Author Topic: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks" (Read 374153 times)

Dragon · **Reply #460 on:** September 22, 2012, 08:29:02 pm

I tried to use the patcher too, but it crashed, messed up my install, and generally took so long that I downloaded the whole game and installed it from scratch.

General Battuta · **Reply #461 on:** September 23, 2012, 01:40:58 am

Now that docking and fuel transfer is possible (with a bit of modding) I'm going to start launching tankers in preparation for a voyage to whatever they call Jupiter in these parts and back.

Quanto · **Reply #462 on:** September 23, 2012, 01:42:28 am

Quote from: General Battuta on September 23, 2012, 01:40:58 am

Now that docking and fuel transfer is possible (with a bit of modding) I'm going to start launching tankers in preparation for a voyage to whatever they call Jupiter in these parts and back.

Does the game render planets that far out?

General Battuta · **Reply #463 on:** September 23, 2012, 01:57:42 am

Yeah, 'Jupiter' and its moon system (4 moons I think) are currently the farthest out. Then there's the Mars analog, the Venus analog, and the Mercury analog, plus their respective moons (and Kerbin's two moons).

I think the limitation is going to be instrumentation more than anything, it's going to be hell and a half pulling off a Hohmann transfer.

Nuke · **Reply #464 on:** September 23, 2012, 08:09:46 am

hohmann transfers are so 1970s. ive been doing high energy transfers or as i like to call them flat trajectory transfers. you only have to launch a bigger ship

i did a flat transfer to minmus, managed to land on fumes. made it back on rcs thrusters alone.

Sushi · **Reply #465 on:** September 23, 2012, 09:45:41 am

Interplanetary transfers are a real pain because you either need to burn a LOT of extra fuel or patiently wait for the planets to align correctly (where "correctly" requires either math, which is no fun, or crazy luck). Practically speaking, this means my kerbals get to spend months/years floating in circles waiting for an intercept.

Still, the solar system (and the new cockpit view) is so stinking cool. I was just about giggling with glee when I was able to do a complete mercury-style launch from my cramped little pod and see my home planet through that tiny little window. (Of course, then I managed to somehow have the parachute rip off on reentry, but that's KSP for you).

pecenipicek · **Reply #466 on:** September 23, 2012, 10:45:08 am

the parachutes rip off because now they have waaay too much drag. 700 or something, whereas previously they had around 70 or so.

General Battuta · **Reply #467 on:** September 23, 2012, 10:52:18 am

I triple mount parachutes on the sides of the CM now instead of putting one on the top.

crizza · **Reply #468 on:** September 23, 2012, 12:52:36 pm

You need to pay for the game right?

newman · **Reply #469 on:** September 23, 2012, 04:07:33 pm

Managed to get to Duna (KSP's version of Mars, with a bit of Dune thrown in. Unknown if it has spice, sandworms, and hot women with glowing blue eyes, but that's what rockets are for - to go look for hot women on other planets). Like Mars, it has a thin atmosphere, which begins at some 42km above the surface in this case. Rather than send a large three-man pod on a one-way trip and strand three kerbonauts there, I sent two ships: one a single-seater that had the lander, and the other a three-seater in which I removed one kerbonaut prior to launch (had one crewmember EVA and leave the craft on the launch pad, then did an "end flight" thing for him). That way nobody gets stranded anywhere.

So, I put the larger orbiter in orbit around Duna, and landed on Duna with the one-seater lander. I had just about enough fuel in the lander to reestablish Duna orbit and match orbital paths with the orbiter. I literally spent everything I had to do this - fuel and RCS both. Then, when the orbiter got close enough to the lander, I did an EVA, abandoning the lander in orbit, boarded the orbiter, and used that ship to return all three kerbonauts safely home. Much more work than just sending a three-man pod on a one-way trip, but also infinitely more satisfying

I'm not sure if it's possible to actually make a return trip with a landing on Duna with a single craft, and with stock parts only. But it's definitely possible with a two-ship approach using stock-only parts, here's a small slideshow illustrating the mission:

Sushi · **Reply #470 on:** September 23, 2012, 10:58:29 pm

My lander design:

That bottom stage was enough to handle the interplanetary transfer and the landing. That left plenty of gas for getting home (even accounting for the inefficiency of the nuke engines in atmo, as it turns out).

