[Stock 0.16] The Eve Project =Guard13007 Industries=

[r_rolo1]

Just to point out that your landing instructions for X5 are far from optimal. Using the engines with the parachutes deployed but not open is a waste of fuel because you will have the same terminal speed as soon as the chutes open ... So you should cut step 3 and I'm not even sure if the step 4 could not be optimized by burning at higher power but starting closer to the ground

BTW on X6 ... your pic shows you burning at 300km high. If possible try to burn for escape velocity closer of the planet, because burns are more effective when the ship is at a higher velocity and lower orbits = higher orbital speed.

[Newt0570]

Since you're returning to kerbin, don't you need a decoupler under your pod? and a parachute as well?

Let's not forget those!

[r_rolo1]

He does not plan to come back to Kerbin in this ship His OP has it all explained: the plan is to send 2 ships, one for the landing and other for the return from Eve... obviously this is the lander itself. The return ship will be most likely one with a 3 men capsule but with a kerbal left in home to make space

[1248766]

for the X3, we could try to use the larger parachutes which provide more drag and are less likely to snap off, which could be an issue in the thicker atmosphere.

[what-the]

Just made a quick edit of the Liquid engine to simulate Eves gravity. You still have to add the small ladders to create the drag but this is still quite useful for simulation. (Hey maybe this kind of simulation will make it into the career mode).

http://www.sendspace.com/file/rbs7md

Click this on the page "Click here to start download from sendspace". Also look inside the en....

[Naiba]

I guess a two rocket design, one dedicated to getting to EvE with a lander capable of landing and returning to orbit, and one dedicated to getting to eve, orbiting, and then returning the Kerbal home after rendezvous/crew transfer, would be considered cheating?

[r_rolo1]

Why? It is nothing more than a rescue operation to Eve, to save a stranded Kerman that got out of fuel . The fact that it was by design it is a mere accident

Speaking more seriously, it will be most likely impossible to simply build a huge mega rocket for a complete trip to Eve and back as long as it is launched from the surface of Kerbin due to the not enough energy density from our regular rocket fuel. In RL we have the same issue with trips to Mars or Venus ...

The RL solution for that would be most likely to assemble a ship in low Earth orbit, fill it with fuel ( delivered by other rockets ), burn to target planet, deploy a lander , land, get back to mothership, burn to Earth, deploy capsule ... Unfortunately this needs 2 things that KSP still does not have in base version ( both exist in mods though ): docking and fuel transfer. Not having those, the only realistic option is the two ship mission as the OP wants.

Back on topic, @ Guard13007 , your X6 is completely excessive fuel wise. I've been tinkering around a heavily modified version of your X5 and I got a decently performing ship that can put a lander slightly heavier than your X5 in a orbit with a Pe consistent with the data Nova gave with a 1/3 of a big tank left for manouvering ( the ship in the pic has mechjeb, just for convenience of the launch staging, that is somewhat complicated, but it does not need it )

See here for save and more details

Edited August 23, 2012 by r_rolo1

[Guard13007]

Just to point out that your landing instructions for X5 are far from optimal. Using the engines with the parachutes deployed but not open is a waste of fuel because you will have the same terminal speed as soon as the chutes open ... So you should cut step 3 and I'm not even sure if the step 4 could not be optimized by burning at higher power but starting closer to the ground

BTW on X6 ... your pic shows you burning at 300km high. If possible try to burn for escape velocity closer of the planet, because burns are more effective when the ship is at a higher velocity and lower orbits = higher orbital speed.

Cutting step 3 means your ship falls apart when the chutes open. Cutting step 4/changing step 4 means you break when you hit the ground.

On the X6, if you'll look closer, it says that I was playing with it. I wasn't testing it's ability, just playing with throwing it straight up. xD

@r_rolo1: Thanks for explaining that. ^^

for the X3, we could try to use the larger parachutes which provide more drag and are less likely to snap off, which could be an issue in the thicker atmosphere.

I'm waiting to experiment with different chutes and whatnot when 0.17 comes out. Right now I'm focusing more on trying to get something that is close to working, and can be fine-tuned later. Also, look at the X5, a smaller ship that is just as capable so far (or at least, I think it was, I forget exactly, but smaller is generally better).

Just made a quick edit of the Liquid engine to simulate Eves gravity. You still have to add the small ladders to create the drag but this is still quite useful for simulation. (Hey maybe this kind of simulation will make it into the career mode).

Hmm, I like to keep everything stock, but I think I'll make an exception since I have no idea how well any of this will work in the end.

I guess a two rocket design, one dedicated to getting to EvE with a lander capable of landing and returning to orbit, and one dedicated to getting to eve, orbiting, and then returning the Kerbal home after rendezvous/crew transfer, would be considered cheating?

