The KSP Interstellar Proxima Centauri Challenge

[FreeThinker]

4 minutes ago, pmborg said:

Maybe I don't know how to work with "Particle Accelerator"  or I am not getting the advantage, I see a direct disadvantage to add more 66tones and I already have 16GW of electricity without the "Particle Accelerator", probably you are right but I am not getting the al thel picture maybe.

Wel the main advantage allows you to house a lot of Kerbals

[pmborg]

• ok finally got you, I think "Particle Accelerator centrifuge ring" but not for this "airplane lander", but for the main Mothrership, right?
• ok that make more sense now
• Sure I will try that idea.

 

The current version is this one:

 

• Actually have a lander that do the amazing challenge of Takeoff/Land from/to Kerbin, but with 10 x  Kerbin force of gravity (10g)
• I will try to have both ship landers unless the unbalance CG make me use two equal ships.

 

Edited October 3, 2019 by pmborg

[pmborg]

Today is the day of a general test to the all system:

Interstellar Mothership on the ramp and 50 kerbals on runway.

But the frames drooped to low to make a real time movie of it, I will remove some unneeded aircrafts from the scene , to improve FPS.

I am using the:"EVA Parachutes & Ejection Seats"

• To make them offload the plane faster, don't know if there is a better way...!?
• The test with "Particle Accelerator centrifuge ring"  is coming... @FreeThinker

Edited October 5, 2019 by pmborg

[FreeThinker]

2 hours ago, pmborg said:

To make them offload the plane faster, don't know if there is a better way...!?

Yes, you should make use of hangers

This wil significanly lower the part count at the expense of increased mass

Edited October 5, 2019 by FreeThinker

[pmborg]

I mean fast offload instead of ladders

 

About the hangar is a good idea to reduce the parts on scene, but I am using construction for that, this airplane have dozens of buildings inside as cargo, to be constructed.

Edited October 5, 2019 by pmborg

[pmborg]

Sample:

This UN-stability was also solved with hydraulics.

Edited October 6, 2019 by pmborg

[pmborg]

Actually @FreeThinker I will need the Hangar in theory to park all the vehicles in the destiny planet and reduce the current "parts count":

• -Constructions: add it
• -Hangar & scraps action: reduce it.

Edited October 5, 2019 by pmborg

[pmborg]

Spent 13hours fixing and tuning the all system:

InterStellarShip + ShipeLander + TankFactory + Colony, all ready and integrated.

As pack they are 230 parts but for sure after full deploy,  more than 1000 parts.

Those rings look really amazing @FreeThinker:

 

To center the CG as much as possible:

 

 

Edited October 5, 2019 by pmborg

[FreeThinker]

11 hours ago, pmborg said:

Those rings look really amazing @FreeThinker:

To center the CG as much as possible:

I notice you scalled up the computer core to rediculous size. THe computer core is essentialy a combination of a probe core and supercapacitator. You don't realy need the supercapacitator when you have power onboard reactors.  If you use it mainly for the reaction wheels, I suggest using a more specialized part for this or use RCS which becomes more mass effective when scaled up. Of cource that will increase part count.

Edited October 6, 2019 by FreeThinker

[pmborg]

Just now, FreeThinker said:

I notice you scalled up the computer core to rediculous size. If you use it mainly for the reaction wheels, I recommended using a more specialized part for this or use RCS which becomes more mass effective when scaled up

Actually the "computer core" there is doing a passive hidden function, that is just noticed during the maneuvers and dynamics.

Accidentally I found that put that huge "computer core" over there the all structure will vibrate less with the huge accelerations and huge de-accelerations, I tried several different circle big parts, but none perform so well.

For RCS I have a much bigger and stronger one on top, bellow the Magnetic Scoop.

[pmborg]

Finally got a good airplane, removed the balloons added an extra wing, add more and better control surfaces.

Testing the:

• Landing on the terrain
• Deploy the colony part1

(Video is still processing HD)

[pmborg]

@FreeThinker Tested also in the Mun, from Kerbin to Mun and back:

 

 

Tested also the the Hangars made by @allista ,but they are only 4m wide unfortunately, this airplane don't fit to attach the interstellar-ship.

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by pmborg

[allista]

On 10/7/2019 at 1:42 AM, pmborg said:

Tested also the the Hangars made by @allista ,but they are only 4m wide unfortunately, this airplane don't fit to attach the interstellar-ship.

Hey, Hangars are very resizable: up to size10, i.e. 12.5m wide 

[pmborg]

2 hours ago, allista said:

Hey, Hangars are very resizable: up to size10, i.e. 12.5m wide 

Hello again,

Yes, correction from my side 4x instead 4m which is 14.54m

Even so its not enough...

Alfa_Fighter1_5.loadmeta

shipName = Alfa_Fighter1.5
description =
version = 1.7.3
partCount = 124
stageCount = 6
totalCost = 5634510.5
totalMass = 480.780701
shipSize = 41.9153976,14.2599754,56.682354
type = SPH

 

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by pmborg

[FreeThinker]

11 hours ago, pmborg said:

Hello again,

Yes, correction from my side 4x instead 4m which is 14.54m

Even so its not enough...

