What did you do in KSP1 today?

[Torquimedes]

Prototyped a little something I started a long time ago, after my stock X-Wing squadron, when you had to build your own hinges.  Couldn't figure out how to fit the docking ports inside it to lock the wings in place after rotation.  Now it takes longer to paint it green than to make the wings work!  (It's a Klingon Bird of Prey, for those too young to have seen one in person.)

 

[KerikBalm]

1 hour ago, Red Stapler said:

Nice view!

You need to bring a couch out there for your next visit. 

That would be a great, funny, and pointless part for squad to add!

[Guest]

Still tooling around with rotors.

As it currently stands, KSP can't into small-diameter propellers. I made a proof-of-concept prop plane and it was really cranky. I got it to 85 m/s but it was a small plane and needed two big motors each with double six-bladed props with adjustable pitch; top speed was at about 76 degree blade pitch. Once off the ground it flew acceptably but that's about it. 

The other functional prop plane I managed to build is a tiny little solar-powered one-kerbal craft. But compared to large-diameter rotors, props are really no fun at all.

Then I made a nighttime variant of my favourite. If Jeb loses his keys again, we can certainly find them with the BAK-52N:

https://kerbalx.com/Brikoleur/BAK-52N

[Azimech]

2 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Still tooling around with rotors.

As it currently stands, KSP can't into small-diameter propellers. I made a proof-of-concept prop plane and it was really cranky. I got it to 85 m/s but it was a small plane and needed two big motors each with double six-bladed props with adjustable pitch; top speed was at about 76 degree blade pitch. Once off the ground it flew acceptably but that's about it. 

The other functional prop plane I managed to build is a tiny little solar-powered one-kerbal craft. But compared to large-diameter rotors, props are really no fun at all.

Then I made a nighttime variant of my favourite. If Jeb loses his keys again, we can certainly find them with the BAK-52N:

https://kerbalx.com/Brikoleur/BAK-52N

 

3 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Still tooling around with rotors.

As it currently stands, KSP can't into small-diameter propellers. I made a proof-of-concept prop plane and it was really cranky. I got it to 85 m/s but it was a small plane and needed two big motors each with double six-bladed props with adjustable pitch; top speed was at about 76 degree blade pitch. Once off the ground it flew acceptably but that's about it. 

The other functional prop plane I managed to build is a tiny little solar-powered one-kerbal craft. But compared to large-diameter rotors, props are really no fun at all.

Then I made a nighttime variant of my favourite. If Jeb loses his keys again, we can certainly find them with the BAK-52N:

https://kerbalx.com/Brikoleur/BAK-52N

If you want to know more about props & rotors, you're welcome in my topic. We've been busy with these things since ... well ... 2015.

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Azimech said:

If you want to know more about props & rotors, you're welcome in my topic. We've been busy with these things since ... well ... 2015.

Thanks! I did read the thread a year ago or so when I wanted to get into stock propellers, and got as far as getting a basic engine to work; however they were so finicky to get just right as well as significantly lacking in controllability that it wasn't really my thing. Mad respect for pushing KSP all the way to its limits before there were stock electric motors!

[Azimech]

1 minute ago, Brikoleur said:

Thanks! I did read the thread a year ago or so when I wanted to get into stock propellers, and got as far as getting a basic engine to work; however they were so finicky to get just right as well as significantly lacking in controllability that it wasn't really my thing. Mad respect for pushing KSP all the way to its limits before there were stock electric motors!

I understand the appeal of the stock electric motor ... compact, light etc. But not powerful. With turbines you can set speed records and lift records (the heaviest heli's will always be turbines).

About control ... you could test a few of my stock heli's. They're pretty easy to fly.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Azimech said:

I understand the appeal of the stock electric motor ... compact, light etc. But not powerful. With turbines you can set speed records and lift records (the heaviest heli's will always be turbines).

About control ... you could test a few of my stock heli's. They're pretty easy to fly.

I'll do that one of these days. Do you have a suggestion for which one? 

-- I'm pretty happy with the power of the stock electrics as it is. I haven't wanted to build anything heavier than what two of the big ones couldn't lift, and if I did I could always add a few more of them.

[Urus28]

The monolith is not a large landing area....

I'm testing rocker-bogie for a large rover with Mun exploration in mind. It works very well in general. The only problem comes with jumps... And big jumps are common on the Mun

[Azimech]

Just now, Brikoleur said:

I'll do that one of these days. Do you have a suggestion for which one? 

-- I'm pretty happy with the power of the stock electrics as it is. I haven't wanted to build anything heavier than what two of the big ones couldn't lift, and if I did I could always add a few more of them.

The manual for the Selene can be found on the craft page in PDF form. You need it. The manual for the others is on the craft page.

https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-Azi20-Selene-v10 

https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-Azi24-Cronus-v20

https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-Azi31-Rhea-v20

https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-Azi14-Asura-v22

 

 

[Triop]

Today, trying to learn how to use the KAL-1000, too bad you cant copy presets, programming takes a lot of time...

