Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 789 790 [791] 792 793 ... 848

Author Topic: Kerbal Space Program: Now Hiring Optimistic Astronauts for Dangerous Munission  (Read 1489302 times)

Dutchling

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ridin' with Biden
    • View Profile

Ah, was initially going to make that myself with two decouplers, but decided to reduce space clutter and not do it.

Anyway, the stowing bug magically fixed itself after loading the space station a few times. So I guess I'll just test the every engine I have before taking off from now on and if they have the bug I reload.

Makes the game a little more realistic actually, in a way xD
Logged

MarcAFK

  • Bay Watcher
  • [INSANITY INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile

As I recall FAR completely changes the drag model, particularly so that drag is calculated based on the shape of the ship, not based on parts being behind other parts. This may affect occlusion.
Logged
They're nearly as bad as badgers. Build a couple of anti-buzzard SAM sites marksdwarf towers and your fortress will look like Baghdad in 2003 from all the aerial bolt spam. You waste a lot of ammo and everything is covered in unslightly exploded buzzard bits and broken bolts.

MarcAFK

  • Bay Watcher
  • [INSANITY INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile

My ships keep being attacked by launch clamps at 6km altitude. This means war! (Somehow bahamut's weapons could help me!)
Logged
They're nearly as bad as badgers. Build a couple of anti-buzzard SAM sites marksdwarf towers and your fortress will look like Baghdad in 2003 from all the aerial bolt spam. You waste a lot of ammo and everything is covered in unslightly exploded buzzard bits and broken bolts.

Akura

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

I finally got around to playing with nuclear engines. Meh. Not as good as I thought. Using the same overall design from before, only changing the Rockomax Poodle engines out for the nukes, a trip to and back from the Mun ends with pretty much the same fuel situation: I'm out and I'm using reaction thrusters to push my periapsis that last few meters into the atmosphere to let drag take care of the rest. I suppose the main advantage to the LV-N is that it only uses Liquid Fuel and no Oxidizer, making it good for spaceplanes, or easier refueling stations.

Also, why the hell is it easier to make a round trip to Minmus than Mun? The Poodle-based craft from before makes it to and from Minmus with a good amount of fuel left, but not Mun.
Logged
Quote
They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I told them I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard.
... Yes, the hugs are for everyone.  No stabbing, though.  Just hugs.

Lightningfalcon

  • Bay Watcher
  • Target locked. Firing main cannon.
    • View Profile

I finally got around to playing with nuclear engines. Meh. Not as good as I thought. Using the same overall design from before, only changing the Rockomax Poodle engines out for the nukes, a trip to and back from the Mun ends with pretty much the same fuel situation: I'm out and I'm using reaction thrusters to push my periapsis that last few meters into the atmosphere to let drag take care of the rest. I suppose the main advantage to the LV-N is that it only uses Liquid Fuel and no Oxidizer, making it good for spaceplanes, or easier refueling stations.

