Author Topic: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"  (Read 372759 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
I'm currently trying to develop an SSTO rocket which would launch from Kerbin, refuel in orbit, then fly to Eve, refuel there, land, launch again, refuel once again and land on Kerbin. I'm actually getting nice results, but lag and wobble make this sort of stuff very difficult.

Just remember that Eve's atmosphere is oxygen-free, so your air-breathing engines will not function there.

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
In reality, not even rocket engines would work in Eve. The atmospheric pressure would be so high that the pressure differential caused by combustion in the combustion chamber would not push the exhaust gases to sufficient velocity to generate meaningful thrust. You would probably need Orion drive to get out of Eve and using that in atmosphere would be problematic for other reasons.

Personally, I will not land on Eve for this reason alone. I may send in unmanned probes, but that's about as far as my involvement with the Barney Planet will go.

FOR SCIENCE
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline StarSlayer

  • 211
  • Men Kaeshi Do
    • Steam
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Anybody build an orbital elevator yet?   :lol:
“Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world”

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
I am not entirely certain if the physics could handle it.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline watsisname

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
I'm fairly certain it would die in a fire.  Your PC, as well. :P
In my world of sleepers, everything will be erased.
I'll be your religion, your only endless ideal.
Slowly we crawl in the dark.
Swallowed by the seductive night.

 

Offline Sushi

  • Art Critic
  • 211
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
I'm currently trying to develop an SSTO rocket which would launch from Kerbin, refuel in orbit, then fly to Eve, refuel there, land, launch again, refuel once again and land on Kerbin. I'm actually getting nice results, but lag and wobble make this sort of stuff very difficult.

Just remember that Eve's atmosphere is oxygen-free, so your air-breathing engines will not function there.

Yeah, I learned that the hard way. "Touchdown! Alright, time to fly up out of this soup... uh... crap."

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Just remember that Eve's atmosphere is oxygen-free, so your air-breathing engines will not function there.
It is? Thanks for the info, then thing is fully rocket-powered, so I don't have to worry about it, but I did consider air augmentation at one point. One of my biggest problems now is lack of landing legs long enough to clear a standard engine.

 

Offline newman

  • 211
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
You can get around that problem with a creative use of docking ports and structural parts to construct a structure that houses the legs that goes down by the sides of the craft. I tested this principle and it works. I recommend programming an action (custom 1 or whatever) for the docking ports to disenage, so you can ditch the legs during ascent to get rid of the extra mass.
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here! - Jayne Cobb

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Yes, I though about that. I'm using a few short KW engines with side mounted tanks reaching a lot lower than the main engine. I don't want to ditch them, since I'd like it to be 100% reusable. Considering it's mission profile, it's not a big stretch. The downside is, the whole thing wobbles like jello when standing on it's legs.

  

Offline newman

  • 211
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Anything reusable for Eve landing and ascent is a huge stretch. Hell, the discardable one is a major one. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't tried to land and come back from it yet :)

In any case, I have reusable landers for other planets and moons, but with Eve even visiting it once is more than enough for me. If any such space program was a reality, even doing it once would financially probably be enough to visit every other planet in the system - so I doubt any space agency with a budget would have regular flights to and from Eve surface. Visiting it once to prove it can be done I can sort of see under certain conditions (assuming the issue Herra mentioned earlier was somehow overcome by throwing a huge amount of money in the general direction of the problem). Doing it regularly.. what would be the point? You can do science even better with probes than with a manned visit - since a probe can focus on the science and not worry about stuff like life support or returning it's crew back to orbit alive; most of the weight on the probe that isn't used to decelerate, stabilize and land the thing can be power and science stuff.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2013, 09:56:15 am by newman »
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here! - Jayne Cobb

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
You're right, of course. That won't stop me from trying. :) I figured out that if I made a hugely overpowered vessel able to SSTO from Kerbin with fuel to spare, I should be able to fly it to Eve in one piece. That way, I'd have the power of a a full LV available for Eve takeoff. If I manage to get it off Eve in one piece, what exactly stands in the way of 100% reusability?

