Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: MR_T3D on July 14, 2011, 06:33:36 pm

Title: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on July 14, 2011, 06:33:36 pm
I recently stumbled upon a new space sim, one focusing on just getting to space
http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/download.php
You take an assortment of rocket bit and put them together to make a craft to hurtle three Kerbals into the sky
Come complete with
-Fairly realistic physics
-A planet
-Rocket parts
-An editor to build your multi-stage craft.

It's extremely fun, right now I've made my first craft to break orbit....but there is no way it's coming back down now, oops!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Epeo on July 14, 2011, 07:43:22 pm
This is absolutely fantastic game. My record is around 150km and I got Kerbals back to earth alive! Also here (http://mod.gib.me/kerbal/mods/) you can get some extra parts. They make building little more interresting.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on July 14, 2011, 08:40:32 pm
Hilarious game. Orbit is a pain, however; I've yet to get a stable one.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: achtung on July 14, 2011, 08:42:01 pm
Aw, windows only. :(
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on July 15, 2011, 05:03:23 am
downloading now, please tell me i am not going to regret this
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 15, 2011, 05:07:30 am
cant be any harder that orbiter
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: TrashMan on July 15, 2011, 06:11:30 am
I can get altitude of 6000 easily.....also speed of 300...yet I can't seem to keep orbit
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on July 15, 2011, 06:37:06 am

"it is a black day in the Kerbal Space Program as we bury 6 of our... cough* bravest cough* pioneering astronauts."

Bill Kerman, Jebediah Kerman, Bob Kerman, Bill Kerman Clone I, Jebediah Kerman Clone I and Bob Kerman Clone I were killed in two separate  incidents when aerodynamic and technical failings cause their crewed test rockets to crash, despite the much hyped about mashed spacebar abort protocol, which in both occasions failed to release the capsule module from the final engine stage causing horrific high speed impacts with the ground.

On top of this director headdie was forced to announce that despite the horrific toll the program only managed to achieve 12000 meters crewed by the heroic Bill Kerman Clone II, Jebediah Kerman Clone II and Bob Kerman Clone II

Questions remain about the viability of the Kerbal Space Program but it is hoped with this dark day over the program can make massive strides in the future.

Jillian Kerman, back to the studio"
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on July 15, 2011, 12:43:13 pm
Ok so this 2 stage rocket of mine went waay higher than I anticipated.

(http://i55.tinypic.com/vxoynn.jpg)

Rocket composition: Command module + chute -> auto leveling thingie -> decoupler -> 3 l.f. fuel tanks -> l.f. engine -> decoupler -> that thingie for attaching 3 modules (technical term) -> 3 solid fuel boosters.

I need to try a 3 stage rocket later on. Didn't try an orbit yet, just shot it straight up a bit like the early Gemini missions. The astronauts survived a wet landing.

Stats:

Total mission time: 22:40
Highest alt. : 418225m
Highest speed over land: 718.6
Ground distance covered: 504874.1
Total Distance Traveled: 1011612
Most Gee Force Endured: 16.8G (what? only? I need to find a way to strain those idiots more.. way more :P)



BTW, great find! I always wanted a game like this :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: IronBeer on July 15, 2011, 01:08:51 pm
newman, I'll see your flight, and raise you one more.
Max Altitude of 518 km with a design not too different from your own.

Onward to bigger and badder rockets! YAR!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on July 15, 2011, 01:17:30 pm
So, it's a space race then? So be it! I'm waiting for my current rocket, the greatly improved Gemini-3 to stop gaining altitude before I post the next results. But here's a hint; I found out what happens when your altimeter goes off the scale (well, the scale just switches from "m" t "K") :P
In short, this will once and for all establish the space superiority Newman's Soviet Union over the decadent, corrupt and puny space program of IronBeer. :D

btw, hope they plan on implementing some sort of time compression later on.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on July 15, 2011, 01:50:01 pm
Yep, time compression is necessary. Unless they already have a keyboard shortcut for it. 56 minutes out, just stopped climbing..

(http://i56.tinypic.com/ixun0x.jpg)

Max. altitude was actually 2245K, took this just after the alt started dropping. This game is fun.. but man what sort of a monster would I have to build to get to a moon-equivalent distance? Wonder if the game supports reaching escape velocity - in theory..
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: IronBeer on July 15, 2011, 02:05:47 pm
In short, this will once and for all establish the space superiority Newman's Soviet Union over the decadent, corrupt and puny space program of IronBeer. :D
Loooool. The latest rocket to come from the laboratories of the Iron Bastion, the aptly-named "Abomination" has sent the capsule... at this moment, 4590 Km from home, and is still travelling at the rate of 2.8 Km/s. The Grand Coordinator IronBeer will hold a press conference with detailed data and photograph(s) once we recover our brave astronauts.

[Begin edit]
After an hour and a half, I have ended the flight in the interest of doing something else with my computer. Yes, time compression is pretty much a necessity once you figure out how to build a decent rocket.

Mission status just before I disconnected from Mission Control:
(http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/3042/34577781.jpg)

And, post-mission statistics:
Mission Time: 1hour, 35min, 5sec
Maximum Altitude: 15,226,160m / 15,226 Km
Maximum Speed: 3716.9m/s
Maximum Overland Speed: 101.6m/s
Overland Distance Covered: 91027.3m
Total Distance Covered: 15,226,930m
Maximum G-Force: 124G
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: SpardaSon21 on July 15, 2011, 05:35:20 pm
First Prince SpardaSon21 cannot let Coordinator IronBeer win the space race.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on July 15, 2011, 06:05:34 pm
my latest is
0h 13m 16s
Highest Altitude: 124480
Highest speed: 1992.9
Highest Speed Over land: 1837.4
Ground Distance Covered: 893720.6
Total Distance Travelled: 949885.4
Most Gee: 16.5

Using this rocket
Headcase Type 7-B1.craft
Code: [Select]
ship = Headcase Type 7-B1
{
part = mk1pod_0
pos = -0.4840054,16.90273,2.289545
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 8
istg = 0
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = parachuteSingle_1
link = stackDecoupler_2
}
{
part = parachuteSingle_1
pos = -0.4840054,17.30792,2.289545
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 8
istg = 0
sqor = False
attm = 0
}
{
part = stackDecoupler_2
pos = -0.4840054,16.51768,2.289545
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 7
istg = 1
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = sasModule_3
}
{
part = sasModule_3
pos = -0.4840054,15.97662,2.289545
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 6
istg = 2
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = fuelTank_4
}
{
part = fuelTank_4
pos = -0.4840054,14.91952,2.289545
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 6
istg = 2
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = fuelTank_5
}
{
part = fuelTank_5
pos = -0.4840054,13.40395,2.289545
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 6
istg = 2
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = liquidEngine_6
}
{
part = liquidEngine_6
pos = -0.4840054,11.93946,2.289545
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 6
istg = 2
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = stackDecoupler_7
}
{
part = stackDecoupler_7
pos = -0.4840054,11.12967,2.289545
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 5
istg = 3
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = sasModule_8
}
{
part = sasModule_8
pos = -0.4840054,10.5886,2.289545
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 4
istg = 4
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = stackTriCoupler_9
}
{
part = stackTriCoupler_9
pos = -0.4675145,9.986334,2.354663
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 4
istg = 4
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = solidBooster_10
link = solidBooster_17
link = solidBooster_24
}
{
part = solidBooster_10
pos = 0.09162155,8.695679,2.621883
rot = 0,0.8660254,0,0.5
stg = 4
istg = 4
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = stackDecoupler_11
sym = solidBooster_24
sym = solidBooster_17
}
{
part = stackDecoupler_11
pos = 0.09162155,7.362019,2.621883
rot = 0,0.8660254,0,0.5
stg = 3
istg = 5
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = solidBooster_12
sym = stackDecoupler_25
sym = stackDecoupler_18
}
{
part = solidBooster_12
pos = 0.09162155,6.042935,2.621883
rot = 0,0.8660254,0,0.5
stg = 2
istg = 6
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = stackDecoupler_13
sym = solidBooster_26
sym = solidBooster_19
}
{
part = stackDecoupler_13
pos = 0.09162155,4.709274,2.621883
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 1
istg = 7
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = sasModule_14
sym = stackDecoupler_27
sym = stackDecoupler_20
}
{
part = sasModule_14
pos = 0.09162155,4.168207,2.621883
rot = 0,0.8660254,0,0.5
stg = 0
istg = 8
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = solidBooster_15
sym = sasModule_28
sym = sasModule_21
}
{
part = solidBooster_15
pos = 0.09162155,2.858197,2.621883
rot = 0,0.8660254,0,0.5
stg = 0
istg = 8
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = solidBooster_16
sym = solidBooster_29
sym = solidBooster_22
}
{
part = solidBooster_16
pos = 0.944387,2.901629,3.114227
rot = 0,0.5000002,0,0.8660254
stg = 0
istg = 8
sqor = False
attm = 1
sym = solidBooster_23
sym = solidBooster_30
}
{
part = solidBooster_17
pos = -0.4840055,8.695679,1.624869
rot = 0,0.8660254,0,-0.5
stg = 4
istg = 4
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = stackDecoupler_18
sym = solidBooster_10
sym = solidBooster_24
}
{
part = stackDecoupler_18
pos = -0.4840055,7.362019,1.624869
rot = 0,0.8660254,0,-0.5
stg = 3
istg = 5
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = solidBooster_19
sym = stackDecoupler_11
sym = stackDecoupler_25
}
{
part = solidBooster_19
pos = -0.4840055,6.042935,1.624869
rot = 0,0.8660254,0,-0.5
stg = 2
istg = 6
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = stackDecoupler_20
sym = solidBooster_12
sym = solidBooster_26
}
{
part = stackDecoupler_20
pos = -0.4840055,4.709274,1.624869
rot = 0,0.8660254,0,0.4999999
stg = 1
istg = 7
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = sasModule_21
sym = stackDecoupler_27
sym = stackDecoupler_13
}
{
part = sasModule_21
pos = -0.4840055,4.168207,1.624869
rot = 0,0.8660254,0,-0.4999999
stg = 0
istg = 8
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = solidBooster_22
sym = sasModule_14
sym = sasModule_28
}
{
part = solidBooster_22
pos = -0.4840055,2.858197,1.624869
rot = 0,0.8660254,0,-0.4999999
stg = 0
istg = 8
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = solidBooster_23
sym = solidBooster_15
sym = solidBooster_29
}
{
part = solidBooster_23
pos = -0.4840052,2.901629,0.6401806
rot = 0,1,0,2.580957E-08
stg = 0
istg = 8
sqor = False
attm = 1
sym = solidBooster_16
sym = solidBooster_30
}
{
part = solidBooster_24
pos = -1.059632,8.695679,2.621883
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 4
istg = 4
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = stackDecoupler_25
sym = solidBooster_10
sym = solidBooster_17
}
{
part = stackDecoupler_25
pos = -1.059632,7.362019,2.621883
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 3
istg = 5
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = solidBooster_26
sym = stackDecoupler_11
sym = stackDecoupler_18
}
{
part = solidBooster_26
pos = -1.059632,6.042935,2.621883
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 2
istg = 6
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = stackDecoupler_27
sym = solidBooster_12
sym = solidBooster_19
}
{
part = stackDecoupler_27
pos = -1.059632,4.709274,2.621883
rot = 0,-0.8660254,0,0.5
stg = 1
istg = 7
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = sasModule_28
sym = stackDecoupler_13
sym = stackDecoupler_20
}
{
part = sasModule_28
pos = -1.059632,4.168207,2.621883
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 0
istg = 8
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = solidBooster_29
sym = sasModule_14
sym = sasModule_21
}
{
part = solidBooster_29
pos = -1.059632,2.858197,2.621883
rot = 0,0,0,1
stg = 0
istg = 8
sqor = False
attm = 0
link = solidBooster_30
sym = solidBooster_15
sym = solidBooster_22
}
{
part = solidBooster_30
pos = -1.912396,2.901629,3.114227
rot = 0,-0.5,0,0.8660256
stg = 0
istg = 8
sqor = False
attm = 1
sym = solidBooster_16
sym = solidBooster_23
}
// Do not edit this file by hand. There are no cheating opportunities here. Go away.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 15, 2011, 11:06:59 pm
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/kerbal.jpg)

orbit reached. my configuration:

chute
capsule
decoupler
sas
lf tank
lf tank
lf tank
lf tank
lf engine
decoupler
sas
7 pack of srbs connected with struts and setup as a single stage, sas on top of all boosters.

now time to play with/make mods. game needs a small de-orbit/ohms engine, and better lateral coupling devices, srbs definately need better struts.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on July 16, 2011, 02:22:05 am
(http://i53.tinypic.com/1zn4l5g.jpg)

Powered by the strength of comradeship, my stalwart cosmonauts bring the joys of socialism further than ever before. That being said, I'm done "space racing" until they implement time compression - note the altitude, speed, but mostly mission time. It would have take hours for this thing to start falling back, if not more. Heck I think pointed the right way it might have just crashed on the surface of the Moon (the distance covered here wasn't remotely far enough but the speed was dropping really slowly at this point). Provided the game had a moon, 'course :)

I think I'm going to play with some super convoluted rocket designs in the mean time. I assembled something hilarious with a bunch of solid boosters attached on those side attachment thingies. The whole base of the rocket stretched away and the entire thing was uncontrollably spinning on it's axis as it shot straight up. The rocket would usually fall apart after a few thousand meters though.. Now I want to see if I can create something nausea inducing that would make it at least as far as LEO :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Kszyhu on July 16, 2011, 04:46:19 am
Do you use any mods? My record is 1053km, command module began its descent a minute ago. I've tried adding more stages, but liquid fuel engines are too heavy IMO, so I see no point in adding more of them.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on July 16, 2011, 05:39:07 am
Yes, for that last rocket I installed the additional parts from a link posted in this thread. Don't undestimate the power of a single liquid fuel engine, especially on the upper stage of the rocket! Give it 2 or 3 fuel tanks and it will take you places while not being overly heavy.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 16, 2011, 09:51:59 am
i think i got getting to orbit down. last good orbit i lost patience waiting to reach apogee, but it was at 5000+k and still climbing. i lacked the patience to see what my max altitude was. so enough altitude records for me. right now im just doing as much stupid **** as possible, trying to create the biggest explosions and other catastrophic failures that i can. namely unsafe amounts of thrust, ridiculous arrays of srbs, piss poor structural integrity, decouplers placed for the soul purpose of inducing failure. whatever.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on July 16, 2011, 03:21:57 pm
So, I've been out most of the day. Before I left I was fiddling with a rocket design I cobbled together so I did a test launch. After separation of the last stage (just the capsule left) I just left the computer running. The speed peaked at 4122.3, then dropped to 3402.5 m/s. The capsule was still moving away from the planet at that same speed when I came back, so I guess this planet's escape velocity is a lot lower than Earth's.
So, I have some bad news and some good news. The bad news is, there's no way to alter the capsule's trajectory which appears to be unstoppably hurtling directly into the Sun (oops?). The good news is, there is no danger of the three astronauts being cooked alive by the sun - they'll run out of air long before that happens. Even if that wasn't a factor, they'd run out of consumables way sooner then they'd get cooked alive by the Sun, so that's a good thing then. Not even sure they're actually still alive since "maximum G-Force endured" section states 24459.7G. If they survived that they're a lot thinner than before.. but I'm sure their families will be glad they gave their lives for the advancement of science!
Now I need to abduct off the street into the van train another three astronauts but finding victims
volunteers shouldn't be a problem... Who wants to go to space? There's free candy in space..

(http://i55.tinypic.com/iogspt.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on July 16, 2011, 03:57:53 pm
I see several of you have made it out of orbit: The way it's set up, 3KM/s is escape velocity, according to the developer/spur-of-the-solid-boosters-for-all-stages tests.
THe planet is only 600km in diameter, but made of denser stuff so that gravity is similar to earth at surface level
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 16, 2011, 06:32:15 pm
from what ive learned atmosphere ends at 40k, good orbital velocity is around 2300. do a small prograde burn at apogee to stay out of the atmo. so if you have a rocket with sufficient dv you shoot straight up till about 10k. start your roll. you should be at about 45 degrees by 30k and fully horizontal at around 50 k. accelerate to 2300 and kill your thrust. you will slow down as you reach apogee, this is ok. when you get to apogee, re-orient your craft to point prograde and increase your velocity again to 2300, this should trim you out to a nice circular orbit. de-orbit is just a matter of providing enough kick to get you into the atmo, and let drag do the rest, so just wait for appogee and burn the remainder of fuel retrograde. this should do the trick, provided you still have enough fuel. one of the mod packs contains a small srb which is perfect for a de-orbit engine.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on July 16, 2011, 06:43:32 pm
Slightly off track, but has anyone build (accidentally or on design) a design that nukes itself on the launch pad, just activate you first stand an go boom before gaining any height?  funny to watch the first few time :lol:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on July 16, 2011, 06:45:04 pm
(http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/7926/clipboard01cx.th.jpg) (http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/7926/clipboard01cx.jpg)


*insert huge grin here*
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on July 16, 2011, 06:46:36 pm
(http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/7926/clipboard01cx.th.jpg) (http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/7926/clipboard01cx.jpg)


*insert huge grin here*

Not sure about insert big grin, bob don't look too happy
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 16, 2011, 06:59:19 pm
Slightly off track, but has anyone build (accidentally or on design) a design that nukes itself on the launch pad, just activate you first stand an go boom before gaining any height?  funny to watch the first few time :lol:

yep. ive managed to blow up the entire stack by adding way to many srbs.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on July 16, 2011, 07:11:48 pm
(http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/7926/clipboard01cx.th.jpg) (http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/7926/clipboard01cx.jpg)


*insert huge grin here*

Not sure about insert big grin, bob don't look too happy
this is just the highest i got it to go :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on July 17, 2011, 02:41:10 am
My own highest thus far:

(http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/4770/unledyxd.png)

Still climbing. I forgot a parachute and that separator between the capsule and those fuel tanks. Ooops. It's probably a good thing it's still going.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on July 17, 2011, 04:34:40 am
5 hours?!?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on July 17, 2011, 04:45:10 am
5 hours?!?

Um.. take a look at the mission time / altitude / speed in the last pic I posted in this thread ;)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on July 17, 2011, 04:47:33 am
5 hours?!?

Um.. take a look at the mission time / altitude / speed in the last pic I posted in this thread ;)
:shaking:




 :warp:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on July 17, 2011, 05:06:16 am
5 hours?!?
I was asleep for 4 of those.

Kinda funny though how my ridiculously-overpowered rockets keep burning yet Old Faithful made it, by far, the farthest and fastest.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 17, 2011, 06:17:50 am
seems to me the more elaborate and well designed your rocket is the more likely it will fail catastrophically. ive yet to see lateral supports for srbs to stay connected or release correctly. the ship editor needs to allow for the insertion of arbitrary stages to better set up triggering of components. like i want to light my main engine in flight because it causes the srbs to explode on the pad. even using modded parts, including the larger engines and fuel tanks from one of the packs. even when the stack works as expected i still can get higher with my stock parts 6 srbs and 4 tank lf rocket. its kinda sad actually.

of course i recently had a fairly good flight with 8 srbs, 2 big fuel tanks, big engine, nuke engine, small de-orbit motor. had a bad early release with my srbs, nost control with the big engine and tanks, ejected the tanks early with a quarter tank of gas in one of them and managed to regain control at 15k, brought the nuke engine online and made several orbits while watching reruns of breaking bad, then managed to return with the de-orbit engine deployed chute at 2k. only problem was the capsule must have been made out of sodium because it blue up when it soft landed in a lake and killed my kerbonauts. this game has potential, once they squash the bugs.

is anyone else having this game rape their videocard and chipset. this thing makes my computer fans spin all the way up worse than starcraft 2 does. its quite sad indeed.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on July 17, 2011, 06:56:06 am
seems to me the more elaborate and well designed your rocket is the more likely it will fail catastrophically. ive yet to see lateral supports for srbs to stay connected or release correctly. the ship editor needs to allow for the insertion of arbitrary stages to better set up triggering of components. like i want to light my main engine in flight because it causes the srbs to explode on the pad. even using modded parts, including the larger engines and fuel tanks from one of the packs. even when the stack works as expected i still can get higher with my stock parts 6 srbs and 4 tank lf rocket. its kinda sad actually.
I agree to some extent.

I've completed 12 purely experimental launches with stock parts. My most successful completion thus far has been tricoupled SAS modules, LF engines, 3 tanks (1/ea), and for a second stage, a forth SAS module, 1 LF engine and 2 tanks. Using purely ring separators. That setup got me to 657,001 meters and max speed of 2,070.8 m/s. A new variation (quite similar to the 5-hour post) has a third tank for Stage 2.

2 of my experimental launches have 100% failed. Launch 6 was done with a Booster at the bottom and a single Engine & Tank above it. That one ended when the single booster couldn't take off. Launch 9 was tricoupled Engines and tanks (1/ea) and, above that, a booster. That one (probably for poor balance) resulted in the ship making a complete loop.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Kszyhu on July 17, 2011, 10:12:03 am
I use similar setup, but there is only one SAS, connected with the third stage (4 LF fuel tanks and an engine). Middle one uses tricoupled LF engines, with 2 tanks for each, and finally, booster array (four connected to the last stage, and six at the bottom of the rocket). Unfortunately, it needs stage redesign after each loading of the setup. For some reason, it's unstable on one computer, but on the other one there are almost no problems.

(http://i52.tinypic.com/zyjadf.jpg)
That's the moment when three brave (ok, two frightened and one slighty retarded) astronauts realized that they forgot to take some board games with them.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on July 17, 2011, 01:10:01 pm
seems to me the more elaborate and well designed your rocket is the more likely it will fail catastrophically. ive yet to see lateral supports for srbs to stay connected or release correctly. the ship editor needs to allow for the insertion of arbitrary stages to better set up triggering of components. like i want to light my main engine in flight because it causes the srbs to explode on the pad. even using modded parts, including the larger engines and fuel tanks from one of the packs. even when the stack works as expected i still can get higher with my stock parts 6 srbs and 4 tank lf rocket. its kinda sad actually.

of course i recently had a fairly good flight with 8 srbs, 2 big fuel tanks, big engine, nuke engine, small de-orbit motor. had a bad early release with my srbs, nost control with the big engine and tanks, ejected the tanks early with a quarter tank of gas in one of them and managed to regain control at 15k, brought the nuke engine online and made several orbits while watching reruns of breaking bad, then managed to return with the de-orbit engine deployed chute at 2k. only problem was the capsule must have been made out of sodium because it blue up when it soft landed in a lake and killed my kerbonauts. this game has potential, once they squash the bugs.

is anyone else having this game rape their videocard and chipset. this thing makes my computer fans spin all the way up worse than starcraft 2 does. its quite sad indeed.
i never managed to get the nuke engine to work... -.-


also, yes, the game heats up my GPU like no tomorrow.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: ChaserR on July 17, 2011, 01:20:11 pm
With the mods i've reached 5490m/s but windows crash stoped that atempt. Same setup as before the crash, but I missfired last stage so max speed only 5320m/s. Currently i'm 38 min in flight, speed 4913 m/s alt 9580k.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on July 18, 2011, 07:46:10 am
Not with the intent of reaching altitude, but still something I wanted to experiment with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zgCq-bHAyU

A prototype missile, using 3x3 (total of 9) liquid fuel engines fed by 3 fuel tanks to make for a rapid take off, with at the bottom of the centre fuselage a tripple balancing/maneuvering device.