Also, why the hell is it easier to make a round trip to Minmus than Mun? The Poodle-based craft from before makes it to and from Minmus with a good amount of fuel left, but not Mun.
Are you landing on Minmus or just doing a flyby?  If you are landing then it is because it takes a lot less fuel to safely land and then take off, and this outweighs the extra fuel needed to get there.  Now, depending on how you set up your flybys, it could be that you are doing everything very inefficiently for the Mun while doing it efficiently for Minmus. I don't know how to really explain it very well, but you need to remember to look at your orbit after your flyby, along with how you exit from the planet and which way the planet is rotating.  Lets say you are just doing a flyby of the Mun, without establishing an orbit.  Most of the time, you will get a rougly circular orbit of Kerbin afterwards.  This is very, very bad, as you will waste most of your fuel trying to lower your periapses.  Instead, play around with the manuever node until you have a highly elliptical orbit with a periapses hitting Kerbin, or only a few hundred kilometers away.  While you will be hitting the atmosphere at a higher speed, you can use whatever fuel you have saved to slow down, and then absorb the rest on your heat shields.  If you land, look at what direction whatever moon you are on is orbiting compared to Kerbin.  Generally, to use less fuel, you want to have your escape vector in the opposite direction, since this will lower your speed.  Again, play around with the maneuver nodes to found out which gets your periapsis the closest.  If possible, always try to take off in the direction the planet is rotating.  This gives you an extra boost from the planet or moon, and is the main reason you head east from the space center every time. 
Not sure how good of a player you are, so sorry if you already know most of this, but those are the main reasons I can think of for why you might have discrepancies getting from one place to another.  Now, onto the nuclear engines.  Mainly, you want to be using them for transfers.  When landing, they are inconvenient because of both their size and their low thrust. It has approximately the same thrusts as that other 1.5m LV engine, can't remember the name at the moment, but has more weight.  If you just switched it out for a poodle, make sure you don't have any oxidizer in the fuel tank, and if possibly try to use the airplane parts.  A well designed stage with the LV-N can get you from one planet to another with ease, but if your craft is to big it will take forever.  Generally, LV-Ns kind of act like ion engines, where you have very effecient ISP but low thrust to weight ratio.
Logged
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum circo vincendarum
W-we just... wanted our...
Actually most of the people here explicitly wanted chaos and tragedy. So. Uh.

nogoodnames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

Nuclear engines are really best suited for moving heavy loads across interplanetary distances. If you just want a light Mun lander, the extra mass of the engine will counteract the high Isp and result in mediocre performance compared to the much lighter LV-909s and Poodles. Also, because it only uses liquid fuel, if you slap it on a ship built for a chemical rocket and just remove the oxidizer, it will only have about half the reaction mass (the mass of fuel that can be converted to thrust) to work with. You need to add fuel tanks if you're going to compare them like that.

Minmus is easier to land on and come back because it has lower gravity and a slow orbital velocity. The pull of Kerbin's gravity is inversely proportional to the square of your distance from its core, forming what is known as a "gravity well" which is steeper the closer you are to the planet. This means that it takes a lot of energy to escape the deepest part of the well, but only slightly more to go beyond it. so while Minmus looks a lot further than the Mun, it actually only requires a bit more delta-v to get out to it. Then, since Minmus' orbital velocity is relatively slow (also a result of the gravity well) it takes much less delta-v to match its velocity and get into orbit, this also means it takes less delta-v to return to Kerbin afterwards. And of course, since Minmus' own gravity is fairly low, it takes less energy to de-orbit, land and orbit again.
Logged
Life is, in a word, volcanoes.
                        - Random human lord

forsaken1111

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • TTB Twitch

I use nuclear engines on my interplanetary stages, and on my kerbin<->mun transfer vehicle.

Said transfer vehicle stays in orbit and moves whatever payload I need moved, but it never lands itself. The payload to be attached usually comes with additional fuel for it.
Logged

BFEL

  • Bay Watcher
  • Tail of a stinging scorpion scourge
    • View Profile

Mun continues to be my archnemesis. Regardless of design there seems to be a 50/50 chance the ship just lands helplessly on its side.
On top of this it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to bring enough fuel to land and take off again into a stable orbit, let alone one that makes it back to Kerbin.
Logged
7/10 Has much more memorable sigs but casts them to the realm of sigtexts.

Indeed, I do this.

BigD145

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

I finally got around to playing with nuclear engines. Meh. Not as good as I thought. Using the same overall design from before, only changing the Rockomax Poodle engines out for the nukes, a trip to and back from the Mun ends with pretty much the same fuel situation: I'm out and I'm using reaction thrusters to push my periapsis that last few meters into the atmosphere to let drag take care of the rest. I suppose the main advantage to the LV-N is that it only uses Liquid Fuel and no Oxidizer, making it good for spaceplanes, or easier refueling stations.

Also, why the hell is it easier to make a round trip to Minmus than Mun? The Poodle-based craft from before makes it to and from Minmus with a good amount of fuel left, but not Mun.

