have the parts, the oscar tanks are even better - an OKTO probe with a single solar panel, antenna and thermometer with an oscar B tank and a spark engine will have, on it's own, a dV of about 1,700 m/s.  You should be able to get that into orbit with a pretty small rocket.

Wemb

Edited April 15, 2016 by Wemb

[strider3]

On ‎4‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 10:43 AM, Randazzo said:

The actual benefit of fairings in 1.0.5 is dubious at best. They may make the design more aerodynamic, but they also make it heavier and can generate lift* too high up on the rocket. On the same token, sometimes you need that forward weight to help the balance of the craft. I mainly use them just because I prefer the aesthetic.

I generally stage them off ~25-30k when the atmosphere is getting very thin and the weight of the fairings is costing more dV than the aerodynamics are saving.

* This is a bug; not the intended behavior.

How are these fairings "staged off"?

Thanks, R

22 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

You should use nothing. Just leave the fuel and engine on there. I've never left fuel and engines on a satellite and regretted it, but I HAVE tossed perfectly useful stuff aside and realized later it would have been nice to have.

But if you really want to disconnect it (aesthetic and all that) then you can tweak the decoupler force to 0 (is that an option in stock? It used to be TweakableEverything but they implemented a lot of that into stock) or use stack separators, which are heavier and leave more junk in orbit. Or, you can figure out how much speed the decoupler will impart on your satellite and set up your orbit to require a burn of that many m/s. Then use the decoupler to initiate that "burn." I've done it, but it's not worth it IMO. Especially because that was one of the satellites that I realized later I'd need to move.

I believe, in this construction, I'll leave the tanks and engine. At least until I know more about what I'm doing?

[Randazzo]

2 minutes ago, Victor3 said:

How are these fairings "staged off"?

Thanks, R

They will have a "stage" on the rocket, just like a decoupler or engine. You can also assign an action group to them, if you prefer.

[strider3]

18 hours ago, Servo said:

Huh. Didn't notice that.

 

However, this brings up the point of how efficient the stage is for its mass. If you use a half-ton engine to burn a quarter-ton of fuel, that's not very efficient. It may not look as pretty, but a spark (whichever one the .625m one is) engine will do a much better job for its mass.

Thanks, Servo. The 2 torroidal tanks DID attach "strangely"...in that the second one just seemed to join the same "space" as the first? A graphical issue, perhaps. I will build a craft from "scratch" to ensure both tanks worth of fuel actually are available to me...regardless of the graphics representation.

[Wemb]

7 minutes ago, Victor3 said:

How are these fairings "staged off"?

You can add them into the staging sequence as normal, or right click and 'deploy' whenever you like.  They can be 'deployed' or ditched at any time, but above 40km or so, when the aerodynamics effects they're designed to protect are no longer any great issue, is the best time to deploy them. I'm not really convinced for  a small rocket, that a fairing is worth it - as an alternative, you could put a nose cone and seperator on the top of the satelite and it may well do the same job for less weight[1]

Wemb
[1] Not that I've checked the weight, I haven't, but I use that before I get the fairings in career mode 

Edited April 15, 2016 by Wemb

[strider3]

17 hours ago, wumpus said:

Note that the BACC should work with the octoprobe.  Don't try it with the stayputnik (unless you have 4 winglets as fins).  Note that while all "real" satellites discard the engines (presumably they are worried about explosions?), there is no reason to do so in KSP.

Don't worry too much about aerodynamics.  Try to keep things behind a nosecone and keep things symmetric (more to balance mass, but it helps with aero as well).  If you are running Kerbal Engineer, you might have to crank the TWR down to 1.8 or so.  Blowing things up on the way up typically means you are going *way* too fast.

I "have" Kerbal Engineer...but have no real idea how to use it yet. I imagine that using KE requires an entire new line of study LOL

17 hours ago, wumpus said:

Note that the BACC should work with the octoprobe.  Don't try it with the stayputnik (unless you have 4 winglets as fins).  Note that while all "real" satellites discard the engines (presumably they are worried about explosions?), there is no reason to do so in KSP.

Don't worry too much about aerodynamics.  Try to keep things behind a nosecone and keep things symmetric (more to balance mass, but it helps with aero as well).  If you are running Kerbal Engineer, you might have to crank the TWR down to 1.8 or so.  Blowing things up on the way up typically means you are going *way* too fast.

wumpus...I worry about the BACC SRB's, at this point. I am thinking of going with liquid fuel instead, to control speed while in the atmosphere.

 

8 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

They will have a "stage" on the rocket, just like a decoupler or engine. You can also assign an action group to them, if you prefer.

Thanks, R!

[strider3]

Another point...what do I have to add to the Octoprobe to have, at least, prograde / retrograde control in SAS? Not that my rudimentary piloting skills won't allow me to fumble$@^% my way into the correct orbit but... Maybe it's better this way? Maybe I could use the piloting skills training. I'd still like to know, for future reference, but I think I'll go it on with simple SAS.

Edited April 15, 2016 by strider3

[strider3]

And one more...after reading many posts and wiki entries about placing a satellite, I was led to believe that the "required orbit" for the placement of said satellite would be visible in my "map" mode as a graphical representation. I am not seeing anything in "map" mode that shows the orbit, graphically, that I should be in to place my satellite. Was this old info?

Vic the Newbal

[FancyMouse]

9 minutes ago, Victor3 said:

And one more...after reading many posts and wiki entries about placing a satellite, I was led to believe that the "required orbit" for the placement of said satellite would be visible in my "map" mode as a graphical representation. I am not seeing anything in "map" mode that shows the orbit, graphically, that I should be in to place my satellite. Was this old info?

Vic the Newbal

You need to focus on the right planet. A Kerbin orbit is not going to show when you focus on Mun or a ship orbiting on Mun, but it will when you switch your focus.

[strider3]

24 minutes ago, FancyMouse said:

You need to focus on the right planet. A Kerbin orbit is not going to show when you focus on Mun or a ship orbiting on Mun, but it will when you switch your focus.

I did not believe you could "focus" anything on Kerbin? But, I don't KNOW that. Let me try that before we get ahead of myself ;-)

Thanks FancyMouse!

[FancyMouse]

8 minutes ago, Victor3 said:

I did not believe you could "focus" anything on Kerbin? But, I don't KNOW that. Let me try that before we get ahead of myself ;-)

Well, I didn't mean focus on anything, but rather there's a mode that just focus on a planet, and your viewpoint is rotated around the center of the planet. Just press tab several times and you'll know what it is.

The original problem more often occurs with Sun orbits, because people tend to just zoom out and didn't see the orbit, and started complaining the same thing. What really needs to be done is just double-click the Sun, or press tab a few times to focus on Sun.

[strider3]

Thanks FM, I got what your saying.

My problem now is a very uncontrollable craft as we launch...I always end up flipping, which is a new problem for me (well, haven't had it lately...). I've got in line stabilizers everywhere and yet the darn thing wants to do a somersault at about 200-250 m/s? This is why I asked about adding "Prograde / Retrograde" abilities to the Octo, above.

I think I need to rethink the entire "satellite" thing. It has so far been a disaster. Maybe later.

Edited April 15, 2016 by strider3

[strider3]

Let me ask straight out...How do I gain SAS controls (prograde/retrograde, etc.) over a probe? What do I have to add to the probe? Currently I have SAS ability...but that is all.