Jump to content

Mün challenge - lightest vessel - combined and rocket powered classifications


Recommended Posts

Okay I retooled my ship, and decided to not do the monoprop trick because it's dumb. :) I also decided to not use monoprop at all because I still believe that using monoprop to dock makes it easier, and you should be rewarded for leaving it at home. I also figured out a way to only have 2 engines, the jet engine to get it mostly into orbit and then a single rocket engine to get into orbit, transfer, land, and return while still keeping in the challenge.

1 t = 100 mass points. Doing special things you can earn mission points. (mass points - mission points = overall score) After you take mission points from mass points this will be your overall scoring, as lower it is you are better.

My ship was 7.516 tons on the pad (Take THAT Pecan ;)) so that's 752 points rounding up.

Stock parts only, -150

No autopilot, -100

I used SAS. I'm not crazy.

I landed about 200 meters away from the Armstrong monument. -50

No way am I going to reload from a quicksave 100 times to hit the launch pad.

I didn't use RCS at all so no points here.

No clue on aesthetics but I think my ship looks pretty cool ;)

So that's 752-150-100-50=552.

Here's the Imgur album with far too many pictures...

http://imgur.com/a/40HBw

Seems like a great masterpiece of work.

7.516 t

752 mass points

150 mission points for using stock parts

100 mission points for not using autopilot

50 mission points for landing in range of 1km to the easter egg

50 mission points for rocket design

=350 mission points

overall score = 402

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the exercise, here's LightMun B landing in all the wrong places.

So - 40t = 4,000 points?

Stock parts = -150

Used MJ so nothing

No SAS parts but doesn't count since I use MJ

Nowhere near Armstrong memorial so nothing there either

Missed pad too so still no more points

RCS docking = -40 (although I don't get that, is it because the monopropellant masses more?)

4,000 - 150 - 40 = 3,810 points score.

Incidentally - the landing legs are carried on top of the lander, which still lands on the engine. That's so only a single decoupler is needed without them getting in the way of the engine.

40.001 t

4000 mass points

150 mission points for using stock parts

40 mission points for using RCS

30 mission points for rocket design

=210 mission points

overall score = 3790

seems I will have to make rules even more clear that legs have to be used for landing, anyway you are listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...My ship was 7.516 tons on the pad (Take THAT Pecan ;)) so that's 752 points rounding up...

Right, if we're talking engineering ...

Oh alright I gave in to this strange obssession with legs ^^. Took 5 hours of tweaking instead of 3. 5.73t, no MJ/guidance but I still didn't bother landing anywhere in particular.

NW2RH2Jl.png

From left: Stage view, VAB mass, (from top) transfer burn, flag & legs, re-orbit, coming home, landed.

573 (mass) - 150 (stock) - 100 (no MJ apart from stats) - 0 (used SAS and didn't land at targets) - 40 (RCS docking) = 283 points

Edited by Pecan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ 5thHorseman: I'll see your 124kg and raise you 1,786kg

Haha can't wait to see it!

I honestly don't know where i can save any more (except the margins which are pretty small). The lander is essentially as small as it can be and count in the challenge, and its engine won't lift it off of Kerbin so you *need* something else to do so. I'm far from an expert on using jets as lifters so it's very possible you can do something there but I don't know what. The only thing I can think of is a better launch to orbit so I can bring less fuel in the main ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's already there - in post 28 (2 above yours).

Tomorrow I expect to reduce by at least another tonne ;-0

Oh sorry, I do a lot of browsing connected to a cell phone so I've disabled images in the forum. I didn't see that you had 2 posts in a row because what would have been an inline image was just a link :D

Very nice! Well optimized!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha can't wait to see it!

I honestly don't know where i can save any more (except the margins which are pretty small). The lander is essentially as small as it can be and count in the challenge, and its engine won't lift it off of Kerbin so you *need* something else to do so. I'm far from an expert on using jets as lifters so it's very possible you can do something there but I don't know what. The only thing I can think of is a better launch to orbit so I can bring less fuel in the main ship.

