[1.2] Real Solar System v12.0 Dec 8

[Sigma52]

drop box link seems to be broken, keep getting a OOPS! Something went wrong error page for it.

[Starwaster]

drop box link seems to be broken, keep getting a OOPS! Something went wrong error page for it.

I think that was a dropbox screwup in general. I had trouble uploading something for nathan around that time.

[BoZo]

I wish there was a version with the bodies at their original positions with just the scale increased.

[SZDarkhack]

Is the inclination of the Mun supposed to be this extreme?

Nathan explained the reason, I'll suggest some solutions:

1) Launch when the Mun is about 3.5-4 days before one of the nodes (that's how long it takes to get there). That's when it's around 45 degrees behind the node.

2) Launch to a heading that minimizes the relative inclination (which you can get by targeting the Mun).

3) Use an off-plane transfer (don't match planes, find a single burn - some normal/antinormal component included - that gets you directly to the moon), or a 2-plane transfer (start your trajectory at your plane and change it mid-course to intercept the Mun) to get there. If your relative inclination is relatively low (i.e. you launched at a proper heading), the off-plane, direct method is the most efficient. Whatever you do, however, do NOT change inclination in LKO.

Also note that the higher your inclination is when you *reach* the Mun, the higher your encounter velocity will be (and the more dV it will take to circularize an orbit), so try to keep it low if possible (although the difference is not too bad).

Edited November 12, 2013 by SZDarkhack

[AndreyATGB]

Or you can launch when KSC is at one of the nodes and launch in a 23.5 degree orbit. You'll need a second space craft for that because for some reason we can't see AN and DN all the time.

[SZDarkhack]

Or you can launch when KSC is at one of the nodes and launch in a 23.5 degree orbit. You'll need a second space craft for that because for some reason we can't see AN and DN all the time.

True, I forgot that KSC is on the equator

I've been playing too much Orbiter lately I think...

[Captain_Party]

Make launch clamps out of struts and decouplers. It makes your rocket stable on the launchpad, and you can always see A and D nodes. For me at least.

[lijat]

I wish there was a version with the bodies at their original positions with just the scale increased.

I agree, I'm fine with small changes like adding a bit of inclination but the moving of moons/planets around I could do without.

[AndreyATGB]

A question to Nathan, why are Phobos and Deimos so inclined? What did you set the inclinations in relation to? It would make sense to use Mars' equator, in which case Phobos is at about 1 degree. Did you do the same with all moons as with Mun for Kerbin (add axial tilt to its inclination to simulate axial tilt)? If so why is Phobos basically the other way compared to Deimos when they're really extremely close to each other.

[metaphor]

I agree, I'm fine with small changes like adding a bit of inclination but the moving of moons/planets around I could do without.

What do you mean by that? Scale up the planets but keep them at their KSP distance from the Sun? That won't really affect anything besides how long it takes to transfer. And there isn't a 1 to 1 correspondence between KSC planets and real planets. Like what real planet corresponds to Eeloo, or the moons of Jool?

[iVG]

What do you mean by that? Scale up the planets but keep them at their KSP distance from the Sun? That won't really affect anything besides how long it takes to transfer. And there isn't a 1 to 1 correspondence between KSC planets and real planets. Like what real planet corresponds to Eeloo, or the moons of Jool?

I guess someone is finding i too haaaarrrddd...

[Captain_Party]

I'm changing the stock NERVA's .cfg to be more realistic. I.e: 350kn of thrust and 850.5 isp

[mushroomman]

So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to use the city lights and clouds mod to stick clouds around Eve instead of universe replacer, I'll do pretty much the same thing for Saturn so it'll actually LOOK like a gas planet, then I may also be able to add rings and auroras using it. I may be able to release it later today, but I'm not sure.

Also, you mentioned changing the surface of the planets earlier. Would it be possible to do that based off of the bump maps? I've got pretty detailed ones of Earth, Mars, the Moon, and Mercury.

[iVG]

Oh my GOD! Real size planets in real orbits with real textures with real bump maps??! This is tumbling out of control..

*feints*

[Camacha]

Oh my GOD! Real size planets in real orbits with real textures with real bump maps??! This is tumbling out of control..

Now we only need Squad to help us to incline the planets properly and everything is ultimo awesome-o.

[Starwaster]

What cloud radius values work well with this? I tried the values specified earlier (0.00038 & 0.00076) but they clip the planet surface. I ultimately ended up just halving them but I was curiousnwhat everone else uses.

I agree, I'm fine with small changes like adding a bit of inclination but the moving of moons/planets around I could do without.

Change them in the config file to suit yourself.

I'm changing the stock NERVA's .cfg to be more realistic. I.e: 350kn of thrust and 850.5 isp

I've done that and added a variety of alternate fuels including kethane and ammonia. It's in my sig but still needs updating for the new MFSC.

Oh my GOD! Real size planets in real orbits with real textures with real bump maps??! This is tumbling out of control..

*feints*

You need heightfield maps.

[asmi]

Also, you mentioned changing the surface of the planets earlier. Would it be possible to do that based off of the bump maps? I've got pretty detailed ones of Earth, Mars, the Moon, and Mercury.