Then, ejecting and destroying said device and the 3 liquid fuel engine clusters, 3 additional large solid fuel rockets complement the now exposed and activated central single liquid fuel engine to gain the desired altitude!

Upon running out of fuel, the 3 large solid fuel rockets deploy parachutes to assist their descent when they are ejected from the hull. While the single central liquid fuel engine propels the missile to it's goal, the maneuvering winglets on front are ejected once the desired descent is achieved, no longer being required when initial re-entry is completed.

Finally, when following the trajectory back to the surface. the liquid fuel engine and fuselage holding fuel are shed and a final high-velocity solid fuel engine should bring the front of the missile through a controlled trajectory to it's destination. It is then released so that the front pod or package may touch down safely.

Now if only I were a bit more skilled at keeping that missile straight, it'd reach a perfect altitude (and to stop spinning around when re-entering once the 3 rocket pods are ejected)! The frame itself is quite stable however.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 18, 2011, 09:20:56 pm
maintaining stability on a large stack is very difficult, real rockets get around the issue by gimballing the engines. but this game just kinda uses the imaginary rcs thrust from the sas modules and capsule. one of the mods contains an rcs module, that produces a lot more thrust for manuvering. but it doesnt prevent wobble very well. using one with an sas is a good way to stabilize first stage srbs, and if i use 3 meter tanks il stick one on the upper 1 meter to 3 meter adapter thingie below the decopler to the upper stages. on upper stages where you have say 4 tanks an lf engine, capsule, and not a whole lot else, i find you dont even need an sas or an rcs module, because you get almost no atmospheric interference to throw you off course. the capsule seems to come with an sas which is good enough to kill your rotation.

that said the modded parts arent very good. 3 meter tanks like to disconnect a little too easily. one launch left the 3 meter engine quad behind, i had to fix this by igniting the lf engine first, throttling down and then lighting the srbs. of course this can also cause an overheat which will destroy your entire stack. i presume the game developers did actual math to come up with values for tank size, fuel capacity, thrust, and structural integrity, etc, where as modders just fudged the values.

another game where you can assemble a space ship (thought he focus more on combat maneuvers) would be space combat, which is a lot more intuitive. lets you configure each part's size, and dimensions, but then goes and correctly computes its mass for you. of course space combat is also a lot less fun, despite the fact that you get to shoot things.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on July 18, 2011, 09:43:26 pm
Gimballing the thrusters is coming I'm told. The RCS module is interesting. I just wish I could get the game to ****ing work. As of late, it's been a damn nightmare.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Thaeris on July 19, 2011, 08:41:03 am
another game where you can assemble a space ship (thought he focus more on combat maneuvers) would be space combat, which is a lot more intuitive. lets you configure each part's size, and dimensions, but then goes and correctly computes its mass for you. of course space combat is also a lot less fun, despite the fact that you get to shoot things.

Space combat is indeed far from perfect. I should note that it's much better suited to deep space flight more so than anything else. Physics-wise, it's very easy to fudge things, even though the program will be using proper math along with said fudging. The biggest fault is that center of mass of the rocket is always the origin (0,0,0) of a given space ship. Thus, properly orienting thrusters about this point will result in rather substantial ease of controlling the ship - you can cheat the system pretty easy without having to do too many calculations.

Still, it's a great little program for understanding basic physics and simple spacecraft design. It's possible to make your own space regions, though you're going to be doing it with a text editor unless someone wanted to go out and make a parser program. Space Combat regions were also never terribly well documented, either, so I'm not sure of all the features one can implement with the program. It would certainly be a lot more fun with multiplayer - perhaps someone should try and see if Austin Meyer would release the source code? Otherwise, it probably wouldn't be too hard to hack.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on July 19, 2011, 09:29:44 am
Do they have an option for a Robin Reliant Orbiter?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Thaeris on July 19, 2011, 09:47:47 am
Given that you couldn't make a 1:1 scale model of the Robin (too small for Space Combat), understand you could make a greater than 1 scale vessel. That said, sure.

:p

I actually did send Austin an email. Perhaps he'll consider releasing the source code.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shade on July 22, 2011, 09:11:16 am
Oh, this game is fun :D Nice to have something fun that only requires ten minutes here and there to get something out of. Messed around with a bunch of different configurations, and most of them were pretty serious failures. Seems every time I try to build something really big, it is either uncontrollable or simply can't take the load of takeoff and disintegrates.

After a LOT of iterations over several days though, I did manage a design that struck a good balance between being -just barely- able to launch in one piece and still had the power to get some serious speed. This fast, in fact:

(http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3668/4500mps.png)

And after thirty minutes:

(http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/5229/3600mps5100kalt30mins.png)

At this point, speed was dropping only by 1m/s every ten seconds or so, so even if I'd let it run overnight I doubt it would ever have dropped below 3500. Those astronauts ain't coming back. Jebediah loves that - He's going to see the stars! Bill and Bob, however, have just realized they forgot to go to the bathroom before launch, and are somewhat less enthusiastic.

(http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/6752/4500mpsrocket.png)

And here's the beast that did the job. Constructed as follows:

Shaved off a bunch of SAS modules to save weight, which makes this a royal pain to launch. But it is just barely possible.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: jr2 on July 22, 2011, 06:49:17 pm
This has a really obnoxious habit of forgetting to auto-separate stages.... so I get a multi-stage rocket that fires all stages at once, or sometimes a separator won't fire and the chute will have the entire stack under it minus anything that did manage to jettison.. maybe it's just me.  :ick:


EDIT: Aaaand I just figured it out... SAS =/= stack decoupler, even though it looks similar.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 22, 2011, 11:28:32 pm
-snip-

thats some stack you got there, seems whenever i make something with that many srbs it fails catastrophically. but it seems like you pulled it off.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shade on July 23, 2011, 06:39:40 am
Just barely. I can launch that config successfully only about half the time, the other half I lose control. Can't even use SAS too much, because that seems to induce a wobbling effect in the lower stages that eventually tears the stack apart, so it is really only useful for countering spin and times when everything will fall apart anyway if you don't use it.

In fact, if you look at the first picture from my previous post, you can see that the velocity vector is nowhere near vertical. I tried to go straight up, but I simply couldn't hold it. And that was my best attempt out of several.

[Edit] I do have some ideas for improving this stack, though. Specifically, I tried replacing the first stage of nine SRBs with nine LF Engines + one tank for each, and that still had enough thrust to get the thing off the ground. Albeit with a lower initial acceleration than the SRBs managed, due to the higher weight. Unfortunately, the higher weight also meant 'barely controllable' became 'uncontrollable', and the greater thrust of the LF Engines made the stack much more likely to tear itself apart - It can support the thrust, but even the tiniest imbalance will break it, and I've not yet managed to place all component accurately enough for it to survive. If I ever do get it working though, the longer first stage duration granted by the LFEs should mean a considerable boost in final velocity.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 23, 2011, 12:00:26 pm
what i remember from model rocketry is that it helps to put some weight in the nose and some drag in the tail. rocket designs where the upper stage is relatively lightweight can induce unwanted drag at the nose which can make you wobble at least and and most make your velocity vector creep around on you with almost zero control. you can probibly move your srbs a little bit higher on the stack (though this can risk damage to the lf engines). the drag model in the game seems kind of lame. fins dont give as much stability as they should and it doesnt seem to compute lateral forces from lift on them at all. it certainly doesnt compute drag cross section properly. real rockets may also include control surfaces on fins (or rotating fins) and thrust vectoring through engine gimbals in addition to rcs thrusters, they certainly dont generate phantom forces with sas modules. physics need work, though it seems the game is only in its early stages of development anyway.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Patriot on July 25, 2011, 04:26:17 pm
Right now I'm going a rough 5900m/s and just passed 4500 km. Who wants to take a guess how slow my deceleration is?

I'll give you a hint. It's bloody slow! D:



EDIT: uh-oh, it flipped on it's side and stopped decelerating o.o. Do not have an engine left to make it go back :(
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on July 28, 2011, 01:20:00 pm
This game is highly addictive...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shade on July 29, 2011, 10:14:08 am
Alright, managed a new speed record (for myself, anyway). For some reason the game screen doesn't get recorded anymore when I use print screen, instead just showing my desktop when I paste the would-be image into an editor, so you'll just have to see it for yourselves.

To that end, I attach for your pleasure... Il Tempo Gigante. Using stock parts only, this baby is capable of reaching 6400 m/s if piloted on a perfectly vertical course. Which is surprisingly easy, as it is also rock stable during launch. The only difficult part of getting it into space is clearing the launch pad tower without colliding, as liftoff is slooooooow and any amount of drift in that direction will cause said collision.

[attachment deleted by ninja]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on July 29, 2011, 10:49:05 am
Alright, managed a new speed record (for myself, anyway). For some reason the game screen doesn't get recorded anymore when I use print screen, instead just showing my desktop when I paste the would-be image into an editor, so you'll just have to see it for yourselves.

To that end, I attach for your pleasure... Il Tempo Gigante. Using stock parts only, this baby is capable of reaching 6400 m/s if piloted on a perfectly vertical course. Which is surprisingly easy, as it is also rock stable during launch. The only difficult part of getting it into space is clearing the launch pad tower without colliding, as liftoff is slooooooow and any amount of drift in that direction will cause said collision.
Play in Windowed Mode. That lets you switch between windows (and play multiple instances) and you can use Alt-Print to take a screenshot.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on July 29, 2011, 11:47:32 am
i think F11 or something like that is the official screenshot button.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on July 29, 2011, 11:52:58 am
i think F11 or something like that is the official screenshot button.
You gotta make the folder first iirc.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on July 29, 2011, 11:59:26 am
ah. k. didnt know. btw, there was a update relatively recently. 0.8.5 i think it was :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shade on July 29, 2011, 12:06:23 pm
That seems to work. Thanks for the tip :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shade on July 31, 2011, 12:30:20 pm
To illustrate just how big a difference weight makes on a spacecraft, I tried trimming various non-essential bits and pieces off the Gigante until I could no longer reliably launch it. Trimming off three SAS modules, the command module parachute and the last decoupler (whch I could get away with since the parachute was gone) brought the final velocity up to 7500m/s on a vertical launch, from 6400. Trimming another single SAS module after that brought the final speed up to just over 8200m/s - That's a 700m/s jump from losing the weight of a single small module and, if I'm not mistaken, is actually a high enough speed to orbit Earth somewhere around LEO, let alone the puny little planet in the game.

I can't trim off any more. If I lose even one more SAS module, I can't hold it reliably. But once I get another 30 minutes to work with (where I'm not too tired to do anything but watch TV, heh), then instead of a vertical launch, I'm planning to try to an oblique flight path once out of the atmosphere to avoid accelerating against gravity's pull, essentially placing the thing into an infinitely expanding orbit. That should probably allow the final speed to go up by a good bit more. Who knows... maybe it'll even be possible to reach Earth's escape velocity :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on July 31, 2011, 02:33:27 pm
To illustrate just how big a difference weight makes on a spacecraft, I tried trimming various non-essential bits and pieces off the Gigante until I could no longer reliably launch it. Trimming off three SAS modules, the command module parachute and the last decoupler (whch I could get away with since the parachute was gone) brought the final velocity up to 7500m/s on a vertical launch, from 6400. Trimming another single SAS module after that brought the final speed up to just over 8200m/s - That's a 700m/s jump from losing the weight of a single small module and, if I'm not mistaken, is actually a high enough speed to orbit Earth somewhere around LEO, let alone the puny little planet in the game.

I can't trim off any more. If I lose even one more SAS module, I can't hold it reliably. But once I get another 30 minutes to work with (where I'm not too tired to do anything but watch TV, heh), then instead of a vertical launch, I'm planning to try to an oblique flight path once out of the atmosphere to avoid accelerating against gravity's pull, essentially placing the thing into an infinitely expanding orbit. That should probably allow the final speed to go up by a good bit more. Who knows... maybe it'll even be possible to reach Earth's escape velocity :D
You can look up Kerbal orbital and escape velocity calculators. IIRC it's 3.2km/s (horizontal speed) to orbit at 40km. It would actually make it pretty easy to escape orbit. Basic thing is to give yourself an eccentric orbit and launch off from there.

One thing I think the game needs is a better range of equipment. Most of the stuff right now is good for launch and middle stages but there's nothing for the end stages. You're stuck with too large an engine when you could/should carry fuel instead.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shade on July 31, 2011, 02:37:39 pm
Oh, I know about the Kerbal planet's escape velocity - Getting to that is trivial [Edit - Well, trivial once you're past the first 20 or so spectacular failures and start having some idea what you're doing, anyway]. I specifically stated that I was talking about Earth's escape velocity, though, which is something like 11.000m/s... so little ways to go, yet :p
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on July 31, 2011, 08:49:26 pm
BEST ROCKET DESIGN EVER (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm0yNKl51rs&feature=related)

how does it work i don't even
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Thaeris on July 31, 2011, 09:15:09 pm
That is full of win. That is all.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on August 01, 2011, 01:28:14 am
I do believe he just won KSP
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Mongoose on August 01, 2011, 01:29:39 pm
I like this related video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auWGCbBGIGY&feature=related) myself.  Look at that thing.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on August 01, 2011, 02:10:29 pm
Flap your wings and soar, my little pigeon rocket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4spKNbcMVk&feature=related)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on August 01, 2011, 06:48:52 pm
Flap your wings and soar, my little pigeon rocket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4spKNbcMVk&feature=related)

Is it just me, or does even Jeb appear to freaking out on that flight?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Iss Mneur on August 02, 2011, 12:22:09 am
Flap your wings and soar, my little pigeon rocket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4spKNbcMVk&feature=related)

Is it just me, or does even Jeb appear to freaking out on that flight?
Not just you.  You know something is wrong when Jeb starts freaking out before Bob.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Enzo03 on August 02, 2011, 10:11:01 pm
Uh... I can't access the site.

I have it, and just tried it, but I wanted to share it to some friends.

But when I go to the main web page, all I get is a screen that says "It Works!" ...??

They were moving the server, apparently.

I hate you for making me play this game.

Because my stomach hurts now.

From laughter.

I'm sorry, this game has made me discover I am a horrible sadist. :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Patriot on August 10, 2011, 09:20:33 am
I can't seem to find the link to the mods, was hoping there'd be some new ones D:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on August 10, 2011, 09:30:18 am
I can't seem to find the link to the mods, was hoping there'd be some new ones D:
i got my stuff from here. also, beware of the steampunk set, it overrides some default things... http://www.kerbalspaceprogram.net/kerbal-space-program-mods
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on August 10, 2011, 10:13:28 am
There's the Repository but also check the forums for threads. http://www.kerbalspacerepository.com/

I've been running the pre-release software and I can tell you this: 0.9 will be damn useful! Struts between parts are really useful, especially when you're using that tri-couple. The new staging mechanism is a godsend. When you're downloading mods, don't forget KSP Calculator; it's incredibly useful to calculate your orbits and orbital transfers. I'm using it at the moment to do a Hohmann Transfer from 288km to 1,000km. It also tells you escape velocities at various points. I've been getting into the habit of forcing myself into reasonable orbits. If you don't start aiming early, you can aim your craft at the horizon and start accelerating. Once you hit orbital velocity (and you'll continue rising), you're basically winging a Hohmann transfer into a stable orbit. At the apogee, you can accelerate to a stable orbit or accelerate past to transfer to a higher apogee (and accelerate again to make that orbit stable).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on August 10, 2011, 07:31:45 pm
There's the Repository but also check the forums for threads. http://www.kerbalspacerepository.com/

I've been running the pre-release software and I can tell you this: 0.9 will be damn useful! Struts between parts are really useful, especially when you're using that tri-couple. The new staging mechanism is a godsend. When you're downloading mods, don't forget KSP Calculator; it's incredibly useful to calculate your orbits and orbital transfers. I'm using it at the moment to do a Hohmann Transfer from 288km to 1,000km. It also tells you escape velocities at various points. I've been getting into the habit of forcing myself into reasonable orbits. If you don't start aiming early, you can aim your craft at the horizon and start accelerating. Once you hit orbital velocity (and you'll continue rising), you're basically winging a Hohmann transfer into a stable orbit. At the apogee, you can accelerate to a stable orbit or accelerate past to transfer to a higher apogee (and accelerate again to make that orbit stable).

no joystick support yet? the ridiculous thing is when i designed a game engine i wrote 5 minute joystick code that works great. why do other developers have such a hard time with input code? other than that little rant, i like all the new staging features, though i do wish there was some way to disable fuel sharing between some stages.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Iss Mneur on August 10, 2011, 07:34:25 pm
no joystick support yet? the ridiculous thing is when i designed a game engine i wrote 5 minute joystick code that works great. why do other developers have such a hard time with input code? other than that little rant, i like all the new staging features, though i do wish there was some way to disable fuel sharing between some stages.

He probably doesn't have a joystick.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on August 11, 2011, 01:51:26 am
no joystick support yet? the ridiculous thing is when i designed a game engine i wrote 5 minute joystick code that works great. why do other developers have such a hard time with input code? other than that little rant, i like all the new staging features, though i do wish there was some way to disable fuel sharing between some stages.

He probably doesn't have a joystick.

it is possible to emulate joystick hardware in software with various utilities. ppjoy+glovepie, for example, can turn keyboard and mouse info into joystick info. surely the documentation for whatever input api is sufficient to understand the raw data coming out of it. something preliminary may be written and given to the userbase to experiment on and give feedback. at least with some of my arduino development i had coded for hardware that i had not received yet, and by the time the part had arrived in the mail i had working code for it, and im hardly a skilled programmer. my complaint isnt just aimed at this one developer, ive see so many "modern" games, even commercial titles, with really poor joystick code. 1-bit resolution axes are so 80s :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on August 11, 2011, 08:55:54 pm
no joystick support yet? the ridiculous thing is when i designed a game engine i wrote 5 minute joystick code that works great. why do other developers have such a hard time with input code? other than that little rant, i like all the new staging features, though i do wish there was some way to disable fuel sharing between some stages.

He probably doesn't have a joystick.

it is possible to emulate joystick hardware in software with various utilities. ppjoy+glovepie, for example, can turn keyboard and mouse info into joystick info. surely the documentation for whatever input api is sufficient to understand the raw data coming out of it. something preliminary may be written and given to the userbase to experiment on and give feedback. at least with some of my arduino development i had coded for hardware that i had not received yet, and by the time the part had arrived in the mail i had working code for it, and im hardly a skilled programmer. my complaint isnt just aimed at this one developer, ive see so many "modern" games, even commercial titles, with really poor joystick code. 1-bit resolution axes are so 80s :D
No one has really requested joystick support be working, using the keyboard and flying off instruments is working "well enough" for most of us.
He does have groundwork there, and I'm sure later on, with spaceplanes, the stick support will be worth getting running.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shade on August 13, 2011, 05:42:05 am
Final 0.9 version is out, and the new and improved staging options offer room for quite a bit of improvement on previous efforts :D

Here's the results of a straight vertical launch of an embiggened and yet somewhat simplified - except from the initial boost stage at any rate - version of the previous Il Tempo Gigante (craft file attached, by the way):

(http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/732/giganteimproved9600ms.png)

That's right, over 9500m/s on a vertical launch. I'm guessing this thing could probably break 10k m/s on an oblique launch*, though this thing is heavy as hell to steer so I'd hate to actually try it. It's made even worse by the fact that this packs exactly zero SAS modules once the boost stage is gone - It is stable enough (well... barely) in a vertical launch, presumable due to the length of it, but if you get even a bit outside the desired flight path it just doesn't have the steering torque necessary to recover. As before, this is stock parts only.

Oh yeah, and a lunch pad shot to show the scale of the thing:

(http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4429/giganteimprovedpad.png)

The stuff at the top is actually part of the first stage, to help get it clear of the tower, and are what I refer to as the boost stage. Couldn't put them on one of the 'legs' because that causes bad spinning that eventually tears the rocket apart, but right at the top they're actually far enough above the lower parts that they can fire without damaging anything. The whole assembly there is gone before the rocket hits 3000m altitude.

* The old version went from 7500m/s to 8200m/s when going for an oblique flight path, but gain would likely be less from this as the higher speeds take gravity mostly out of the equation for a greater part of the run. Around 500m/s seems a reasonable expectation though.

[attachment deleted by ninja]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on August 13, 2011, 08:52:00 am
I dun see no struts on that baby. Give her some struts and she'll sturdy-up. Here's my baby:

(http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/3985/68503624.jpg)
(http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/816/65887495.jpg)
(http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/4307/50245834.jpg)
(http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/1542/24959168.jpg)
(http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/5905/81956573.jpg)
(http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4721/84582990.jpg)

If you insert into orbit, it's actually more efficient to escape. Your top speed will be lower but you'll escape with far more velocity.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shade on August 13, 2011, 09:23:39 am
Struts add weight and drag, however little. If you can otherwise keep it stable, a strutless rocket will go faster than a strutted one. Additionally, struts seem to induce the rocket to tilt in my experience, forcing the use of SAS modules and further adding to weight. So I avoid them if possible when building for serious speed, even if they're very handy for less specialized designs.

Anyway, I tried adding another two engines to the final stage, bringing the total to eight, and launching it on an oblique trajectory (which proved less hairy than I'd feared). It... makes a difference. Specifically, this much of a difference:

(http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/7463/10800ms.png)

Another 400m/s and I'll have reached my goal of getting to Earth's escape velocity. So close, yet so far away...

Craft file attached.



[attachment deleted by ninja]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on August 13, 2011, 11:17:10 pm
the struts sure allow a lot more creativity when it comes to designs.

amazingly , it seems that the kerbals can survive 66G of acceleration from a stupid  huge number of boosters going off together.

will post some silly ships and their short flight logs tomorrow
.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on August 14, 2011, 12:12:09 am
i really do like the struts, you can add some serious beef to weak parts of the ship with them. ive been doing a lot of work where i use struts on lateral decouplers to shore up large clusters of boosters attatched to other lateral decouplers in the same group. this seems to prevent the phenomena of the lateral decoupler breaking when attatched to more than one booster. also is it just me or do stabilizer fins have more effect than they used to? theyve turned at least one ludicrous design from veers off course like it has an elephant taped to the side of it to flys like a dream. sometimes large numbers of boosters can also induce some roll, and simply cross strutting them to eachother cancels this out by providing a mechanism where any of axxis tilting of one engin e will cause an inverse tilting in an adjacent set of boosters thus leveling out the spin. works kinda well.

also it seems using a lot of boosters can be ineffitient. i had one design where the rest of the stack was heavy for the current set of boosters to lift, the rocket eventually lost all momentum, hovered around 0 for awhile and started to pick up speed as it ran out of fuel. other boosters seem to provide enough thrust to gain altitude, but dont affect the velocity all that much. so ive come to the conclusion that lighter rockets are better for orbital insertion, where velocity matters. while huge bulky behemoths make good altitude records, but are very poor at attaining orbital velocity.

kinda wish the game came with some sort of orbital gauge, snowing you the shape of the orbit. not too different from the one in orbiter, but perhaps simplified a little.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on August 14, 2011, 08:31:51 am
yeah, too many boosters just does work.