If you'd read the first post, you'd know that's exactly what we're trying to do.

[Guard13007]

Back on topic, @ Guard13007 , your X6 is completely excessive fuel wise. I've been tinkering around a heavily modified version of your X5 and I got a decently performing ship that can put a lander slightly heavier than your X5 in a orbit with a Pe consistent with the data Nova gave with a 1/3 of a big tank left for manouvering ( the ship in the pic has mechjeb, just for convenience of the launch staging, that is somewhat complicated, but it does not need it )

See here for save and more details

X6: I knew it. xD I'm not that good at rockets, but at least I'm trying.

I'll give the Eve 1 a try. ^^ I have another (possibly) improved lander design I need to work on (it's on paper, but I haven't built it or tested it yet).

[Arrowstar]

I'll help you guys out a little bit, here are the latest stats on Eve:

(may change, they've been changed up quite a bit so far)

Radius: 700km

Surface gravity: 1.7g

Atmosphere density: 5x kerbin

Rotation period: 22.5 hours

Semimajor axis: 7440000km

Eccentricity: 0.03

Inclination: 0.025

Can I get the Mean Anomaly at Epoch and Epoch for that orbit, as well?

EDIT: Also, units on inclination? Degrees or (I hope) radians?

Edited August 24, 2012 by Arrowstar

[r_rolo1]

X6: I knew it. xD I'm not that good at rockets, but at least I'm trying.

I'll give the Eve 1 a try. ^^ I have another (possibly) improved lander design I need to work on (it's on paper, but I haven't built it or tested it yet).

Unfortunately I discovered that Eve I is taking advantage of a rather esoteric fuel bug ( yes, another bug ... completely unrelated to the the non-full thrust one ) that cuts the fuel consumption in half in certain situations. See here for more details. I think it might still work but it will definitely not be as efficient as I posted it.

[Guard13007]

Unfortunately I discovered that Eve I is taking advantage of a rather esoteric fuel bug ( yes, another bug ... completely unrelated to the the non-full thrust one ) that cuts the fuel consumption in half in certain situations. See here for more details. I think it might still work but it will definitely not be as efficient as I posted it.

Well, I tried it out, and there were two/three problems, I didn't fly it right (big surprise there) (please give me more specific flight instructions next time xD), there was an extra stage in the save that didn't do anything (I eliminated this problem and added rocket holders to my own little mod of it), and when I tried to land it for testing it's return capabilities, the chutes broke the capsule off on deployment.

Also your staging is so complex I couldn't figure out when and where to stage on the latter stages, I think I accidentally dumped full or half-full tanks. xD

That fuel bug is very unfortunate, I was hoping we could get farther before 0.17 comes out. I think right now we should focus on out-of-the-box thinking (for example, your design entirely different from anything I would've thought up) and try to get close, worry about fine-tuning later. Don't worry about getting a completely functional design, worry more about getting versatile designs and ideas and knowledge on how to build epic rockets. We'll finish it up with 0.17 (of course) with the new parts giving us the final boost we need to do this.

(Also, I am really busy with college and crap, so I don't have as much time to put into this project as I want.)

[r_rolo1]

I have not tested the chutes very extensive but when the chutes break like that it is because there are too many or too little parachutes and/or the reentry angle was too steep ( hence the chutes have to break out much more energy that might be too much ). I'll test them later when I have time.

And you are right, there is a stage that is useless ( stage 8 ). I forgot to solve it before I delivered it out. The staging is complex but it can be resumed by:

- stage 9 fires all engines except the smaller LV

- stage 8 + 7 drop the solid boosters out ( they were supposed to be one stage )

- the next 3 stages drop the outer tanks, starting by the lowest ones and then climbing

- stage 3 separates the central big tanks and 3 of the aerospike engines out also firing the small LV. In other words it separates the lander out.

- To be honest I do not remember well the last stages, but after activating the parachutes and supposedly landing, they should separate the tanks with the legs and the tanks with the engines by that order.

That particular design is the heritage on my work about rockets that pull their cargo instead of pushing it. I even posted a quite crazy prototype of a Mun rocket the Accordion B:

You can definitely see the thought line connecting Eve I and that crazy thing ( really, it is a fun rocket to fly ) To be honest I like the concept because it allows more engines burning at takeoff with some imagination and because you can drop all of the tanks as soon as they get dry, making things more efficient. Unfortunately it has the drawback of making the ships extremely unstable and susceptible to lateral tilting, especially if the engines are not mounted directly adjacent to the central tanks ( I strongly suspect of possible physics engine shenanigans ). That can be mitigated if you also put a strong push below, hence that LV in my Eve I design.

