Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BigD145]

X is okay for multiple parts on top of each other to shore things up.

[] []
  x
[] []

Imagine the left set is connected vertically (ditto on right set), so use an x for top left to bottom right.

[Girlinhat]

I'm not sure struts even add weight.  I've heard that they do in VAB, but on the platform they're counted as 0-mass, as are air intakes.

That said, I usually do fine with single struts.  The real key is placement, not amount, of struts.  In general, reaching further away makes struts better, for some reason.

[LordSlowpoke]

I'm not sure struts even add weight.  I've heard that they do in VAB, but on the platform they're counted as 0-mass, as are air intakes.

That said, I usually do fine with single struts.  The real key is placement, not amount, of struts.  In general, reaching further away makes struts better, for some reason.

struts have no weight and don't even have collision meshes

i have no idea what's the thing with air intakes, but i've seen it written in this here thread that landing gear has no weight also, but has half a ton each in vab which causes com issues

[puke]

X is okay for multiple parts on top of each other to shore things up.

This is exactly the kind of thing I usually do.  What I'm wondering is if something like this will work just as well:

A I usually truss up rings of boosters or fuel tanks like this:

Code: [Select]

[] [] []
  X  X
[] [] []

Code: [Select]

[] [] []
 
[]-[]-[]
Assuming the tanks are also anchored at the top, placing a reinforcing strut at the bottom should be just as good?  It SEEMS just as good in some simple tests, but I have not tried it on anything absurdly massive yet.

But if it really is zero-mass, I guess its a moot point.

[BigD145]

It's a part, so it's not a moot point. It still has to be calculated. I'll put one strut at the bottoms of booster clusters just to keep them from flapping about. The boosters aren't there for long.

[Eric Blank]

Even if they aren't zero-mass, they aren't zero-polygons, so reducing strut count might improve the game's performance when launching enormous rockets.

I recently crash-landed a lander on Laythe. Kerbal survived and can get in and out of his capsule, but all the science equipment, engines, and power generators were lost. Technically, I think the science equipment and power generators might still exist and be in functional condition, but they clipped through the terrain and landed in the water 300 meters below the rest of the lander. Whole incident occured because the damn science module got ripped off when the parachutes deployed, leaving too few chutes to slow the lander, resulting in it crashing into the ground just fast enough to ruin everything but the capsule and two of the fuel tanks which the capsule is attached to.

Here's what the situation looks like for him:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

all goes well, I will eventually be able to rescue him.

I also made my first successful, non-crashy, reasonably-controllable airplane:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And got Bob stuck on the deck of a very large rover:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

He fell off the ladder while it was in motion and couldn't get up. The rover simply never stopped roving.

[BigD145]

I think KAS would allow you to pick up your equipment if it was still close enough to your Kerbal.

[Girlinhat]

I think KAS would allow you to pick up your equipment if it was still close enough to your Kerbal.

I think at this point, he just needs to get a new rocket over.

[BigD145]

I think KAS would allow you to pick up your equipment if it was still close enough to your Kerbal.

I think at this point, he just needs to get a new rocket over.

Nah. Just needs more duct tape.

[puke]

okay, riddle me this ye smart peoples:

If I have an ASAS (controls engine gimbal, reaction wheels, RCS thrusters, and control surfaces) does that completely supersede the SAS?

If I have a command module with a SAS (all of them, right?) why would I need a dedicated SAS rather than in in-line reaction wheel?

When is there a reason to buy a SAS?

Related:  I take it there is no component that will vary the output of different engines to control your trajectory?  Many twin engine aircraft work this way, and I would assume that it would be a viable rocket feature as well?

Related to Related:  Jet engines should generate torque in the direction of their rotation, creating interesting turning characteristics, or requiring them to be balanced in some way.  piston engines have counter-balancers in them, so I'm guessing single-engine jets must have some sort of counter-balancer also?  but Counter-Rotating engines would off set each other, so maybe each engine can be lighter and more efficient that way?

I remember WWII aircraft had different maneuvering profiles depending on their engine setup, and some of the old computer games simulated this to some extent (easier to bank one way than the other)

I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I'm about to go have beers with one so I'll ask him about this.

[Eric Blank]

I think KAS would allow you to pick up your equipment if it was still close enough to your Kerbal.

I think at this point, he just needs to get a new rocket over.

Nah. Just needs more duct tape.

Unfortunately she's right: KAS isn't going to save a kerbal who's equipment is stuck in the rocks 300 meters below him. When I said it clipped through the terrain and landed in the water, I meant it's currently underground! I also didn't have KAS installed already so I don't have a parts bucket to use for repairs. And if I did bring one, it probably would have exploded as well.

I am planning to do another mission to Laythe with a lander that can hopefully land and extract poor Milkin from the surface, but currently I'm stumped as to how to produce a lander that can reliably do so. Landing on and taking off from objects without an atmosphere is sooo much easier :C

[BigD145]

You could always just drop a toolbox of supplies and call it a one way trip.

[Girlinhat]

ASAS is VERY strong SAS, as well as controlling all the other stuff.
SAS is a lighter weight and less costly option than ASAS.
Jet engines probably should act very differently.  But this is rocket science where you point in generally the right direction and eyeball it.  jet engines generating torque and thrust would become complicated and less fun.

[Putnam]

Made my first kethane base/thing what goes on a planetoid and isn't meant to take off afterward today.

I did it like this, but I didn't use MechJeb¹ my payload was an entire 2.5 meter kethane container with miscellaneous stuff attached to make it more roverlike² which I built front-to-back and had to be dropped sideways, I did it on minmus and also I did it at night in the dark. It took me, like, 8 tries, hehe.

¹The landing autopilot wouldn't work due to the fact that I'm not actually landing and the translatron had no goddamn idea what to do with my two thermal rockets, apparently.

²Wheels on the bottom, two kethane miners at the sides (one upside-down because I didn't really think of the implications of building the rover sideways) and a large solar panel and landing leg on top. Just the one landing leg so that it wouldn't turn the wrong way when I dropped it.

[Girlinhat]

What's the mod that uses satellite bouncing and communications arrays and whatnot?