This morning I made a setups with 12-solid, followed by 3 solid boosters, then triple tank liquid gets into a nice orbit with fuel to spare

Also, using some mod parts, made a pretty cool setup, reliable orbiter
(if images don't work) http://imageshack.us/g/534/anotherstage.jpg/

(http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/109/launchtime.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/84/shakystart.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/833/firstseperation.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/33/flyinggood.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/833/firstseperation.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/534/anotherstage.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/84/engageorbiter.jpg/)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on August 14, 2011, 09:19:23 pm
i just said it was ineffitient, but they can and do get you there. sad thing is you can get to the same there with less stuff.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on August 14, 2011, 11:50:51 pm
i recently got up to 24km/sec. God i love E-1000 liquid fuel engines :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shade on August 20, 2011, 07:05:06 am
I'm starting to develop a love/hate relationship with struts. On the one hand, they feel like cheating - They remove any need for finesse or balance, and can make pretty much any rocket work no matter how haphazardly it is put together. They've basically taken the challenge out of building a rocket that works well. But... on the other hand, they let me build monsters :D

Case in point, this little baby:

(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/4470/solidsescaper.png)

Using only solid rocket boosters, this improbable stack will reach Kerbin's escape velocity, and with a safe margin at that. Start is a bit slow as in the end I couldn't be arsed to build entire new stages to keep pushing it higher, so I just pasted one I'd already made and added some SAS modules to make the first two. Still has enough thrust to get going, though, and one it gets to the upper stages it really takes off.

And of course, struts also allowed me to finally reach Earth's escape velocity... and then some. Behold, the Big Bertha mk3:

(http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1888/bigberthapad.png)

So big, I had to build it off-center in the VAB and build a notch into the lower stages to allow it to ascend past the crane-like protrusion on top of the launch tower, this testament to the utter overpoweredness of struts will casually reach Earth's escape velocity and then keep going to no less than 14.600m/s. It lags so badly for the entire flight that steering is more a matter of luck than skill, giving me barely .5 fps during the initial launch. Even so, steering is somewhat possible... you just need to start any correction 4-5 seconds before you'd normally do it to give the game time to register that you're trying to do something :p

And here she is after all stages are spent - Notice that parts of the interface are still bugging out due to lag:

(http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/9923/bigbertha14600ms.png)

Dunno what got into Bill and Bob, there. They're probably just glad that horrifying ride finally calmed down some.

[Edit] Craft files attached for anyone who wants to try them out.

[attachment deleted by ninja]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on August 20, 2011, 07:35:51 am
W......T.....F...... how does that not splode on launch???????????
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shade on August 20, 2011, 07:44:14 am
It took some finessing, that's for sure. Had to distribute its weight over 24 'legs' to avoid spontaneous collapse on the launch pad. There's a reason it's the mk3... previous iterations went kaboom :p

Oh, by the way, getting it off the ground takes some work too. The initial launch stage is, I believe, 57 LF engines and 18 SRBs.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on August 20, 2011, 11:05:00 am
holy ****
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Lester on August 20, 2011, 03:44:04 pm
That thing looks like a wedding cake.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on August 23, 2011, 12:12:50 am
Quote
Case in point, this little baby:
*snip*

Nut-thundering Christ, I'd hate to see one of your fat babies. :shaking:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Flaser on August 23, 2011, 09:55:25 pm
Here's my own Satellite-Lofter. It's a 3-stage design, often achieving orbit with the first two stages alone, depending on payload weight and whether you add legs to later make landing smoother. The craft is designed for powered landings, BTW as leaving a NERVA engine in orbit would get the Green-kerbs panties in quite a twist.

Stage 1 has a 3 meter diameter and uses 7-kerosine engines, and 6 stabilizing liquid fuel thrusters. This one's a beast and takes some skill to fly, since if it tilts over more than a couple of degrees you'll never right it. As you go higher it's recommended to throttle the engine back down to reduce both air drag.

(http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/5796/lofter1.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/194/lofter1.jpg/)

Separating stage 1.

(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/6308/lofter2.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/28/lofter2.jpg/)

Stage 2 has a 2 meter diameter and uses a single, massive engine. Until about 30 km high, I keep throttling the engine back.

(http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/7279/lofter3.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/lofter3.jpg/)

....at 30 km, I increase the angle to about 45 degrees, starting to pick up lateral speed. I also increase engine output as gravity drag decreases, and it makes sense to burn fuel now when the Oberth effect is stronger.

(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/1609/lofter4.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/3/lofter4.jpg/)

....at around 45 km, we complete the turn to lateral thrusting and give the engine all it's got to take advantage of the Oberth effect.

(http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/479/lofter5.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/718/lofter5.jpg/)

Separating stage 2 and jettisoning the protective cone over the cargo. Since the cone's decoupler is somewhat anemic it's necessary to do a short side-ways burst.

(http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4381/lofter6.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/198/lofter6.jpg/)

Stage 3 is a NERVA engine with a massive, 1.75 meter fuel tank.

(http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/2356/lofter7py.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/221/lofter7py.jpg/)

Orbital speed achieved, releasing payload. Note that I still have loads of fuel left, so I could loft this thing into a lot higher orbit, as is, it's on a highly ecliptic orbit.

(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/8730/lofter8.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/703/lofter8.jpg/)

Commencing retro-burn to re-enter atmosphere. I waste a lot of fuel, as this could be done a lot more efficiently by burning at periapsis and aero-braking.

(http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/3607/lofter9.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/534/lofter9.jpg/)

Deploying chutes when air-speed has dropped below 300 m/s

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4752/lofter10.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/26/lofter10.jpg/)

Safety burn, slowing the craft below 80 m/s, so the chutes are not ripped off when they fully deploy.

(http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/599/lofter11.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/lofter11.jpg/)

At 500 meters altitude, the chutes automatically expand to their full size

(http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/8673/lofter12.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/696/lofter12.jpg/)

Maintaining 9-10 m/s descent rate until the last 100 meters of altitude, when I increase throttle and land gently at 3-4 m/s.

(http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/5326/lofter13.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/534/lofter13.jpg/)

Safely landed - on WATER! Expect a wet splash in later versions!

(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/3060/lofter14.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/88/lofter14.jpg/)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Enzo03 on August 23, 2011, 10:20:44 pm
So apparently landing on the dark side of Kerbin is always fatal.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on August 23, 2011, 10:34:16 pm
So apparently landing on the dark side of Kerbin is always fatal.
That should be fixed in the next Alpha release. HarvesteR said it was fixed. :) I'm looking forward to 0.10-X1.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on September 05, 2011, 01:59:41 am
Here's a video showing off the C-7 Aviation mod and what I've been mostly doing in KSP recently. Orbital flight is so boring... what would be a real achievement is flying around Kerbin in an aircraft.

Jeb's Joyride (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdDB7yChFas&hd=1)

(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/952/jebjoyride.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on September 07, 2011, 01:31:43 pm
New version just launched with input responsible winglets :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on September 07, 2011, 03:30:26 pm
New version just launched with input responsible winglets :)
so downloading it now.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on September 08, 2011, 11:02:37 am
OK, am i the only one who thinks those giants are atrocities? xD Here are my puppies:
http://nohiki.ic.cz/gallery/ksp/


Vanilla series -
Spear - Two stage to orbit, pure liquid powered rocket
Maxim - Solid boosted 150% fuel spear
Neo series -
Spear - Improved design for better maneuverability and higher orbits
Maxim - Solid boosted 150% fuel spear with vertical launch top speed slightly over 6500 m/s after escaping gravity (NERVA engine rocks)
Astral - Maxim with heavily overhauled top. Added one stage of fuel efficient mid thrust engine. Capable of launching the full lunar lander on orbit or to infinity without the use of landers own thruster.
Xtreme series -
Improved Neo series with doubled bottom stages. The maxim is there just for fun as it is too heavy and less efficient than N - 2, and the X - 3 never flown :(
Huge series -
My research into liquid booster technology :P The H - 2 will fall apart before bottom stage separation if you go full throttle xD and the H - 3 is my attempt on emergency landing capable rocket / recoverable boosters with parashutes

And how the people build the planes, let alone fly them is beyond me. Even with the .10, i can't build a working shuttle. Any hints?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on September 08, 2011, 11:34:58 am
In my experience, Jeb can fly almost anything. Or almost nothing.

(http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/3936/screenshot9small.png) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0HfOA7NEjI)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Kszyhu on September 08, 2011, 12:28:38 pm
That aviation pack is quite interesting, but... problematic. My only successful construction experiences unexplainable roll when using wings (I wonder if symmetry tool flips one of the wings upside-down. It would explain Kerbalish stability, at least if there's difference in lift  between normal and flipped lifting surfaces). A tool showing forces exterted on the spacescrap craft would help with that problem and creating pitch-neutral planes, but I don't think its creation is considered right now.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on September 08, 2011, 03:36:58 pm
they finally got around to adding joystick support. downloading, but the file keeps going corrupt.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Kszyhu on September 08, 2011, 04:30:59 pm
I've had the same problem, here's a mirror: http://beta.kerbalspacerepository.com/files/KSP_win_0_10.zip
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 08, 2011, 08:38:22 pm
During Launch# I-don't-remember-anymore, a bizzare phenomenon occured inside the ship. At a decently even orbit of 1,500m/s at an altitude of 180km, the crew suddenly dies inside the Command Capsule. Without a crew to activate the final device of the capsule (Parachute), it is doomed to plummet into the vast ocean of Kerbin. Upon its explosive splashdown, the mission report comes in...

The crew was listed as being killed twice in this one mission alone.
(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/4200/whatisthisidontevenv.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on September 08, 2011, 10:13:19 pm
Yawmaster is a command module. Any time any part designated as command module is destroyed, the game will interpret that as death for Bill, Bob and Jebediah.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 08, 2011, 10:33:46 pm
Now I just want to make a blob of CMs and 'asplode it.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: achtung on September 09, 2011, 02:51:10 am
I finally played this.

I achieved 103,000m on my fourth alteration, is this good?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on September 09, 2011, 09:05:24 am
I finally played this.

I achieved 103,000m on my fourth alteration, is this good?
Not really. You should be aiming for 10,300,000m. :p Orbit for lazy bums: at 30 km, aim the vehicle at the horizon. It's not the most efficient method but it works. I've been playing around with my Big Lifter Mk VI for a while now. Trying to get 'er under control. I added a sixth fuel tank on my top stage and, despite the added fuel, I lost 200 m/s. I'm thinking of moving the top booster trio to the top stage--I didn't need it on the bottom stages to keep accelerating. Also, jettisoning the bottom stage naturally lightens me quite a bit.

Personal new speed record (using all stock parts): 5860.7 m/s. Easily improved upon, too (by removing the parachute.) Big Lifter Mk VI is a success. Now to find some payload.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: achtung on September 10, 2011, 06:53:23 pm
I made it to 1577K, is that better? :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on September 10, 2011, 09:02:30 pm
I made it to 1577K, is that better? :)
That's chump change, soldier! Aim or 1577M!!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 13, 2011, 11:38:18 am
So, I decided I'd try making missiles that mount on the wingtips of an atmospheric fighter, though of course we'll start off very simplistic. It's deadly to the crew. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7Lfus1TfKk)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on September 13, 2011, 11:52:28 am
So far when I build complicated planes with tailwings etc they suddenly do repeated reverse loopings by themselves when I make them fly horizontal. They then crash or worse, the inertia rips it apart and makes it explode mid-air after a few involuntary loops.

And now while they don't loop, without a SAS they basically don't turn and SAS's look way silly. :( We can all guess what happens:

(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4861/f16s.png)

So time to try those ailerons and hope for the best.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on September 13, 2011, 12:23:32 pm
So far when I build complicated planes with tailwings etc they suddenly do repeated reverse loopings by themselves when I make them fly horizontal. They then crash or worse, the inertia rips it apart and makes it explode mid-air after a few involuntary loops.

And now while they don't loop, without a SAS they basically don't turn and SAS's look way silly. :( We can all guess what happens:

(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4861/f16s.png)

So time to try those ailerons and hope for the best.
You could always add SAS scripts to a different object.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on September 13, 2011, 12:29:19 pm
So far when I build complicated planes with tailwings etc they suddenly do repeated reverse loopings by themselves when I make them fly horizontal. They then crash or worse, the inertia rips it apart and makes it explode mid-air after a few involuntary loops.

And now while they don't loop, without a SAS they basically don't turn and SAS's look way silly. :( We can all guess what happens:

(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4861/f16s.png)

So time to try those ailerons and hope for the best.
You could always add SAS scripts to a different object.

I'll properly make a SAS devide of the tiny stock couplers. I don't have a joystick to keep the plane in control for the ailerons (which give a wobbly control to keyboard flying).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 13, 2011, 12:57:34 pm
Adding control surfaces helped me out with the design I used.
Also, awesome F-16'ish fighter there. :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on September 13, 2011, 06:13:22 pm
So, I decided I'd try making missiles that mount on the wingtips of an atmospheric fighter, though of course we'll start off very simplistic. It's deadly to the crew. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7Lfus1TfKk)

WHY ARE THEY ALL HAPPY!??!?!?!?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on September 13, 2011, 06:13:51 pm
0.10.1 is out...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on September 13, 2011, 06:30:09 pm
It works! Quite decent.. gonna get a joystick emulator though.

(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8002/miraged.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 13, 2011, 06:37:12 pm
So, I decided I'd try making missiles that mount on the wingtips of an atmospheric fighter, though of course we'll start off very simplistic. It's deadly to the crew. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7Lfus1TfKk)

WHY ARE THEY ALL HAPPY!??!?!?!?
When they learned their fate, their minds snapped.

(Not really it's because they tend to smile when objects in visual [But not physical] range explode)

Wow -Sara- that's awesome, Mirage 2000?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on September 13, 2011, 06:40:04 pm
So, I decided I'd try making missiles that mount on the wingtips of an atmospheric fighter, though of course we'll start off very simplistic. It's deadly to the crew. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7Lfus1TfKk)

WHY ARE THEY ALL HAPPY!??!?!?!?
When they learned their fate, their minds snapped.

(Not really it's because they tend to smile when objects in visual [But not physical] range explode)

Wow -Sara- that's awesome, Mirage 2000?

Sort of.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 13, 2011, 06:41:55 pm
(http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/6641/screenshot12mc.png)
Oops? I wasn't breaking atmosphere at these extremes with this fighter (Same as that video) before I updated, the atmospheric ceiling was even doubled!
I mean, this wasn't meant to exceed maybe an altitude of 10k before its handling becomes meaningless.

Hey look a black hole!

21 minutes of non-stop screaming, Bill and Bob are going to lose their voices at this rate...
If it ever comes back down.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: deathfun on September 14, 2011, 02:33:33 pm
So, I decided I'd try making missiles that mount on the wingtips of an atmospheric fighter, though of course we'll start off very simplistic. It's deadly to the crew. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7Lfus1TfKk)

HAHA! Oh god that was priceless

Why were Bill and Bob freaking out for 21 minutes anyways?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Patriot on September 14, 2011, 03:02:23 pm
They ALWAYS freak out o.o
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on September 14, 2011, 04:31:10 pm
JSF as we still call them in dutch, or F-35 (Lightning II) as most others call it.

Flies like a charm!

(http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/6026/f35.png)

So, I decided I'd try making missiles that mount on the wingtips of an atmospheric fighter, though of course we'll start off very simplistic. It's deadly to the crew. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7Lfus1TfKk)

HAHA! Oh god that was priceless

Why were Bill and Bob freaking out for 21 minutes anyways?

1G too many, weird angle, the ship did something less than X minutes ago like rocking back and forth, turning too sharp, w/e. A lot of conditions. For Bob the conditions are slightly more sensitive.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: deathfun on September 14, 2011, 04:43:00 pm
So essentially, Jeb is a badass and the others are panzies
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on September 14, 2011, 04:46:58 pm
Or the others have common sense and Jeb is a tiny bit strange. ;)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on September 14, 2011, 04:47:37 pm
So essentially, Jeb is a badass and the others are panzies

the only time Jeb panics is when death is imminent, though not always, the other two freak out on launch
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on September 14, 2011, 04:50:18 pm
Jeb often smiles from ear to ear when he's about to die. Heck I've seen Jeb after a panic attack smile happily in the last frame before his demise in a crash.

(http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/sad.gif) (http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/grin.gif) (http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/shocked.gif)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on September 14, 2011, 04:54:10 pm
Jeb often smiles from ear to ear when he's about to die. Heck I've seen Jeb after a panic attack smile happily in the last frame before his demise in a crash.

(http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/sad.gif) (http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/grin.gif) (http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/shocked.gif)

cool smileys
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on September 14, 2011, 05:50:49 pm
From the original forum.

PPJoy should be a good joystick emulator, it makes you mouse act as a joystick, by moving the mouse the virtual joystick is read as off the centre and movement follows. VirtualJoystick should do too.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: deathfun on September 14, 2011, 06:23:53 pm
Jeb often smiles from ear to ear when he's about to die. Heck I've seen Jeb after a panic attack smile happily in the last frame before his demise in a crash.

(http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/sad.gif) (http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/grin.gif) (http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/shocked.gif)

He truly smiles in the face of death
This is what astronauts are made of.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on September 14, 2011, 06:30:20 pm
left to right, jelly, neutronium and mush
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on September 15, 2011, 04:17:36 pm
From the original forum.

PPJoy should be a good joystick emulator, it makes you mouse act as a joystick, by moving the mouse the virtual joystick is read as off the centre and movement follows. VirtualJoystick should do too.

ppjoy's configuration tools are kinda lame. fortunately it comes with c libs so you can make your own. or you can use glove pie and script the living **** out of it till it acts the way you want it to (technically youre still using ppjoy, since it uses the ppjoy driver).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 15, 2011, 04:24:56 pm
I'm pissed out of my ****ing mind. For no reason whatsoever the atmospheric craft that I've gotten to the point where it rarely breaks apart from landings decides to corrupt itself, FOR NO ****ING REASON, and says it's missing parts, when IT ISN'T. Trying to load it simply locks the VAB and trying to launch it from the Space Center menu just cause the game to lock up, so I'm forced to rebuild it, and now it does nothing but explode when I have it remade to the pixel.
What the goddamned ****ing **** is this.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on September 15, 2011, 04:40:06 pm
What the goddamned ****ing **** is this.

An early development version.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 15, 2011, 04:41:17 pm
Which would have nothing to do with one thing behaving entirely differently than the exact same thing.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on September 15, 2011, 07:31:13 pm
Uh, that's par for the course... parts can change, code can change, the way the craft files are read can change. You should be aware of this (we're all alpha testers so far).

If a ship created in old KSP version doesn't work, either use it with old version of the game or recreate it in new version.


On other topic, I made this:

(http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5572/kerbalsonegar.png)



The Lander is a development of Saturn V clone that I made mostly from Sunday Punch parts, except the lander legs which are done by someone else.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 15, 2011, 07:37:09 pm
I began the first design on 0.10 with C7Flight 1.2, then rebuilt it after getting 0.10.1 and C7Flight 1.3, it's only common sense.
But when nothing else after 0.10.1 and 1.3 had changed and the problem suddenly occurs, when nothing has changed because it's still the same versions of KSP and C7Flight, then things start not making sense.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on September 15, 2011, 07:48:59 pm
Then, report bug?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 15, 2011, 07:55:16 pm
The .craft file was sent earlier.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: deathfun on September 16, 2011, 12:58:36 am
Finally got around to playing around with this
Safe to say, I've never had so much murdering people

Though I just had a similar issue that Zane just had, with the exact same model acting differently the second time round
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on September 17, 2011, 02:36:29 pm
finally managed to get my ion engine array into orbit. photo taken at perikerb
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot0.jpg)

despite that this thing has enough delta-v to get to the nearest planet and back, bob, and bill are still rather apprehensive about the whole mission.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on September 17, 2011, 03:02:43 pm
wow this game is hard, I can't get anything further than 200000 m away from the planet.

where do you get those engines?, mods?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on September 17, 2011, 03:40:27 pm
http://www.kerbalspacerepository.com/

i still havent figured out where to get all the aircraft parts yet. i downloaded one pack but it just had a couple wings and a fuselage section. i dont know where everyones getting those parts from. but the engines there are from the mmi ion engine pack. the 3-way coupler is the Joyeuse Industries Coupler. the flat decoupler between the pod and the sas is from the Silisko Industries Doughnut Research & Spacecraft Development Pack (most of my stack is made from these parts). id like to show off the rest of the stack but im still waiting for the ship to reach apokerb. been flying with the engine off since i took the screenie. im now at 3100k and climbing. speed is 800m/sec right now. i may just end up flying completely out of the gravity well if i apply any more prograde thrust.

the flight was kind of intresting. ship had 4 main engines and 4 lf boosters. took off at walking pace, cleared the tower, ejected the take off struts (sitting on the engine broke the ship so i added landing struts on lateral decouplers, that i could eject after clearing the pad), at this point i throttled back and lit the lf boosters. climbed straight up till the boosters ran out, ejected those and throttled up the 4 main engines, which ran out a few seconds later. dropped that stage and lit the next. still climbing vertically. this part of the flight was kinda boring, making a slow but steady climb out of the gravity well. those engines ran out. lit a new stage, this one smaller in the middle of where the 4 second stage tanks were. this engine didnt seem to give me any lift, but i wasnt loosing any speed either. stayed like this till the first tank was gone, started picking up some speed. when i got to the last tank i did a 30 degree rotation to 09er (does kerbin spin? is there any reason to take off east?), until that engine ran out. ejected that. next stake was 4 small lf engines with small tanks. surprisingly i got some acceleration out of them. i  rotated the ship to 45 degrees halfway through and ejected them when they ran out. then i lit the ion stage, put the crosshair on 90 degrees and just did a long slow acceleration. i wasnt entirely sure id have enough time to accelerate to orbital velocity before i came back down, but managed it with quite a large margin of error and a ****ton of fuel left over. this launch is special because of the surplus delta-v i have after attaining orbit.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on September 17, 2011, 05:40:18 pm
finally managed to get my kerbonaughts home in one peice. i got bored of ascending to apokerb (i would have likely never came back around), so i turned the ship prograde and burned untill my velocity was zero, then i pointed my ship at the light side horizon and turned my ion engines on full, till i got to about 2km/s, and killed the engine. by the time i got there i was going 3.5 km/s. i stayed attatched to the ion stage during re-entry, and ejected it when i got below 1km/s. nice smooth landing. i had only used 1/5th of the ion fuel during the entire flight. if kerbin had a moon, i could have orbited it and came back no problem.

anyway this is the stack that made the voyage possible
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot5.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on September 17, 2011, 07:14:46 pm
wow, thanks will be checking that site then :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on September 17, 2011, 08:33:21 pm
http://www.kerbalspacerepository.com/

i still havent figured out where to get all the aircraft parts yet. i downloaded one pack but it just had a couple wings and a fuselage section. i dont know where everyones getting those parts from. but the engines there are from the mmi ion engine pack. the 3-way coupler is the Joyeuse Industries Coupler. the flat decoupler between the pod and the sas is from the Silisko Industries Doughnut Research & Spacecraft Development Pack (most of my stack is made from these parts). id like to show off the rest of the stack but im still waiting for the ship to reach apokerb. been flying with the engine off since i took the screenie. im now at 3100k and climbing. speed is 800m/sec right now. i may just end up flying completely out of the gravity well if i apply any more prograde thrust.

the flight was kind of intresting. ship had 4 main engines and 4 lf boosters. took off at walking pace, cleared the tower, ejected the take off struts (sitting on the engine broke the ship so i added landing struts on lateral decouplers, that i could eject after clearing the pad), at this point i throttled back and lit the lf boosters. climbed straight up till the boosters ran out, ejected those and throttled up the 4 main engines, which ran out a few seconds later. dropped that stage and lit the next. still climbing vertically. this part of the flight was kinda boring, making a slow but steady climb out of the gravity well. those engines ran out. lit a new stage, this one smaller in the middle of where the 4 second stage tanks were. this engine didnt seem to give me any lift, but i wasnt loosing any speed either. stayed like this till the first tank was gone, started picking up some speed. when i got to the last tank i did a 30 degree rotation to 09er (does kerbin spin? is there any reason to take off east?), until that engine ran out. ejected that. next stake was 4 small lf engines with small tanks. surprisingly i got some acceleration out of them. i  rotated the ship to 45 degrees halfway through and ejected them when they ran out. then i lit the ion stage, put the crosshair on 90 degrees and just did a long slow acceleration. i wasnt entirely sure id have enough time to accelerate to orbital velocity before i came back down, but managed it with quite a large margin of error and a ****ton of fuel left over. this launch is special because of the surplus delta-v i have after attaining orbit.

