|
SKELETONS posted:Ok that makes sense, lol. I actually launched this craft and that happened but I didn't make the connection.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
Ok, that makes sense. Thanks guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:Ok that makes sense, lol. I actually launched this craft and that happened but I didn't make the connection. It's been fairly thoroughly answered now but there's also the fact that KSP's atmosphere is basically a soup, and if your TWR is too high too low you're wasting fuel trying to go faster than the air can move aside. If you're launching conventionally and you're seeing mach effects / re-entry heating, you're going way too fast and wasting fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Edminster posted:It's been fairly thoroughly answered now but there's also the fact that KSP's atmosphere is basically a soup, and if your TWR is too high too low you're wasting fuel trying to go faster than the air can move aside. If you're launching conventionally and you're seeing mach effects / re-entry heating, you're going way too fast and wasting fuel. But you look ~awesome~ doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Edminster posted:It's been fairly thoroughly answered now but there's also the fact that KSP's atmosphere is basically a soup, and if your TWR is too high too low you're wasting fuel trying to go faster than the air can move aside. If you're launching conventionally and you're seeing mach effects / re-entry heating, you're going way too fast and wasting fuel. I know this is about stock, but in my experience under FAR, it's less "wastes fuel" and more "oh god i went up to one degree AoA and am now spinning horribly and my rocket's shearing apart, send help  " 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Sokani posted:Engines become more efficient when in thinner/no atmosphere. Something to do with how rocket fuel ignites/oxidization or something, I don't know anything about the physical and chemical reasoning behind it.  Like Luneshot says, it's that air pressure pushes back on your rocket. Basically, a rocket's thrust equation is like this: T(thrust) = mdot (how much propellant you're burning) * V (exit velocity of your exhaust) - A (the exit area of your nozzle) * [Pe (the pressure of your exhaust at the tip of your nozzle) - Pa (the ambient pressure)] Specific impulse is related to your thrust divided by how much propellant you're burning, so it's fuel efficiency: T/mdot = V - [ A / Ve ] * [ Pe - Pa ] none of those things can be negative, so as Pa increases, your fuel efficiency *has* to decrease. As mentioned above, KSP implements it slightly differently, but the net effect is the same!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Edminster posted:It's been fairly thoroughly answered now but there's also the fact that KSP's atmosphere is basically a soup, and if your TWR is too high too low you're wasting fuel trying to go faster than the air can move aside. If you're launching conventionally and you're seeing mach effects / re-entry heating, you're going way too fast and wasting fuel. While true, I'm reasonably sure KER doesn't actually model that, which is why you have to manually enable "atmospheric" mode (and then it applies equally to all stages).
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Also Maxmaps whoever had the idea to make the little sandstone kerbal statuette thingies, please give him/her a medal best christmas ever  i wonder what those guidance lightsticks taste like
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
BurntCornMuffin posted:But you look ~awesome~ doing it. That's what spaceplanes are for! Five solid minutes of hellfire as you centimeter by centimeter get up to the right altitude and speed to light up your vacuum thrusters, knowing full well that at any moment one wrong keystroke will lose you all control and waste every preceding moment. Then when you zoom in on the cockpit to get a dramatic screenshot the game hitches anyway and you tumble into oblivion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
I'm starting to get annoyed by how many clicks it takes to get into and out of the game. Two quick suggestions: Have the list of in-progress games appear on the main menu the game launches to, with the last-used highlighted so we can just click "Start Game" and go. Also, put an "Exit Game" button on every Escape menu, it takes a long time to quit to desktop from mid-flight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:Scrub tier question - How can not starting an engine until later in flight actually increase DV? Or is this an error with KER? It seems like not lighting them all at the start would increase time spent in the atmosphere eating gravity/drag and reduce DV. While it’s true that liquid engines are less efficient at sea level and that there is such a thing as too much thrust in atmosphere, that’s not why KER is listing lower Δv when the liquid engines fire first. It doesn’t understand these phenomena, but they don’t affect the figures it’s displaying anyway. A rocket’s Δv capacity depends only its ratio of fuel:other mass and the economy with which its fuel is utilised. Higher TWR lowers the required Δv for some maneuvers (mostly ascent/descent), but doesn’t change the rocket’s Δv. When you let the solids burn first, jettison them, and then fire the liquid engines, you increase the rocket’s average wet:dry ratio. Or, in other words, you impart fewer N⋅s onto the dead mass of the SRBs and the comparatively anemic solid fuel. Think of how when you fire the liquid engines from the start, the empty SRBs will be cut lose at a higher speed and altitude than they otherwise would be. You’ve wasted energy (or impulse, strictly speaking) in lifting them farther/faster than necessary. Now, as a practical matter, letting the liquid engines fire from the start will in some cases increase the Δv you have remaining once in orbit, if Δv shaved off the ascent requirement is greater than the Δv shaved off the rocket. For this particular rocket, the SRBs will keep it at or beyond the optimal speed starting a few thousand metres up. Certainly don’t fire the liquid engines after that point. I, personally, would fire the liquid engines to help the rocket off the pad, but I’m not entirely sure which approach results in more in‐orbit Δv. I do know that the difference is minor unless the SRB thrust is very low. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