Maybe is possible if you use a less fuel at the start. But that is also a questionmark how much less fuel can you use. It is quite awesome ship. Jet's have amazing isp in vacuum but Idk why new version of ksp does not have any info about engines isp in atmosphere and vacuum level. Probbably need to use mod to check info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frustration, frustration. I can build a 4.55t ship that, according to all the stats, has all the required TWR in the right places but I can't for the life of me land it on Mun. I wouldn't mind so much but I'm sure a better pilot than me could. Experimenting now with a hybrid 4.8t one that should be a lot more forgiving.

Jets don't work in vacuum, I assume you mean, 'amazing Isp in atmosphere'? All the sea-level and vacuum Isp information is still there in the VAB and SPH; you have to right-click to see it. By the way, I'm starting to feel a bit ignored here, since you haven't said anything about my entries in post 24 (ok, so I didn't give any pictures for it) or post 28.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Make some pics or video, present us your flight a little bit :)

...

Anything for a bit of attention ;-0

First, a short history of the LightMun series:

  • LightMun A (Post 19): 46.757t, Prototype sketch
  • LightMun B (Post 22): 40.001t, First entry
  • LIghtMun C (Post 24): 7.64t, JATO launch-vehicle
  • LightMun D (never flew): Construction test, not significantly lighter than 'C'
  • LightMun E (Post 28): 5.73t, Staging and tweaking optimisation
  • LightMun F (below): 4.673t, Ion transfer and return stages

Unless someone else is playing I'll leave it at LightMun F:

EUPFhlRl.png

Having got so light with the others it seemed practical to push the thing to Mun with an ion engine. Big mistake. Yes, it's efficient but it really does take forever when you have a TWR of 0.06! Although this is 'F' it went through about 4 iterations itself, mostly because, as I noted in my previous post, I couldn't land the thing using just ions. The version presented here therefore goes back to the earlier lander design, with a 48-7S just for more thrust even though it's about 120kg heavier; if only I were a better pilot ^^.

Flight for this is a bit unusual, because of the ion engines. First, the jet is used to get as high an apoapsis as possible, rather than circularising as much as possible in atmosphere. You'd usually do that because jets are more efficient than liquid-fuel engines but in this case the ions are much better. A high apoapsis means more time in the sun, which means the solar panels can power the ion engines longer. Oh yes, you might have noticed a few batteries on there too - there still aren't enough. After circularisation (I got Ap of 110 - 117km on different attempts) it takes several orbits pushing the Ap up to about 800km, from where you can make the final burn to Mun. It is also worth waiting several orbits, if necessary, to ensure this burn happens on the day side of Kerbin (these ions really use a lot of electricity). Once you are, eventually, on your way the rest is straightforward. Mun orbit injection, landing, re-orbit, rendezvous and docking are all normal. Coming back with the ions again it's slow but the burn to escape Mun's SOI is only a couple of hundred m/s so it can be done in one go. Don't even think about trying to establish an orbit back around Kerbin, just fall all the way down the gravity well and deploy the parachute after re-entry effects (don't tell the people using DRE).

At least all those batteries make it easy to see the other vehicle when docking on the night-side of Mun:

hAwU2WOl.png

Almost forgot; I make that:

467 (mass) - 150 (stock) - 100 (no MJ apart from stats) - 0 (used SAS and didn't land at targets) - 40 (RCS docking) = 177 points

Woot! There's 110 points for landings, if I try it again (pad's going to need a miracle ^^) and surely all those pretty lights are worth a few aesthetics points. Just a bit more work and I could get a negative score! No way I could fly the ascent without SAS though :-(

Edited by Pecan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frustration, frustration. I can build a 4.55t ship that, according to all the stats, has all the required TWR in the right places but I can't for the life of me land it on Mun. I wouldn't mind so much but I'm sure a better pilot than me could.