Kerbal Space Repository is often terribly outdated. Not everyone uploads there and many beta-testing packs made by players are only spread over the KSP forum. The repository needs an admin who plucks stuff from the forum and puts it up there but it seems whoever does it makes little spare time for that, or it's only the players themselves who upload to the repository. I suggest going to this board on the forum instead: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?board=14.0 to get new bits such as the flight pack.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on September 17, 2011, 08:41:12 pm
anyway ive found the flight pack. but it requires version 0.10.1 and ive yet to be able to download it successfully. its not that their download is often bad, its that its always bad. ive never been able to download the game form the official site. i havent been able to find a mirror either, so i guess im not gonna be using the flight pack any time soon.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on September 17, 2011, 08:50:25 pm
really ?
I can't say I've had any -issues with their official download it must be an issue with a trans-atlantic internet tube or something .
 
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 17, 2011, 09:25:12 pm
Sure wish I could go back into the KSP sites. Past two days it refuses to let me in the main site, the forum, the Wiki, anything it just says **** you no KSP for you.
Deleted everything in the browsing history several times, nothing.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on September 17, 2011, 10:05:56 pm
Sure wish I could go back into the KSP sites. Past two days it refuses to let me in the main site, the forum, the Wiki, anything it just says **** you no KSP for you.
Deleted everything in the browsing history several times, nothing.

http://proxy.org/
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 17, 2011, 10:45:20 pm
Can't use it. Slow as almighty **** and floods the screen with pop-ups. It doesn't even let me submit the post I try making for the problem I was having with the craft I was using and instead just goes to some MySpace bull****.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on September 18, 2011, 01:03:55 am
Hey does Kerbin revolve? I'm toying with a thought of putting a satelite on geostationary orbit, but that's impossible if the planet stays still :P
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Iss Mneur on September 18, 2011, 08:42:18 am
Hey does Kerbin revolve? I'm toying with a thought of putting a satelite on geostationary orbit, but that's impossible if the planet stays still :P
As far as I can tell Kerbal does not spin and according to some previous reading on the Kerbal forums it does not spin (at least as of 0.9, which was the last time that I had checked).

Personally, I think time compression would be required before the planet starts spinning.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on September 18, 2011, 04:34:06 pm
you would need a lot of things before you could do any kinds of precise orbital maneuvers. time compression would be needed to wait for a launch window and for any distance travel. on top of that you would need more instrumentation. would need some kind of orbital information display, and some way to plot a course to your destination. really i think that would end up making the game less fun. if you want that go play orbiter.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on September 18, 2011, 06:16:52 pm
you would need a lot of things before you could do any kinds of precise orbital maneuvers. time compression would be needed to wait for a launch window and for any distance travel. on top of that you would need more instrumentation. would need some kind of orbital information display, and some way to plot a course to your destination. really i think that would end up making the game less fun. if you want that go play orbiter.
Depends how precise you want it to be. Orbits can already be fairly low eccentricity but actual maneuvers (like a space station docking) would be very difficult.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on September 19, 2011, 08:31:33 am
Managed yesterday to give a C7 plane VTOL features. :nod:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on September 19, 2011, 12:28:05 pm
I finally managed to land a C7 plane xD And it required use of 3 side-mountable parachutes just to slow it down enough for it not to break, but i finally did it.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 19, 2011, 12:35:22 pm
My plane touches the ground and vaporizes.
My other iteration didn't do that. Except now it's screwed up.
And I can't do anything about it because I can't go in the forums.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on September 19, 2011, 01:25:07 pm
i landed my heavy bomber just fine, but most of the time i end up loosing the tail section. only landed it once in one piece.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on September 19, 2011, 02:13:12 pm
When I have spare time, I'm going to slap together a TIE-Fighter component pack. With different fuselages, wing-couplers, wing components and engines. :P
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: deathfun on September 19, 2011, 02:41:27 pm
That makes me want to launch a Death Star Sara, and place it in orbit
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on September 22, 2011, 05:12:52 am
Russian S1-U. The upon one time intended contender to the V.

Ready to take off.
(http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/1427/s1u.png)

Stage 3, using it's huge engine with many burners to get this hulk off the ground.
(http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/5211/s1u1.png)

Stage 2, using it's large booster after having shaken off the bottom stage, to leave the atmosphere further. Really making speed now!
(http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/3817/s1u2.png)

Stage 1, using the smaller but powerful engine to escape the Kearth's gravity by building up enough velocity.
(http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/3329/s1u3.png)

Separating! Using the escape tower's thrusters to pull the pod from it's last stage.
(http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/3963/s1us.png)

Aaaaand, she's gone! Should have packed a heat shield...
(http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4486/s1up.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: deathfun on September 22, 2011, 10:51:25 am
*cough* showoff *cough*

I need to get me some of these packs
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on September 23, 2011, 01:37:00 am
Y'know, after i got used to C7, i hardly ever use anything else :) May i present you the Mother of Invention:
(http://nohiki.ic.cz/gallery/ksp/MoI/screenshot0.png)
(http://nohiki.ic.cz/gallery/ksp/MoI/screenshot1.png)
Onwards!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on September 23, 2011, 01:40:43 am
im kinda thinking that the c7 pack is a little overpowered. i only say this after accidentally putting a shoddy delta wing craft into orbit.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on September 23, 2011, 01:50:43 am
Yeah. Those engines can hold incredible amount of weight on the launch pad. Similar rockets from other packs just collapsed. But think about it as being designed to glide in atmosphere, not putting into orbit. You need more powerful stuff there or you'll just crash. The bus wings are quickly becoming my fav for that
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 23, 2011, 06:45:39 am
Well that pack isn't really overpowered when you're not using engines that can put your rocket into the hundred thousands of m/s before running out of fuel. :P
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Sara- on September 23, 2011, 12:34:04 pm
Today I made an Ornithopter.. >_> by pressing up and down rapidly the wings flap and keep it in the air.  :yes: :yes:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 23, 2011, 12:40:10 pm
I made a plane that did that unintentionally.
Then I intentionally made it flap about until the wings shredded off and impacted with the fuselage of said plane. :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on September 24, 2011, 01:09:39 am
"screenshot or it didn't happen" * KSP Forums :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on September 24, 2011, 02:58:08 am
if i took a picture of every stupid thing i did in a game the tubes would be too clogged that it would be impossible to watch porn on the internet!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: deathfun on September 24, 2011, 08:32:48 am
Good thing I don't watch my porn on the internet!
Err

I don't know what you're talking about
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on September 24, 2011, 09:43:54 am
"screenshot or it didn't happen" * KSP Forums :D
Except I can't get in anymore. Ever. :P
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on October 06, 2011, 07:50:26 pm
For anyone still playing this and interested there are experimental Builds for the upcoming 1.1 release of KSP that you can download from the site. Currently new features are RCS thrusters, advanced SAS for maintaining pitch and heading via automated control surface operation, time compression, orbital mapping, new space skybox, splashdown effect with added water physics (Watch your Command Module bob about in the ocean after splashdown), redesigned launch pad, stall mechanics, and an atmospheric gauge where the MET ticker normally is (You'll find that on the top-left corner now).

That's all the new stuff I can think of that doesn't involve mod parts. Though they did something with the way textures worked so any mod parts you get that aren't for at least the first 1.1 experimental Build will have a red overlay on it, and I think the C7 Flight Pack is the only part pack that is updated with the new texture method.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 07, 2011, 08:11:48 pm
also time compression, thank lucifer!

love the orbital map. i can finly determine when my trajectory is sufficient to kill thrusters, wait for apokerb and then fire a trim burn. also give space newbs a crash course in orbital mechanics, without giving them a page of numbers to deal with (im pointing at you orbiter).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 08, 2011, 01:34:00 pm
well after well over 400 days in space and 77 billion meters away from home, bill and bob are no less still scared ****less than they were on the launch pad. doesnt phase old jeb one bit, though he just used up the last roll of toilet paper.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot3.jpg)

also in the time it took me to get a screen shot, compress it to a sane level and upload it to photo bucket, the mission has reached day 500 and an altitude of 100 billion m. time compression really makes these long duration missions almost bearable. you cant see it but the ship is shaking rather violently due to the loss of floating point precision.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on October 08, 2011, 01:50:03 pm
Could also be because of the advanced SAS. At least inside the atmosphere I notice the aircraft I make with that part tends to shake about when it's active.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 08, 2011, 07:21:39 pm
no, it gets progressively worse as your distance from kirbin goes up. same thing happens in space combat and even in freespace under my newtonian script. its a common problem with space sims. you add your timesliced velocity to your position every frame, and when you add a big number to a small number, you loose any precision data from the small number, or worse, get a qnan error. ksp still uses a fixed world frame of reference. games like orbiter use dynamic frames of reference that ensure that you dont break the math.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on October 08, 2011, 07:25:26 pm
Seems the X3 Build did something to royally **** up atmospheric craft, my craft based on the SR-Mockingbird uses one fuel tank and goes into a never-ending fit of pitching up, with no way to fight the nose down. This did not occur on the X1 or X2 Builds ever.
I'd love to post about it for the exact details since their experimental Build thread is sort of undescriptive of all of their changed, but you know, I can't.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Thaeris on October 08, 2011, 07:32:13 pm
How in the blazes did you get banned from that board, anyway?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on October 08, 2011, 07:50:48 pm
I'm not banned from it, that's the thing. I try to go into not just the forum, but the Wiki, the main Kerbal Space Program site itself, anything that says kerbalspaceprogram.com in the URL, it goes to the "Cannot display the webpage" page, regardless of browser, regardless of deleting everything in the browser history, regardless of the number of times the router is reset, there is not a single thing that lets me back in.

-Sara- said use a Proxy, that only does so much; doesn't let me post still. Log in? Yes. Post? No. Download files that don't have the actual URL typed out? No. Otherwise I just copy / paste the URL outside of the Proxy and boom, download. That's the only way I'm keeping up-to-date on the game, I can't address things that are potential issues though like my above post, which seems that the order fuel is consumed has been reversed, I'd like to clarify, as I haven't seen other posts relating to it.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 08, 2011, 09:10:00 pm
given the frequent corruption of the downloads and several people who cant access the site at all, id say they have more than a few issues with their web hosting provider.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on October 09, 2011, 11:39:28 am
Freakin' rockets (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshots/?tab=&showdate=1&filter=shortcut_47576)...  How do they work? (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshot/558669913756619403?filter=shortcut_47576)

That's my latest monstrocity, Tripod VI, which hits about 7.3 km/s on a vertical launch.  That doesn't hold a candle to Shade's work, but then again, Shade seems to know what he's doing.  ;)  I want to try to get this particular design into a stable orbit at some point.  That seems like a task that becomes more and more challenging as the size of the rocket increases, but that's why it's fun!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on October 09, 2011, 04:01:10 pm
Heck, I don't get anything into a stable orbit...
And the engines of the c7 pack are useless crap...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on October 09, 2011, 04:59:13 pm
Give a C7 craft anything more powerful than what the pack gives you and you'll be very likely to send it doing loops into the ground.
Even the SR-Mockingbird-esque craft I built normally uses three of those engines. Give it one of CaptainSlug's aerospike engines (Just slightly more powerful than the stock game's liquid thruster), you'll do alright. Give it two, you're pushing it. Three? Good luck trying to fly it level for five seconds.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on October 09, 2011, 05:47:38 pm
The only problem I realy have is that they don't have enouggh power...three stock liquid engines bring it up pretty well...three of the c7 engines and it starts two spin circles...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof on October 09, 2011, 10:30:03 pm
Orbital insertions are confusing... Getting into an orbit is easy, adjusting it, not so much.  Example, I am at the highest point, and want to make it lower, so I thrust straight down.  This leaves the highest point exactly where it is but drops my lowest point lower.  I are cornfused.  :wtf:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 09, 2011, 10:51:28 pm
burn retrograde and it makes the opposite side of the orbit lower, prograde makes it go higher. if you want to lower your apogee, you need to wait till your at perigee and then burn retrograde. pointing your nose at the planet and burning your engine oddly doesnt have much effect other than wasting fuel. the way space ships approach planets in scifi movies is completely bogus, you never fly straight to the planet.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on October 09, 2011, 11:05:21 pm
Orbital insertions are confusing... Getting into an orbit is easy, adjusting it, not so much.  Example, I am at the highest point, and want to make it lower, so I thrust straight down.  This leaves the highest point exactly where it is but drops my lowest point lower.  I are cornfused.  :wtf:

It's not that confusing.

If you want to adjust the highest point of orbit, you perform a prograde or retrograde burn at the lowest point of your orbit.

If you want to adjust the lowest point of your orbit, you perform a prograde or retrograde burn at the highest point of orbit.

Zenith and anti-zenith burns should only be used for very small velocity changes, such as close range rendezvous and velocity synchronizing, or fine tuning the eccentricity of your orbit by minimizing the vertical speed component while keeping your orbital velocity as close as possible to the nominal orbital velocity at that specific altitude.

An elliptical orbit is a pretty nice element of how harmonics work in nature, actually. There's a periodic oscillation between potential- and kinetic energy levels. At periapsis, the kinetic energy is highest and potential energy lowest. The amount of kinetic energy will define how high the orbiting body will end up at apoapsis, where the kinetic energy is at its lowest and potential energy (altitude) highest.


Reducing kinetic energy at low point will mean the spaceship won't raise as high up on the "uphill" leg of its orbit. That'll mean the highest point of your orbit will be reduced, which is what you wanted to do in your example.

It can feel a bit unintuitive how orbits work, but if you keep at it you'll eventually gain a more natural understanding of how orbital mechanics works.


A good example would be a situation where you and a rendezvous target are on a similar, circular orbit, but the target is orbiting 100 km ahead of you.

The layman's best idea of meeting up with the target would likely be to point the nose at it and hit the burners, but in actual orbital mechanics, this would actually make you fall behind of your target.

The reason for this? Well, by increasing your orbital velocity, you push yourself to higher orbit, above the target orbit; and a simple geometric exercise will reveal that the higher orbit is a longer path to travel, and subsequently takes longer time to complete - ergo, by trying to go faster, you go slower.

The proper way to rendezvous with a target ahead of you would be to reduce your own orbital velocity so that you drop your own orbit's periapsis below the target orbit. That'll give you a shorter distance to travel, and you'll end up catching the target. Once you are close enough at apoapsis, you then accelerate to same orbital velocity as the target, and perform short range direct rendezvous maneuvers as required.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 10, 2011, 01:22:47 am
if you really want to learn how to perform simple or complex orbital maneuvers you really got to play with orbiter. you really got to read manual though, and im not sure where i got it but theres a pretty good tutorial on how to fly to the moon and back in the delta glider. ksp keeps things simple though, play with the orbit map and see what kind of effects burns in different directions do, and you can get the hang of it pretty quickly.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on October 10, 2011, 09:00:19 am
Ha, I did it...Orbit...not a stable one, but as of now good ol' Jeb manages to go around kerbin several time...guess he will land somewhere around the southpole...or this strange island...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 10, 2011, 09:24:33 am
once you got half of the orbit kill your engines and wait for apogee and do a prograde burn to raise perigee high enough to form a stable orbit. i like to reserve at least half a tank for orbital manuvers and some of the mod packs contain small tanks/engines for this purpose.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on October 10, 2011, 09:40:39 am
once you got half of the orbit kill your engines and wait for apogee and do a prograde burn to raise perigee high enough to form a stable orbit. i like to reserve at least half a tank for orbital manuvers and some of the mod packs contain small tanks/engines for this purpose.
I find that flipping the craft horizontal and burning towards the horizon also works. You need to get horizontal velocity to achieve a stable orbit. Otherwise, if you wait till the top of the orbit (and depending on your mass and engine) you may not have enough fuel or enough time. Then again my method isn't perfect--you can get into a far less eccentric orbit if you start getting horizontal momentum while still in the atmosphere (though that has the disadvantage of wind resistance).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 10, 2011, 11:19:46 am
i was referring to maneuvers performed after orbit is achieved. to achieve orbit i usually progress between vertical at 20km to flat at about 50km. but once your trajectory covers a fairly large portion of the planet, then its time to kill your engines and wait for apogee to trim. what you dont want to end up with is a really high apogee and no horizontal velocity which i find to be a waste of fuel. its more fuel efficient to aim for a low orbit and use a hohmann transfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohman_transfer) to raise it to the desired level.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof on November 04, 2011, 12:43:33 pm
 :bump:  Experimental version out, we now have the Mun.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 04, 2011, 12:48:32 pm
downloading
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on November 04, 2011, 12:51:47 pm
(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2325/screenshot0y.png)

(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/1563/screenshot1ll.png)
Take that, Logic.

Unfortunately they died.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 04, 2011, 03:53:25 pm
so after building a modest rocket capable of placing a ship into orbit with enough delta-v to **** around with, i proceed to launch to orbit:
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot13.jpg)
i managed to plot a trans-lunar injection burn. this being only my second attempt (the first failing by me accidentally jettisoning a booster that i was still using). i figured out that you wanted to lead the moon of kerbin by about 1/4 an orbit. it was a retrograde orbit caused by a slight navigational error (jeb went the wrong way during the roll manuver). i thought i wouldnt make capture range as i crossed the moons orbit rather early, but managed to get capture on the rebound. i provided retrograde thrust to slow me down enough to get capture.

due to a glitch with the sas system, which i could not turn off and having it lock me out of the controls, i missed a second burn at periapsis to make my elliptical orbit more round. for some reason during the course of my orbit i lost some velocity and was in danger of hitting the moon on my next pass, but i was still locked out of my manuvering controls. after hitting keys at random i managed to turn the thing off and was close enough to apoapsis (though slightly past it) to fire a correcting burn. unfortunately i ran out of fuel before compleeting the maneuver. but fortunately for me i had a full tank of rcs fuel!. i had just enough time to pick that orbital trajectory off of the far side of the moon. coming bact arouhnd over the next several orbits i was able to make the orbit circular. a landing was out of the question but i wanted to see if the moon had any atmo. so i used the last of my rcs fuel and my the kick from my decoupler to dip into the ground:
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot0-1.jpg)
jeb and crew, accepting their fate, bid farewell to their homeworld for the last time, as they decend into the realm of death, at around 570m/s:
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot11.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Kszyhu on November 04, 2011, 05:34:19 pm
About the SAS locking - I don't know if it's the intended behaviour or a bug, but you can't turn off SAS when there's time warp enabled.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on November 04, 2011, 05:41:11 pm
All input functions lock above 2x compression.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 04, 2011, 06:39:47 pm
i wasnt under any compression. i had dropped it to 1x before attempting to kill the sas and perform the maneuver. i think it had something to do with changing the to the orbital view changing changing and switching back. i tried everything, messed with compression, changed views, toggled the rcs (which it let me do), eventually the sas key responded. il try to see if it is repeatable, and report it to the ksp people if it is.

anyway i think the nav sphere now needs normal and anti-normal direction indicators so you can do plane alignment manuvers more easily. also need icons on the ascending and decending nodes in the orbital display to determine when to do a plane alignment manuver. you kinda have to do it by eyeball right now. look at the lunar orbit edge on and find the low/high part of your the orbit around kerbin, an do your normal/antinormal burn there, finding normal and antinormal is really difficult though, especially if you have a high inclination. its workable but not the way im used to deal with celestial navigation.

i am working on trying to land and return to kerbin now. i need a beefy stack to lift everything i need for the complete trip. i tried the saturn stack but it falls apart in this version. ive got the re-entry capsule, a decoupler, an rcs tank and quads, a lf tank and an engine to return home from lunar orbit with, i got small srbs to get off the moon and some smallish descent engines, and on top of that i need propulsion to get to the moon (ion engine!). and i still need to launch it. too bad you cant do a rendezvous maneuver yet.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on November 05, 2011, 01:02:19 am
Juturn V with the Munlander Mk.II Spacecraft

(http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/5413/screenshot142.png)


Juturn V is a three-staged launch vehicle.

(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3892/screenshot145e.png)

First stage contains five kerosene and liquid oxygen burning, powerful engines. Aerodynamic control is provided with four moving fins. Future variants are expected to use gimbal engines on all stages. This first stage is used to lift the massive vehicle from the launch pad and through the lower atmosphere.

(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/8762/stage2f.png)

Second stage contains five hydrogen-oxygen burning rockets that have gimbal mounts to provide control during ascent. This stage burn lasts significantly longer than Stage #1 burn. Here, the second stage is just being separated.


(http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4373/stage31.png)

The third stage is the actual Mun rocket. It is powered by a single, gimballed liquid fuel rocket engine and provides the necessary delta-v for final orbital insertion burn, transmunar injection burn, and munar orbit entry burn. Its power is in relatively long, sustained burns.



