|
Ratzap posted:Here's something, have any of you seen a contract like this one: I just did one of those, and it really is that simple.
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
So I've seen a few people having problems designing ships due to stability issues or lack of science, so I thought I'd upload a few that have worked well for me. They aren't the most efficient, but they fly pretty well and have wide enough fuel margins that you can have a suboptimal trajectory/course change/gently caress-up and still complete your mission. This is a tier 1 ship that will easily reach a 70k orbit, or 100k on a good ascent. The second decoupler acts as a crash pad/poor man's heat shield - chute deployed, it will land at just over 6 m/s, and the decoupler has a crash rating of 9 m/s.   These are tier 2 shuttles for bringing 3 or 6 tourists to space - for about 30 seconds.  I think I made almost 300k by sending 5 tourists up in the 6-pod one. This one has enough d-v to go to the mun/minmus and get in a nice polar orbit while the pilot spams EVA reports over all the biomes for some sweet science (and return, of course). And finally:  A lander made out of 1.25m/tier 3 parts. This one has some really large margins - I went to the Mun and landed back on Kerbin with 500 d-v to spare. I've found these ships work best with a slower and more vertical launch profile than normal: 22 degrees/300m/s @ 6k, 45 degrees/400m/s @ 11k, 70 degrees/1200m/s @ 30k, then horizontal to apoapsis with about 300-500 m/s to circularize. They still require a gentle touch, but as long as you make steady, small adjustments and stay within the prograde circle below 50k you should be fine. So, hope these ships help! https://www.dropbox.com/s/8gybj62vdctxo22/base%20ships.zip?dl=0 Trochanter fucked around with this message at 05:48 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Every time this guy does a video my life gets just a little bit better.  (That ring orbital station in a couple clips, is that from a mod? I like it I want it)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
A tale of 2 probes:    ~fin~
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
RIP probe 2's dignity. Any reason you didn't cram the probe core into the service bay?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:Every time this guy does a video my life gets just a little bit better. No, it's stock parts.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Am I the only one who does not like 1.0 at all? Yes.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
haveblue posted:A tale of 2 probes: I must be just super bad. How did you get your probe from Kerbal to another planet with just one tank of fuel?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
One tank and a Terrier can get you a surprisingly long way if you time your burns right. Basically if you want to extend your apoapsis, you can do so at a ridiculous discount if you burn at your periapsis. And once your vehicle is in a stable parking orbit around Kerbin, you've basically done 95% of the work necessary to get to Mun or Duna or whatever. It's like waiting for the right winds to blow. I am not adept enough to figure out launch windows so I just plop a probe into a parking orbit and time skip until I can get a good-looking apoapsis to an encounter to whatever I want to go for.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:I must be just super bad. How did you get your probe from Kerbal to another planet with just one tank of fuel? Because those 2 probes weigh about a ton each, their fuel tanks should provide 1.5k dV each(including the transfer stage) and to get to Duna takes about 1000 dV. The smaller the payload, the less fuel you need to get it somewhere. That's why using a lander can/rover seat for manned landings while the main craft waits in orbit is much cheaper than landing the entire craft.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:I must be just super bad. How did you get your probe from Kerbal to another planet with just one tank of fuel? And since Duna has an atmosphere you can aerobrake around it and save a lot of fuel for orbital capture.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
I am attempting to do a Mun landing in the tutorial mission Yeah, I am taking it slow with this game. For these types of landings, what altitude should I start burning to cancel out the vertical velocity? EDIT: Nevermind, I took a look at the Mun landing video. My problem was I didn't fudge the orbit so the gravity would catch me. Unlucky7 fucked around with this message at 09:31 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Unlucky7 posted:For these types of landings, what altitude should I start burning to cancel out the vertical velocity? The easiest (but inefficient) way to land is to make a long burn in orbit that completely cancels out your horizontal velocity so you fall straight down, then you just need to figure out how much your craft can (de)accelerate and start burning at the right altitude so you can cancel out your vertical velocity before you smack into the ground.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Depends on your velocity, not your altitude. I honestly haven't done the tutorial, so I don't know how the craft looks. Oh sorry, I think I meant horizontal velocity. Yeah. I tried something similar to what you described but the craft did not have enough fuel for it. It is an optional thing to be fair; the tutorial was mostly about how to get into Mun orbit from Earth orbit.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