 

Offline newman

  • 211
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
I used to think like that too. Then I tried it :) A large rocket that can reach Kerbin orbit with fuel to spare must be able to make it, right? Then the humbling experience of actually trying it and not reaching 10km altitude on a craft that's perfectly capable of inserting itself into a 150x150km Kerbin orbit with fuel to spare. 170% Kerbin gravity and a lot more atmo drag. People hear about Eve being hard, but they don't get just how bloody hard it is until they try. I encourage you to do so :)

It's a lot more complicated than just bringing down more fuel. The more fuel you take, the more power you'll need to even be able to take off. The engines that can do this aren't the most efficient ever (you can forget NERVA's for this) so you need to give them a lot of fuel to produce enough delta-v to reach orbit. That fuel is very heavy and messes up your TWR badly. Balancing a craft that has a good TWR, enough power and enough fuel to reach back EVE orbit is very, very hard. It'll be rather large, and tough to land with chutes only (drogues help a bit, but a massive rocket will still do nasty stuff when the main chutes deploy - if you want it to stay in one piece you'll need to break with your engines a bit, and that'll cost you fuel you desperately need for the ascent). Basically, Eve is the planet from hell.

As for reusability, well.. in theory, it's possible. In theory a return visit is possible. It's just bloody hard and once you've pulled it off, I can't fathom a reason for doing it again. There are far better places for setting up a base on than Eve. I'd go so far as to say it's the worst place to do so from the places in the system where it's actually possible to have anything on the surface (so Kerbol and Jool are out).
« Last Edit: January 09, 2013, 11:37:01 am by newman »
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here! - Jayne Cobb

 

Offline Colonol Dekker

  • HLP is my mistress
  • 213
  • Aken Tigh Dekker- you've probably heard me
    • My old squad sub-domain
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Quote from:  JF Kerbal
"We choose to go to Eve in this decade and do the other
things. Not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
Campaigns I've added my distinctiveness to-
- Blue Planet: Battle Captains
-Battle of Neptune
-Between the Ashes 2
-Blue planet: Age of Aquarius
-FOTG?
-Inferno R1
-Ribos: The aftermath / -Retreat from Deneb
-Sol: A History
-TBP EACW teaser
-Earth Brakiri war
-TBP Fortune Hunters (I think?)
-TBP Relic
-Trancsend (Possibly?)
-Uncharted Territory
-Vassagos Dirge
-War Machine
(Others lost to the mists of time and no discernible audit trail)

Your friendly Orestes tactical controller.

Secret bomb God.
That one time I got permabanned and got to read who was being bitxhy about me :p....
GO GO DEKKER RANGERSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
President of the Scooby Doo Model Appreciation Society
The only good Zod is a dead Zod
NEWGROUNDS COMEDY GOLD, UPDATED DAILY
http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561198011784807.png

 

Offline newman

  • 211
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Going to Eve is the easy part. Talk to me when you get back :)
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here! - Jayne Cobb

 
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
[Visiting Eve] regularly.. what would be the point? You can do science even better with probes than with a manned visit - since a probe can focus on the science and not worry about stuff like life support or returning it's crew back to orbit alive; most of the weight on the probe that isn't used to decelerate, stabilize and land the thing can be power and science stuff.

I have a funny feeling that, when resource maps, extraction, and refining are implemented, down the road, Eve is going to be resource-rich to incentivize pulling out all of your hair regular round-trips.  It may well still be smarter to make those missions automated, instead of manned, but since KSP is being designed as a game, not a simulator, rewards are likely to be balanced against risks and investments.

I've still not time-accelerated the fleet to Eve.  Currently, I'm faffing about with an unmanned lander, intended for Eve.  I figure, better not to waste thirty-two days of in-game time, if I can potentially get my first lander design ready before the Eve-transfer window closes.  I'm going to take this one out to Minmus or the Mun, first, for a test-landing, because I think the landing legs might be too stubby, and this is one that can't afford to have engines breaking off.  If it works, I'll launch a couple of duplicates off to Eve straight away.  If not, I'll do some tweaks, and the modified version will do its test landing on Eve.