(http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/1694/munlander.png)

On top of the third stage is the Munlander Mk.II Spacecraft. The Munlander was originally developed as a Flophopper Mk.I craft used on Kerbin for various types of practice missions and even orbital re-entries, which is why its engine is rather overpowered for Munar landings, but Jebediah likes it the way it is and it was cheaper and easier to just bolt it on top of Juturn V rocket, than design a more suitable lander craft.

Munlander Mk.II contains technically two stages. The lower stage contains a powerful (and heavy) fission engine with excellent fuel efficiency, yet sufficient thrust to fly the spacecraft safely even on Kerbin's gravity field. In Mun landings, it has very wide safety margins - it has more than enough fuel for powered descent, landing, and even take-off, so it would be amiss to simply call it a descent stage. The lander uses Captain Slug's lander legs - three for optimal stability on uneven terrains. Due to heavy fission engine on the bottom, the lander is surprisingly capable at landing on tilted surfaces without toppling over - indeed, pilots have experienced a tendency to slide down slopes instead of toppling over. This gives the pilots additional safety margin in landings - if first landing zone is not suitable, the craft will not be as likely to fall over as its appearance would suggest.

The top stage was originally designed as an emergency escape pod for the Flophopper Mk.I design. In that incarnation, it had a habit of detonating the lower stage as the engine ignited. The Munlander Mk.II is, however, equipped with retrothrusters that should (in theory) push the lower stage away from the upper stage before engine ignition - and in case they malfunction, the RCS thrusters can also be used for forward thrust. Upper stage is powered by a small liquid fuel rocket engine and the craft has plenty of fuel to return to Kerbin from Mun mission.

The lower stage of Munlander Mk.II contains one RCS fuel tank and a single SAS module, and the upper stage contains a single RCS fuel tank.

(http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/8784/screenshot59h.png)

For extravehicular activity on the Mun, the craft is fitted with rope ladders. It is hoped that in the future, additional cargo (such as Munar Rover, or scientific equipment) can be fitted in the space between fairings and the core of the lower stage.


On the very top of the stack is a Command Module that acts as the habitat for the crew during the duration of the mission.



Getting to Moon is not a very straightforward process, much less so than simply entering stable orbit.

After stabilizing an orbit around Kerbin, a transmunar injection burn needs to be plotted. Transmunar injection puts the spacecraft on a transfer orbit to rendezvous with the Mun.

(http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1569/screenshot23s.png)
(http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2323/screenshot26cy.png)
(http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/587/screenshot27c.png)

After moving to the gravitational influence of the Mun, you will find your spacecraft most likely on a hyperbolic trajectory around or behind the Mun:

(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/9062/screenshot30my.png)
(http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7761/screenshot32r.png)

Near the periapsis, the third stage of Juturn V performs its last required task: Insertion on Munar orbit by slowing down the spacecraft with its remaining fuel.

(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/5940/screenshot33q.png)
(http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1606/screenshot38w.png)

Orbit successfully stabilized! The third stage had enough fuel in this mission that it actually moved the periapsis to the other side of the orbit, and the entry point became the new apoapsis for the orbit.

After orbit was stabilized, it was time to jettison the third stage. Munlander was now on its own, far from home.

(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/1853/screenshot40u.png)
(http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/47/screenshot44v.png)


Next step was planning the de-orbit, descent and landing zone. I decided I would be landing next to the large Mare on the lit side of the Mun, preferably near the rim mountains around it. That meant I would be starting my de-orbit and descent near the periapsis of the orbit. As the ship emerged from the shadow of the Mun, the vista was truly magnificent.

(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4421/screenshot50qrg.png)

The de-orbit burn put the spacecraft on a shallow descent that would take it above the desired landing zone. During this high speed, unpowered descent, some final adjustments could be made for the general landing zone.

(http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/8365/screenshot58c.png)

Powered descent started as the craft passed south of the dark Mare on the Mun. This maneuver put the craft on a steeper descent path but also slowed down the total velocity significantly. The angle of descent would gradially deepen until the craft would descend vertically before touchdown. Final descent began at altitude of about 6000 metres above Munar surface.

(http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/5043/screenshot60s.png)
(http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/950/screenshot61z.png)
(http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/3373/screenshot62n.png)

This first touchdown was in too steep territory, and as the ship tilted dangerously, commander Kerman increased thrust to take the ship back up, then located a more suitable landing area and finally put the ship down for good.

(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/30/screenshot63l.png)
(http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1640/screenshot65c.png)

The final touchdown occurred at flight time 7 hours, 17 minutes and probably about 10-20 seconds (no one was watching the clock at the exact moment, so it'll never be known exactly). Landing area was a few dozen kilometres southeast of the aforementioned Mare, on the foothills of the ridge mountains.

(http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/8046/screenshot66.png)

After spending some jolly good time on the surface of the Mun, the Kerbalkind's brave ambassadors left this foreign world and headed home.

(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/5622/screenshot69o.png)
(http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/5861/screenshot71x.png)

Full speed ahead! The remaining fuel on the lower stage of Munlander was sufficient to boost the spacecraft to a ballistic trajectory about ye high:

(http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/516/screenshot72.png)

At the top of the arc, it was time to lay the lower stage to rest and separate the command/service module on top of it for the remainder of the mission, and then boost the ship first on stable orbit around the Mun:

(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/9931/screenshot74q.png)
(http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/5762/screenshot78v.png)
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/9607/screenshot80s.png)

Setting homebound orbit was trickier than I expected. Initially the trajectory looked all fine and good... with stunning visuals on the way home:

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1948/screenshot92d.png
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9049/screenshot93.png

...but, at the gravitational switch point between Mun and Kerbin, something strange happened:

(http://i.imgur.com/3cmD0.gif)

Basically, I got stuck between two orbits and the game didn't know which one I was supposed to follow. What was even worse, the game thought I was experiencing acceleration, and limited time compression to 2x, so I spent ages in this point. Worse still, as the game was switching between the two trajectories, it also switched the orbit-relative camera angle all the time, making the normal view completely epileptic and unplayable. After a while, I got fed up, did a burn of couple dozen seconds at full power to get out of the conflict area, and eventually the flickering tuned down and eventually stopped. I didn't truly hit Lagrange point, but it was close.

However, now I had a problem, as the ship initially settled on this kind of trajectory:


(http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/2192/screenshot118s.png)

...and I had to do some rather fuel consuming trickery to change my trajectory to this:

(http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/1576/screenshot119mp.png)

As I got close to perikerb, I did a long ass retrograde burn, trying to align my trajectory with Kerbal Space Center location - but, as it turns out, the trajectory fell a bit short.

(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7627/screenshot122t.png)

After deciding I had finalized my trajectory, I jettisoned the service module:

(http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2710/screenshot125g.png)

Space center in sight... so close, yet so far. Already too deep in atmosphere. Well, nothing to it... will just perform normal parachute landing somewhere in the deepest Kerfrica.

(http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5711/screenshot131k.png)
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/7304/screenshot132x.png)
(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/839/screenshot135c.png)
(http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/540/screenshot138u.png)


This successful mission was a huge surprise to mission control who honestly expected them to run out of fuel or crash at some point during the mission. Reports from Kerbal Space Center indicate heavy casualties of the upper management team, suffering afflictions ranging from mild nervous twitching and epileptic seizures to full on heart attacks and cerebral hemorrhaging. Crisis team has been assembled to help the affected.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on November 05, 2011, 05:39:19 am
Breaking   news!
Mün   is   radioactive!


Based on the analysis of the samples collected near
the landing zone on the recent Mün landing mission -
the Mün is highly radioactive!



Scientists have found significant quantities of high and medium active isotopes from the samples
recently brought back from the first successful Mün landing with enough leg room to fit in some
scientific devices and haul back samples. The sensational results need to be confirmed by peer
reviewed analysis of the tests, but preliminary inspection of the samples is conclusive with fissile
products.

-The isotopes we found have very short to medium half lifes, says Kerbal Space Program leading
geologist Bobby Bartholomew "Dread Bore" Kerman. -We do not yet have clear picture of the
distribution mechanism of these isotopes, but it does mean that there have been nuclear activity
in the Mün during recent years, possibly even months.

The most vocal supporters of the "Mother Kerbin" theory of the Mün's origin have already hailed this
discovery as a confirmation to the hypothesis that the Mün was separated from Protokerbin in a
massive impact hundreds of years ago. In their opinion, these fissile product isotopes suggest that
the Mün, like Kerbin, contains a high mass percentage of transuranium elements - to an extent where
spontaneous fission is possible.

-There must be a reason for all them craters and holes, and fission reactions undergoing under
the surface of the Mün would certainly explain them, said the chairman of the Society for Promotion
of Mother Kerbin Origin of The Mün, Lawson Carson Anderson "Son" Kermanson. -I mean, sure, some
say that Mün was probably just hit by some Useless Bits of Rock, but come on, seriously, Useless Bits
of Rocks are out there and the Mün is here, clearly there's a miscommunication here.

Meanwhile, the three Kerbonauts, Bill, Bob and Jebediah Kerman, are still in extended quarantine to
make sure they have not been exposed to higher than usual levels of radiation from the Munar dust
carried into their ship during their Munar excursions. So far, all appear to be in excellent health.

In a statement earlier today, the flight crew briefly commented the flight.

-It was eerie, almost everything went smoothly, told the flight's commander, Jebediah "Jeb" Kerman.
Other crew members - William "Bill" and Robert "Bob" Kerman - agree.
-Yeah, aside from that little hijink on the way back, everything went better than exepected, William
Kerman told us. Robert Kerman shed some more light to the brief period when communications were
lost to the crew: -Well we lost communications and then things went a bit weird. I never thought I'd
see a Resonance Cascade, let alone create one, but I guess that's what happened, our displays were
alternating between different orbits and we seemed to be stuck on the neutral gravity area between
Kerbin and Mün, but Jeb - that's Jebediah - he just put the engine on for some time and the problem
went away.

The plans for positioning a satellite on a Lagrange point have been postponed in the light of this
unprecedented risk, until the behaviour of neutral gravity areas are understood better.


---

On other news, Kerbal Space Center has announced a minor design change in the famed Munlander Mk.II
design, in which the lander's extremely efficient fission engine will be replaced by a suitable replacement.
Technical director of the Munlander programme was not available for comment.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on November 05, 2011, 05:40:34 am
Simply amazing.  I was most certain they would not return safely after that trans-Kerbin resonance cascade, as I shall call it.  Awesome that you got them back and in one piece. :D

Now I want to see atmospheric reentry get updated a bit, with reentry flames! :O
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on November 05, 2011, 05:55:04 am
trans-Kerbin resonance cascade


I hope you don't mind that I borrowed that a bit?  :p
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on November 05, 2011, 09:36:40 am
I've never seen those legs before, which pack is that from?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 05, 2011, 11:18:55 am
I've never seen those legs before, which pack is that from?
You should just use the game's stock legs. (http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9725/unledmbm.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on November 05, 2011, 11:26:47 am
Ah hur hur hur. :doubt:

I just realized they're CaptainSlug's lander legs so nevermind.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: TwentyPercentCooler on November 05, 2011, 12:15:14 pm
Herra, do you work for a space agency?

If not, you should.  :lol:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 05, 2011, 01:10:26 pm
my attempt at a lunar lander:
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot19.jpg)
i grossly underestimated the amount of fuel id need for my descent stage so i had to abort. in firing the 3 mini-srbs (these would have been my liftoff engines), i discovered that one of the engines was damaged during launch and did a spinout into the mun's surface, killing the crew.

i actually like the design of the craft. at its core is an ion engine, which carries enough propellant to get to mun and back and then some. this stage is started first but is not ejected until after the de-orbit burn into kerbin's atmosphere. the next stage is the decent engine. the 6 yellow tanks provide some fuel (this was not enough and so these were replaced by 3 standard lf tanks in later models). the ion engine is used in tandem with these (because you cant turn it off once its started), but considering the slow rate of burn the loss is negligible.

right now the lander legs are attached to the decent engines, providing a wide stance for stability. the idea was i would eject the decent stage after liftoff with the srbs, but it is likely there will be fuel left in them at launch. i might just have it set up so i can throttle back the engines and use them for orbital maneuvering later on and just light the srbs for the initial liftoff without ejecting anything. it would be beneficial to attach the lander legs to the srbs then, since they will be ejected first. once exhausted the engines and legs would be jettisoned and the decent engine throttled up. otherwise the decent stage (with legs) would be depleted and ejected first, and the srbs would be used as a second stage. i may even consider the complete removal of the mini-srbs, given their unreliability thus far i might be better without them.

regardless the ion engine will provide transit back to kerbin from munar orbit. since mun only orbits at some ~500m/s, i might consider lifting off from mun (quasi)parallel to its orbital trajectory in the retrograde direction, and use kerbin's gravity to fall to the planet. perhaps i will attempt an aerobreak maneuver to speed my return voyage.  i seriously need to update all my mod packs though, many of them are really old and dont take advantage of the new features.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 05, 2011, 06:16:32 pm
i finally got a chance to fly the final version of the lunar lander of doom, this time with success. my stack. two main lift stages, 14 of the orange tanks each. the upper stage uses gimballed lf engines, while the lower stage some beefy non-gimballed engines from some mod pack.  the ring of gimballed lf engines and tanks were added not to produce lift (the unvectored engines provided enough lift force by themselves) but to stabilize the rocket. without them the rocket tends to topple over as its fuel supply depletes. i tried fins but the ship was really hard to control during lift.

running out of fuel with the boosters results in an immediate loss of control, so i tired to pick a tank that when combined with the gimballed engine run out at roughly the same time as the main engines. turns out the standard lf tank was the best for the job, so i used that. they run out slightly after the main engines. you loose some velocity when this happens, but ejecting them with fuel still in them likes to make things blow up (even if throttled back first). i found the loss of velocity to be acceptable. as a result the boosters are ejected with the first stage.

it was also necessary to attach lander legs to the first stage to prevent the engines form being damaged by the rocket's weight. you might also notice the crossbars connecting the engines. this helps stabilize them so that you dont get spin during lift. if you had connected them horizontally any tilt in one engine would pull other engines along with it adding to the problem, crossbars have the opposite effect, so add inherent stability. these exist on the first 2 stages. there are also crossbars holding the center engine in place as well, but you cant see these.

second stage is a much like the first, except using gimballed engines. these are powerful enough to lift the second stage without any help. they also burn for a real long time and can put the ship in orbit with some fuel to spare. so this gets the trans munar injection started. and are ejected when they are depleted. all this connects to the lander with 4 couplers and 3 1-2 couplers, allowing for 7 main engines for both stages. there were also some small radial srbs in there to help kick the second stage away from the first, to help avoid collisions. these trigger when you seperate the stages. you can then light up the second stage.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot42.jpg)
il spare you the details of the slow as hell tli transit (the joy of ion engines) and get to the good part:
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot26.jpg)
this is the complete upper stage with the ion engine at its core. the ion engines were lit after the 2nd stage was ejected, it still floats around kerbin in a fairly high orbit and should stay there forever. as you can see i only used a little more than half a tank of propellant. it takes a really long time to accelerate enough to raise appokerb to munar orbit, and actually took 2 passes to complete. as a result i missed my intended capture point, so i had to orbit a few times to get capture. when i finally got capture my trajectory intersected mun by a little bit and i had to burn horizontally to miss it before decelerating. im glad i was able to do this with my ion engine and rcs thrusters because i think i had too much velocity to kill with my decent engines and still manage to land.

once again it took the ion engine a really long time to make the orbit circular enough to attempt landing. i lit my decent engine and started in. i periodically used short powerful bursts to keep my velocity down to about 150m/s. when i got close i killed my vertical velocity, and used up the last of my rcs fuel trying to kill my horizontal velocity. after that i killed horizontal velocity by tilting the ship. i had my sas locked to a perfectly vertical orientation, and tilted the ship with wasd untill i was going about 2m/s, i reduced thrust and landed.

i let the kerman boys play a round of kolf (yes, kolf, kerman only ladies forbidden) an packed em all up for the return flight. burned up the liftoff srbs and got a fairly decent apogee on those alone.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot28.jpg)
i decided against munar orbit and that id just keep following my trajectory (which at the time was pointed in the general direction of kerbin), lined up and hit the throttle. needless to say i had a little too much velocity, but i got capture.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot32.jpg).
on top of that my instruments were still using mun as their frame of reference, which made reducing this cometary trajectory into something more circular rather tedious. it took me awhile to determine which direction was retrograde. and once i did i burned up the rest of my decent fuel and ejected the engines. my orbit was still fairly large, and comet-like. i wanted to aerobrake but i was concerned i might pass too close to mun and **** up my trajectory. on top of that my instruments were still in the wrong frame of reference so i used my ion engine to to drop apogee to safely inside mun's orbit (this took a long time).
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot31.jpg)
as i passed kerbin i noticed my readings were correct again. so i killed the engine and waited for apokerb. once there i locked the sas at retrograde and fired the ion engine. i switched to the orbital view and watched the altitude at perikerb, and waited for it to get between 40k and 50k, and killed the engine. and it worked, after 2 passes my orbit started to look more circular. so next time at apokerb i dropped my perikerb to 38k and waited. and when i came around and watched my orbit decay, knowing i was going in this time, i dropped the ion engine. shortly later i made a nice water landing.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot38.jpg)
shortly after landing jeb was arrested by the krs for not filing his tax return on time.

also unlike herra i halved the res and converted to jpeg, so 56kers and my ****ty 0.5 megabit connection can load the pics in a timely manor.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 06, 2011, 08:44:04 am
I reached Munar orbit but I had that rails problem and it tossed me towards the sun at some 9 km/s.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on November 06, 2011, 08:52:23 am
Yeah I've gotten that too. My orbit intersected with Kerbin in two spaced-out points but 10,000x compression is far too slow to try waiting to meet back up with Kerbin in such a scenario so I had to stop.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 06, 2011, 12:07:25 pm
I reached Munar orbit but I had that rails problem and it tossed me towards the sun at some 9 km/s.

accidental gravity assist for the win!
thats why i like ion engines, the margin for error is so much greater and you only need one small fuel tank. aerobreaking can save fuel too but you can only really do it on your return to kerbin. a tiny bit of thrust at apokerb can save you lot of fuel where you would have waited and done a long burn at perikerb. just remember that if you want to stay in your orbit you need to lift perikerb out of the atmosphere or it will continue to decay at each pass.

i think it would be kinda cool to have more moons though. perhaps small ones like phobos or moons with atmosphere like titan, to let you play with maneuvers like gravity assist and aerobraking in a more useful manor.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 06, 2011, 03:20:28 pm
I reached Munar orbit but I had that rails problem and it tossed me towards the sun at some 9 km/s.

accidental gravity assist for the win!
thats why i like ion engines, the margin for error is so much greater and you only need one small fuel tank. aerobreaking can save fuel too but you can only really do it on your return to kerbin. a tiny bit of thrust at apokerb can save you lot of fuel where you would have waited and done a long burn at perikerb. just remember that if you want to stay in your orbit you need to lift perikerb out of the atmosphere or it will continue to decay at each pass.

i think it would be kinda cool to have more moons though. perhaps small ones like phobos or moons with atmosphere like titan, to let you play with maneuvers like gravity assist and aerobraking in a more useful manor.
That wasn't a gravity assist though--that was pure madness! It's also pure annoyance. That said, I know there's a relatively quick way to figure out how to do a 2-body orbital transfer. The tough thing is, while I used a really overpowered rocket (seriously overpowered--designed to reach the Mün with only stock parts), performance is so poor I can't keep a flat orbit with any reliability. Seems like any control surfaces or RCS is ignored.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 06, 2011, 06:47:40 pm
i dont think landing on mun with stock hardware is possible. there are no lander legs for example. there are no light engines/tanks needed for the return trip. that little ion powered lunar lander i built can do the complete round trip from low kerbin orbit and back. id like to be able to pull off the voyage with non-modded parts but im not sure how to pull it off just yet.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on November 06, 2011, 07:38:20 pm
i dont think landing on mun with stock hardware is possible. there are no lander legs for example. there are no light engines/tanks needed for the return trip.

People have done that many times. Don't know if any have returned successfully but I think it's likely.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 07, 2011, 01:43:02 am
im not saying its impossible but it would be really hard to pull off. im pretty sure one tank could get you to mun if you stick with hohmann transfers. you could probably land on an engine, but it could blow up if it hits too hard, and if you pulled it of you might break it in the process, and im not sure you would have the fuel. so you'd need a second tank and engine for the return trip.

one thing i noticed is that the rcs engines are fairly powerful. one tank with 16 rcs quads and a capsule can take off from kerbin and fly around for abit. 3 rcs tanks and 16 quads should handal munar operations jsut fine, and you can land on the fuel tank at low speed. it might be workable to land on a stack decoupler, and this can be ejected at liftoff to save weight. i figure you could get close to the ground and eliminate most of your velocity with a lf engine, and drop it with a second decoupler, leaving one to land on. liftoff would be done with the rcs quads and your best bet would be to burn in the opposite direction to mun's velocity vector (you only need about 500m/s of delta v for this, not counting liftoff and orbit), and allow yourself to fall towards kerbin, and then end with an aerobreak maneuver.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on November 07, 2011, 06:54:16 am
As far as stock goes I've seen radial decouplers used as part of the landing legs. I don't know how reliable that is though.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on November 07, 2011, 07:40:43 am
With stock hardhare.. you kiddin'? I had a terrible time trying to get something into orbit with just stock hard.
Pulled it off eventually but run out of juice half way to the mun... oh man they never returned :C
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on November 07, 2011, 08:30:59 am
Munar Landing thread (http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=3691)

Munar Achievements thread (http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=3707.0)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 07, 2011, 09:07:11 am
With stock hardhare.. you kiddin'? I had a terrible time trying to get something into orbit with just stock hard.
Pulled it off eventually but run out of juice half way to the mun... oh man they never returned :C
I've seen a screenshot of it being done. I'm going to give it a try later. Anyone know if X3 fixed the omfgravityassist bug?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on November 07, 2011, 09:20:54 am
Now I know why I didn't make it, my mine is nearly half the size of those successfully munar rockets :p

edit: achieved munar orbit!...
and a few moments later lost my mission to an issue with the controls locking up and getting me in a weird orbit around the sun.
meh, they were not going to make it back anyway.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 07, 2011, 03:34:09 pm
there is kind of a glitch with the time compression, you can turn it all the way down to 1x in the orbital view, and when you switch back to normal view you still need to turn it down one more time because it thinks its still at 2x.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 07, 2011, 04:01:50 pm
So I am optimizing my Big Munar Lifter (all stock, ofc). It's been an evolving process. As of now, it's a lot faster then my old Big Lifter Mk III. I'm curious about the effects of removing the top booster stages--are they even worthwhile? I'm going to play around with a highly eccentric orbit by blasting straight up and then modifying my direction at the top altitude.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on November 07, 2011, 09:05:08 pm
Big Lifter Mk III

No kidding!, well I guess it's a common name after all.... the one that got me into munar orbit is called Lifter II :P
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 08, 2011, 02:29:12 am
i think i called mine the lunar lander of doom. granted i shoulda called it the munar lander of doom. but at least its something. most of the time i just write in some profanity and save my rocket as that. such as the "douchebag lesbian anal probe", "the ****ing stupid retard piece of **** that crashes", and my favorite "the **** encrusted ****hole of cthulhu". ive just never been good at naming things. most of the stuff in nukemod is named after metal bands.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 08, 2011, 03:55:16 pm
(http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/9828/mun03.png)

So I've made it to the Mün and landed successfully. I even made it off the Mün and into Münar orbit. (Highly eccentric but orbit none the less.) My problem now is that I've run out of LF and am relying upon RCS propellant. To be fair, I didn't even reach orbit with liquid fuel--I a good bit of my take to get there. Now the task is getting OUT of the Mun's sphere of influence. Any ideas? :lol:

(http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/43/mun06.png)

Periapsis: 005,645m
Apoapsis: 204,255m

(http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/317/mun07.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 08, 2011, 04:28:33 pm
use your rcs fuel and plot your trajectory for aerobreaking, aim for a perikerb of like 39k, it will decay over several orbits until you finally re-enter.

of course that would be fairly difficult with your current orbital inclination. im thinking burn prograde at perimun until you loose capture. save some fuel to tweak your trajectory though. its a shame you cant drop all that dead weight. like if you put your rcs system directly onto the capsule, you could jettison the engine, tank and sas. but it looks like you get to drag it, so you probibly wont get home.

you know what we should do? we should build an official hlp community mod pack. we could do freespace themed parts (like shivan parts or vasudan parts) and perhaps community themed parts as well bosch beer engine!. everyone go make a part. its easier than modding fs. its only a dae and a and a part file.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 08, 2011, 04:35:17 pm
I think I figured it out. It just takes a while. The Mün has an orbital period of like 38 hours so I have a window to increase my apoapsis and leave Münar orbit (and be back in the Kearth's sphere of influence). After that it's using the RCS to lower my new apoapsis beneath the Mün's sphere of influence (so it can't recapture me) and hopefully lowing the periapsis to <35km. I think it's possible, if I have enough patience. I just don't want to be stuck in orbit. I forgot that I could release the four radial decouplers (and the winglets I used as lander legs) for a while and that lost me some potential.