Your pictures don't really show off your piloting prowess but I'll happily give it a shot if you send me the ship. Not sure if my in-atmo technique is the best but it can't hurt to try. If you can get it into orbit with the dV that you think is enough I will also happily try it from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything for a bit of attention ;-0

First, a short history of the LightMun series:

  • LightMun A (Post 19): 46.757t, Prototype sketch
  • LightMun B (Post 22): 40.001t, First entry
  • LIghtMun C (Post 24): 7.64t, JATO launch-vehicle
  • LightMun D (never flew): Construction test, not significantly lighter than 'C'
  • LightMun E (Post 28): 5.73t, Staging and tweaking optimisation
  • LightMun F (below): 4.673t, Ion transfer and return stages

Unless someone else is playing I'll leave it at LightMun F:

Having got so light with the others it seemed practical to push the thing to Mun with an ion engine. Big mistake. Yes, it's efficient but it really does take forever when you have a TWR of 0.06! Although this is 'F' it went through about 4 iterations itself, mostly because, as I noted in my previous post, I couldn't land the thing using just ions. The version presented here therefore goes back to the earlier lander design, with a 48-7S just for more thrust even though it's about 120kg heavier; if only I were a better pilot ^^.

Flight for this is a bit unusual, because of the ion engines. First, the jet is used to get as high an apoapsis as possible, rather than circularising as much as possible in atmosphere. You'd usually do that because jets are more efficient than liquid-fuel engines but in this case the ions are much better. A high apoapsis means more time in the sun, which means the solar panels can power the ion engines longer. Oh yes, you might have noticed a few batteries on there too - there still aren't enough. After circularisation (I got Ap of 110 - 117km on different attempts) it takes several orbits pushing the Ap up to about 800km, from where you can make the final burn to Mun. It is also worth waiting several orbits, if necessary, to ensure this burn happens on the day side of Kerbin (these ions really use a lot of electricity). Once you are, eventually, on your way the rest is straightforward. Mun orbit injection, landing, re-orbit, rendezvous and docking are all normal. Coming back with the ions again it's slow but the burn to escape Mun's SOI is only a couple of hundred m/s so it can be done in one go. Don't even think about trying to establish an orbit back around Kerbin, just fall all the way down the gravity well and deploy the parachute after re-entry effects (don't tell the people using DRE).

At least all those batteries make it easy to see the other vehicle when docking on the night-side of Mun:

Almost forgot; I make that:

467 (mass) - 150 (stock) - 100 (no MJ apart from stats) - 0 (used SAS and didn't land at targets) - 40 (RCS docking) = 177 points

Woot! There's 110 points for landings, if I try it again (pad's going to need a miracle ^^) and surely all those pretty lights are worth a few aesthetics points. Just a bit more work and I could get a negative score! No way I could fly the ascent without SAS though :-(

You should have made pic while docked. what is that black thing attached to your turbojet and where did you put air intake? where did you put a rcs tank? could you send us a ship to check that a little bit. If that really works it is amazing and you have gone in let's say in the limit. Yeah ship looks like christmass tree but is is very nice with all that detail parts, it can be good rated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frustration, frustration. I can build a 4.55t ship that, according to all the stats, has all the required TWR in the right places but I can't for the life of me land it on Mun. I wouldn't mind so much but I'm sure a better pilot than me could. Experimenting now with a hybrid 4.8t one that should be a lot more forgiving.

Jets don't work in vacuum, I assume you mean, 'amazing Isp in atmosphere'? All the sea-level and vacuum Isp information is still there in the VAB and SPH; you have to right-click to see it. By the way, I'm starting to feel a bit ignored here, since you haven't said anything about my entries in post 24 (ok, so I didn't give any pictures for it) or post 28.

I'm not jet expert and I dont use them much but jet does not work in space because of no air but if you give them air it has amazing Isp but it is not cheap to carry compressed air. same in the higher atmosphere I noticed if you give them enough air you can get a lot of force from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should have made pic while docked. what is that black thing attached to your turbojet and where did you put air intake? where did you put a rcs tank? could you send us a ship to check that a little bit. If that really works it is amazing and you have gone in let's say in the limit. Yeah ship looks like christmass tree but is is very nice with all that detail parts, it can be good rated.

From the looks of it the black thing above the turbojet is the air intake. Lots of ram scoops. and when you only have to dock one why would you need an RCS tank, for a small craft the pods contain plenty of monopropellant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the looks of it the black thing above the turbojet is the air intake. Lots of ram scoops. and when you only have to dock one why would you need an RCS tank, for a small craft the pods contain plenty of monopropellant.

yeah my bad with rcs. but I am still interested to check that ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frustration, frustration. I can build a 4.55t ship that, according to all the stats, has all the required TWR in the right places but I can't for the life of me land it on Mun.