Nuke viability depends on your craft weight. Lack of oxidizer lowers overall weight. You can squeeze an extra thousand dV in light craft.
Logged

RedKing

  • Bay Watcher
  • hoo hoo motherfucker
    • View Profile

Yay! Successfully landed my first probe on Minmus. Still not sure I'm ready for a manned landing anywhere though. I've got an orbital probe that will make a transfer burn to Duna in 100 days or so, but given how long it'll take to get there, I don't want to wait for that juicy science to unlock more parts.

Two major questions:


1. How do you design Apollo-type vessels? That is, a craft with a command pod and a separate lander section that will detach, land on the target, let Jeb stretch his legs and plant a flag, and then get him back into orbit to rendezvous with the command pod and head home to Kerbin?? Do I need docking ports? Do I need a really big-ass aeroshell?

2. Orbital stations....what do?  :-\
Logged

Remember, knowledge is power. The power to make other people feel stupid.
Quote from: Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you.

Aqizzar

  • Bay Watcher
  • There is no 'U'.
    • View Profile

1. How do you design Apollo-type vessels? That is, a craft with a command pod and a separate lander section that will detach, land on the target, let Jeb stretch his legs and plant a flag, and then get him back into orbit to rendezvous with the command pod and head home to Kerbin?? Do I need docking ports? Do I need a really big-ass aeroshell?

Aeroshells are really new to the game, so I don't have any experience with them, but that would be the idea.  The real Apollo had the lander inside the aeroshell under the capsule/service module, which then separated and turned around in orbit to dock the top of the capsule to the top of the lander.  KSP's design system really doesn't like this because the lander would have to start out attached to the bottom of the service module.  Your best bet would be to build it with the lander already attached (upside down) to the capsule, or put a stack separator between the lander and service module engine... all inside an aeroshell on top of the lifter stage.  That's a lot of crap to pack inside the stock aeroshell.

2. Orbital stations....what do?  :-\

Start by building a "core" with at least power, RCS and an ASAS controller (or leave a qualified pilot aboard, point is you need to be able to leave it unattended without rotation), with enough well-spaced docking ports to support future expansion.  Make absolutely sure it's in a circular orbit (zero inclination is nice but much easier to handle than circular deviation), and the lower the orbit the better as long as it's higher than 75km (higher is nicer but more fuel expensive to expand).  Then just drive the rest of your modules to it and endure the painstaking space-limbo process of docking parts to an increasingly wobbly station.

Building it space shuttle style with internally carried components is extremely hard just because the stock cargo modules in KSP are tiny, and the parts need to be self propelled (RCS is a must) to finish the docking process.  The natural alternative is to build it Mir style where you attach "station" components that are really fully-qualified space vessels, and then ditch or empty out the superfluous engines as much as your design allows.
Logged
And here is where my beef pops up like a looming awkward boner.
Please amplify your relaxed states.
Quote from: PTTG??
The ancients built these quote pyramids to forever store vast quantities of rage.

Dutchling

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ridin' with Biden
    • View Profile

Successfully rendezvoused with an asteroid.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Had to kinda lucksack my way into this, since MechJeb didn't seem to understand how to rendezvous with something on an escape trajectory from Kerbol. If I hadn't hit it I would have been 50 dV short of matching velocities.

I'm not sure why I expected it to have a SoI, but it obviously didn't. Not sure how to properly land on it. Without exploding, that is.
Logged

BigD145

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

It doesn't have enough gravity for an SOI. It's also not really on rails, certainly not when you're near it. It's a generated object treated just like the ship you built.
Logged

Dutchling

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ridin' with Biden
    • View Profile

So what, eh, are you supposed to do with 'em?
Logged

Aseaheru

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cursed by the Elves with a title.
    • View Profile

Grab them with a claw. Treat it like docking.
Logged
Highly Opinionated Fool
Warning, nearly incapable of expressing tone in text
Pages: 1 ... 789 790 [791] 792 793 ... 848