Orbital inclination doesn't help me but I'm not sure if it'll kill me.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 08, 2011, 04:37:32 pm
well at least the rcs doesnt take hours to change your orbit like an ion engine :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 08, 2011, 05:18:41 pm
well at least the rcs doesnt take hours to change your orbit like an ion engine :D
Actually it kinda does. Low thrust and you gotta hold down the thrust-forward key to get anywhere.

Anyways, I don't think I'll get there. I must keep trying though!

EDIT: Got there again and lithobraked by accident. Damn center of gravity.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 08, 2011, 07:15:53 pm
just did my first mun landing on chemical engines. i kinda botched my lander design though. it had ample descent fuel and rcs capabilities (2 tanks 8 thrusters). unfortunately the srb i used for my ascent engine sucked. on takeoff i had some fuel in the descent stage, and it was enough to clear the ground. i dumped it and light my srb. it runs for 2 seconds then stops and i dont even have a quarter of an orbit yet. so i dump the useless engine and turn on the rcs system. so i just barely manage to make orbit, and it took an entire rcs tank to do it. i tested my burn opposite of the muns orbital path strategy and make my orbit a large elipse and eventually break it with half a tank to spare. eventially kerbin took over as my primary gravitational influence and pull off an aerobreak manuver. all in all a nice little trip that proves the 2 rcs tank return strategy.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof on November 08, 2011, 10:40:01 pm
Guh, trying to get my stock lander (legs made from decoupleres/wings) to the Mun.  Can't even get to a Kerbinian orbit without using the lander's own engine.  Perhaps I rely too much on the tri-coupler core?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on November 09, 2011, 01:45:44 pm
just finishing up a kerpallo 2 (kerpallo 1 failed with not enough boosters) flight with almost all stock parts (only mod part is a stronger nuclear engine that has no gimball, 300 thrust, 5 burn rate, and a minimum of 30 thrust)

Everything looked good, got into orbit, set up intercept with the mun, began burn to get there.
Still had some fuel left so the engine kept burning, and I had to eject the stage or I'd overshoot and leave kearth
I separate stages, but I didn't have enough force, so the nuclear stack pushed my liquid engine. I couldn't risk lighting the detached stage, so I turned the nose down to let the nuclear stage keep going off to the sun, but it clipped my guiding wing/strut and broke off the stage's liquid engine.

I thought they were lost in orbit, until I realized I had sever RCS thrusters which might do the trick.

I warped to apoge, then set all the RCS thrusters to reverse thrust to slow me down enough that my orbit would put me in atmo, and it just barely worked, nearly ran into the Mun as well
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 09, 2011, 06:13:47 pm
some of my latest exploits with my 19-coupler

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot4.jpg)
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot6.jpg)

return home failed because of the lagrange point of death. which is a shame because i wanted to do a powered landing on kerbin.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 09, 2011, 06:15:17 pm
I got back to Kearth with RCS propellant to spare. I changed up my design of course: the Big Munar Lifter Mk V was highly successful (unlike its prior incarnations).

I used direct ascent with a gravity assist from Kearth. I was luckily captured by the Mun near my apogee and did a retroburn at my new periapsis. I did a direct descent to the Munar surface and was able to land on the side of a crater. The Mk I lander was a coffin. The new Mk II lander is a spaceship.

(http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/2239/mun16.jpg)

After landing, the lander's engine was again needed. It provided much of the velocity needed to escape from the Mun. A direct ascent soon followed and, despite being at an escape velocity, the remaining RCS fuel was more than sufficient to move my perigee within Kearth's atmosphere. The command module (and attached parachute & RCS tank) aerobraked and, around 10km, the parachute was deployed. The command module touched down rather softly (assisted by RCS) off the shore of a continent.

(http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1549/mun17.jpg)

Overall, the mission was a resounding success.

(http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/4720/mun18.jpg)

tl;dr: I landed on the Mun and returned to Kearth using only stock parts.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on November 09, 2011, 07:12:53 pm
Overall, the mission was a resounding success.

Your success is puny and weak!  Real men's success involves fire and casualties (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshot/612716295116843450/?tab=public)!

Seriously, though, that's an impressive feat.  I hope to duplicate it at some point, though I think it's going to take a while to progress from smacking into the lunar surface at 600 m/s to a successful lunar landing, with return.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 09, 2011, 11:50:58 pm
Landing on the Mün is half the battle. The other half is getting off it.

Otherwise, experiment a bit with different rocket designs. A neat trick I've learned is that it's possible to have more than tri-coupled engines. Use a radial decoupler, SRB, stack decoupler, and then you can attach LF tanks and an LF engine. Just remember to manually set your stages. I've found that it's usually best to combine decouplers and firing new engines into the same stage. Of course, that rule isn't absolute--I've run into situations where you just have to drift away from jettisoned parts (lest you collide and sustain damage) meaning either an engine shutdown or split stages. At least on lower stages, definitely best to combine radial decouplers.

Other thing is to remember that any decoupler is really quite heavy. Use them sparingly. Struts, on the other hand, are lightweight. That said, when using radial decouplers at least, attach SRB's directly to each other and, if they're too powerful for the radial decoupler, use some struts. Stiffened rockets are easier to fly and far less dangerous.

BTW: here's a picture of the rocket I used for that mission:

(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/2945/mun19.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 10, 2011, 01:53:24 am
you know you can add stability and avoid spin by cross coupling your engine clusters. instead of a single spar, you can put 2 in an x pattern. so if one twists left the one next to it will twist right and compensate. this is less necessary now that we have gimballed engines, these can actually be combined with more powerful engines (like srbs) to add stability to more powerful thrusters.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 11, 2011, 06:25:34 am
i created 4 new parts today. need textures but they work. i figure there isnt enough half meter hardware and thats sad.
they are all half meter tanks, large, small and rcs, as well as a half meter rcs nosecone. i still want to add half meter to meter adapters and perhaps an engine or two to complete the half meter pack, and i figure il thow in my 19-coupler for the lulz.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 11, 2011, 12:25:21 pm
Two new tips...

First, landing on stock legs is a tough task. It takes a bit of finesse. You MUST kill any horizontal velocity while you're landing. That's a really tough task. Either retroburn and come in flat from high altitude or get good at manual RCS control.

Second, try simplifying your craft. Many are overengineered and that decreases efficiency. Try removing parts for better performance. If you add something, it must be for a specific purpose. Even when thought uncontrollable, spinning (so long as you don't lean over) is not necessarily a bad thing.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on November 11, 2011, 01:44:27 pm
Two new tips...

First, landing on stock legs is a tough task. It takes a bit of finesse. You MUST kill any horizontal velocity while you're landing. That's a really tough task. Either retroburn and come in flat from high altitude or get good at manual RCS control.

Second, try simplifying your craft. Many are overengineered and that decreases efficiency. Try removing parts for better performance. If you add something, it must be for a specific purpose. Even when thought uncontrollable, spinning (so long as you don't lean over) is not necessarily a bad thing.
I've been finding that killing of horizontal velocity to be the hard part, but I think my most recent flight lost it because I stuck the ASAS on a stage before the lander to make it lighter and easier to land. Maybe I'll make an SAS module into a strong landing pad to help me..
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: jr2 on November 11, 2011, 02:46:53 pm
I actually spin on purpose with one of my rigs; otherwise it leans over.  As long as I maintain a spin, it wobbles a little, but doesn't fall over.  (It is really hard to try and correct it when it starts leaning by any noticeable amount.)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 11, 2011, 04:29:40 pm
you can use rcs but you dont really need it. lock the sas to the vertical and use a little yaw and pitch to get a horizontal component to your thrust. do the same to any forward momentum. i dont touch down until my overall velocity < 5m/s. ive yet to try it on stock parts though so you might need to get than number even lower.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on November 11, 2011, 11:56:00 pm
Well, I've abandoned 6 kerbanauts on the surface of the moon and crashed another dozen 15 so far.

Latest attempt actually got me a safe enough landing to relaunch, just didn't have enough fuel to return. Was a late firing of the decent speed killing thruster and resulting in hitting the surface at 98m/s


Only ones to come back alive are result a misfired stage in low orbit and scrub out and a successful orbit of the moon competed successfully before

Loving the challenge, and I'll give kerpallo 10 a shot some other time, maybe tweak thrusters, perhaps I'll use a solid booster to get off the moon instead of managing fuel and preserving my precious lander's liquid engine
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof on November 12, 2011, 12:35:47 am
Well, I've managed to land on the Mun, but getting back is another question.  My ascent stage may work better I I could tilt it on the way up, but turning off my ASAS results in an uncontrollable spin.  I think with a little tweaking and a couple extra fuel tanks in my ascent and mid stages (and of course moar boosters) I can pull it off.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on November 12, 2011, 07:31:08 am
No matter how big I make my rockets, I get to the mun, I just run out of fuel on the way down to the surface.
9 brave kerbanauts lost so far, gotta try again but... I'm loosing hope :C
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on November 12, 2011, 09:42:58 am
I got to the moon with a liquid tank left to return
made minor miscalculation in getting out of lunar orbit, meaning it spend 16 days orbiting until the moon sling shot the pod towards kearth, but for no apparent reason, days in, during warp speed, the parachute broke off.
So bloody close to a safe flight.

NEXT MISSION: I finally did it, a 10 day mission, took minor damage upon landing on the moon, but managed to get out of it's orbit and back to the planet splashing just after dark on the planet.
10 day mission, safe return

Feels so good that kerpallo 11 was a success
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on November 12, 2011, 10:37:17 am
I just made a rocket that landed em on the Mun, but it only worked for 1st launch for some reason :-/ Every other time, it failed mid-flight.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on November 12, 2011, 01:54:46 pm
No matter how big I make my rockets, I get to the mun, I just run out of fuel on the way down to the surface.
9 brave kerbanauts lost so far, gotta try again but... I'm loosing hope :C

You most make bigger lander. :p
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 12, 2011, 02:27:32 pm
So I got there twice. The first looked like this:

(http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5592/mun21.jpg)

So I got there again and lifted off moments later. I think a winglet exploded. Oh well. I apparently lost the picture of it. >_< I still had a bit of horizontal velocity (not very much) but idk... I got there with a lot of hardware and got back with what was before my lander stage.

(http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9897/mun22.png)

I landed on the side of a mountain. Just my luck.

(http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4554/mun23.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Mongoose on November 12, 2011, 03:29:55 pm
Wow, even Jeb was terrified.  :shaking:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on November 12, 2011, 04:47:37 pm
You most make bigger lander. :p

I think I'm making some kind of mistake when trying to get in orbit around Kerbin.
what do you guys do? I tend to burn all my lower stages straight up till 150k and then I burn 90° horizonally till I get a full orbit drawn in the map.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on November 12, 2011, 05:31:50 pm
You most make bigger lander. :p

I think I'm making some kind of mistake when trying to get in orbit around Kerbin.
what do you guys do? I tend to burn all my lower stages straight up till 150k and then I burn 90° horizonally till I get a full orbit drawn in the map.


Yeah you're doing it wrong.

Typically I start tilting toward 90 degrees somewhere around 30-40k mark, and gradually increase the angle, adjusting angle of attack so that the vector indicator doesn't dip below horizon. As you start the pitch program, switch to Orbit mode rather than surface mode so that you can see your orbital prograde ("forward" relative to your flight path around the planet). Kerbin's rotation adds a few hundred m/s to your orbital velocity when you go for counterclockwise orbit. Also for a munar mission you should try to get your orbit inclined with the equator as closely as possible, so your transmunar injection burn is easier to do and won't put you above or below the Munar orbital plane.

You should aim for initial orbit at 100-150 km altitude.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 12, 2011, 05:43:55 pm
you dont need such a high apokerb, your wasting fuel. with a good, stable, easy to handle rocket i start rotating at 20k, im at 45 degrees by 35k and get to 90 at about 50k. get your orbital velocity to around 1800ms, and then throttle back to very low thrust until orbit is established. you can also throttle all the way back and wait for apokerb, and then trim your orbit, of course for a mun flight i usually just go straight from launch to orbital insertion without actually orbiting kerbin.

now for a big unstable rocket i do things differently. its almost impossible to steer so a smooth progression is out of the question. you might have to eject several stages before you gain enough control to do a roll maneuver. so pretty much just go straight up past 40k (if you can turn sooner its fine so long as youre above 20k-30k), until you've ejected your unruly large stages and are free to rotate. in many cases i still dont have control at 40k, so il either wait till 50k to turn or start turning immediately. il start earlier if that stack takes considerable time to turn 90 degrees. i often waste a lot of fuel just trying to get a stack to turn. of course since we now have rcs thrusters and gimballed engines, rockets are much easier to maneuver.

*ninjad by herra*
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 12, 2011, 10:43:22 pm
The upper atmosphere, while it does provide drag, is nowhere near as inefficient as reaching an unnecessary apokee. I don't know the exact Delta-V differences but I managed to land on the moon with a very similar configuration as before. In fact, it was good enough to get me back to Kearth without needing RCS. In fact, I'm going to redo my lander stage again and get rid of the command module RCS since I can get back on just one fuel tank (and then jettison it for an Apollo-esque landing).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 12, 2011, 11:29:17 pm
Landing on the Mun is harder than it looks. I'd know--I just crashed again.

(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/159/mun31.jpg)
(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/4192/mun32.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on November 13, 2011, 04:42:06 am
CAPTAINS LOG:  A BUNCH OF OUR SHIP FELL OFF, AND WE ARE STRANDED ON THE MUN.  HOWEVER, WE HAVE ENOUGH SPACE CRACK ON BOARD TO KEEP US HAPPY. :)

(http://i.imgur.com/G6BL4.jpg)

MISSION SUCCESSFUL
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: -Joshua- on November 13, 2011, 05:01:40 am
You should totally mount a rescue mission.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on November 13, 2011, 09:30:09 am
(http://i.imgur.com/GijHJ.jpg)
landing without just using a chute or atmosphere is hard
(http://i.imgur.com/GpeZn.png)
And this is the ship that made it there and got the crew back
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on November 13, 2011, 11:03:52 am
Then I'll need to redesign the Lifter, it's kinda heavy right now and difficult as hell to maneuver even at 200.000, a small inclination while ascention would be suicide.

Thanks for the tips.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: karajorma on November 14, 2011, 08:14:51 am
So I got there twice. The first looked like this:

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5592/mun21.jpg (http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5592/mun21.jpg)

That's a great picture! Rocket debris everywhere and 3 horrified looking pilots!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 14, 2011, 09:03:59 am
you could probibly stand that up with the rcs thrusters.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 14, 2011, 10:28:36 am
you could probibly stand that up with the rcs thrusters.
Nope--I couldn't. It's a shame really. Here's another picture from a more recent mission.

(http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/1710/unledaxr.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on November 14, 2011, 03:01:37 pm
I think we had a thread about bombing the Moon Mun once.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Polpolion on November 15, 2011, 12:51:28 am
Just started playing earlier today. It's awesome! I can't seem to be able to insert myself into orbits with an apoapsis less than 1400 KM, which I suspect is a result of both me being a terrible pilot and having an extremely under powered launch vehicle. I must say the Orbit View mode is kind of unintuitive since it doesn't retain your orientation switching to and from the other view, and it's terribly hard to keep track of which side of my rocket is the "top." Still, I usually can manage to get into a roughly circular orbit and back down again. I will say that it's an absolute PITA managing to balance everything. Half the reason my rocket is underpowered is because I'm too lazy to add enough SRBs to make a difference. I did notice the symmetry feature which is useful, though.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on November 15, 2011, 10:14:04 am
Just started playing earlier today. It's awesome! I can't seem to be able to insert myself into orbits with an apoapsis less than 1400 KM, which I suspect is a result of both me being a terrible pilot and having an extremely under powered launch vehicle. I must say the Orbit View mode is kind of unintuitive since it doesn't retain your orientation switching to and from the other view, and it's terribly hard to keep track of which side of my rocket is the "top." Still, I usually can manage to get into a roughly circular orbit and back down again. I will say that it's an absolute PITA managing to balance everything. Half the reason my rocket is underpowered is because I'm too lazy to add enough SRBs to make a difference. I did notice the symmetry feature which is useful, though.
SRBs are not terribly useful, a liquid engine with 3-4 fuel tanks is much more efficient

That should help your power problem
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Iss Mneur on November 15, 2011, 11:24:37 am
SRBs are not terribly useful, a liquid engine with 3-4 fuel tanks is much more efficient
But SRBs are so much more fun.

@Polpolion: If you are getting orbits that are that eccentric, remember that liquid fuel engines can be turned off (that is, let the apoapsis be 100-150km and then wait till you reach apoapsis and then burn prograde till the orbit is circular).  Also, make sure you are at 90 degs by 80 KM, you don't need to clear the entire atmosphere before you start gaining your horizontal velocity, you just need to be clear of the lower third.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Polpolion on November 16, 2011, 03:33:49 pm
(http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/8475/kspk.png)

I'm finally getting the hang of putting myself into orbit. Low power launches don't seem to be much of a problem; it was just that I was a terrible pilot. :p After remembering that I could throttle down liquid fueled engines, low-orbits aren't a problem at all. Finally managed to put myself into a nice parking orbit. Apoapsis is at ~78km. It'll decay after a short while, but you don't generally spend long parked anyway; I've got a tank and a half of fuel for my craft's single engine, so I'm tempted to attempt a trans-munar orbit, but I'm worried I'll either not be able to time it properly or not be able to get back. I'll try plane alignment once I put myself into a more stable orbit.

Only problem is you can't really compress time all that much in orbits this low.

Ed: I really hope they fix the HUD in future versions. I might as well be playing Orbiter. :p
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Iss Mneur on November 16, 2011, 04:06:11 pm
Only problem is you can't really compress time all that much in orbits this low.
Which is why shooting for 100k is nice because that is the cutoff to get to 4x (probably 8x, because I can do an orbit within 5 minutes at the max allowed compression, but I don't remember) which works pretty good at that altitude, which has mission time period about 30-40 minutes.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on November 16, 2011, 04:26:23 pm
Installed the spaceplane parts for more creative designs, made it to the moon and back twice in a row with this one, relatively little drama

(http://i.imgur.com/OK6ib.png)
knowing your altitude is overrated
(http://i.imgur.com/QaNTY.png)
but it's nice when it works
(http://i.imgur.com/OjQfB.jpg) 2 stages to orbit, 6 solid boosters help get her off the ground.

All them stuts and tanks don't help framerates though
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on November 17, 2011, 12:30:24 pm
So, if I have to many struts and tanks the game starts to...shudder?
Interesting, now I know why I'm unable to controll my monster rocket^^
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Pred the Penguin on November 18, 2011, 08:49:02 am
I'm horrible at this; I can't even get into orbit. :lol:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on November 18, 2011, 09:51:39 am
So, if I have to many struts and tanks the game starts to...shudder?
Interesting, now I know why I'm unable to controll my monster rocket^^


KSP is a CPU benchmark from hell. You can bring anything to its knees with enough parts and struts and stuff.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 18, 2011, 09:59:46 am
it doesn't help that the game engine has no lod system, and modded parts seem to use non-sane polycounts. though i suspect a lot of the slowdown is caused by the physics, and not rendering. like struts introduce a lot of complex dynamics into the physics system. almost any design i make that uses large numbers of struts slows down the game considerably, and i suspect its a physics thing.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 18, 2011, 10:35:47 am
It does have a basic LOD system--for rendering planets and the Mun. The real problem is whatever's causing the CPU bottlenecks. I hate the really crappy performance with a big first stage.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on November 18, 2011, 11:36:43 am
Just ran out of things to land on or escape from, i need moar planets >:D

(http://nohiki.ic.cz/gallery/ksp/screenshot1.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Pred the Penguin on November 18, 2011, 06:16:23 pm
I've had minor success building spinning type rockets while listening to Star Trek soundtracks. But I still have haven't made orbit yet... Is it possible to make orbit on the power of liquid fuel engines alone? Also is there anyway to jettison stuff attached to a rocket while still maintaining it's burn?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof on November 18, 2011, 07:50:43 pm
Quote
Also is there anyway to jettison stuff attached to a rocket while still maintaining it's burn?
  If it is running when you drop it, it will keep going until it runs out of fuel.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 18, 2011, 08:06:19 pm
Quote
Also is there anyway to jettison stuff attached to a rocket while still maintaining it's burn?
  If it is running when you drop it, it will keep going until it runs out of fuel.
Though that's also dangerous, depending on the precise part. I've made mistakes a few times, jettisoning boosters and having them crashing back into the stack. Other times I was able to time it right that they released and shot away from my rocket.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on November 19, 2011, 04:02:04 am
Well, if you're releasing liquid fueled parts, just throttle down, space, throttle up. As far as the boosters go, the radially attached ones have better chance. If you attach the decoupler on the upper half of the booster, you'll get better results.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 20, 2011, 02:11:29 pm
i had a little too much fun with very low munar orbits today. i really wasnt playing so much as wanting to test my freshly modeled mpd thruster (it doesnt even have textures beyond the uv template). anyway i wasnt equipped for landing on either kerbin or mun, had no chute, a weak (but efficient) engine, and an rcs gizmo. anyway after testing the engine out on a munar transfer, i figured it would be cool to play orbital limbo. got my apomun down to 642, and my perimun was around 300. so every time i reach perimun i tap my thrusters, until the perimun moves to the other side of the orbit. i was trying to get so close to the ground so that i could see my shadow, without ever making contact. low orbits are really creepy, your zooming a few hundred meters off the grond and theoretically you will never hit it, unless of course your orbit intersects a mountain. splat! thats 3 dead kerbonauts.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on November 20, 2011, 09:22:37 pm
I can't seem to land any kerbonauts safely on the mun. just 1 crew survived so far and only in exchange of the landing module.
horizontal velocity is proving to be a terrible foe, any tips about that guys?

Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on November 20, 2011, 11:44:46 pm
I can't seem to land any kerbonauts safely on the mun. just 1 crew survived so far and only in exchange of the landing module.
horizontal velocity is proving to be a terrible foe, any tips about that guys?



Sure.
aim at the reverse vector and do a forward burn to make your decent more vertical.
once you're close, aim directly upward and use RCS to make yourself totally vertical
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 21, 2011, 02:11:22 am
Yeah--do your best to arrest your horizontal momentum. It's too tough to do it completely, though. When you come in for landing, use RCS to provide a little more thrust to better control your descent. Otherwise, I suggest you pick some altitude and aim for it. At that altitude, you kill your momentum and then fall back to the Mun again. I typically do it around 1000KM because that's when I decelerate directly from orbit to landing.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Pred the Penguin on November 21, 2011, 08:46:18 am
Finally circular orbit with this (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198048335113/screenshot/613842889556002239?tab=public) craft! Would have made a trans-munar orbit, too, if I hadn't messed up the timing.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on November 21, 2011, 08:48:51 am
thanks, I'll keep trying then.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on November 21, 2011, 10:10:34 am
Landing is simple. Keep an eye out on your pitch attitude, velocity relative to surface, and altitude. You first do a de-orbit burn to bring your trajectory down, so it takes you above your intended landing site.

When you are approaching landing site, you're falling lower so you're picking up speed. Obviously this is bad for the landing. So, you adjust your trajectory by keeping the nose retrograde (relative to surface) and adjust burn rate to control descent speed. You should be able to bring your ship to nearly vertical trajectory by this method, and then it's just a matter of keeping the ship upright and descending to very low altitude where you can make the final flare burn and touch down softly.

I think I'll make a youtube video of it with my shiny new PC stuffs. :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on November 23, 2011, 06:58:26 am
Having finally made a rocket that's both powerful and flyable enough to take a shot at a return moon trip, I decided to give it a try. This is the result:

(//)

Yay! Considering this was my first go, everything went without a hitch. I learned a great deal about planning a landing approach for vertical landing. What worked for me was, I established an elliptical orbit around the Mun, with periapsis on the far side (relative to Kerbin) and at some 3000m height. Apoapsis was "aimed" towards Kerbin and at some 70,000m. This gave me a nice elongated orbital ellipse, so once I reached apoapsis I began my braking burn. This maneuver "narrows" the ellipse the marks the orbit, as well as shortening it - I made it so that the descent trajectory crosses the Munar surface at almost a right angle. Once at 20,000m height, I just oriented myself so the artificial horizon shows that my nose is pointing straight "up", used SAS to lock that down, used the main descent engines to slow my descent and RCS translation controls to kill any horizontal velocity. The reason I wanted apoapsis aimed at Kerbin side was, that side was also pointed at the Sun, and it helps seeing what you're doing when descending. Seeing your shadow is helpful, too :) My descent stage actually allows for quite a big margin of error, there's plenty of surplus fuel, once I get the hang of landings I intend to bring less fuel and put a service module with some solar panels and a science package on the moon instead. Then detach and use the return stage for the trip home. This part is least problematic, as Kerbin's gravity does most of the work... and I find aerobraking a nice cheap way of reducing the apoapsis on my return trip. Quite like that trick. Even managed to land on water, smack in the middle of a nice bay, close to land. That would've been practical :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on November 23, 2011, 07:16:34 am
kudos!
I've been busy with studies this week so no trip to the mun so far, but with all this intel being thrown lately I might pull it off.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on November 23, 2011, 08:14:29 am
A lot of people seem to be using the main engine to kill horizontal velocity. While the main engine is great to do it roughly while still at a decent altitude, using it all the way down for controlling horizontal speed is impractical, unless you were very, very accurate and hit the approach vector at 90 degrees right off the bat. That might work for some people, but I'm the first to admit I'm nowhere near that accurate a pilot, and I find having to reorient the craft to do course corrections quite perilous at low altitudes.. which is why I used RCS translation controls to kill horizontal speed once I got close to the deck. I mean, this is what the system's there for. Ok, it's one of the things it's there for - might as well use it :)
I'm not one of those purists that only use the stock parts or else it's "cheating". I don't care as long as the parts I'm using aren't terribly unrealistic (warp nacelles are definitely out), as I want some options when designing the rocket stages. For instance, I really love the "landing" engine from Nova Silisko's pack. It's very weak, you would probably use it a as a blow dryer here on Earth. But on the Mun, away from Kerbin's powerful gravitational pull, it turns into a very useful rocket engine, that is also very small, very lightweight, and very fuel efficient. Weak engines that have fuel efficiency are just the ticket for landings / orbital correction burns. Once you've done your Munar Injection Burn, you no longer need powerful engines, but you do need something that's lightweight and doesn't burn through fuel like there's no tomorrow. Plus, most orbital maneuvers don't need long or powerful burns from this point on - it's amazing just how little fuel is needed to get back from the Mun, compared to what you need just to launch and get to orbit..
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof on November 23, 2011, 12:16:13 pm
I tried the C7 pack.  my "shuttle" flops around like a badly folded paper airplane before eventually crashing.  Also, what is the difference between the landing skids and the wheels?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on November 23, 2011, 12:56:56 pm
Flops around how? If it's the wings bending on turns then you need to place struts from the wing root to the fuselage, just two on my craft (Which is decently sized) hold the wings in place no matter how much I try to force them to break.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof on November 24, 2011, 10:06:01 am
More that the back keeps trying to pass the front, and it like to be upside down for some reason.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MR_T3D on November 24, 2011, 10:25:30 am
I assume you're making a shuttle that looks like the shuttle, which IIRC has very bad aerodynamics.

Add some adjustable flaps, and maybe some canards, and use ASAS to keep it level
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 24, 2011, 02:53:01 pm
try angling up your wingtip segments up a notch. this raises the center of lift and adds more stability, sorta like folding up the wingtips on a paper airplane.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Pred the Penguin on November 24, 2011, 10:04:53 pm
Is it possible to connect anything to radial decouplers aside from solid boosters?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on November 24, 2011, 10:15:43 pm
Is it possible to connect anything to radial decouplers aside from solid boosters?

other radial decouplers and wings?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 24, 2011, 10:23:12 pm
Is it possible to connect anything to radial decouplers aside from solid boosters?

other radial decouplers and wings?
RCS thrusters & struts. You can link a stack decoupler to the booster, too.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Pred the Penguin on November 24, 2011, 11:49:49 pm
Yeah, that's how I've been doing it so far. :blah: Ah well, time to take a more extensive look at extra parts maybe.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on November 29, 2011, 09:40:41 pm
Just managed my first round-trip mun mission, with vanilla parts no less!

The rocket:
(http://i.imgur.com/a3DZYh.jpg)

The landing:
(http://i.imgur.com/HPDdNh.jpg)

The mission went fairly routine, overall. The first landing site was far too steep, so I had to burn some gas for a retry. The second landing site turned out to be on a gently slope anyway, and apparently the mun is quite slippery: you'll notice in the second screenshot that I have 2.5 m/s of velocity as I slowly slide down the hill. This gradually increased, and I elected to go ahead and return to orbit before I tipped over.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 29, 2011, 10:11:02 pm
Got there and back a few more times. My Big Munar Lifter Mk VIIC is pretty efficient.

(http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/8401/mun42.png)
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7326/mun41.png)

After all, just look at how much fuel I have left while on the surface!

(On a side-note, Kerbin is eclipsing Kol and the engine apparently doesn't render that well.)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on November 29, 2011, 10:22:32 pm
Yeah, I think I actually could have landed with my second-to-last stage too: I had plenty of fuel (much more than I'd planned on), but no wings.

Just curious, what does your full rocket look like? I've found I've reached the size limit that my computer can handle for rockets. The rocket from the previous post gives me about 1 FPS all the way through the first stage. I blame the struts, if I remove them my FPS increases massively, but the rocket naturally flings itself to pieces.

Hoping the .13 update makes superbig rockets more feasible for me.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 29, 2011, 10:38:41 pm
My overall rocket is pretty damn big...

(http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/7517/13754038.png)

I've found that lugging around boosters & radial decouplers is pretty pointless in 99% of cases. The top stage of boosters is actually carried full (for realism's sake) and engages in the upper atmosphere, providing me with a boost. I just heavily burn until about 2800 m/s and then go more controlled for more precise apokee. I also don't bother with achieving orbit: I use direct ascension. In the last set of screenshots, I made it off the Mun and back to Kerbin except I splatted in the water. It was kind of funny: I reached about 1500 m/s above the Mun and changed my vector sufficiently to do a direct descent.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on November 29, 2011, 10:41:45 pm
I pissed my pants, that's big boom boom if something goes wrong :P
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on November 30, 2011, 09:43:39 am
Dammit, Jeb!  There was one thing you needed to remember to bring with you on this launch!  One thing, and you couldn't ****ing do it (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshot/612718202392559417?tab=public), could you?!  You are a disgrace, even among your incompetent cohorts!

And for those of you who are poor judges of tone, I was laughing my ass off, as I uploaded that screenshot.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 30, 2011, 10:32:05 am
I pissed my pants, that's big boom boom if something goes wrong :P
Ever since I adjusted the outer stacks, it's been pretty damn stable. The biggest problem is it's hard to hit your vectors during initial ascent. I landed again with a little bit more fuel in the tanks so there is room for improvement.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on November 30, 2011, 04:15:03 pm
(http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l223/SpootKnight/Kerbal%20Space%20Program/screenshot0.png)
Perfectly normal-looking rocket.

(http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l223/SpootKnight/Kerbal%20Space%20Program/screenshot4.png)
Oh god wut.

(http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l223/SpootKnight/Kerbal%20Space%20Program/screenshot5.png)
Bon voyage!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Pred the Penguin on November 30, 2011, 04:52:48 pm
Awesome!

Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 01, 2011, 11:06:42 am
Mun Launch XIII arrived on the moon today.  Alas, I didn't quite kill all of my horizontal momentum, so the engine got sheared off.  Despite that, the command module did not explode, so I'm calling it a successful landing, albeit without a return.  Bob & Jeb disagree, though Bill is oddly cool with living out his remaining days on the moon (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshot/612718202410248681?tab=public).

Also, an earlier launch made a wrong turn at Albuquerque (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshot/612718202410249859?tab=public).  Jeb doesn't get to navigate anymore.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 01, 2011, 02:56:53 pm
-snip-
orbital skydiving adventures!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 01, 2011, 06:07:42 pm
Quote
Also, an earlier launch made a wrong turn at Albuquerque.  Jeb doesn't get to navigate anymore.

Their expressions are priceless. :lol:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 06, 2011, 06:57:31 am
you could probibly stand that up with the rcs thrusters.
Nope--I couldn't. It's a shame really. Here's another picture from a more recent mission.

(http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/1710/unledaxr.png)
Saw this pic on facebook yesterday.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on December 06, 2011, 08:47:08 am
My recent experimentation regarding shuttle type launch vehicle has not been entirely successful.

(http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/4092/screenshot200.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on December 06, 2011, 09:16:31 am
One would have thought that thrust vectoring would fix that... That tank is non C7 though right? It might help to adjust the weight, that's what i'd do, or heavy RCS and a lot-o-fuel.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on December 06, 2011, 09:19:50 am
It takes being off the ground for gimbaling to be of any use.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on December 06, 2011, 01:11:45 pm
Well the problem is really more related to fuel arrangement than thrust balance.

What I want to do is use the Orbiter's three engines as the main engines. However there is no way to direct fuel from the main fuel tank to the orbiter's engines. Also when I put engines on the fuel tank, the result is that the orbiter runs out of fuel first, and then the fuel tank's engines cause the entire vehicle to pitch up. So, what I need is a way to connect the main fuel tank to the shuttle engines via fuel ducts.

It also needs retractable landing gear.

I also need to make the orbiter itself more airworthy, it's not exactly a viable space-plane, much less viable glider.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Wanderer on December 06, 2011, 01:15:37 pm
Why does it start to sound more and more like Reliant Robin Space Shuttle...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on December 06, 2011, 01:32:03 pm
Why does it start to sound more and more like Reliant Robin Space Shuttle...

Because you're from Manchester and you'll be able to do it for ten and six...

and there be as much tea as you can drink.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on December 06, 2011, 10:17:58 pm
It's working better now!

(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7329/liftoffkerbalspaceshutt.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on December 06, 2011, 10:22:19 pm
What Arcane arts did you study to get a camera shot like that?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on December 07, 2011, 07:09:41 pm
Just... moved the camera around and zoomed in? Wasn't that hard.

Here are some more images.

(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/2092/screenshot266f.jpg)
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9263/screenshot267g.jpg)
(http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/1249/screenshot268z.jpg)
(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/6799/screenshot269p.jpg)
(http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/48/screenshot270d.jpg)
(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8846/screenshot274a.jpg)
(http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2264/screenshot277c.jpg)
(http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/8660/screenshot278xb.jpg)
(http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/2355/screenshot290m.jpg)
(http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/46/screenshot293.jpg)
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/6195/screenshot294h.jpg)
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/3020/screenshot295c.jpg)
(http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/2285/screenshot279small.png)


The Orbiter doesn't have landing gear or payload space, though.

Which, sort of, makes it a very expensive space capsule.

It is survivable in landings, mind you. It's just that almost everything attached to the fuselage tends to explode in a successful landing... so Richard Hammon's immortal words are still valid: "How are you going to use it again?!"

(http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/3421/screenshot296.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 07, 2011, 08:31:46 pm
Success (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshot/614970636798696712?tab=public)!

...

Almost (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshot/614970636798695093?tab=public)....

The Kerbals lost control after relaunching, but before hitting lunar escape velocity and ran out of fuel as a result.  Technically, they landed on the moon twice, but only made a bloody splat on the ground once.

[edit]

I did it!  I went to the moon (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshot/614970636825151276?tab=public)!  I got back off the moon (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshot/614970636825144438?tab=public)!  I almost flung myself into deep space again (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshot/614970636825147372?tab=public), but I had enough fuel in reserve to correct (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshot/614970636825147853?tab=public)!  I even got to say a tearful goodbye to the lunar lander (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshot/614970636825145252?tab=public) and survey a spot for a summer home in the Kerbiet Union (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshot/614970636825151801?tab=public).  And the final mission summary (http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197998742244/screenshot/614970636825153346?tab=public), for anybody interested.

[/edit]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 21, 2011, 05:10:57 pm
v 0.13.0 is out. theres now a fuel transfer pipe and lf tanks can now be side mounted to lateral decouplers. the result: droptanks! also the load times and general performance is a lot better.

Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on December 21, 2011, 06:05:14 pm
v 0.13.0 is out. theres now a fuel transfer pipe and lf tanks can now be side mounted to lateral decouplers. the result: droptanks! also the load times and general performance is a lot better.

Yep, those changes have made it MUCH easier to manage large rockets.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 21, 2011, 06:20:20 pm
just being able to laterally connect lf tanks is awesome. do a 7 pack 2 tanks high surround it with droptanks and you can get to mun with it (back is another story).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: FlamingCobra on December 22, 2011, 11:25:44 am
I'm about to try this out now. It sounds awesome.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 29, 2011, 01:31:41 pm
Well I tried out Nukes epic low-munar-orbit adventures.  I put my guys into an orbit with apoapsis ~1500m, and periapsis 50m.  No, that's not a typo.  That is, in fact, meters.

I put the descending portion of the orbit over the dayside of the Mun so the guys could enjoy the scenery.  Terrain really starts looking impressive when you're only a kilometer above it.  Mountains pop up on the horizon and whizz past before you even have time to react.  The ship slowly fell lower and lower... 900 meters... 800... then at ~700 meters it went over some mostly flat plains for a while.  Tried to see if the ship's shadow was visible below us, but no, must be too high still.  Suddenly a group of tall mountain peaks loomed over the horizon.

"Boy, that looks about as high as we are, eh?"  Said Jeb.

"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"  screamed the crew, as the mountain rushed silently below, missing the ship by scant meters.  If there was a Kerbonaut sitting on that mountain top, one of our guys could have leaned out the window and high-fived him at 1250 miles per hour.

"YEAH!  THAT WAS AWESOME!"  shouted Jeb.

Their altitude was now 550 meters.  Another mountain range appeared on the horizon.  And their lives ended in a singular burst of debris and quickly extinguished flames.

And thus Mission Control learned a little bit about the topology of the Mun. 

MISSION SUCCESSFUL
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 29, 2011, 04:54:57 pm
you kinda have to account for all the mountains along your trajectory :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on December 31, 2011, 12:46:32 am
you kinda have to account for all the mountains along your trajectory :D
Good ****ing luck! What'd be more impressive, however, is if you were in a polar orbit.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 31, 2011, 04:41:00 am
KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM MISSION COVERAGE

With 3 Kerbonauts stranded on the Munar surface and presumed dead, 3 Kerbonauts splattered on some Munar mountain range, and an undisclosed number of Kerbonauts who died valiantly within Kearth's atmosphere for various reasons, Mission Control is running low on flight-ready clones!  And so it is our unhappy duty to report that we must postpone our planned manned mission to the Sun.  Instead, we shall return again to the Mun, but this time we will hope to bring our guys back home safely!

LAUNCH DAY.  A beautiful 8 stage rocket stands before the tower.
(http://i.imgur.com/nvvm7.jpg)

We have achieved a low circular orbit!  Here we go for TLI burn
(http://i.imgur.com/akzZB.jpg)

Transfer Orbit:
(http://i.imgur.com/4Z99m.jpg)

The transfer went extremely well -- periapsis of only 211km above the trailing side of the Mun.
(http://i.imgur.com/GHJC3.jpg)

A minor correction to our trajectory and we're set to pass right over the landing site.
(http://i.imgur.com/dr2sn.jpg)

Making our descent.  The tension is high, but the pilots are grinning with anticipation!
(http://i.imgur.com/uaRsU.jpg)

TOUCHDOWN!  Desolate hills roll toward the not-so-distant horizon.  And check out the beautiful view of our home planet.  Bob is loving it!  But wait, why isn't Jeb smiling?  What's wrong Jeb?  What?  One of our engine cones came off on the landing?
(http://i.imgur.com/qfRrK.jpg)

Oh no, so it did.  But that's okay!  No mission is a true Kerbal mission without DANGER!

Time to leave.  Eject the stage, throttle up engines, and pray!
(http://i.imgur.com/KF7RP.jpg)

YEAH!  LAUNCHING FROM THE MUN LIKE A BOSS!
(http://i.imgur.com/Kd3VF.jpg)

From our chosen landing site, a vertical trajectory will cancel out the Mun's orbital velocity.  Then, assuming all goes well, we'll freefall right back to Kearth.
(http://i.imgur.com/2Rnqe.jpg)

And indeed it works.  Amazingly the periapsis is within the atmosphere.  We can use aerobraking!
(http://i.imgur.com/jlUcR.jpgp)

Whoops!  We bounced out of the atmosphere!  Guess the aerobrake altitude was too high.
(http://i.imgur.com/VMsMV.jpg)

Third pass, and another bounce!  Jeb has to go to the bathroom now...
(http://i.imgur.com/2HX2t.jpg)

Finally, suborbital flight achieved.  Looks like we're gonna splashdown just shy of that coastline.  Jeb's happy.  He doesn't have to go the bathroom anymore.
(http://i.imgur.com/iueXW.jpg)

SPLASHDOWN!  And thus concludes the mission.  Tune in next time, when we'll launch Jeb and his faithful companions into to our nearest star to discover the secrets of nuclear fusion!
(http://i.imgur.com/amThT.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 31, 2011, 06:11:51 am
aerobreaking is supposed to bounce. that way only a small delta-v is needed at apokerb each pass. or none at all if perikerb doesnt change. when we of terra send probes to mars, the aerobraking maneuvers used bonce dozens of times. i want to one day attempt capture, whereby you turn a hyperbolic trajectory into an elliptical orbit using only atmosphere and a little tiny bit of deltav.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 31, 2011, 11:49:26 am
Yeah, aerobrake was the wrong word for what I wanted to do there -- I'd wanted to bleed off all my excess velocity on the first pass.  I'm guessing that from a lunar free return trajectory that would take a periapsis of ~35km, but I'd used something around 50.  Will need to experiment. :)

Orbital capture with aerobraking from a hyperbolic trajectory (which your orbit will always be hyperbolic if you're approaching another celestial body from infinity) is fun.  In orbiter I've achieved that with mars by using a periapsis altitude of about 22km and keeping the Delta-Glider rotated about 90°.  Banking left or right helps to adjust your altitude further and keep you low enough to bleed off enough speed, but not so low you burn up.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on January 01, 2012, 11:42:08 am
Of course, the way KSP is right now, you can basically just fall straight into the atmosphere at any speed you like and do just fine.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on January 01, 2012, 01:30:24 pm
That sounds like a CHALLENGE!

/me proceeds to launch straight up to munar altitude, then max accelerate STRAIGHT BACK DOWN

Edit:  Whelp!  Had a 90° descent angle with pre-atmospheric-entry velocity of 5300m/s.  Splashed-down safely!  Max-G endured:  111.1G.  Those are some tough Kerbonauts! :p
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on January 02, 2012, 03:54:56 am
screw the gs they would have melted first. they really need to implement friction heating.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Gortef on January 02, 2012, 08:04:14 am
While casually cruising through the forums I misread this thread title as "Dekkers Space Program...", and got extremely worried for some reason.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: LordMelvin on January 02, 2012, 11:22:15 am
While casually cruising through the forums I misread this thread title as "Dekkers Space Program...", and got extremely worried for some reason.

<shatner>

These... are the voyages of the Star Ship Dekker... Its five year mission:... to seek out new life forms down at the pub... and shag the living daylights out of them...

</shatner>

<No offense intended to Dekker. Shatner... well... that's another... story.>
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Thaeris on January 02, 2012, 06:31:09 pm
Dear... God, man...

