Jump to content

[1.2] Real Solar System v12.0 Dec 8

NathanKell

By NathanKell
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

cantab

cantab

Posted
Posted (edited)

For capsules I've not had a problem with 100%. A Mk1 pod can re-enter safely from LEO without even needing a heatshield, and from the Moon with one. I'm guessing RSS now adjusts something to make the re-entry about right without needing to pull in DRE or similar. Spaceplanes, though, I can imagine being harder. (I'm a long way off attempting any sort of spaceplane in RSS.)

On the matter of S-turns, what they let you do is maintain the draggy high angle of attack but control your descent rate independently. If you only fly the wings level then you can end up with a dilemna, keep the AoA up to keep shedding speed and you'll "skip" which you might not want, but drop the AoA to avoid skipping and you'll carry more speed deeper into the atmosphere which could end in booms. Banking the wings gets you out of that dilemna.

Edited by cantab
Link to comment
Share on other sites
proteasome

proteasome

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Starwaster said:

Assuming you're coming in from ISS altitudes, set a periapsis of 60-65km. Through most of your reentry you'll probably want a pitch up of 35-40 degrees

When you reach 73km you should be down to about 6.3km/s. At 70km you'll be around 5.5km/s and that's about where you'll really hit some major braking. Your skin temperatures should be dropping by now.

Max Q will probably be reached at around 45km altitude and be over 2kPa. (depending on your design it might be higher. I actually hit 2kPa around 70km and it gradually climbed to about 2.3)

By this point you should feel free to pitch down whenever you feel like it. Pretty much you'll want to do so by the time you're subsonic or you could lose control.  But again, from this point on you should be able to fly your plane normally. If it's purely a glider design then you'll want to be pitched down a bit so you don't slow too much and stall.

Edit: On the subject of S-Turns: I have no idea if you'll really need to or not. The shuttle had to in order to prevent overshooting the runway. The purpose is to divert lift off to the sides. As each turn takes you off course, you reverse the turn to the other side and bring yourself back on course. (roll reversals)

What a great protocol! Thanks Starwaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bornholio

Bornholio

Posted
Posted
On 2/21/2017 at 1:42 AM, proteasome said:

I'm trying RSS for the first time, and decided to stick with a non-RO setup until I'm more comfortable.

My question is, without RO is there a recommended setting to change re-entry heating to? Or should stock 1.2.2 100% re-entry heating be reasonable? My spaceplanes now burn up entering at the higher speeds and I want to figure out whether stock heating is manageable or not. If people routinely play with it set at 100% I'll go back to the drawing board on my craft design. 

My apologies if this has been asked before. Thx.

I second Star wasters comment of shallow descent, The shuttle (Max ~3G) did not have nearly the angle of other reentry systems, some of the Rus ones (~5G) have abort profiles of up to 20G! Friggin car crash is tame.

I can reentry spent stages at low orbital velocity  maybe loosing a minor surface feature pretty sure 100% is OK for RSS. (Darn airbrakes burn off in a jiffy)

Reminder that if you are still fuel heavy :P or still carrying a payload  you will retain more momentum and plunge deeper.  G forces will be lower and peak heat higher.

You can also bleed off 500-1000m/s using a skip, trajectories mod works great for this or in a pinch use Mechjeb landing prediction settings though it seems less accurate (No drag facing corrections). Zond used this and the Shuttle had it as a backup plan.   Tweak scale a few small thermal panels and sink them into the offending burny bits can help also.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alexoff

Alexoff

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, VonFrank said:

But how is that even possible in the code? What would i have to look for to see if this is the problem?

There is integrated SigmaBinary settings in RSS, just remove your settings from the GameData folder

Link to comment
Share on other sites
daniskarma

daniskarma

Posted
Posted
On 17/12/2016 at 5:38 PM, RoboRay said:

OK, I'm playing the stock Career mode (with SMURFF) since RO isn't available yet and the "rescue kerbal" missions keep spawning target craft in the upper atmosphere.  I can edit the save to bump them 100 km higher each time, but is there a way I can set the contract system to spawn them higher by default?

 

Did you, or anyone, find any solution to this?

I've try to lower the time warp altitude, but I failed miserably. I think it may be impossible due to physics calculations being apply when you are into the atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aluminum Oxide

Aluminum Oxide

Posted
Posted

All users Must watch: check out my International Space Station construction movie in KSP Real Solar System, the very first of its type. It's a very accurate ISS built using ISS community, real scale boosters and Kosmos mods. The assembly sequence is based on actual manuals from NASA and ESA! It's also an all-in-one film, no need for episodes! The music is very romantic, check it out on this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSLV-pzqUp0&t=1736s on Aluminum Oxide channel! Enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VonFrank

VonFrank

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Alexoff said:

There is integrated SigmaBinary settings in RSS, just remove your settings from the GameData folder

Remove settings form RSS? Or remove settings from Sigma?

And which 'Settings' are you referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpaceOdissey

SpaceOdissey

Posted
Posted
On 18 de febrero de 2017 at 4:38 PM, Phineas Freak said:

You can't, at least not the complete and "ready for consumption" package. You will have to download the source code, recompile it's code locally and drop the new binary in the place of the old one (from KSP 1.1.3).

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andi K.

Andi K.

Posted
Posted (edited)
On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 1:04 AM, oguz said:

I dont know where to ask, so i will throw it here.. Can someone make an addon for RSS mod that adds Trappist-1 star system? I am so hyped for Trappist-1 :D 

Coming soon to RSS Constellations...

Edited by AndrewDrawsPrettyPictures
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Meltdown

Meltdown

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm looking for the atmospheric scale height for a calculation of the pressure at a given height. I had a look at the configs but I couldnt find it. I calculated a height of about 7.05km but my predictions told me a height of around 8.4km with a temp of 288K. Can anyone  point me into the right direction?