I managed to land my ion lander version at the Armstrong Memorial, but doing so used up far too much fuel. Given what a colossal pain it is to land in the first place I'm not even certain I can land it anywhere and have enough fuel to return to orbit. (4.115 tonne ship, T-jet lifter, all ion, NB - doesn't work!) Adding more Xenon kills the TWR even more, and adding another ion engine and panels pushes the weight up to the point it might as well be bi-propellant. 1 more PB-X150 should be enough but the extra 0.12 tonnes... needs either much better piloting or more mass at the moment.

sGGrdvIl.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I managed to land my ion lander version at the Armstrong Memorial, but doing so used up far too much fuel. Given what a colossal pain it is to land in the first place I'm not even certain I can land it anywhere and have enough fuel to return to orbit. (4.115 tonne ship, T-jet lifter, all ion, NB - doesn't work!) Adding more Xenon kills the TWR even more, and adding another ion engine and panels pushes the weight up to the point it might as well be bi-propellant. 1 more PB-X150 should be enough but the extra 0.12 tonnes... needs either much better piloting or more mass at the moment.

Get rid of those folding arrays and use the single panels, which are massless parts. If you need more, use the Cubic Octagonal Strut (also massless) to add more surface.

You need at least 11 sun-facing panels (or 5 1x6 or 2x3 arrays) per engine for continuous max thrust.

Edited by The_Rocketeer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Docked they look just like the Mun orbit injection pic, without the Oscar B tanks, legs, decouplers and fuel-lines. That black thing is 8 RAM intakes (from post 24, "Launching with Mk1 Fuselage, turbojet and 8x octagonal struts and ram-intakes (who doesn't love the smell of spam in the morning?) brings the total VAB mass down ...", except this only has an FL-T100 tank), RCS comes from the Mk1 lander can (see tweaks below).

LightMun F on dropbox - I'd say 'have fun' but the many orbits gradually increasing Kerbin orbit before you can make a burn for Mun take ages. Put aside a couple of hours for flying this! As said before, once you're on your way to Mun it's all ok. I also put LightMun E (the 5.73t one) on there for those that want a light flight without the misery.

LightMun F tweaks as supplied, top to bottom, there is still some room for improvement: monopropellant removed from Mk1 command pod, battery disabled (held in reserve so there's SAS-power after the ions have feasted - don't forget this is turned off at launch!). Monopropellant in Mk1 lander can reduced to 3.06 since it's only for one light docking, could be reduce more but this seemed a 'safe' amount. Fl-T100 (jet tank), oxidiser removed!

Flying tips = engage SAS on the pad, throttle to full, stage to 4 (the jet). Launch TWR is >2.5 so you hit terminal velocity and can rotate to 50-degrees pitch around 600m. Reduce to 30 degrees at 10km, 5 degrees at 20km, 0 at 25km (IIRC, YMMV). Run the jet all the way to space, should get a >100km Ap but Pe stays low. Stage to 3 (the ions), action group 8 to extend solar panels (it's an old standard). Circularise at Ap and start spending many orbits gradually raising the orbit, the batteries/solar panels recharge fairly quickly but can only manage 200-300m/s per burn and take something like 5 minutes to do that ^^. Should be able to make a Mun burn from somewhere over 800km as long as you're in sunlight. You have plenty of xenon (one of the areas that can still be tweaked) so better to do several small, bad burns than even attempt a long one which is bound to be inaccurate anyway - good luck however you approach it, it's tedious. Mun injection is ok because it's only ~200m/s. If you're aiming for the memorial use the ions to make the plane-change as the lander doesn't have much excess fuel. Transfer crew from pod to lander, decouple docking ports. Stage to 2 (the lander 48-7S) or right-click activate it. The lander has liquid fuel so landing, re-orbit, rendezvous and docking are all conventional. Stage to 1 (jettison legs/oscar-bs) on/before liftoff from Mun. Transfer crew back to pod after docking, discard lander, Mun escape burn is <300m/s and can be done in one burn with just the pod and its engines. Fall down the gravity well and (stage to 0) deploy parachute to dust/splash-down.

LightMun E is similar, but a lot more fun - you can tell I really didn't enjoy the ions.