Alfa_Fighter1_5.loadmeta

shipName = Alfa_Fighter1.5
description =
version = 1.7.3
partCount = 124
stageCount = 6
totalCost = 5634510.5
totalMass = 480.780701
shipSize = 41.9153976,14.2599754,56.682354
type = SPH

 

 

Well when required, you can always extended the tweaksize manualy yourself in the config file. There is no real reason why it would be limited except for the physics limits of KSP, which would be 5 km

[pmborg]

5 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Well when required, you can always extended the tweaksize manualy yourself in the config file. There is no real reason why it would be limited except for the physics limits of KSP, which would be 5 km

 

Hello @FreeThinker,

Yes, good point indeed, I was trying to avoid doing special parts to the airplane/ to this project, but in fact I already have :
- A special ISRU
- A special set of tools
- Alfa Centauri (customized), kerbin customized...

I will try that, thanks!

- Last weekend I have dont a general test, was 13 hours in a raw testing everything.
- After solving the problem reported in global construction thread and after solving this problem with Hangar, I believe that I have this project at 99% done.
- I don't know exactly how breeding will work with Population (simulation) this is still an open point.

For the intro cinematic I will have a:
- Alfa_Bus (with crew arriving to the ship)

Main-ship:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- AlfaStellarShuttle-v5-7
   - Alfa_Fighter1.5  (CONTAINER pre-Factored)
       - Alfa_AssemblyLine2 (CONTAINER pre-Factored)
           - Alfa_MuniVan  (new CONTAINER and Factored)
           - Alfa_population1 (new CONTAINER and Factored)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by pmborg

[FreeThinker]

edit, hopfully Real Exoplanets get released  soon

 

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by FreeThinker

[pmborg]

14 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Well when required, you can always extended the tweaksize manualy yourself in the config file. There is no real reason why it would be limited except for the physics limits of KSP, which would be 5 km

Hello @FreeThinker

Yes indeed:

Passed from max size 4 to 10 better now

I had to use the AnisotropicPartResizer instead TweakScale which is the one used by Hangar.

 

Just got a simple solution, just a few lines in my own mods:

@PART[HangarResizeLimit4]
{
    %MODULE[TechTreeResizeInfo]
    {
        @maxSize = 10
    }
}

 

Maybe a better solution it would be add a this tech. in a later tech tree node, but for now is enough to test it.

 

But ofc. still not enough 41.9153976 > 36.25m yet...

Edited October 11, 2019 by pmborg

[pmborg]

Updated to:

@PART[HangarResizeLimit4]
{
    %MODULE[TechTreeResizeInfo]
    {
        @maxSize = 12
    }
}
@PART[Hangar2]
{
    %MODULE[AnisotropicPartResizer]
    {
        maxSize = 12
    }
}
@PART[RadialHangar]
{
    %MODULE[AnisotropicPartResizer]
    {
        maxSize = 12
    }
}
@PART[InflatableSpaceHangar]
{
    %MODULE[AnisotropicPartResizer]
    {
        maxSize = 12
    }
}
@PART[InflatableHangar1]
{
    %MODULE[AnisotropicPartResizer]
    {
        maxSize = 12
    }
}
@PART[InflatableHangar2]
{
    %MODULE[AnisotropicPartResizer]
    {
        maxSize = 12
    }
}

Finally working:

Finally now the hangar with Airplane on board:

Now with Hangar closed:

@FreeThinkerYour Idea about use Hangar was pure gold!

Thanks!

Edited October 11, 2019 by pmborg

[pmborg]

The Sunrise witness that all is ready for the first Big Inter Stellar Journey:

 

[FreeThinker]

On 10/11/2019 at 10:08 PM, pmborg said:

@FreeThinkerYour Idea about use Hangar was pure gold!

Thanks!

Nice, what is your part count now?

Edited October 12, 2019 by FreeThinker

[pmborg]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

Nice, what is your part count now?

Hello,

The latest version have 92 parts and I removed the Air-Ballons, now go orbit by pure engine force, that will be decouple in orbit.

With Alfa_Fighter inside:

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by pmborg

[FreeThinker]

11 hours ago, pmborg said:

Hello,

The latest version have 92 parts and I removed the Air-Ballons, now go orbit by pure engine force, that will be decouple in orbit.

With Alfa_Fighter inside:

 

Keeping the Part count under 100 parts for such versitile vessel is quite an achievement. Sure you can increase DeltaV, but it will at the cost of  complexity and part count and if there is one thing I leaned in KSP is you want to keep thing as simple as possible because every added complexity increases the chance of failure.

[pmborg]

53 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Keeping the Part count under 100 parts for such versitile vessel is quite an achievement. Sure you can increase DeltaV, but it will at the cost of  complexity and part count and if there is one thing I leaned in KSP is you want to keep thing as simple as possible because every added complexity increases the chance of failure.

Hello @FreeThinker cant agree more,

The current deltaV is 118M m/s (39,3% light speed) (after refuel the tanks in Jupiter) uploading now a video latest version "going orbit", just had to change a bit in order to keep the ship more Robust and handle more G forces.

The decoupler of the engines that take the ship to orbit are annoying a bit, because they do a kind of a mini explosion (at video 10m:04s) when decoupled I don't like that, but have being struggling to understand why is happening.

Note: On the image we see only 700Km/s of deltaV because the 3 tanks are empty, there is no way to takeoff with them full.

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by pmborg

[pmborg]

Ok just found the solution about was going at 10m:04s in video, the Jet of the combustion, it self of the solid booster that belongs to the decoupler were doing that, just removed them.

Just applied KISS, Keep It Simple and Stupid, worked, without solid fuel on decoupler.

After release the atmosphere orbit engines, become 77 Parts.

Edited October 13, 2019 by pmborg