Also working on a new ride:

Edited June 1, 2019 by Triop

[Geschosskopf]

I made a self-portrait, as in 2-legged walking robot that staggers around drunkenly without quite managing to fall over   Funny thing about this.  I took a walking wind-up toy as my model and ended up having to turn the feet 180^ so the widest parts are outboard instead of inboard.  I guess my robot really needs a wider pelvis.  But hey, it walks on 2 legs.

1 hour ago, Triop said:

Also working on a new ride:

Do you, by chance, play Planet Coaster?

Edited June 2, 2019 by Geschosskopf

[Triop]

22 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

Do you, by chance, play Planet Coaster?

No, I live in a city that hosts the biggest carnival (kermis) in the BeNeLux each year, I grew up with rides.

 

[Superfluous J]

Okay I think I finally have a workable design for the asteroid plane.

Well, until it gets in the atmosphere at least

Extended:

Retracted:

Of course, it doesn't have wings or a tail, or landing gear yet. Those are just details.

Very very important details, but still.

Update: It's *just* big enough to sneak a class-b through at full extension.

Edited June 2, 2019 by 5thHorseman

[Stratzenblitz75]

Today, I went to 3 planets/moons with 3 parts:

 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Azimech said:

The manual for the Selene can be found on the craft page in PDF form. You need it. The manual for the others is on the craft page.

I gave the Asura a spin. It does fly really nicely with highly responsive pitch, roll, and yaw. It's just a shame that it doesn't have collective control. Did you ever get a swash plate actually working in a flyable chopper? Now with actuators and using a motor as an unpowered bearing I bet you could build a turbine that allowed it.

Edit: I made one. This rough PoC though isn't all that impressive in terms of torque/power, the motor by itself is way powerful than the four-blower turbine. This is probably really inefficient though, I'll have to try with some aerodynamic blades and such. The advantage is that it doesn't transfer torque to the main vessel which make single-rotor helos a practical possibility (like Asura for example).

(I'm spinning I-beams just to get an idea of the power output.)

Edit 2: Now we're talkin', my problem was with intake air. Seems stationary the usual number of intakes isn't enough. This one outputs slightly more power than the plain motor, RPMs stabilised at 148 with the turbines, 141 with the motor only:

Final edit: I made a more compact turbine that I could actually mount in a chopper. It did not perform better than plain motors, and it was much heavier and thirstier. They do transfer torque of course from the asymmetrical jets; of course that could be balanced out by more asymmetrical jets pointing in the opposite directions but not at the turbine... If I wanted to build a single-rotor helo I would make more attempts but for the double-rotor designs I'm currently tinkering with there doesn't seem to be any point.

I did make a side innovation which I applied to the BAK-12 -- something to stabilise the rotors at higher RPMs. The BAK-12 now handles very smoothly as a result.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

@Geschosskopf and @5thHorseman, don't ever change. These are wonderful.

[Frank_G]

7 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

I made a self-portrait, as in 2-legged walking robot that staggers around drunkenly without quite managing to fall over   Funny thing about this.  I took a walking wind-up toy as my model and ended up having to turn the feet 180^ so the widest parts are outboard instead of inboard.  I guess my robot really needs a wider pelvis.  But hey, it walks on 2 legs.

Do you, by chance, play Planet Coaster?

The foot layout reminds me of a lego mech, ive built back in the 80s...  i used the very clunky lego train motors and it needed to pull a cable for power supply... thank you for the nostalgic moment!

[MR L A]

10 hours ago, Triop said:

programming takes a lot of time...

That's a really nice movement, but I think the end of tail needs to move rather than staying static (static in a relative sense i mean). Like an actual fish's tail has a flick to it, it doesn't just move from side to side  Though I do accept, of course, that this is a WIP

10 hours ago, Triop said:

new ride:

haha I love this

[Puggonaut]

 

[Guest]

Woo, I made a flyable single-main-rotor chopper. Craft not published yet as it needs a lot of tuning but it flies about as well as my first iteration of the BAK-52 so it's quite promising. I was able to take off, buzz around, and land in one piece.

It's powered by two stacked standard electric motors, no gizmoing involved. Tail rotor has no adjustable pitch but it gets the job done acceptably nevertheless. If I replaced the two standard motors with one big one it'd have more than enough power.

I also made a turboprop variant; bolting the Junos straight to the rotor shaft increased efficiency a lot so that way it is in fact more powerful than the standard electric motor powered one; however it tends to go into over-RPM pretty easily although I'm sure there are ways around that as well. You might be right @Azimech, turboprops might be the way to go for maximum power, however they aren't blowing on the turbine blades, they are the turbine blades.

[Star-Eagle]

40 minutes ago, Puggonaut said:

 

 

VERY nice ships! What mods did you use?

[Azimech]

4 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

I gave the Asura a spin. It does fly really nicely with highly responsive pitch, roll, and yaw. It's just a shame that it doesn't have collective control. Did you ever get a swash plate actually working in a flyable chopper? Now with actuators and using a motor as an unpowered bearing I bet you could build a turbine that allowed it.