Since this was my first attempt, I wasn't sure if the bottom stage would actually have enough fuel for landing or not... thus the double lander legs, hedging my bets. I wasn't about to waste the remains of a perfectly good fuel tank when I could just land on it instead!

Retsof · **Reply #471 on:** September 25, 2012, 11:50:51 am

Is it possible to give non command pod parts the magic torque? I want to make mechjeb probes without having to overengineer them with rcs and sas

Dragon · **Reply #472 on:** September 25, 2012, 07:01:26 pm

Regular SAS provides this "magic torque" (which is really just torque from gyros, there's nothing magic about it).

Retsof · **Reply #473 on:** September 25, 2012, 09:47:06 pm

I thought it only dampened spin around the ..."core" axis. It doesn't actually provide any maneuvering, correct?
EDIT: Actually, it would be nice if multiple command pods could be modded in. That way I could use a proper MechJeb pod probe.

Iss Mneur · **Reply #474 on:** September 25, 2012, 10:05:15 pm

Quote from: Retsof on September 25, 2012, 09:47:06 pm

I thought it only dampened spin around the ..."core" axis. It doesn't actually provide any maneuvering, correct?
EDIT: Actually, it would be nice if multiple command pods could be modded in. That way I could use a proper MechJeb pod probe.

No, it provides it on all rotational axis, its just that because of inertia its really hard to tell on anything other than the "roll" axis. A pod by itself is the most obvious example, but if you put a SAS on the "simple" rocket (pod, separator, SAS, liquid tank, liquid engine) you can maneuver on any rotational axis.

I don't think it is of any help in the translational axis, but I also have never tried.

pecenipicek · **Reply #475 on:** September 26, 2012, 04:07:38 am

isnt RCS for transationals with the I,J,K,L keys?

Dragon · **Reply #476 on:** September 26, 2012, 07:22:10 am

And H and N for forward and backward translation, respectively. And you can't translate with SAS.

Nuke · **Reply #477 on:** October 02, 2012, 06:42:38 am

so i finally got around to installing the new version and all the mods i use. ive kinda been going for tonnage lately. launching 1000 ton tankers into orbit with fuel transfer mods. these will act like gas stations and can haul up 20,000 liters of fuel a pop. in space 20000l goes a long way. it also lets me burn almost all the fuel in an upper stage to get it into orbit, meaning a smaller easier to manage launch vehicle.

just so you know this thing blows up with the force of a north korean nuclear weapon. fortunately its built solid and hardly ever explodes. it has one hell of a time staying on course since it doesnt have any rcs thrusters and only one sas, and you have to use the engine gimbals to steer. but they werent meant to be flown but rather left in orbit. i picked up all the kerbals with a crew return vehicle, so you have to send over a kerbal to activate the fuel transfer system. every one ive launched so far has had 20k liters surplus fuel, and some where ive had good luck and went with lower orbits have had as much as 28kl remaining. the crew return vehicle only used a total of 300 liters from two tankers to pick up all the kerbals.

by the way thats 3 of the larger 5m tanks in the middle, and only one gets emptied on launch, the 1.75m lf boosters/drop tanks get the ship most of the way to orbit. this is probibly the heaviest ship i launched, this thing dwarfs my mun base rockets and is probibly double the rate. it also doesnt fit the the vab all too well,. idk how the kerbals got it out.

Colonol Dekker · **Reply #478 on:** October 02, 2012, 07:53:29 am

If they ever built a DEFCON type mod for Kerbal...........

I want you on my side please

Mongoose · **Reply #479 on:** October 02, 2012, 04:44:53 pm

Quote from: Nuke on October 02, 2012, 06:42:38 am

just so you know this thing blows up with the force of a north korean nuclear weapon.

So with a fizzle and small puff of smoke, then?

News:

Author Topic: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks" (Read 374153 times)

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"

Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"