And OFC this are nothing more than prototypes. We can't really test things before we have the planet to try to land on . But to be honest, I'm seeing some good ideas in this thread and will rip them out a lot

[Guard13007]

I have not tested the chutes very extensive but when the chutes break like that it is because there are too many or too little parachutes and/or the reentry angle was too steep ( hence the chutes have to break out much more energy that might be too much ). I'll test them later when I have time.

And you are right, there is a stage that is useless ( stage 8 ). I forgot to solve it before I delivered it out. The staging is complex but it can be resumed by:

- stage 9 fires all engines except the smaller LV

- stage 8 + 7 drop the solid boosters out ( they were supposed to be one stage )

- the next 3 stages drop the outer tanks, starting by the lowest ones and then climbing

- stage 3 separates the central big tanks and 3 of the aerospike engines out also firing the small LV. In other words it separates the lander out.

- To be honest I do not remember well the last stages, but after activating the parachutes and supposedly landing, they should separate the tanks with the legs and the tanks with the engines by that order.

That particular design is the heritage on my work about rockets that pull their cargo instead of pushing it. I even posted a quite crazy prototype of a Mun rocket the Accordion B:

You can definitely see the thought line connecting Eve I and that crazy thing ( really, it is a fun rocket to fly ) To be honest I like the concept because it allows more engines burning at takeoff with some imagination and because you can drop all of the tanks as soon as they get dry, making things more efficient. Unfortunately it has the drawback of making the ships extremely unstable and susceptible to lateral tilting, especially if the engines are not mounted directly adjacent to the central tanks ( I strongly suspect of possible physics engine shenanigans ). That can be mitigated if you also put a strong push below, hence that LV in my Eve I design.

And OFC this are nothing more than prototypes. We can't really test things before we have the planet to try to land on . But to be honest, I'm seeing some good ideas in this thread and will rip them out a lot

While I understand that we should be worrying about re-entry angle, I don't want the final design to have any problem with re-entry angles (hopefully we can pull it off) because I want the final design to be easy to fly and capable of handling mistakes without aborting.

I think there's a problem somewhere between stage 4 and 2 (I think it's on stage 3 but I could be wrong). I ended up having almost full tanks that weren't being used, I assumed they were the ones that don't get decoupled first and just didn't worry it, but when I ejected, it ejected them first (full tanks with nothing taken out! D:) and then the other three with the remaining aerospike engines. I then had to immediately eject the aerospikes+tanks and then it couldn't get into orbit.

It's probably my fault since I'm not that good of a pilot, but it just needs more testing I think. That other design you posted, and your ideas about rockets pulling their cargo rather than pushing it, genius and insane. xD Good work.

Lol yeah, even if this project doesn't quite make it on its own, at least it gives ideas for future rocket-builders. xD But having said that, THIS PROJECT BETTER DAMN WORK OUT!

*not finished yet* Updated the first post with links to other designs and stuff, since it was all my stuff so far. Derp I'm an idiot.

[ltpeanuts]

That looks very similar but better than the X4-X6 which I've been working on but haven't posted because I've been so busy.

By "flown economically" I hope you mean by being good at flying to orbit, rather than by throttle control. We don't want to use the fuel glitch here, so I just want to clarify. Also, what are your instructions for an economic flight path?

I'll give your design a try when I have time (right now I need to go to bed, and I have class and homework tomorrow (yay college)). After testing it myself, (if you don't mind) I'll add it to the list on the first post with instructions and whatnot and of course give credit where credit is due!

You're welcome to use the Crossbow anyway you like if you credit me. Basic flight path is up 15-20k then tip over about 30 degrees, coast up to 150k and then circularise. I was burning at around 5% thrust at the end of my circularisation burn, but that was only because I saved weight by not using RCS.

[r_rolo1]

Oh, I see ... the issue you have with stage 3 is because I forgot to say that is preferably done with the engines off :/ That stage is pretty much only a separation stage of the lander. Then you can burn or activate stage 2 ( the chutes ) , or both. Then on liftoff, you activate 1 when you depleted the small tanks and 0 when you depleted the aerospike connected tanks.

Anyway, I will try to do a video on this ( if my comp does not melt ). A image is worth a 1000 words don't they say ?

[r_rolo1]

Well, I tried to make a video of me operating the Eve I, but it ended in a 1 fps slideshow that was barely watch able. SO, I ended giving some written explanations and some pics in the dedicated thread + a refined version ( basically some stage rearrangement and more parachutes ). See it here

[darkwolfpaw54]

if 0.17 had other places then we could set up a base to make planes rockets etc. o wait THEY DONT HAVE THAT dammit my idea is cool still

[Guard13007]

You're welcome to use the Crossbow anyway you like if you credit me. Basic flight path is up 15-20k then tip over about 30 degrees, coast up to 150k and then circularise. I was burning at around 5% thrust at the end of my circularisation burn, but that was only because I saved weight by not using RCS.