Edit: I made one. This rough PoC though isn't all that impressive in terms of torque/power, the motor by itself is way powerful than the four-blower turbine. This is probably really inefficient though, I'll have to try with some aerodynamic blades and such. The advantage is that it doesn't transfer torque to the main vessel which make single-rotor helos a practical possibility (like Asura for example).

(I'm spinning I-beams just to get an idea of the power output.)

Edit 2: Now we're talkin', my problem was with intake air. Seems stationary the usual number of intakes isn't enough. This one outputs slightly more power than the plain motor, RPMs stabilised at 148 with the turbines, 141 with the motor only:

Final edit: I made a more compact turbine that I could actually mount in a chopper. It did not perform better than plain motors, and it was much heavier and thirstier. They do transfer torque of course from the asymmetrical jets; of course that could be balanced out by more asymmetrical jets pointing in the opposite directions but not at the turbine... If I wanted to build a single-rotor helo I would make more attempts but for the double-rotor designs I'm currently tinkering with there doesn't seem to be any point.

I did make a side innovation which I applied to the BAK-12 -- something to stabilise the rotors at higher RPMs. The BAK-12 now handles very smoothly as a result.

I have experimented with stock swashplates and cyclic/collective but felt the part count would become too high and too fragile to be meaningful. I wanted more than a tech demonstrator, I wanted something people can really use. They do exist though, excellent craftmanship.

With your turbine experiments ... did you disable the motor with the blowers running? The motor might actually want to limit the rpm.

Turbines scale with diameter,  I've had the turboprop speed record for a few years until people started to make UFO's with turbines larger than the plane itself and breaking the sound barrier (which no prop can do IRL). Those planes couldn't even take off or land.

This is an example of how powerful those stock engines can be. Look at the mass, next to the navball, and observe the climb rate. The single-engined version has a top speed of 140 m/s. The three-engined version ... I believe close to 200.
 

 

[kurgut]

I've done a mission using a low energy transfer to the Moon with a ballisitc capture (free Δv)!

it uses this kind of trajectory : ejects further out, passed the Moon orbit, and take advantage of the Sun-Earth Lagrange1 point, then come back at a low relative speed to the Moon to have a free capture.

Lift off! Atlas V LV:

 

and Centaur stage finishing the job:

after reaching orbit, I plan my ejection burn:

this trajectory uses 2 moons flybys on the way back, mostly because I screwed up my launch window a bit (seen in Earth-Sun rotating frame)

below, the same trajectory, seen in Moon-centered Earth-Aligned referential. so we can see it captures for free!

Spoiler

time to eject :

Trajectory after the burn, almost good, couples adjustements, and we can now just wait!

And ~133 days later, the spacecraft is gently captured, it can now be used by its operator in whatever orbit he wants!

Trajectory history :

Spoiler

seen in Sun-Earth rotating frame:

And in Moon centered Earth Aligned:

You could even push this further, and use the Moon when ejecting to save 70/100 m/s Δv.. but timing starts getting complicated!

Really complete/detailled paper about low energy transfers/ballistic captures to the Moon :

https://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/monograph/series12/LunarTraj--Overall.pdf

Edited June 2, 2019 by kurgut

[Frank_G]

I finished the Duna rocket SSTO, by completely rebuilding it

Find the thread with the craftfile download here.

It comes with several improvements over the previous versions, including doubling TWR and DeltaV. It can now land and make it back to orbit without refueling.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Azimech said:

I have experimented with stock swashplates and cyclic/collective but felt the part count would become too high and too fragile to be meaningful. I wanted more than a tech demonstrator, I wanted something people can really use. They do exist though, excellent craftmanship.

With your turbine experiments ... did you disable the motor with the blowers running? The motor might actually want to limit the rpm.

Turbines scale with diameter,  I've had the turboprop speed record for a few years until people started to make UFO's with turbines larger than the plane itself and breaking the sound barrier (which no prop can do IRL). Those planes couldn't even take off or land.

This is an example of how powerful those stock engines can be. Look at the mass, next to the navball, and observe the climb rate. The single-engined version has a top speed of 140 m/s. The three-engined version ... I believe close to 200.

Impressive.

I did disable the motor, and the problem was the opposite -- it built up too much revs; I'd need to limit it somehow. It was a very simple design, just three Junos directly on the drive shaft. The limit wasn't power but that it shook itself apart after it 300 rpm or so.  

Right now though as I said I'm not all that concerned with power, the electrics have all the oomph I need for now. The thing I'm struggling with is control. I can brute-force it with reaction wheels of course but I very much prefer aerodynamic control. The contrarotating BAK-52 and BAK-12 fly rather nicely through aerodynamic control, but I got there entirely through trial-and-error tuning. Basically, I can't figure out why some of my choppers have no or almost no roll or pitch control, while others are super roll- or pitch-happy?

Your Asura has superb roll, pitch, and yaw control, so I would very much appreciate any pointers on this score actually!

This is my current single-main-rotor testbed, and while I got the torques roughly balanced the aerodynamic control is garbage, it was barely flyable and then the control inputs seemed to do more or less random things depending on... I don't know what. I brute-forced it with a bunch of reaction wheels to make it flyable but that is distinctly unsatisfactory.