Naturally, the lander is so large, that I had to drain its fuel into the lift stage to get it into Kerbin orbit.  Thus, my refueling ships are getting another workout.  The lander alone (i.e. omitting its interplanetary stage) requires about five small oilers to refuel from dry.  I'm sending up two oilers now and planning on sending the lander out to the depot over Kerbin for the rest.

Going to Eve is the easy part.  Talk to me when you get back :)

Pfft.  Talk is cheap.  I'll send you an advertisement from the brothel that my Kerbonauts will need to set up to properly harness their pimpness.

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
As for reusability, well.. in theory, it's possible. In theory a return visit is possible. It's just bloody hard and once you've pulled it off, I can't fathom a reason for doing it again. There are far better places for setting up a base on than Eve. I'd go so far as to say it's the worst place to do so from the places in the system where it's actually possible to have anything on the surface (so Kerbol and Jool are out).
I don't want to set up a base or actually fly that thing to Eve more than once. I just want a design which could do that. The way I'm planning it, if it can get there and back once, it can do that however many times you'd like (with in-orbit refuelling, of course). Right now, my biggest concerns are: 1. Wobbling 2. For some unexplained reason, Kerbals suddenly die when climbing down the loooooooooooong ladder leading to the surface. 3. The launch tower getting in the way.

 

Offline StarSlayer

  • 211
  • Men Kaeshi Do
    • Steam
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
[Visiting Eve] regularly.. what would be the point? You can do science even better with probes than with a manned visit - since a probe can focus on the science and not worry about stuff like life support or returning it's crew back to orbit alive; most of the weight on the probe that isn't used to decelerate, stabilize and land the thing can be power and science stuff.

I have a funny feeling that, when resource maps, extraction, and refining are implemented, down the road, Eve is going to be resource-rich to incentivize pulling out all of your hair regular round-trips.  It may well still be smarter to make those missions automated, instead of manned, but since KSP is being designed as a game, not a simulator, rewards are likely to be balanced against risks and investments.

“Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world”

 

Offline newman

  • 211
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Yea, mining on a planet that takes a gazillion $ to get 0.1dg of stuff from isn't that great of an economical incentive. Unless it possesses some incredibly ultra-rare, ultra valuable unobtanium magical type material, the economics of extracting something from that place on a regular basis are never going to work out.

In other news, I've been testing concepts of various Eve return landers and I was on the verge of having something that would work - but Eve has a rather serious bug. I just noticed it with all the probes I have there too (haven't reloaded them until now). When you land, all is fine. If you save and then load the landed ship, however, the game loads the ship's landing legs a bit below the surface, leading to explosive results if you try to take off. This happens on all of my landed stuff there, from the smallest probes to large unmanned ascent prototypes. I'm postponing my Eve plans until they fix this - doing a successful return trip from there is difficult enough without having to deal with bugs.

Pfft.  Talk is cheap.  I'll send you an advertisement from the brothel that my Kerbonauts will need to set up to properly harness their pimpness.

Bold words for someone who so far has only talked about Eve :) Seriously though, I landed plenty of probes and unmanned concept ascent vehicles down there. But quickloading them is a problem - every time I try I get explody results. So, do a return trip, yes, but I for one am going to wait until they make it a bit less buggy, putting in that amount of effort to be foiled by a stupid bug isn't going to be fun.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2013, 03:06:59 pm by newman »
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here! - Jayne Cobb

 

Offline Sushi

  • Art Critic
  • 211
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
I have yet to decide if I want to attempt a single-stage return from Eve or Tylo first. Extra gravity and atmo soup on one hand, but at least you can rely on the atmo to kill most of your delta-V...

Of course, thanks to Dark Souls, I won't be attempting either of those (or any other mission) for some time.

 

Offline newman

  • 211
Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Yea Tylo's kind of the exact opposite of Eve. Needs more delta-v to land than on any other object in the game. Due to no atmo and about 50% of Eve's gravity means that ascent shouldn't be that hard given enough fuel is taken for the trip.
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here! - Jayne Cobb