|
Splode posted:space planes only save you money if you land them safely, which is a pretty big if with only a few places you can safely land and no precise system for aiming your trajectory. KSC needs a ILS system* and an autopilot that can fly it. Or at least a PAPI *Upgradable to WAAS if you put the satellites into orbit yourself.
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
Splode posted:space planes only save you money if you land them safely, which is a pretty big if with only a few places you can safely land and no precise system for aiming your trajectory. I can land most space planes I’ve built on any old grasslands.  I use this guide when I have something ungainly that has to have a runway. It assumes no lift surfaces and drag coefficient 0.2, but with KSP’s ærodynamic model it’s close enough as long as you keep the nose prograde while coming in. Still, spaceplanes are bad and the only reason to build them is for the challenge.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Splode posted:space planes only save you money if you land them safely, which is a pretty big if with only a few places you can safely land and no precise system for aiming your trajectory.  parachutes still work on spaceplanes.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Synnr posted:Heres a dumb question: I still can't figure out why my flags aren't showing up,[snip] You sure you didn't disable them? In map mode, move cursor to the top edge of the screen, in the centre. you'll see various icons you can toggle, one of which is the flags. about .24, how will budgets deal with object deletion if they get too far away from the active ship and they enter high atmosphere? Because I know that my SRBs survive even with deadly re-entry but I can't really switch to the debris when I still have a circularisation manoevre to do... double nine fucked around with this message at 23:24 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:With .24 and the Kerbals successfully researching "Currency" on the tech tree, an SSTO will be a huge benefit for orbital refueling. Assuming that you get credit for reusing the returned ship, anyway. Didn't they think that the Space Shuttle would save money by being reusable, too? I'm just sayin', you know.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Geemer posted:Didn't they think that the Space Shuttle would save money by being reusable, too? I'm just sayin', you know. Mired in the details. If it was a pure space transport system, it would have been far more efficient and cost effective--just had way too many design requirements from three-letter-agencies that were never used. Plus as was mentioned the real cost of the system was in the excessive rehab requirements in between launches. And, most notably, the shuttle was NOT SSTO. A purpose-built SSTO would eliminate most of the faults of the shuttle system while delivering on its promise of lower cost-per-kilo orbital insertion. edit: DStecks posted:Was the Shuttle ever planned to be SSTO? As far as I know, the tech to do that doesn't even exist today, let alone in the 80's. OAquinas fucked around with this message at 23:58 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:And, most notably, the shuttle was NOT SSTO. Was the Shuttle ever planned to be SSTO? As far as I know, the tech to do that doesn't even exist today, let alone in the 80's.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Was the Shuttle ever planned to be SSTO? As far as I know, the tech to do that doesn't even exist today, let alone in the 80's. The idealized vision of Space Shuttle was as a fully-reusable two-vehicle system, with the booster vehicle being a powered (and manned!) flyback stage. (Allegedly, the "OV-101" designation was a holdover from the old days when there would have also been BV-101 - Orbiter Vehicle and Booster Vehicle.) One proposal was to mount Shuttle atop a Saturn S-1C stage with wings, landing gear, and a wing-mounted cockpit. There's an SSTO project called Skylon, but who knows if it'll get the money to be fully developed. Farmer Crack-Ass fucked around with this message at 00:04 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Skylon is fun because it plans to use the same SABRE engine that's in B9 in real life.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:We're adding more development to 24. Wasn't quite where we wanted it to. Read more if you'd like to. Kudos to the well crafted arguments provided by our exp testers, Illectro included. Inglonias posted:While I'm sad that .24 won't be coming out next week, I'm very excited to hear that budgets are the reason why. I was concerned about the contracts system not having budgets from the get-go, and I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one. Your testers are a group of the most experienced players. I can see that contracts alone would have felt boring to them. For players that are not testers, contracts would be at least an optional "canned scenarios" of things to do, even if they had no point beyond a personal accomplishment. Or they could be ignored. I think the original plan of contracts first budgets second was a better method. For one thing, I expect the new .24 will need a few rounds of tweaks when it hits the wider audience because of those balance issues. Zero One posted:KSC needs a ILS system* and an autopilot that can fly it. Also I saw on reddit or somewhere that someone had made a physical PAPI device with structural panels and the new RGB lights. Of course that method has a pretty limited range.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