Hm, are there any heavily recommended technologies to research after the basic tech to open the mun/minmus is all researched? I have the first four levels of the tree all unlocked, and Fuel Systems & Heavy Rocketry from tier 5, but I'm really not seeing anything else that I have immediate need for.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
Advanced Flight Control or Electrics. Space Exploration for the thermometer perhaps. More science instruments is always good.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Hmm, done and done... is Advanced Exploration worth it for the science lab, or will I be getting more bang for my buck with short-duration trips for a while?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
I wish the test contracts were actually weird challenges that required you to build/fly stupid things instead of just "activate x part when y conditions met  " deals.I'd be way more up for trying/failing to build something that can escape the atmosphere that uses less than x parts, or having to build a rocket that incorporates some procedurally generated sub-assembly than trying to get a launch to go just right so I can open a parachute correctly.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:You only need about 1k dV to go from Kerbin to Duna, marginally more than going to the mun. The hard part is getting the transfer window right. And a lightweight probe with an efficient engine like the 48-7S gets a ton of dV out of a small tank. Everytime I transfer to another planet it seems like I need to retro burn like 1.5kdv just for the capture. Am I just mistiming it?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
The science lab is good, but it's a pain in the rear end to get into orbit until you have the Skipper engine. edit: Sankis posted:Everytime I transfer to another planet it seems like I need to retro burn like 1.5kdv just for the capture. Am I just mistiming it? Assuming an ideal transfer trajectory for Duna you need about 600 dV for a low orbit, but you can aerobrake for most of that. A non-ideal trajectory will quickly push that higher though. Moho requires 2400 dV (again in ideal conditions) for a low orbit and has no atmosphere to aerobrake in.  Refer to the Kerbol Spaceway map: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/7/73/KerbinDeltaVMap.png (The take-off and landing values for atmospheric bodies are incorrect after the aero changes, but vacuum values are still the same) Collateral Damage fucked around with this message at 10:21 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Sankis posted:Everytime I transfer to another planet it seems like I need to retro burn like 1.5kdv just for the capture. Am I just mistiming it? nah that's just The Way Things Are, you're not doing anything wrong. It cost me over 5000 m/s to slow a probe down at Moho today, and that was a near perfect Hohman transfer during the efficient transfer window. You can try aerobraking for planets with an atmosphere, but with the new re-entry heating mechanics that might be tricky. Even before they added that I always found it to be a process of trial and error, particularly for Duna.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
My old trick for Duna aerobraking was to swing within 5 km of the surface so I could fully open the parachutes (they can be tweaked to open at 5000 m via the right‐click menu). This may or may not work in 1.0.2.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
Does anyone else think that kerbal engineer is miscalculating the thrust/weight ratio? I've got a rocket with a ratio of 1.07 and yet it requires about 10 seconds of burning on the launcher before it starts moving. I double checked that I'm on the correct reference body.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
double nine posted:Does anyone else think that kerbal engineer is miscalculating the thrust/weight ratio? I've got a rocket with a ratio of 1.07 and yet it requires about 10 seconds of burning on the launcher before it starts moving. I double checked that I'm on the correct reference body. Thrust now varies with atmosphere density. Make sure you have the "Atmospheric" button clicked to get the correct reading for the sea level atmo.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
double nine posted:Does anyone else think that kerbal engineer is miscalculating the thrust/weight ratio? I've got a rocket with a ratio of 1.07 and yet it requires about 10 seconds of burning on the launcher before it starts moving. I double checked that I'm on the correct reference body. In atmo or vaccum? If atmo, does KER even account for reduced thrust due to lower isp?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
I really like the way how you can shape the fairings, but they currently explode a bit...well, they are not as pretty as they could be.haveblue posted:A tale of 2 probes: Can I see the full rocket? tia
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
sckye posted:Thrust now varies with atmosphere density. Make sure you have the "Atmospheric" button clicked to get the correct reading for the sea level atmo. That's the issue.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
double nine posted:Does anyone else think that kerbal engineer is miscalculating the thrust/weight ratio? I've got a rocket with a ratio of 1.07 and yet it requires about 10 seconds of burning on the launcher before it starts moving. I double checked that I'm on the correct reference body. And you have checked it has the same thrust in atmo? There should be a toggle for atmospheric stats. If that all checks out keep in mind that 1.07TWR on Kerbin means it accelerates off the pad at a blistering 0.7 m/s. For your launch stage you want at minim 1.25 or so. e: welp that's what i get for having multiple tabs open
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
double nine posted:Does anyone else think that kerbal engineer is miscalculating the thrust/weight ratio? I've got a rocket with a ratio of 1.07 and yet it requires about 10 seconds of burning on the launcher before it starts moving. I double checked that I'm on the correct reference body. 1.07 is insanly low for a TWR on Kerbin. I think you are looking for 1.7, right?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:1.07 is insanly low for a TWR on Kerbin. I think you are looking for 1.7, right? He's probably not on Kerbin though, might be Duna.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
Since KE calculates that weight on every body, TWR of 1.07 is low, no matter on what body you are. With a TWR of 1 you can float. 0.07 on top of that is...well.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 11:26
|
|
|
Sankis posted:Everytime I transfer to another planet it seems like I need to retro burn like 1.5kdv just for the capture. Am I just mistiming it? It depends: you could be missing the whole "make your Trans-<target name here>-Injection put you in a very low Corky Romanovsky fucked around with this message at 11:47 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
You could try some sort of slingshot capture and pass in front of Moho a few times, like MESSENGER did with Mercury Also, aero capture with a fully open parachute? That's ballsy.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
thehustler posted:You could try some sort of slingshot capture and pass in front of Moho a few times, like MESSENGER did with Mercury This can knock a few hundred off Moho insertion DV, there are diminishing returns with each flyby though. With the right inclination and on Moho's periapsis, you are looking at 1400 (ish) for insertion, only have managed that with an Eve flyby.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:1.07 is insanly low for a TWR on Kerbin. I think you are looking for 1.7, right? I deliberately set my thrust low so I could examine if I was imagining things or not, hence the low t:w. And the issue was that I had the compact summary of the engineer up and had ignored vacuum vs atmo differences.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
Anyone know how to hide or minimize Protractor? The menu is huge and it has no 'applauncher' menu type thing. According to the help menu there is a way to hide it but I can't see the button they're referring to.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:Can I see the full rocket? tia  Each probe has its own 48-7S which is strong enough for a powered landing in Duna gravity. The Ike probe aerobraked into an Ike-grazing orbit, the Duna probe did its capture in vacuum and then I bungled the suicide burn because it was the wrong local time to see its shadow properly. The service bays contain experiments, batteries, and an antenna angled to stick out the open doors when transmitting. The payload had to be strutted because it would wobble around inside the shroud and clip through it and ruin stability; I thought parts contained inside other parts had physics disabled? Or is that only cargo bays? VodeAndreas posted:RIP probe 2's dignity.  I don't have the smallest core unlocked and the OKTO takes up too much space; I'd rather not have parts clip if at all possible.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Speaking of fairings, is there any way to reduce the decoupling force? Whenever I use them they just blast into infinity at high speed. I like my fairing detachments to be slow and stately.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:Speaking of fairings, is there any way to reduce the decoupling force? Whenever I use them they just blast into infinity at high speed. I like my fairing detachments to be slow and stately. Alternate solution: Attach emergency escape rockets to everything.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:42
|
|