I've got SUPER detailed textures, normal and height maps for the Earth, Moon and Mars (leftovers from my work on Orbiter's graphics plugin). The problem is they are HUGE (2-3 Gb for EACH of texture maps, normal maps and height maps) - about 14 Gb in total or so - don't remember exact numbers.

http://www.asmitech.com/Stuff/Orbiter/wide/orbiter9.png

http://www.asmitech.com/Stuff/Orbiter/wide/orbiter10.png

Edited November 12, 2013 by asmi

[Starwaster]

using FAR & procedural fairings.... sometimes I see terminal velocity Infinity m/s and zero drag. WHY ??? not sure it's the fairings or not because it doesnt happen always....

[SZDarkhack]

using FAR & procedural fairings.... sometimes I see terminal velocity Infinity m/s and zero drag. WHY ??? not sure it's the fairings or not because it doesnt happen always....

Is mechjeb telling you that? That's because FAR changes the way drag is calculated, which involves messing around with the stock values which mechjeb (and other mods) checks. So don't take these into account. With FAR you shouldn't need to worry much about terminal velocity though, the atmosphere is much more lenient than the stock "soup". Just keep your TWR within reasonable limits and you'll be fine.

[AndreyATGB]

Guys, great news. I've spoken with Olex and he agreed to make an addition to his site with this stuff. I've spent another few hours today modifying his website data to be accurate with this mod, but I don't have the skills to make the calculator work with the different parents of the mod. He'll use my changes to implement it, looking forward to that.

[Starwaster]

Is mechjeb telling you that? That's because FAR changes the way drag is calculated, which involves messing around with the stock values which mechjeb (and other mods) checks. So don't take these into account. With FAR you shouldn't need to worry much about terminal velocity though, the atmosphere is much more lenient than the stock "soup". Just keep your TWR within reasonable limits and you'll be fine.

My main concern is aerobraking.... Coming into Laythe with 11km/s... I guess I just have to accept that my design sucks for aerobraking under FAR rules

[ferram4]

The reason it's saying your terminal velocity is infinity is because MechJeb is looking at the stock maximum_drag values for all the parts... which FAR zeroes out so that it can apply lift and drag forces independent of that. It's not showing what will happen, it's simply Garbage In, Garbage Out. Guesstimate where you would put your periapsis for aerobraking, then set it 33 - 66% lower. Quicksave, hope it works.

[SZDarkhack]

My main concern is aerobraking.... Coming into Laythe with 11km/s... I guess I just have to accept that my design sucks for aerobraking under FAR rules

Again, this is a *wrong* indication. There IS drag being applied, so go ahead and aerobrake. If you're not using DREC there's not much to worry about. With DREC you'll have to be careful not to overheat or you'll need a heatshield, but otherwise it's the same deal.

As a side note, if, by any chance, your vessel is *winged*, you can do some pretty cool stuff with aerobraking. Set a periapsis that is in the high-to-medium atmosphere and (for added awesomeness and, in fact, realism) flip the vessel upside down and come in inverted. When you get to periapsis, point a bit downwards, trim and use SAS such that your (negative) lift balances the centrifugal force and keeps your altitude constant so that you don't fly off into space again. Keep flying like this (it will take some time) and maybe going a tad lower as you slow down and you'll get captured no problem. Be warned, however, DREC can give you problems with this method as the craft tends to heat up quite substantially.

[Starwaster]

Again, this is a *wrong* indication. There IS drag being applied, so go ahead and aerobrake. If you're not using DREC there's not much to worry about. With DREC you'll have to be careful not to overheat or you'll need a heatshield, but otherwise it's the same deal.

No, trust me, it really did suck. I wont go into details to protect the guilty.

I did eventually get a piece of it down intact, enough to qualify as a 'landing'. It took a dozen tries with most attempts either shooting out of the SOI or the entire stack coming apart because of stress. (and I dont even have DR installed)

Interestingly enough as I type this, the probe core is still bouncing around on the surface so it may yet 'crash'.

[SZDarkhack]

No, trust me, it really did suck. I wont go into details to protect the guilty.

I did eventually get a piece of it down intact, enough to qualify as a 'landing'. It took a dozen tries with most attempts either shooting out of the SOI or the entire stack coming apart because of stress. (and I dont even have DR installed)

Interestingly enough as I type this, the probe core is still bouncing around on the surface so it may yet 'crash'.

Hmmm... I haven't been to Laythe with RSS (and I haven't had a chance to even see v5 if that's what you're using) so I don't know what's a normal orbital speed around it. You might be able to reduce your encounter velocity a bit. Make sure that you're encountering it in a prograde direction and from a low inclination. The closer you are to a tangential intercept the better.

You might also be able to do something else here. Don't worry too much about getting captured in Laythe orbit in one shot, but try using its atmosphere to get a capture around its parent body (depending on version either Jool or Dres (Saturn)). Go out to apoapsis and use minimal fuel to get another encounter. Keep doing this and slowing down incrementally at each pass. This will obviously take a lot longer, but eventually you should have a more manageable encounter velocity. If there are other moons (so at Jool), you could also get a beneficial slingshot from one of them. NASA does this sort of thing all the time, for instance in the Cassini mission.

Other than that you can try turning the vessel to its side while you're at the high part of the atmosphere to get a bit more drag, just make sure to bring it back to a stable orientation before the aerodynamic forces become too much to handle.