double nine posted:You sure you didn't disable them? In map mode, move cursor to the top edge of the screen, in the centre. you'll see various icons you can toggle, one of which is the flags. Oh no, not in the regular map. I have ScanSat installed, and the drat flags aren't showing up in the planetary map. I just want to use flags to easily mark biomes and bases and what not.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Nope. Which is why it's comparing apples to oranges. The raw tech to do it might exist today, but putting it together would be a helluva project. DStecks posted:Was the Shuttle ever planned to be SSTO? As far as I know, the tech to do that doesn't even exist today, let alone in the 80's. The X-33 program ended in failure, but a second round with a slightly less ambitious design probably could have been made to work. And the Soviets back in the late 80s came up with a very cool thing: a tripropellent rocket that could burn both RP1 and hydrogen, which they planned to use on a plausible spaceplane. Being able to use both RP1 and hydrogen is a huge advantage because you can minimize fuel tank size by using RP1's energy density and then switch to LH2's specific impulse at altitude.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Synnr posted:Oh no, not in the regular map. I have ScanSat installed, and the drat flags aren't showing up in the planetary map. Have you tried making a probe with the Sat Tracking whatever part +power supply instead of a flag?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Has Kerbal Alarm Clock been fixed for 23.5, or should I hold off?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:Have you tried making a probe with the Sat Tracking whatever part +power supply instead of a flag? What, poop out a little mini-probe as a marker? No, but I suppose that is an idea! I'll have to drop one off and test. Gau posted:Has Kerbal Alarm Clock been fixed for 23.5, or should I hold off? Well I'm using it just fine.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The rule of thumb I got from this thread long ago (at least to leave Kerbin) is to fast-forward until the tangent of Kerbin's orbit where the planet is points toward the destination. That may not get you down to the absolute minimum dv, especially if the target orbit has any eccentricity, but it's a good place to start seeking an encounter. That's the first time I'd heard of that rule, and it got me thinking, so I fired up Desmos and did some calculations.  The above shows a Hohmann Transfer from Kerbin to approximately the distance of Jool. Kerbin's orbit is the Blue Circle, the Red Circle is the radius of the destination orbit,m and the black half-ellipse is the transfer orbit trajectory. Kerbin is assumed to be on the X-axis, at the right side of its orbit. The Green Line ind the Classical Phase Angle, calculated under the typical assumption that all planets are moving in coplanar, circular orbits. The red line indicates the Tangent angle, namely, where an object in the destination orbit would be if it was in line with a tangent drawn from the smaller of the starting or ending orbits to intersect the larger. As indicated by the image, for Jool, you wind up heading out a bit late if you leave at the time indicated by the tangent angle.  For Duna, on the other hand, the numbers work out pretty close.  Not too bad when heading down to Eve, either. If you want to play with the graph, It's linked here: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/tisw2fof5j
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
I put the procedural fairings mod in and see the parts in the VAB, but it says that I need to purchase the entry in R&D? I don't see it in the tech tree, do I need to unlock them or something?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
EightBit posted:I put the procedural fairings mod in and see the parts in the VAB, but it says that I need to purchase the entry in R&D? I don't see it in the tech tree, do I need to unlock them or something? The parts aren't automatically unlocked, even if you have the tech for them. Look at the techs you've unlocked. If one of the icons has a number next to it, click it, and unlock the parts individually.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
EightBit posted:I put the procedural fairings mod in and see the parts in the VAB, but it says that I need to purchase the entry in R&D? I don't see it in the tech tree, do I need to unlock them or something?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
I forgot who posted this originally, but this is a really good plugin: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/78067-0-23-5-Research-Them-All-1-1- It gives you a pop-up window in the tech tree that asks if you want the game to unlock all the items in tech trees you've already unlocked. Useful for when you add one of those 100+ part count modpacks after you've already unlocked a few nodes and don't feel like clicking each individual item.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Klyith posted:If you add mod parts that are researched by a tech you already own, you have to click on the individual parts in the tech tree browser to unlock them. ProcFairings are in the "Stability" tech. Just click on the part pictures over in the right pane. Found them, and they were in the "Flight Control" section. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:We're adding more development to 24. Wasn't quite where we wanted it to. Read more if you'd like to. Kudos to the well crafted arguments provided by our exp testers, Illectro included. Aw, 'kay. It's not like most of us are close to doing everything possible in the current versions anyway!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:While I'm sad that .24 won't be coming out next week, I'm very excited to hear that budgets are the reason why. I was concerned about the contracts system not having budgets from the get-go, and I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one. Budgets are going to be great. The added consideration is going to do as much for ship building as the tech tree. Can't wait to see the cheapest laythe return ship. Beyond .24, I hope we get to develop the launch vehicle separately (for a certain contact and/or budget) and rank them by cost and mass to orbit.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Karki posted:Beyond .24, I hope we get to develop the launch vehicle separately (for a certain contact and/or budget) and rank them by cost and mass to orbit. You don’t already do that via subassemblies?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:You don’t already do that via subassemblies? That's definitely the first step. It's basically the sandbox version of the career version I'm dreaming of.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:Obviously the solution is to land on your capsule. Step One: Land upside down Step Two: Engage Science Step Three: Board, brace for impact Step Four: Engage separatrons mounted upside down on capsule, hello rapid vertical ascent Step Five: Flip over, activate engine throttle to full and try not to die So have you guys downloaded the new Astronomer pack for Visual enhancements yet? Because you should do that now.   
