Felbourn Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) You need ~9300 vacuum delta V for LEO from the Cape for a 300x300 orbit (roughly!). However, Felbourn, you're using an average Isp rather than the vacuum Isp for the first stage. Vacuum Isp for Lox/Hydyne on the A7 engine is 265s. That takes you up to 4586 on the core. Next, the Baby Sergeants are indeed 235s in vacuum. I have 130kg for the 3x cluster, wet, otherwise the weights check. You can cross-check component masses with RO's FASA configs, which are correct.You might be able to squeak by on ~9000 for a very low-perigee orbit, which you should just make. Also note that gravity losses will be quite low because you launch directly to apogee and then fire your solids at apogee, so time-to-orbit is a good few minutes shorter than many launches.We'll be 235 at ground. What about all the time/fuel we spend getting up to where we can use the 265 isp? That's why I fudged to 250.Oh wait... I see what you're saying. All the charts are simplified to vacuum to make it easier to calculate things? So I am really at 8987 using NASA values. Edited November 23, 2014 by Felbourn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hattivat Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Yes, the lower stages need to carry the upper stages.If you have a two stage rocket like this:stage 1: wet 100 & dry 50stage 2: wet 30 & dry 15The full rocket mass is 130 at liftoff. At burnout #1 the mass will be 80. You'll decouple dry stage 1 and be at 30, then burnout #2 is 15.Likewise the wiki says the lower stage 1 was 28440 but it had to carry the upper stages as well, which were 463+127+36=626. You add them all up and get 29066. The NASA page says 29030 so this is close.So Explorer stage 1 is ~29000 at liftoff, and then at burnout #1 it's the dry stage 1 plus wet stages 2+3+4 which is 4980. We decouple stage 1 and lose 4354, dropping us to 626. We burn out again at 386, drop 222 more, and so on until we're the 14 kg payload.Yes, and that seems to be already included in your "stages only" chart. If you calculate delta-v for that chart, you get about 10 000 m/s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felbourn Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Yes, and that seems to be already included in your "stages only" chart. If you calculate delta-v for that chart, you get about 10 000 m/s.The NASA values here http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/expinfo.html indicate those are stage-only values. Notice how they specifically state 64000 lbs overall, but stage 1 is 62700. Also notice their stage values of 62700 + 1020 + 280 + 80 do add up to about that total. This means the NASA stage values are stage-only. You need to add the mass of the stages above to get proper wet/dry values for stages below.Hmmm I said "about" because it comes out to 80 too much and the stage 4 is 80. I wonder if the NASA values are for a Jupiter-C without stage 4. I don't think that matters though. It's still the same math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted November 23, 2014 Author Share Posted November 23, 2014 That's accounted for in the delta V budget. If you tracked atmospheric Isp too, you'd have a much lower (well, few hundred m/s lower) requirement for orbit. You will have maybe 30 seconds at appreciably-less-than-vacuum-Isp, since pressure fallof is exponential.If you're at all worried, I suggest using the LV Performance Calculator. It should yield results close enough to real life that it's used in industry when a full 6DOF sim isn't warranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felbourn Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 That's accounted for in the delta V budget. If you tracked atmospheric Isp too, you'd have a much lower (well, few hundred m/s lower) requirement for orbit. You will have maybe 30 seconds at appreciably-less-than-vacuum-Isp, since pressure fallof is exponential.If you're at all worried, I suggest using the LV Performance Calculator. It should yield results close enough to real life that it's used in industry when a full 6DOF sim isn't warranted.I guess we'll see when I carry it out for Alexandria episode 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmikesecrist3 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Hey something I have been thinking about, but I am wondering if any one could be able to help me find van browns planes for a space station, moon base, and mars mission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted November 23, 2014 Author Share Posted November 23, 2014 Encyclopedia Astronautica is an excellent resource. Look up Von Braun, that should link to all his stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace_Ciprioni Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I've looked around in the WIKI and looked through as many pages as I could (not reading all 459 sorry) and I can't seem to find the answer I am looking for.Can I rename the planets some how? even if it's just display name when at the "map view" it really annoys my OCD that they aren't named to their RL names, any assistance on doing this would be awesome I have a general knowledge of modding so I should be able to pick up on it if given basic directions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adins Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Hello! I have a question that may sound dumb (I'm quite.. "new" to this forum), but how do you change KSP to 32bit? I googled it so many times but it wasn't that helpful . Thankyou for answering! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmikesecrist3 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 in my install of the game there are to ksp applacation (exe) files... one is ksp the other is ksp_x64. ksp if I am not mastaken runs ksp in 32bit, where as ksp_x64 runs it in 64 bit... I think any way, I use the ksp one and have no problems. I could how ever be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hattivat Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I've looked around in the WIKI and looked through as many pages as I could (not reading all 459 sorry) and I can't seem to find the answer I am looking for.Can I rename the planets some how? even if it's just display name when at the "map view" it really annoys my OCD that they aren't named to their RL names, any assistance on doing this would be awesome I have a general knowledge of modding so I should be able to pick up on it if given basic directions.Yes you can, but it's a very bad idea, because it breaks things. IIRC a good example is that you can only recover your craft if its situation is "landed at Kerbin", and that is hard-coded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hattivat Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) Hello! I have a question that may sound dumb (I'm quite.. "new" to this forum), but how do you change KSP to 32bit? I googled it so many times but it wasn't that helpful . Thankyou for answering!You don't have to change anything, KSP 32bit is the default version on every system. That is, it's the one that your desktop shortcut leads to. Unless you mean the whole game, in which case the answer is again, that you don't need to change anything, as the game doesn't change. The only difference is which .exe file you use to start it, and you always have both 32-bit exectuable and 64-bit executable available in your game folder. Edited November 23, 2014 by Hattivat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dermeister Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I'm sorry if this has been asked b4 but I noticed in the screen's earth has clouds..... In my game earth does not have any clouds. Is it a separate mod? IF so what must I get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hattivat Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I'm sorry if this has been asked b4 but I noticed in the screen's earth has clouds..... In my game earth does not have any clouds. Is it a separate mod? IF so what must I get.Yes, it is . But you should use the alpha-version of the next edition of that mod, since the default 0.24 version doesn't work very well with RSS. You can get it hereKeep it mind it's an alpha version, so there are some bugs (most notably, with the current version the night side is way too bright). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dermeister Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Thanks ill just delete the Lights and keep the clouds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hattivat Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Well, the problem is not with the lights, it's with an experimental atmosphere shader. I'd recommend for now just avoid launching in the night. During the day everything looks as it should. And regularly check for updates on his github , he might release a version where this is fixed soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dermeister Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 SO now that I've got the clouds out of the way I was playing everything works fine.But I looked at FAR... and it dawned on me ..... are the default FAR settings correct for earth? or do I need to make changes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hattivat Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 They are, same with Deadly Reentry if you are using it (although that necessitates stronger heatshields than DR gives you by default). FAR is strongly recommended, because it actually makes launches in RSS easier (by getting rid of stock soupy atmosphere, delta-v requirements are significantly reduced). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dermeister Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I don't have DR yet but I have been using far Since ages ago. I don't play KSP without Far anymore. It's just not fun plus with far Fairings matter so I love it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hattivat Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Same here. One more thing you should know is that due to how small stock Kerbin is, the performance of rockets in KSP is reduced in comparison with real life. Therefore in order to keep the balance with full-scale RSS, things need to be made bigger and stronger. That's what realism overhaul does, and I totally recommend trying it. It's possible to play with stock performance, but that results in building enormously huge rockets with rather insane part counts. Unless you use the x6.4 config for RSS, which is designed with stock and stock-like parts in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dermeister Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) Thanks for the Info I was sitting here building rockets with stock parts at full scale O_O! LOL! I was running tests to see how much DV required to orbit in full scale ( DONT TELLME!!!!) ! ill check out R O right nowHumm so far what I can see in RO I don't like it. IS there another mod that changes the engine performances instead of putting mechjeb ect in every capsule ect? Edited November 23, 2014 by Dermeister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hattivat Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 It only puts mechjeb in the capsule if you have mechjeb installed. And even then, no one forces you to use its autopilot functions I personally only use mechjeb for its data, since I like it's data more than KER's.As for other mod - you can install Real Fuels plus the stockalike engine configs , plus procedural parts for the ability to create big fuel tanks, that should be enough to get you going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felbourn Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 After much research on Explorer 1:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/99452-Project-Alexandria-a-history-of-spaceflight-done-in-Real-Solar-System?p=1557407&viewfull=1#post1557407 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilienthal Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Hey i found a bug... Phobos & Deimos (Bop & Gilly) seem to be un-landableThe vessel will go about 2 meters below the terrain and then go boom (kerbals go "poof")Did you try setting the resolution/detail to "high" in the settings of KSP? (at the very beginning, before you load any games) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felbourn Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 After much research on Explorer 1:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/99452-Project-Alexandria-a-history-of-spaceflight-done-in-Real-Solar-System?p=1557407&viewfull=1#post1557407I might have seen an issue with flow rate.I can't find anywhere if the Jupiter-C throttled back at a higher altitude. If it did not then one of these must be wrong: IspV, vac thrust, burn time, stage 1 fuel.http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/99452-Project-Alexandria-a-history-of-spaceflight-done-in-Real-Solar-System?p=1558131&viewfull=1#post1558131 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts