|
The main thing with non-zero inclinations is to launch when the plane of the target orbit is over the launch site (ideally the target craft/body will also be somewhat nearby, but that's not necessarily practical with an asteroid rendezvous). Keep in mind you'll need more delta-v the further from east your launch azimuth is, with the highest being retrograde. Also: don't try and keep your velocity vector on the same compass heading throughout the launch; by the time you're 90 degrees east or west of the launch site, you'll be traveling dead east (or west), so there's a smooth transition to that from your initial compass direction. This is a case where it helps to regularly check the map to look at your relative inclination: if you're going more northerly than the target, turn 10-20 degrees south, and vice-versa.
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Shanakin posted:2. was hilarious and only as game breaking as you wanted it to be. Also RCS now perform significantly worse at their actual job. Would gladly see that bug return. It's to the point where balancing RCS between all the different centers of gravity throughout a mission (modules docking in different orientations, Cg shifting due to propellant usage, etc) is such a hassle that I just slap solar panels and reaction wheels on everything. That way I can actually translate even with slightly off-center RCS thrust, because the reaction wheel counteracts the unwanted rotation. If the Scott Manley TonyProbe style gimmick ships are really so gamebreaking, then have a deadzone near the center where the thrusters hit a cap and stop getting more thrust, but dammit I want the old RCS behavior back.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
TBH if your stack is accelerating that quickly, you're probably wasting thrust and/or hitting terminal velocity, and could stand to cut engines/add fuel.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:The behavior of planes with FAR seems slightly insane. I've got what seems like a pretty reasonable-looking one here, matched up center of mass with center of lift, and yet when I go to fly it it starts flipping upward on its own almost immediately, and it'll stall and start flipping end over end seemingly at random. Try adding some control surfaces to the wing trailing edges to move the CoL rearward and see if that stabilizes it. Don't even need to use them for maneuvering, you can tweak them to be off, just stick em on and see what happens.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
COL ahead makes the plane way unstable. It's the point where the lift force pushes the craft up, and it pivots around the COG. As your angle of attack increases, lift increases as well, which pushes the nose up further, increasing lift... you get the picture, it's a positive feedback loop that makes the plane want to flip. Moving it behind the COG has the opposite effect, high AoA pushes the rear up and brings the nose back down, so it stabilizes. Much steadier, but the downside is you need a lot more control surface to maneuver effectively. Having COL in front can make for a very maneuverable plane, if you have enough control surface/thrust vectoring authority to stop the rotation before you flip out of control, but it's not ideal for babby's first airplane. E: The main thing for getting airborne is to set your landing gear up so the plane has a nose up attitude while stationary, and have the main gear just a hair behind the COM, so the plane will tip back with just a smidgen of elevator. Alternately, you can pitch the wings and tail up 5 degrees so they generate some lift while the fuselage is level (this is essentially what real aircraft do). Fender Anarchist fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:mining rig. Coiner spotted 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
DelphiAegis posted:He's right in basically one thing: Space is dark, so everyone can see everything. However, space is also BIG, so if you're not emitting any electromagnetic radiation, and you absorb anything directed at you (Possibly with giant heatsinks in the craft for this purpose), how does anyone know you're there? He talks about sensors as if they're some "magitech" which he explicitly discounts, but the bottom line is that you need to bounce some form of radiation off your target if you want to know where they are. Or you have to rely on other sources of radiation (background, nearby star, etc) to illuminate the target for you. But again, if your target is simply absorbing anything thrown at it, how do you even know it's there? The trouble is, any spacecraft is going to be emitting electromagnetic radiation. It's called heat. Any spacecraft with any sort of human presence on board is going to be putting out infrared radiation, just by dint of keeping the atmosphere in a survivable range; that's before taking into account propulsion systems, weapons, computers... all these things will put off heat, and you either have a perfect insulated sphere keeping all that heat inside until it builds up to lethal temperatures, or you're radiating it into space. On Earth you have the luxury of a warm atmosphere to mask your heat signature; against the backdrop of space you're going to be lit up like a candle. E: Ranging could be a challenge, but that's an engineering problem, not a physics one. Getting a vector is dead easy. A fully automated craft will still have these problems; computers can tolerate a higher range of temperatures than humans can, but they still have lower and upper limits, and particularly staying cool becomes a challenge the more capable the computer is; hell, imagine the heat sinks you'd need to radiate the heat from a run-of-the-mill desktop computer, without the benefit of cooling air to absorb and convect the heat away.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
EightBit posted:I can't figure out where this CoL is coming from. As far as I can tell, the CoM and CoT are lined up, and this pig just wants to tilt around. It's there with all the aerodynamic controls removed, even: Those wings may be a bit much; have you tried removing them entirely and seeing if it's stable without them?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Might be a bug, I've had that happen both with and without FAR. Maybe delete the whole stage and rebuild piece by piece; it's annoying, but sometimes the nuclear option is best.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Bat Ham posted:Does anyone have any tips on circularizing an orbit? I know the basics of how to do it, but whenever I get close one of the orbital points shoots out too far. Throttle way down once Pe gets above ground; that'll make it easier to cut engines (X key) when they're equal.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
If you have the Delta-V budget, you can adjust the orbital inclination of the ship you're launching to so that the northern (or southern) tip of it just passes over the latitude you're landed at. Then just wait for the planet's rotation to carry you under that tip and launch directly due east (or west); make sure not to turn the ship left or right during launch, your heading will change as your travel around the planet and start moving towards the equator. That's how NASA did every moon launch; wait til the peak of the moon's orbit was over Cape Canaveral and launch east. Once you're in the same plane, rendezvous is comparatively simple.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Can we get an option to turn it on via the "cheat menu" (alt+shift+f12 or whatever)? Some sort of check box? Much appreciated. Or hell, even a slider in the options menu. (I'm fine with the current size, but if you're gonna do it...)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
You're doing everything right.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
So I downloaded the 64-bit version earlier, and I get this: Just started up the 32-bit and it's working fine. System is Windows 7 64-bit, Core2 E6700 processor, ATI 5750 GPU, 4 GB RAM. E: Ooooh, neat little change: the rockets now have the same compass orientation in the VAB and the launch pad! Fender Anarchist fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
fauxbama posted:What kind of moon logic is this? (professional) Musicians need to see that people are coming to their shows in order to, y'know, eat. Modmakers writing code for free in their spare time is entirely different.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Duodecimal posted:It could be after the landing and undocking the Yeah, but they didn't exactly have high-quality digital cameras mounted in the LM iirc; that was most likely taken by an astronaut.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Yeah, but that'll require more cross-range capability than you thought you'd need, and by the time you're done you'll never amortize the cost of developing the thing at all. But hey, it'll give you plenty of extra options in terms of aborts!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Watommi posted:The most efficient use of fuel is to change your orbit at apoapsis right? Other advice is good, but for future missions, don't bother circularizing above Kerbin on your way back, just burn from the Mun into an orbit that takes you directly to reentry. Unlike real-life Apollo capsules, Kerbal pods can land anywhere without getting damaged, so it doesn't really matter where you land (it does in new career mode with distance-based modifiers for part reimbursement, but not Science or Sandbox modes.) Rule of thumb for orbit changes is apoapsis for periapse changes and vice versa, inclination changes you wanna do at the higher of the two intersecting nodes (ascending and descending.) Also, you can transfer science between capsules, so if you go the rendezvous-> transfer route, grab all your science out of the stranded pod.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Drone_Fragger posted:Woah WOAH WOAAAAH Just found the other unreleased 0.24 trailer! turn your speakers down seriously.  (I already love these but I completely lost my poo poo at POTT MANLEY)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Add some vertical rockets to soften the touchdown and you've got Credible Sport, which is about as  as it gets. A Super STOL variant of the C-130, planned to be used in a special forces mission to rescue the Iranian hostages in 1980; the idea was to touch down in a soccer field, go out, grab the hostages, get back on, and zip back up into the air, all in a matter of hours.Just don't accidentally fire the retro rockets before you're on the ground, like the test pilots did on the prototype aircraft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFjhWw4DNo
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Jet Jaguar posted:Pity there's no audio to go with that video, the "oh poo poo" that must have happened when the rockets fired and visibility turned to zero must have been fun. Now I'll have a nightmare of being in a plane that just set itself on fire while one wing flies off and aviation fuel burns next to some landing rockets. Yeah, there's versions out there with History Channel EXTREME HEAVY METAL HISTORY over-the-top narration and foley sound effects out the rear end, but I believe the actual test footage is video-only.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:To be realistic, Alcubierre drives should destroy all ships and bases on the planet it is pointing at when it arrives, and that includes KSC. It should require that you aim near a planet, never at one. Am I right in thinking it would also deliver a hefty dose of gamma radiation from the blueshift? Or does it not work that way?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
The Falcon Heavy will, AFAIK, be the first launch vehicle to use fuel crossfeed. Even then, apparently only the middle row of engines will be feeding from the booster cores; the other 6 engines will still be draining the center tank. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they still throttle the center core stage down like the Delta 4H does.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Generally NTV-3 is the best stream on the NASA site.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
OAquinas posted:You can't land an asteroid. You'll land a meteor Meteorite 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 10:55
|
|