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Step One: Land upside down Does it still make you lag on ascent and have that weird blue border when you reach a certain altitude on Kerbin?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:So have you guys downloaded the new Astronomer pack for Visual enhancements yet? Because you should do that now. That LOOKS amazing. Question though, how much more CPU/RAM intensive is the Astronomer pack?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
The Green Calx posted:Does it still make you lag on ascent and have that weird blue border when you reach a certain altitude on Kerbin? That's the big question. I can deal with the blue border, I guess, but I'm concerned about lag and ram usage. I have a video card with 4GB (well, 2x4GB SLI) which helps somewhat, because textures can occasionally offload to that and free up normal RAM it seems, but I still occasionally get RAM usage crashes with KSP, and I'd rather not increase that.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
BMS posted:That LOOKS amazing. Question though, how much more CPU/RAM intensive is the Astronomer pack? Barely higher than the base enhancements mod, the download comes in 6 different resolution flavors for the cloud textures which are about the only real additional overhead, the rest is just incredibly clever use of lighting and existing volumetrics. I need to take a picture of the Auroras he put in, good stuff. E.  Quick and dirty shot, looks better in motion when it is shimmering and a shot with better lighting  ok one more cant help it  Just need 2 more jets to howl at this moon. shortspecialbus posted:That's the big question. I can deal with the blue border, I guess, but I'm concerned about lag and ram usage. I have a video card with 4GB (well, 2x4GB SLI) which helps somewhat, because textures can occasionally offload to that and free up normal RAM it seems, but I still occasionally get RAM usage crashes with KSP, and I'd rather not increase that. Blue border is there but improved, next release of visual enhancements is supposed to be making this less obvious though. Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 05:46 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Does anyone else a bug where manœuver nodes/conics are invisible after docking and won’t show up again till the game is restarted?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
hay guise is this how to asteroid?   Yep, those are two Class Es and one Class D asteroid. In a 240 km orbit around Kerbin. Funnily enough, circularization was the easy part, especially when I use the Mun and aerobraking to do most of the capture. The really hard part is that, for some reason, my system can't handle the Advanced Grabbing Unit very well. By which I mean that having more than 1 really really lags up the scene. Of course, I had about 14 of them in the scene by the end, which means I'm trying to maneuver 500 and 1000 tonne rocks around at about 5 frames per second and with lagsbane of 3:1 to 5:1 ratio sim time:real time.  I had so many Klaws because I needed them to maneuver the asteroids. I did most of my burns in this configuration:  Yes, yes, Mechjeb. What I'd do is stick a single LV-N on it first, then 4 extra probes with RCS and a reaction wheel each. That distributes the reaction wheel force around so my candle doesn't wobble too much. A single LV-N also ensured it didn't wobble or pogo too much, and that any off-axis torque was much less than the reaction wheels can handle. Then I set up my Mechjeb burn and alt-tabbed or watched TV or something. I was going to make eyes out of ion engines, but  .
Psawhn fucked around with this message at 08:53 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Psawhn posted:hay guise is this how to asteroid? I love it! ☃ Best idea I had was to try and make space billiards with my asteroids, but then set in almost immediately.Speaking of effort, how much dV should I be going for for a manned Eve return? On the return vehicle, that is. Is my guestimate of roughly 10 KM on the ball?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
Geemer posted:I love it! ☃ Yes, assuming you're using EVE numbers and not actually using Kerbin numbers like I did one time.  Also, in what should be obvious but isn't always due to just not thinking about it, try to land on a peak, as high above sea level as you can. You'll still want to budget 10k, but at least you'll have a bit of a buffer for piloting errors.Then again, for a while I forgot to change MechJeb's VAB display back to Kerbin, so I was creating hilariously over-engineered vehicles to blast off of Kerbin and couldn't figure out why my standard designs seemed so crappy with TWR and dV numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:Yes, assuming you're using EVE numbers and not actually using Kerbin numbers like I did one time. dV is not related to the parent body in any way. The division by 9.81 is effectively arbitrary, and simply converts the units to seconds so that there's no imperial/metric conflicts. TL;DR Eve numbers are the same as Kerbin numbers. Obviously TWR is affected by the parent body.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
dV is a function of isp which for each engine varies with atmospheric pressure though, which Eve has plenty of.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Hey guys, Dunno if this has been shared, but here's a cool video of the MMS Mission and it's orbit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DyjMzp2Irg
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Karki posted:That's definitely the first step. It's basically the sandbox version of the career version I'm dreaming of. Eh, I don't see any real benefit to fleshing that out into a "system", versus simply adding the pricetag to a listed subassembly. I already make notes on my subassembly boosters for what they're capable of (usually something like 50t/100k, meaning it can lift a 50 ton vehicle to a 100k circular orbit), and if you want them ranked, just start the name of it with the note so the alphabetical filter does the job for you.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
Splode posted:dV is not related to the parent body in any way. The division by 9.81 is effectively arbitrary, and simply converts the units to seconds so that there's no imperial/metric conflicts. Right, I meant TWR and also the extra time spent in atmosphere. My fault there, I got myself muddled. My excuse is a fever. What the hell is the mod that shows when you can perform new science? I can't for the life of me find it. Edit: found it on page 56: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/78305-0-23-5-Science-Library-v1-1 ssb fucked around with this message at 15:56 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:53
|
|