@5thHorseman and Bill - hmmm, I've never really done much with xenon and after this I won't be using them for any landers more exciting than Gilly! I deleted mine to keep things tidy but best to transfer one to Mun with a liquid-fuel tractor or just hyperedit for testing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ETA: If anyone wants to try my ion lander I've put that on dropbox too, as LightMun G within Challenge.zip. This is a new, improved version of the whole thing, coming in just under 4t - if only it worked ^^. Unzip to saves, I've included quicksaves (alt-F9 to load) for i) "space", first stage taken to space, but not circularised in orbit, ii) "low orbit", circularisation, iii) "Munbound", after doing the transfer burns (which went very well this time, only took 2 orbits/burns) and iv) "Mun orbit", established in orbit around Mun. Once the Mk1 command pod is undocked and parked in orbit MJ tells me the lander itself has a Mun TWR of 1.72. It has plenty of fuel and 'sufficient' electricity - don't try a night-side landing! - but I'm damned if I can land the thing.

Edited by Pecan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get rid of those folding arrays and use the single panels, which are massless parts. If you need more, use the Cubic Octagonal Strut (also massless) to add more surface.

It had occurred to me to just use massless parts for the panels, however the rules have provision for up to 80 points for being aerodynamic/aesthetics, 0.8 tonnes equivalent, (the 10 panels for the 2 ions weigh 0.175 tonnes). It seemed unlikely that a delicate lace-work of cubic struts and OX-STAT Panels would be considered aerodynamic. One problem with fixed panels is that landing requires full power while oriented with the horizontal and vertical, it would require an excess of panels to ensure maximum thrust at non optimum angles with the sun. It would probably work but might look a bit ungainly. I shall have to ponder on possible designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saturniscule D3: 4.371 tonnes, hybrid Turbo-jet, ion, bi-propellant.

Stock (150), no autopilot (100), SAS -used (0), Easter egg (50), RCS docking (40), Launch Pad landing -Nope!(0), Final rated (?)

The main reason for having the detachable ion drive was to keep with a vaguely pointy rocket shape, it meant I had to dock 3x, twice being to a totally inert target, which on the whole was a bit of a pain. The command pod had the 2 units of mono', no point taking extra mass to visit the Mün. (using ions isn't too bad if you remember to force FF with alt> )

Javascript is disabled. View full album
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Docked they look just like the Mun orbit injection pic, without the Oscar B tanks, legs, decouplers and fuel-lines. That black thing is 8 RAM intakes (from post 24, "Launching with Mk1 Fuselage, turbojet and 8x octagonal struts and ram-intakes (who doesn't love the smell of spam in the morning?) brings the total VAB mass down ...", except this only has an FL-T100 tank), RCS comes from the Mk1 lander can (see tweaks below).

LightMun F on dropbox - I'd say 'have fun' but the many orbits gradually increasing Kerbin orbit before you can make a burn for Mun take ages. Put aside a couple of hours for flying this! As said before, once you're on your way to Mun it's all ok. I also put LightMun E (the 5.73t one) on there for those that want a light flight without the misery.

LightMun F tweaks as supplied, top to bottom, there is still some room for improvement: monopropellant removed from Mk1 command pod, battery disabled (held in reserve so there's SAS-power after the ions have feasted - don't forget this is turned off at launch!). Monopropellant in Mk1 lander can reduced to 3.06 since it's only for one light docking, could be reduce more but this seemed a 'safe' amount. Fl-T100 (jet tank), oxidiser removed!