Thanks for this info, unfortunately, doing burns at anything under 100% is using the dreaded fuel glitch that will be fixed for 0.17. I'll try it out still, and will probably base a few more test designs off of it, but I'm afraid the design will not perform as needed.

Oh, I see ... the issue you have with stage 3 is because I forgot to say that is preferably done with the engines off :/ That stage is pretty much only a separation stage of the lander. Then you can burn or activate stage 2 ( the chutes ) , or both. Then on liftoff, you activate 1 when you depleted the small tanks and 0 when you depleted the aerospike connected tanks.

Anyway, I will try to do a video on this ( if my comp does not melt ). A image is worth a 1000 words don't they say ?

I don't see why staging with different levels of thrust should change how fuel is distributed. The issue I had was that after that stage, I had fuel in tanks that wouldn't be used. Once again I think it was probably my fault, and we shouldn't worry about it anyhow since we have to worry about that weird fuel bug first.

Well, I tried to make a video of me operating the Eve I, but it ended in a 1 fps slideshow that was barely watch able. SO, I ended giving some written explanations and some pics in the dedicated thread + a refined version ( basically some stage rearrangement and more parachutes ). See it here

Ah. That sucks. For future video attempts, three hints if you haven't found them, there's a config file edit you can make to improve things, turning down all the video settings helps, and look up at the craft and don't ever look at the planet will dramatically improve FPS. As I keep saying, I will check everything out later. Right now I'm trying to find a job so we can pay rent for this month (oh ****!) and keep up with my classes, so I don't have much free time.

if 0.17 had other places then we could set up a base to make planes rockets etc. o wait THEY DONT HAVE THAT dammit my idea is cool still

This should go in a thread in suggestions, not here, sorry. While the idea is cool, we aren't here to speculate on these things, we're here to build some mutter-fracking huge-axe rockets! And also to dodge cussing apparently. :-?

EDIT: Oh yeah, the first post update I said I was doing yesterday, well I'm actually doing it right now. Sorry to say I'm doing something and then not do it.

[Guard13007]

And I've finally updated the first post. Please tell me what I screwed up on, if you like the format, if I should go jump off a cliff, or anything else you'd like to spout at me.

[ltpeanuts]

Thanks for this info, unfortunately, doing burns at anything under 100% is using the dreaded fuel glitch that will be fixed for 0.17. I'll try it out still, and will probably base a few more test designs off of it, but I'm afraid the design will not perform as needed.

I slapped an RCS tank the Crossbow right under the capsule to try it out by 100% burning the whole way and it works, but chews through a bunch more fuel. More tinkering is required, anyway with Nova's updates on Eve's atmosphere I don't think a traditional rocket will work very well. I think we're gonna need a spaceplane to break atmo here. Which adds a whole new level of challenge in finding a good landing sight that you can take off from. I'll see what I can come up with.

[Guard13007]

I slapped an RCS tank the Crossbow right under the capsule to try it out by 100% burning the whole way and it works, but chews through a bunch more fuel. More tinkering is required, anyway with Nova's updates on Eve's atmosphere I don't think a traditional rocket will work very well. I think we're gonna need a spaceplane to break atmo here. Which adds a whole new level of challenge in finding a good landing sight that you can take off from. I'll see what I can come up with.

Hmm, well I've installed a fix for the fuel glitch to do testing with, and found the X5 continues to hold up as a good design, at least for landing on Kerbin and returning to orbit. A spaceplane seems like a very interesting idea, have no idea how this would work out though. I look forward to see your progress. ^^

Also, hi other Redditor. Derp. xD

[ltpeanuts]

Hmm, well I've installed a fix for the fuel glitch to do testing with, and found the X5 continues to hold up as a good design, at least for landing on Kerbin and returning to orbit. A spaceplane seems like a very interesting idea, have no idea how this would work out though. I look forward to see your progress. ^^

Also, hi other Redditor. Derp. xD

A quick update: 19 dead kerbals later, and I've found that I'm really bad a planes. Work continues.

[Giggleplex777]

I can help with space planes. MU HA HA HA!

[ltpeanuts]

Update time! After much work and many lives sacrificed to science, my team of "engineers" has come up with the Arrowhead. It's a nice small ship, easy to land and glides like a dream(75m/s at 6500m, pitched to 18 degrees seems to work best.) So far I have no system of getting it to Eve, but that will come in time.

As always feel free to use my ships in any way you please so long as you credit my design. Any and all help is welcome