Edited by Meltdown
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cantab

cantab

Posted
Posted

I don't think there is a single scale height, it's a more complex curve. (It's more complex in stock now too). The main reason the atmospheric pressure curve deviates from a simple exponential is the variation in temperature.

A question myself, does RSS now buff the commnet antennas, or are they still acting like the stock ones? I looked into it and there'd been some talk but I'm not sure if any changes have actually been implemented yet. (Either way they're working fine for me so far, I'm just curious.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sigma88

Sigma88

Posted
Posted
On 2/25/2017 at 7:17 PM, VonFrank said:

Using Sigma Binary, I'm getting this issue with Pluto/Charon:

http://i.imgur.com/DmcFv7U.gifv

My only mods are RSS, Kopernicus, Sigma Binary, and "ModularFlightIntegrator".

Anyone know what might be causing this?

are you on the latest KSP, with the latest Kopernicus and SigmaBinary?

if so, could you please click on the nyan cat in my sig and provide me with the files described in that post?

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cantab

cantab

Posted
Posted

@100055 there is a limitation in Kerbal space program that all planets must share the same rotation axis, and the camera view is based on that axis too. With that limitation, RSS has chosen to set up Earth's orbit and rotation correctly which is why the planetary orbits appear inclined. Then for all the other planets and moons the orbits are correct* because that's what matters most for interplanetary flight, and that means the rotation axes have to be wrong.

Saturn in fact has axial tilt similar to Earth, so that's why its moons can orbit its equator roughly as they do in reality.

(*KSP has another limitation, it can only do simple, fixed Keplerian orbits. So in fact orbits that in reality are significantly perturbed, such as the Moon, can only be correct on one chosen date in RSS.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bornholio

Bornholio

Posted
Posted
On 3/10/2017 at 6:30 AM, 100055 said:

Dear NathanKell,

Why are the planets in RSS so inclined? Also, Saturn and Pluto's moons are not inclined. According to Wikipedia, their moons should have around the same inclination as the rest. What may be the reason for this inconsistency?

 

https://github.com/NathanKell/RealSolarSystem/wiki/FAQ-and-Troubleshooting

"Q: the orbits of the moon and all planets are tilted.

A: This is the only way the 23.44 degree deviation of the Earth's axis can be implemented. It's not a bug."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Meltdown

Meltdown

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm running kOS with RSS and I have some troubles which I don't understand :

I'm launching from Brownsville for an orbit that is close to coplanar with the moons orbit. I set the script to start when the relative inclination starts to climb again after it was falling. But when I try to follow the launch azimuth for an orbit with the same inclination as of the moons orbit, I'm always getting into an orbit that is relativly inclined to the moons orbit of about 15° (or rads) but perfectly inclined (up to 3 decimal places). Am I getting there something wrong? Do I have to wait for brownsville to be under the AN/DN of the moonorbit to get into a relative inclination of under  1 ? If I start from brownsville with the above mentioned method straight east, I'm getting into an orbit that is relatively inclined by the difference of moons inclination and Brownsville's latitude. How do I calculate the correct launchazimuth to get into an orbit that is coplanar with the moon?

Here is the code I'm currently using for the Launch Azimuth calculation :

Spoiler 

FUNCTION LAZcalc_init {
    PARAMETER
        desiredAlt,
        desiredInc. 
    

    LOCAL launchLatitude IS SHIP:LATITUDE.    
    LOCAL data IS LIST().  
        IF desiredAlt <= 0 {
        PRINT "Target altitude cannot be below sea level".
        SET launchAzimuth TO 1/0.
    }.
    LOCAL launchNode TO "Ascending".
    IF desiredInc < 0 {
        SET launchNode TO "Descending".
        SET desiredInc TO ABS(desiredInc).
    }.
    IF ABS(launchLatitude) > desiredInc {
        SET desiredInc TO ABS(launchLatitude).
        HUDTEXT("Inclination impossible from current latitude, setting for lowest possible inclination.", 10, 2, 30, RED, FALSE).
    }.
    
    IF 180 - ABS(launchLatitude) < desiredInc {
        SET desiredInc TO 180 - ABS(launchLatitude).
        HUDTEXT("Inclination impossible from current latitude, setting for highest possible inclination.", 10, 2, 30, RED, FALSE).
    }.
    LOCAL equatorialVel IS (2 * CONSTANT:Pi * BODY:RADIUS) / BODY:ROTATIONPERIOD.
    LOCAL targetOrbVel IS SQRT(BODY:MU/ (BODY:RADIUS + desiredAlt)).
    data:ADD(desiredInc).       //[0]
    data:ADD(launchLatitude).   //[1]
    data:ADD(equatorialVel).    //[2]
    data:ADD(targetOrbVel).     //[3]
    data:ADD(launchNode).       //[4]
    RETURN data.
}.

FUNCTION LAZcalc {
    PARAMETER
        data.
    LOCAL inertialAzimuth IS ARCSIN(MAX(MIN(COS(data[0]) / COS(SHIP:LATITUDE), 1), -1)).
    LOCAL VXRot IS data[3] * SIN(inertialAzimuth) - data[2] * COS(data[1]).
    LOCAL VYRot IS data[3] * COS(inertialAzimuth).
    LOCAL Azimuth IS MOD(ARCTAN2(VXRot, VYRot) + 360, 360).
    IF data[4] = "Ascending" {
        RETURN Azimuth.
    } ELSE IF data[4] = "Descending" {
        IF Azimuth <= 90 {
            RETURN 180 - Azimuth.
            
        } ELSE IF Azimuth >= 270 {
            RETURN 540 - Azimuth.
            
        }
    }
}

 

 

Edited by Meltdown
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...