This game is Not For casuals :/
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Luckily there is a fair deal of slack for gross inefficiency in the system at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
I sent Jeb, Bill and Bob into Munar orbit with a Vostok, It was meant to be an unmanned test flight. The root pod is a probe core. Not really sure what happened there. it was unmanned first time round. ...hang on. IIRC I stranded them around Minmus in the SSTO spaceplane. If the copies meet, will they annihilate the Kerbol system?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:This game is Not For casuals :/ I always wondered after seeing those pics of middle aged dudes with huge aircraft sim setups in their basements with 8 screens and a $1500 joystick how they got started - and now I feel like i'm on that path. Thanks platystemon and thread posters
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
50 Foot Ant posted:No, I'm really careful about that. I made sure to have the door area clear and my Kerbals would still sometimes fail to grab hold upon EVA'ing. Quicksave beforehand to be safe, then immediately press F after you click the EVA button. That did it for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
You can also install the appropriate Stock Bug Fix Module.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:You can also install the appropriate Stock Bug Fix Module. I too, recommend this product and/or service.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
When will they make Isp curves continue beyond greater atmospheric pressure than 1atm?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:When will they make Isp curves continue beyond greater atmospheric pressure than 1atm? Next version seems like a likely candidate since they're apparently reworking aerodynamics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Would give the aerospike a more important role, albeit in one or two situations. Unless they add more planets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
On the vein of rocket efficiency... This is the current version of my Kerpollo rocket/lander which seems overkill for its purpose but I can't seem to make it much smaller/lighter while retaining the Apollo-style LM/SM configuration.  122 parts, about 190t, though it definitely doesn't need to be, the batteries and life support supplies are overkill and it has a bunch of science crap slapped on. Though the mass they add is relatively small compared to the weight of the whole rocket. If you do the math and add things up supposedly it should reach orbit with barely any fuel left in the stage below the LM. In actuality it'll reach a 75km orbit with about 740m/s dV left in that stage in this configuration, but if I fire the Mainsail at the same time as the SRBs it'll end up in orbit with about 600m/s dV left (the TWR in that case would be 2.20 for the SRB/Mainsail stage and 2.14 post-SRB-separation stage). The configuration pictured never reaches terminal velocity, while the alternate one does and the 600dV figure assumes I keep the rocket at terminal velocity. Both also assume I jettison the fairings at around 40km, with the dV figures being about 60m/s lower if I don't. On top of that the SM returns to Kerbin from a 15km Munar orbit to 25k perapsis over Kerbin with about 900m/s dV, and a high enough TWR that I can land it on Kerbin without parachutes. If I remove one of the tanks it will not have enough dV to fully circularize around Mun. Is this rocket as overkill as I think it is? Think it could reach, land on, and return from Ike? E: Fairings are for aesthetic for me, they're not necessary because I don't use FAR/NEAR so there's actually a bit of weight I could technically shave off this rocket. Fermented Tinal fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
I just want to make sure of something before I go on another modding spree. MKS is meant to be an addon to TAC-Life Support, right? In other words if I don't want to deal with TAC-LS, MKS is more or less pointless except as a source of pretty parts? While I'm at it, can anyone explain in simple words how things like ORS, Community Resource Pack, Regolith, etc. relate? I wanted to install Karbonite, EPL, and a couple other mods I've never tried and I got dragged into a mire of terms 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:I just want to make sure of something before I go on another modding spree. MKS is meant to be an addon to TAC-Life Support, right? In other words if I don't want to deal with TAC-LS, MKS is more or less pointless except as a source of pretty parts? MKS is basically pretty parts without TACLS. RoverDude can explain the rest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:I just want to make sure of something before I go on another modding spree. MKS is meant to be an addon to TAC-Life Support, right? In other words