Flying tips = engage SAS on the pad, throttle to full, stage to 4 (the jet). Launch TWR is >2.5 so you hit terminal velocity and can rotate to 50-degrees pitch around 600m. Reduce to 30 degrees at 10km, 5 degrees at 20km, 0 at 25km (IIRC, YMMV). Run the jet all the way to space, should get a >100km Ap but Pe stays low. Stage to 3 (the ions), action group 8 to extend solar panels (it's an old standard). Circularise at Ap and start spending many orbits gradually raising the orbit, the batteries/solar panels recharge fairly quickly but can only manage 200-300m/s per burn and take something like 5 minutes to do that ^^. Should be able to make a Mun burn from somewhere over 800km as long as you're in sunlight. You have plenty of xenon (one of the areas that can still be tweaked) so better to do several small, bad burns than even attempt a long one which is bound to be inaccurate anyway - good luck however you approach it, it's tedious. Mun injection is ok because it's only ~200m/s. If you're aiming for the memorial use the ions to make the plane-change as the lander doesn't have much excess fuel. Transfer crew from pod to lander, decouple docking ports. Stage to 2 (the lander 48-7S) or right-click activate it. The lander has liquid fuel so landing, re-orbit, rendezvous and docking are all conventional. Stage to 1 (jettison legs/oscar-bs) on/before liftoff from Mun. Transfer crew back to pod after docking, discard lander, Mun escape burn is <300m/s and can be done in one burn with just the pod and its engines. Fall down the gravity well and (stage to 0) deploy parachute to dust/splash-down.

LightMun E is similar, but a lot more fun - you can tell I really didn't enjoy the ions.

@5thHorseman and Bill - hmmm, I've never really done much with xenon and after this I won't be using them for any landers more exciting than Gilly! I deleted mine to keep things tidy but best to transfer one to Mun with a liquid-fuel tractor or just hyperedit for testing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ETA: If anyone wants to try my ion lander I've put that on dropbox too, as LightMun G within Challenge.zip. This is a new, improved version of the whole thing, coming in just under 4t - if only it worked ^^. Unzip to saves, I've included quicksaves (alt-F9 to load) for i) "space", first stage taken to space, but not circularised in orbit, ii) "low orbit", circularisation, iii) "Munbound", after doing the transfer burns (which went very well this time, only took 2 orbits/burns) and iv) "Mun orbit", established in orbit around Mun. Once the Mk1 command pod is undocked and parked in orbit MJ tells me the lander itself has a Mun TWR of 1.72. It has plenty of fuel and 'sufficient' electricity - don't try a night-side landing! - but I'm damned if I can land the thing.

Congratulation to you! I haven't tryed to recreate your flight but I see what have you done and very good explained mission. Yeah there is still some ways to improve and maybe gain points on landing to the easter egg and on launch ramp, also maybe is possible to make some changes in design to gain even more points also maybe is possible to fly even better and use even less fuel or parts. All in all very strong design taken care about all details. I think that you know why have you lost some points on design.. air intake and placing things over the things and some details but anyway strong rated design because looks nice. Your vessel is the lightest one and I am confused, you are 1st placed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saturniscule D3: 4.371 tonnes, hybrid Turbo-jet, ion, bi-propellant.

Stock (150), no autopilot (100), SAS -used (0), Easter egg (50), RCS docking (40), Launch Pad landing -Nope!(0), Final rated (?)

The main reason for having the detachable ion drive was to keep with a vaguely pointy rocket shape, it meant I had to dock 3x, twice being to a totally inert target, which on the whole was a bit of a pain. The command pod had the 2 units of mono', no point taking extra mass to visit the Mün. (using ions isn't too bad if you remember to force FF with alt> )

http://imgur.com/a/UfoaC

I will review your vessel tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saturniscule D3: 4.371 tonnes, hybrid Turbo-jet, ion, bi-propellant.

Way to go :-)

Only 16 posts? We need you here more :-)

Looking very closely at that album now, especially how you managed all that with so little electricity.

ETA: @RussaX = give Bill max aesthetics points; not only is that a very clean design but he's even increased the mass with cosmetic parts such as the adapter on the jet stage. Nice touches.

Edited by Pecan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way to go :-)

Only 16 posts? We need you here more :-)

Looking very closely at that album now, especially how you managed all that with so little electricity.

ETA: @RussaX = give Bill max aesthetics points; not only is that a very clean design but he's even increased the mass with cosmetic parts such as the adapter on the jet stage. Nice touches.

Most of the burns using the ions were in full sunlight, at least all the major burns were, the periapsis kicks to get to the Mun were all full sunlight, so the power never even got to run down. At worst there was a burn that was angled badly for the ox-stat panels, and that was running the power down at something like -1.7 a sec, which would take over 8 min to run the batteries flat. If there was sunlight the pair of 1x6 panels could always be oriented to provide 4 units of power (they are only extended in one picture, but were actually out most of the time).

The adaptor is massless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...