if I don't want to deal with TAC-LS, MKS is more or less pointless except as a source of pretty parts? welcum 2 my hell MKS/OKS is allegedly standalone, but in order to use every part of the buffalo you need Extraplanetary Launchpads, Kerbal Attachment System, and TAC Life Support. Roverdude claims the only bits that are useless without TAC are the kerbitat and associated hab modules, which is a loss of like four parts total. Without EL, you lose the surface and orbital Shipyard parts, and without KAS you lose the Flex-O-Tubes which make non-orbital base building incredibly easy. Regolith et al. are bundled with MKS/OKS because they're the core mods that everything else Roverdude makes (like Karbonite) actually build off of. I have yet to set up an actually functioning base because despite roverdude's protestations this poo poo is complicated as gently caress as compared to, say, Kethane. If you want to play with EPL you have to set up a chain of like seven buildings just to get the rocketparts in addition to the fuel refining from Karbonite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Fermented Tinal posted:On the vein of rocket efficiency... You could put on the smaller radial batteries, remove a lander leg, tweak the fuel lower (as you said removing the whole tank won't work), redesign and reduce seperatrons, reduce Goo container to 1 and put it under the materials bay, use one or two small on-line orange engines for the lander (depending on your attitude towards part clipping) or take the risk of using your lander engine as your Kerbin return engine after docking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:You could put on the smaller radial batteries, remove a lander leg, tweak the fuel lower (as you said removing the whole tank won't work), redesign and reduce seperatrons, reduce Goo container to 1 and put it under the materials bay, use one or two small on-line orange engines for the lander (depending on your attitude towards part clipping) or take the risk of using your lander engine as your Kerbin return engine after docking. There's only one goo container, the other side has a hex can with life support supplies tweaked to match the weight of the goo can. Overall my goal weight-wise is not really about shaving off a some mass here or there. I'd actually like to shave off 50 tons so it doesn't require a fully-upgraded launch pad while still retaining the Apollo-style setup, which I'm not sure is possbile even with dropping all of the science stuff, life support, changing batteries, removing solar panels as well as going with 3 lander legs, alternate engines (I thought the L1s were the lightest?) and fuel tweaks. Besides, the lander itself can land on mun and return to orbit with 8m/s dV remaining, which I think is about as efficient as I can get it with the material bay, goo can and supplies. Overall the rocket barely fits in under the height limit (by like 0.2m) for a level 2 pad, but it's way over the weight limit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
Every tonne you can shave off of the bits that need to go to the Mun and come back to Kerbin is magnified at the launch pad. Edit: so that one lander leg doesn't need fuel to return to Mun orbiter rendezvous, which doesn't need fuel to land on the Mun, which doesn't need fuel to circularize at the Mun, which doesn't need fuel to inject to Mun intercept, which doesn't need fuel to make it to orbit. So that fraction of a tonne leg may need 1 tonne or more of fuel+support structure at the launch pad. Corky Romanovsky fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 09:16
|
|
|
Waaaaaayyy too many batteries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
Fermented Tinal posted:(I thought the L1s were the lightest?) I don't remember engine names. If I recall correctly, the Ant engine has bad specific impulse, radial orange is a little better, in-line orange is better still, LV-909 (?) has better specific impulse, but it is 5x the mass of the in-line orange. TWR requirements aside, In-line orange is better than the LV-909 in smaller mass vehicles. Not sure at what mass they switch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
tuning sepratrons will be the death of me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=492mz0Ok-rM
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
MazeOfTzeentch posted:tuning sepratrons will be the death of me. Make sure you have the stock bug fix addon, looks more like the radial decoupler bug than sepatron failure to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
AirborneNinja posted:Waaaaaayyy too many batteries. Aren't batteries still massless and physics-less?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
Any tips for interplanetary travel? I've been using nuclear rockets and just blasting like crazy to get there and into orbits, but I'm sure I'm being horribly inefficient and I seem to always end up leaving Kerbin on an equatorial orbit and arriving at Duna or Eve in a polar one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I seem to always end up leaving Kerbin on an equatorial orbit and arriving at Duna or Eve in a polar one. This part is because Duna and Eve are not precisely on the ecliptic like Kerbin and the Mun. Once you break from Kerbin's SOI you should be able to see an ascending/descending node for the targeted body; perform a 'plane change' maneuver there by pulling on the purpley-pink triangles until you get an inclination of as close to 0* as you can manage. If you need practice, you can try doing this with Minmus or the various 'put satellite in specific orbit' contracts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
If you are dead set on arriving on an equatorial orbit, your inclination needs to be reduced to NaN (essentially). If you have RCS, you can fine tune your entry into SoI from a long ways out. Equatorial orbits aren't all that important outside of Kerbin. Many moons rotate slow enough and have low enough gravity to make launching/landing with the rotation only have marginal gains. Orbital rendezvous with non-equatorial orbiting craft does add some difficulty, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
I'm sending mapping probes so a polar orbit actually works for me, but I feel like arriving equatorially would save me a ton of fuel or am I wrong about that? I would think I can aerobrake into orbit instead of having to burn off 4,000 m/s of velocity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
Edminster posted:welcum 2 my hell You're comparing apples and tractors there, chief. MKS/OKS is not an analogue to Kethane at all - Karbonite is. And Karbonite is as dead simple as Kethane. Scan (pick whatever option you want - SCANSat, Resource Overlay, pen and paper saying 'Ore is in the midlands'). Land. Mine. Profit. All of the bits have direct analogues. Comparing EPL to Kethane is like comparing ham and hamsters. So I find the whole 'every part of the buffallo' bit a little disingenuous. I provide bits that extend other mods because that's precisely what people were asking for (no different than the fact that I provide a model that makes snacks if you prefer that mod). MKS (unless you are using it for pretty bits) is *meant* to be complex (relatively). It's kinda what it does - it's how it rolls. And given each part (Life Support or Manufacturing) is based on only a few parts isn't exactly onerous (and as noted - if resource utilization and mining and such is not your thing, use them as pretty bits and don't install life support). It's kinda like getting mad because you install FAR and your wings fly off, or DRE and you now need heat shields. For life support, I just launch a C3, Kerbitat, Aeroponics, the two inflatables, and done. Usually in conjunction with base contracts and wire them up. No KAS no problem - I give two other options for connecting things (fixed tubes and docking ports, or analogues to the ARM claw). Want to mine stuff? Done. Send your drills, a refinery, a fabricator, and a machinery plant. The EPL analogue would be drills, a smelter, and a workshop. So I add... one intermediary part as compared to out of the box EPL, and require more than one resource to be harvested vs. just making everything out of metal. Don't like that? Then just grab the EPL->Karbonite adaption which includes MKS-like parts and lets you go ore->metal->rocketparts. easy peasy. Want to just make money? Even easier. Just drop a drill and a refinery. Done. So anyway, the whole passive-aggressive sandy-vagina bit about MKS not being stand alone is getting a little old at this point. Install just MKS... it works. If you have other things, it adds stuff. i.e. the Aeroponics is pretty much useless without TAC-LS, but I don't stop people from playing with the pretty legos - same goes for the launchpad. It looks pretty until you add EPL, then it does stuff. Rebuilding EPL would be silly, Rebuilding TAC-LS would be equally silly. Both of these mods are well maintained and under permissive licenses, and it saves me work. RoverDude fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:I just want to make sure of something before I go on another modding spree. MKS is meant to be an addon to TAC-Life Support, right? In other words if I don't want to deal with TAC-LS, MKS is more or less pointless except as a source of pretty parts? See above RE MKS but short version - no TAC-LS = pretty parts, and resource harvesting. Ok here we go. When MKS first came out it used Kethane or ORS. Kethane comes from Majiir, ORS (Open Resource System) from Fractal_UK. Both let you find stuff on planets. Kethane support was dropped when I created Karbonite. ORS became the only choice for resource stuff. ORS got kinda broke, so I forked it into my own version as a stop-gap (ORS-X). This is what I used up until 0.90 0.90 on, I use Regolith, which is a framework I did from scratch. Same deal, handles finding stuff on planets and asteroids, as well as harvesting and converting. So as of now, Regolith is it. ORS is pretty much dead, Kethane is on death's door knocking loudly. If you install Karbonite it comes with Regolith. As does MKS. Same thing, same resource system. If you install EPL and have MKS, it magically converts everything over to use Regolith and MKS modules. If you don't have MKS, or prefer a simpler resource chain, there's a Regolith->EPL adaption that uses MKS styled parts. Either works, or even both at once. My personal preference is to use MKS + EPL, land a colony control center which doubles as an EPL survey station, and use survey stakes to create my base. YMMV. CRP (Community Resource Pack) is nothing more than resource and regolith configs. It also comes with MKS or Karbonite. Same bit. It just handles all of the resource definitions and sets up the resources on the different planets. No CRP, no resources - hence why it is bundled. Karbonite works on it's own. EPL works on it's own with Kethane, or just get the Regolith adaption and you're Kethane free. MKS works on it's own for pretty legos and resource harvesting. Life support is optional (this was a major request - add it in by adding TAC-LS), launchpads are optional (again, another major request - add it in by adding EPL). That's it in a nutshell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
This all hurts my head. TOO MUCH.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 11:21
|
|