You mean to tell me that Dekker and Kirk are one in the same?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on January 02, 2012, 06:49:46 pm
Dear... God, man...

You mean to tell me that Dekker and Kirk are one in the same?

It would explain much
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: LordMelvin on January 03, 2012, 01:08:31 am
Dear... God, man...

You mean to tell me that Dekker and Kirk are one in the same?

You've seen Dekker's morning-after gendisc posts, haven't you?

I figured he has to be James Tiberius's Great-Great-Grandma's unidentified baby-daddy, on that one loooooooong weekend which she never could quite remember properly... I mean, where else would Kirk get it from, y'know?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Gortef on January 03, 2012, 05:54:26 am

<shatner>

These... are the voyages of the Star Ship Dekker... Its five year mission:... to seek out new life forms down at the pub... and shag the living daylights out of them...

</shatner>


You know I kind of like that :lol:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on January 04, 2012, 09:41:47 pm
My latest challenges/accomplishments (all Vanilla parts, of course):

1. Space Tourism! Load up on "passenger" parts (extra SAS modules in this case) and get into orbit and back with the passengers. As a bonus feat, I landed my rocket within a mile or so of the launchpad: once around the planet and back to the parking lot.
(http://i.imgur.com/cP1nSh.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/35qwsh.jpg)

2. Reusable vehicle! Get into orbit and back without jettisoning ANYTHING! I present the Tantalus Mk1, with which I was able to do exactly that:
(http://i.imgur.com/fHhhd.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ee460.jpg)

Haven't tried to make a Tantalus for a moon trip yet, but I expect it would have to be pretty humungous...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 09, 2012, 03:39:52 am
Haven't tried to make a Tantalus for a moon trip yet, but I expect it would have to be pretty humungous...

It would. It comes to a point of TWR being really problematic to balance out. I made my own "Lunar Flyer" that gets there without any staging whatsoever. It can land on the Mun with a bit of extra fuel to spare, but it can't get back. I suppose it could be a reusable Mun Base supply / passenger vehicle, that would get refueled on the Mun after landing. But it was more about me playing with the design, the ship would never be economical or efficient. Plus, once we get atmo friction and reentry heat humongous ships that can actually land back will become problematic.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on January 13, 2012, 05:52:55 pm
OMG, I just made my first trip to the Mun, but my attempts are pretty clumsy.
My max altitude was about 70k miles...and I was lucky to hit Mun on my way down...
But although I decelerated, I crashed into Muns surface cause I was on the dark side and didn't know the distance towards it^^
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on January 14, 2012, 03:39:33 am
Haha, attempting to land blindly on the Munar darkside.  Now that's how REAL Kerbonauts do it! :) 

"Screw the altimeter, I can FEEL the surface!"  -Jeb's last words
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on January 14, 2012, 03:53:19 am
Challenge time!

Single-stage to the Mun and back again! :lol:


This kind of stuff is what makes KSP awesome - setting ridiculous goals, and then doing them... usually involving new and exciting failure modes.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on January 14, 2012, 04:08:57 am
Challenge time!

Single-stage to the Mun and back again! :lol:


This kind of stuff is what makes KSP awesome - setting ridiculous goals, and then doing them... usually involving new and exciting failure modes.

(http://i.imgur.com/t1FXu.png)

Seriously though, good luck to you, sir!  Post results, especially the hilarious ones!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on January 14, 2012, 04:42:02 am
Well, actually I don't think it would be much of a challenge if I decided to use C-7 aviation pack parts... :nervous:

Stock parts, might be a tad harder. Or with Challenger parts, or with NovaPunch... I'll see what I can manage.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on January 14, 2012, 05:24:31 am
Well... my first attempt, at least it made it to orbit...

(http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1917/screenshot0lt.png)

(http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6225/screenshot1spr.png)

(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/1176/screenshot2wpo.png)

Jebediah approves of the design of this ship. It is made of rockets, and fuel tanks. Well it does have a bit of structure on the top. And an advanced SAS module to provide guidance via vectored main thrusters.


(http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/5531/screenshot3fu.png)

(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2613/screenshot6da.png)

However, Bill and Bob were not so enthusiastic about the design flaw that exhibited itself once the craft was already at orbit - the stack prongs oscillated too much, with not enough damping, and as a result... well...

(http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/5044/screenshot7c.png)

(http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/159/screenshot8zs.png)

(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/659/screenshot9yc.png)

(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6188/screenshot10fh.png)


I am still in orbit. Safe return is doubtful, but I expect re-entry sequence to provide quite a bit of amusement...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on January 14, 2012, 05:47:14 am
Haha, attempting to land blindly on the Munar darkside.  Now that's how REAL Kerbonauts do it! :) 

"Screw the altimeter, I can FEEL the surface!"  -Jeb's last words
THe altimeter showed me the distance to Kerbin....and I was too lazy to calculate, so I fired the engines at the last possible moment and I realy flinched as the rocket suddenly landed quite spectacular...with a big bang  :D
And they realy should add something like heat during reentry, cause on another mission my Kerbonauts plummeted into the atmosphere with around 3000ms and the shute simply decided to leave to capsule...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on January 14, 2012, 05:53:59 am
The saga continues...

De-orbit burn completed, descending into lower atmosphere, plenty of fuel in reserve.

Somehow, Bill and Bob are not re-assured by this.

(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/3115/screenshot11v.png)

(http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/4757/screenshot12yq.png)


Thrusters engaged for the final braking and touchdown.


(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/8325/screenshot13dr.png)

They produce an impressive amount of water vapour. Jebediah comments how the obscured visibility was never a problem before, going up.

(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2258/screenshot14u.png)

Vertical speed killed. Jebediah comments: "Hey guys this might actually work!"

(http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/8797/screenshot15z.png)


Note: Landing on an incline is not recommended.

(http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/8232/screenshot16ya.png)

(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/5539/screenshot17e.png)

(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7172/screenshot18k.png)

(http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/373/screenshot19qw.png)

(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9926/screenshot20l.png)


Mission Control was quite astonished, but not as much as Bill and Bob. Jebediah just wants to do it again as soon as possible.

Bill and Bob are insisting, however, that future vehicles be fitted with at least one decoupler and parachute for the capsule. Kerbal Space Control is currently debating whether this idea has merit.



...aaand yeah heat management has not been taken into consideration. At all.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on January 14, 2012, 06:35:15 am
ive been doing a lot of ships with more powerful non-gimballed engines with only a couple small gimballed engines for stabilization. it seems to work quite well. better now that we can link tanks so they run out of fuel at the same time.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on January 14, 2012, 09:14:24 am
haha look at that they survived!
well no matter what, you must admit the capsule is quite resilient (if you follow the direction printed on the side that says: "this side up").
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on January 18, 2012, 01:40:25 pm
I made a video about going to Mun, using a revised version of my Juturn V design. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7OQq-1YGo4)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on January 31, 2012, 08:28:30 am
whoopsie daisy... the travel back from Mun, well, kinda failed :p
(http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3078/screenshot0w.png)
(http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4162/screenshot1jx.png)
(http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/5618/screenshot2gu.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: LordMelvin on January 31, 2012, 10:49:42 am
whoopsie daisy... the travel back from Mun, well, kinda failed :p
[snip]

And did they ever return?
No, they never returned
And their fate is still unknown... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 31, 2012, 11:20:42 am
Here's my super convoluted Munship-1. Amazingly enough, it worked! The goal was to get to the Mun, no staging whatsoever (well, any sort of decoupler used in the construction is fine as long as it isn't used to decouple anything at any point). For the purposes of this I imagined it's a reusable resupply craft for some sort of a Mun base, so it doesn't need to be able to get back on a single tank. Anyway, here's the short sequence illustrating the trip:

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot138.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot143.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot147.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot152.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot156.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot170.jpg)

Made good time, too - I usually take a bit over 8 hours, from launchpad to Mun surface.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on February 11, 2012, 11:20:12 pm
I see yours and raise you a version using all stock parts:

On the pad:
(http://i.imgur.com/cvcQch.jpg)

Final approach:
(http://i.imgur.com/4Xtfhh.jpg)

Close enough.
(http://i.imgur.com/jIeR0.jpg)

This took me quite a few tries to get right. I had so many rockets die just a few seconds of fuel short of a safe landing.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on February 12, 2012, 07:14:15 am
Congrats, that couldn't have been easy to pull off. While I've done several Mun return trips using stock only, I kinda prefer using mods - the stock only selection is poor to say the least, kinda kills all the fun. They're going to give us more stock parts eventually, but till then I'm using mods.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on February 14, 2012, 06:52:59 am
I also prefer mods, they have some amazing parts (I really love Down Under retro-rockets, and have recently found a whole pack of such small radial boosters).
KW Challenger part pack is another great resource. I've used it to punt the capsule into Kerbabl (that's the sun) orbit with solid boosters only.
(http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/772/screenshot9a.th.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/screenshot9a.png/)
This is the monster that did this.
(http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/5206/screenshot5ws.th.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/706/screenshot5ws.png/)
Another ship of mine, single liquid stage and (not shown) two sets of SRBs, one reusable (they have large parachutes on top, I never found if they actually survive).
It's a general purpose orbital deployment system for small payloads.
(http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/731/screenshot15jb.th.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/screenshot15jb.png/)
The same ship, on a launchpad. Kubble Space Telescope is hidden inside the fairing.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof on March 12, 2012, 12:51:38 pm
 :bump:

So, any of our code-masters been playing with the new plugin system?  Also, don't try to use oversized lander legs for grab-stuff clamps.  it will destroy your rocket and your target...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on March 12, 2012, 02:15:32 pm
I don't know, I don't have 0.14 yet anyway.
On other news, I've been making replicas for quite some time now, some of my finest:
Proton:
(http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4690/screenshot1hu.th.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/40/screenshot1hu.png/)
Saturn V:
(http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/6852/screenshot43qq.th.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/821/screenshot43qq.png/)
Both handle quite well, especially the latter (Proton's 1st stage is a pain).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Angelus on March 15, 2012, 12:54:41 pm
(http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=93787&d=1323222599)
(http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=93789&d=1323222676)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on April 29, 2012, 05:04:55 am
All the new stuff is awesome.

(http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/8386/screenshot30e.png)
(http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/6536/screenshot32sb.png)

It made it to the orbit with only slight modifications... :lol: I wonder if I could make a transforming variant.

(http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2856/screenshot80x.png)
(http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1454/screenshot79y.png)
(http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/8830/screenshot77o.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on April 29, 2012, 05:23:59 am
More of an Alpha than a VF, but still a pretty good likeness.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on May 17, 2012, 10:49:30 pm
New version out, adds spaceplanes (okay), a new satellite in an eccentric/inclined orbit (:D) and patched conic trajectory projections (holy ****)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on May 18, 2012, 12:54:35 am
Quote
a new satellite in an eccentric/inclined orbit

SO, IT HAS COME TO THIS.

MY KERBALONIANS ARE READY!  (TO DIE)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on May 18, 2012, 08:37:26 am
New version out, adds spaceplanes (okay), a new satellite in an eccentric/inclined orbit (:D) and patched conic trajectory projections (holy ****)

Don't forget the new part orientation controls. I'm sure I will find some fantastic ways to use those for evil.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on May 18, 2012, 08:51:25 am
I love Minmus (the new rock to land on).

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot9.jpg)
 
(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot12.jpg)   

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot26.jpg)   

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot28.jpg)   

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot32.jpg) 

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot36.jpg) 
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on May 18, 2012, 10:41:54 am
Toroidal engine is my new favorite part. Probably OP, but hey, it's stock! :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on May 18, 2012, 12:25:28 pm
(http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4276/screenshot8wg.png)


Da, this vill vork. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B5Mrl3o42U)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: redsniper on May 18, 2012, 04:08:50 pm
I WANT TO BELIEVE
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on May 18, 2012, 08:11:37 pm
Little Lawnmower

Big Dreams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfVh1v7GGKY&feature=related)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof on May 19, 2012, 06:33:56 pm
Finally made it to orbit with a spaceplane.  About to see if I can make a flyby of the Mun and come back to tell about it.
(http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af356/Retsof90/screenshot0.png)
EDIT:  Well, I made it around the moon, and managed to make a correction burn to aerobreak.  However, I was now out of fuel...
(http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af356/Retsof90/screenshot2.png)
And apparently this plane isn't so good at slowing down unpowered.  Also, It seems my emergency system needs some refining.
(http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af356/Retsof90/screenshot3.png)
(http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af356/Retsof90/screenshot4.png)
(http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af356/Retsof90/screenshot5.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on May 19, 2012, 07:45:45 pm
That was Kerbal. :)
I'm going to have to try getting to Minmas sometime, instead of flying around in airplanes.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof on May 22, 2012, 06:26:15 pm
Helpful hint:  If spaceplanes are putting your game in slideshow mode, go to you settings config, find the Terrain section, and turn the OceanPQs mindistance value down (there is one in each settings preset).  I recommend halving it down to 4.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ace on May 22, 2012, 07:57:56 pm
Minmas landings are a bit tricky since everything seems to be a steep slope. Lots of RCSing around to find flat-ish areas.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on May 22, 2012, 09:15:08 pm
Minmas landings are a bit tricky since everything seems to be a steep slope. Lots of RCSing around to find flat-ish areas.

The ice lakes are nice and flat. :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 18, 2012, 01:15:04 am
yip, im back in the game. needless to say i have 7 ships in orbit right now. ive been to the mun. unfortunatly my attempt to take off without fuel didnt work out to well, my kerbonauts survived, but they are stuck in a busted capsule on the mun. so i built this behemoth to go get em. took this a second before i ejected my air breathing boosters. got to orbit in time to watch that first stage fall to kerbin. apparently sticking a bunch of parachutes on it doesnt save it from exploding on inpact.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot0-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 20, 2012, 06:14:28 pm
version .16 is out. new eva features. for new and exciting ways to kill kerbonaughts.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: butter_pat_head on July 21, 2012, 11:44:59 am
version .16 is out. new eva features. for new and exciting ways to kill kerbonaughts.

And because Squad have changed the updating system again the website has been pretty much gridlocked for the entire day...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 21, 2012, 12:44:14 pm
and all my ships dont work and all the plugins i downloaded are borked. but i have jeb standing between the runway and the launch tower and have been shooting at him with rail guns.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: butter_pat_head on July 21, 2012, 02:24:34 pm
Speaking of Jeb, I just managed to get updated to 0.16 and I find it locks up while loading MechJeb  :(
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on July 21, 2012, 02:29:12 pm
It'll probably take a while before all those popular plugin mods are updated to work in 0.16. It's less surprising that the update broke the plugins.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof on July 21, 2012, 04:15:16 pm
(http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af356/Retsof90/screenshot0-1.png)
Really guys?  I leave you alone for five minutes...

Yeah, I took Bill out for an EVA, but also played with my graphics settings a bit.  Went back to the rocket only to watch it tip over...

So I decided to at least make a scene out of it.

EDIT:  Made one a bit more stable, and landed on flatter ground.
(http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af356/Retsof90/screenshot2-1.png)
(http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af356/Retsof90/screenshot1.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: butter_pat_head on July 22, 2012, 04:28:58 pm
I finally managed to land near that arch on the Mun.

Lets just say that I think its not safe for EVA ops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0hbVdrKiyI)...



[attachment deleted by a ninja]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 23, 2012, 04:55:14 am
i got 2 kerbals orbiting mun. after some upper stage engines failed while attempting to land my munbase, leaving the station on a death vector. i managed to abandon ship with all 3 kerbals, and put 2 of them back in orbit using most of their jetpack fuel. i attempted landing with the third kerbal with disastrous results. then i got another munbase in orbit with 3 kerbals on board who also need to be evacuated.  this base stranded cause the new engines were uncontrollable and i had to eject them. the munbase consists of a couple of my 19-engine couplers, and some crew tanks (5 of them) sandwiched in between. i figure theres enough space to accomidate 18 of the little bastards, assuming jeb doesnt convert one of the modules to a bar. landing struts ladders and other features included. these parts include a large amount of descent fuel, so no extra tankage is required. reguardless after these two launches i perfected the base design, used engines that didnt suck, and rearranged my rcs thrusters as well as beefed up the structure. the capsule sits atop the whole thing with the descent stage is attached atop of that with a decoupler so it can be ejected after landing using the hover and eject technique. its configured much like an oversized abort tower, but with a lot more power.

so just got my 3rd moon base in orbit, with working engines and plenty of fuel. too much in fact, i want to lighten the load somewhat. so i decided to do a little rescue mission, to populate the base. with 5 kerbals to rescue i have something to do with all that surplus delta-v. there are also 6 kerbals on the ground occupying a rover and a wrecked ship (jeb among them, hince the wrecked ship) who would just love a place to stay. now i just need to figure out how to do a a sync orbit and rendezvous manuvers. ive already done the plane alignment, easy enough to do by eyeball (ksp's interface is good at that). and syncing orbit is just a matter of deviating slightly from the target's orbit and waiting. manuvers i learned to do playing orbiter.

the last manuver is kinda trickey. even if you get to where you can stay fairly close to the target throughout the orbit. the slight differences tend do cause a psudo-orbit where from either object's frame of reference the other object is always rotating around it. i could do the maneuver in orbiter by watching the orbital velocity parameter and trying to closely match velocity vectors while closing distance until i was in transponder range and could lock onto it with the docking mfd. the problem is (besides the fact i dont have a relative velocity gauge or docking mfd) the time it takes to do this allows both objects to follow their orbits somewhat, and its very easy to end up on a course that diverges greatly from where you had intended to be. i need more instrumentation to pull this off i figure. i could try to do it by eyeball. but the ship has plenty of fuel and the manuvers dont use much, and the last quarter tank should do the job. but im going to bed right now, i got to think about this some. maybe il post some pictures of the thing when its on the surface/rescuing kerbals.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 23, 2012, 06:12:26 am
I may be (well i know i am) late to take an interest in this. But i think i'll give it a go after work today. It's free right?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on July 23, 2012, 06:18:06 am
I may be (well i know i am) late to take an interest in this. But i think i'll give it a go after work today. It's free right?

1.3.3 is available as a "demo"
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 23, 2012, 08:29:49 am
Will happily try the demo out. I'd check the site at work, but work are fickle and every gaming site worth visiting
Spoiler:
(apart from this glorious masterpiece of HLP'ness of course)
is blocked.

Any good features in the full thingamywotsit?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on July 23, 2012, 08:40:29 am
EVAs are the newest big game mechanic added, there's a second set of rocket parts for the three-man Command Module, parts for making aircraft and shuttles, a second satellite, and a remade terrain engine.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 23, 2012, 02:40:35 pm
not to mention persistent objects, you launch it it stays there. and theres a useful quicksave feature, so you can retry that botched mun landing without having to launch another rocket. theres also minmus which i dont think was in the demo. and theres also a plugin system that can be useful.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof on July 24, 2012, 12:00:31 am
(http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af356/Retsof90/screenshot3-1.png)
Well, though my Munar lander damaged (detached) an engine upon landing, I managed to get a rescue ship there with room for everyone.  The problem is, that the "rescue" lander lacks the fuel to return... Well, their supplies should last them quite a while.  I wonder what files I would edit to simulate a fuel transfer...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 24, 2012, 12:34:36 am
i think if found a good technique for rendezvous manuvers. as you recall i had 5 kerbals stuck in munar orbit. 3 from a derelect munbase who's descent engines were non functional thanks to an assembly error. and 2 others who had bailed from another munbase, which also lacked functional descent engines and was on a doomed trajectory (there were 3 kerbals on board, one tried to land with his jetpack and went splat). to do the job i constructed a crew transfer vehicle, with space aboard for 13 kerbals.

anyway after aligning the orbital planes and a sync orbit manuver, and a lot of waiting. i get close to the taget. a burn is needed to close the gap in your velocities, prograde if its faster, retro if otherwise. this wont last for long, there is always some divergence between the trajectories. if the planes werent aligned well you would get north and south divergence. but since that was taken care of with an earlier manuver its not an issue (though you may have inadvertently diverged with other manuvers). you still diverge either toward or away from the planet and you need to do something about this. you really cant use prograde and retrograde manuvers either since these are needed to control relative speed. the trick i found was to burn towards or away from the planet to control the altitude divergence, while using prograde and retrograde burns to control relative speed. through a series of these burns you can get close.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot18.jpg)

inside 1km is good enough for an eva, i figure you could do a much longer approach as i didnt use a lot of the jetpack fuel, but these would be subject to greater perturbations. so i depart my crippled installation (its meant to work in gravity, it doesnt even have zero g bathrooms!) . essentially the trick here is to make the distance number smaller, without overshooting the target. pick up a reasonable amount of speed and wait. observe the stations movements in relation to the kerbal, and try to make the station hold a spot on the screen. this will make sure your headed to it and not just spinning around it.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot17.jpg)

when its close enough that you get an idea of your speed, its probibly time to slow down and go for the ladder.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot19-1.jpg)

and there we go, a ship full of kerbals, like 8 of them if i learned how to count right. theres room for 5 more, but then they would have to share their beer. but im gonna take em to the munbase with the working descent stage and room for 28 and see if they dont die when i try to land the thing. they can meat up with the other 2 crews on the surface and have a bbq.

Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 24, 2012, 05:29:44 pm
munar colonization continues!

after abit it became clear that ground transportation in the munar colony was lacking. kerbals were getting stranded 3 klicks from base when their jetpacks ran out. some rovers had been landed previously however, jeb being the daredevil that he is had wrecked all of them. so the eggheads at the vab modified the base launcher to carry a small motorcade.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot27.jpg)

unfortunately it blew up, so a second launch was planned. this time it went off without a hitch.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot22.jpg)

a little unforeseen problem arose. when the moon buggies were detached the base had to lift off again and land a little ways away. by the time they had the thing on the ground again all the buggies had rolled away. after some buggy wrangling, and swinging around to pick up bob who was stranded only a klick and a half away. after all they needed a 4th driver to take the cars to base.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot24.jpg)

following this the colonists had planned a outdoor nighttime meeting to figure out what kind of hardware they would demand next.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot26-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Thaeris on July 24, 2012, 06:19:53 pm
The smile on my face... You can not concieve of it...

:D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on July 24, 2012, 06:49:33 pm
man, those mods are awesome.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 24, 2012, 10:47:18 pm
oooh the autom8 dohicky in mechjeb is a lua interpreter. will have to play with that.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Rodo on July 26, 2012, 09:22:55 am
hey quiestion, the free version will not support those new vehicles right?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Commander Zane on July 26, 2012, 09:29:31 am
No, the Demo doesn't have plugin support.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on July 26, 2012, 11:56:29 am
Just finished an orbital mission... with Bob Kerman hanging onto a ladder on the outside of the rocket the entire time.

EVA stuff is a lot more fun than I had expected it to be. Way better than the space planes update. :)

Up next: figuring out how to keep kerbals on the outside of the ship from gradually sliding down the ladder whenever I try to accelerate...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 26, 2012, 02:18:42 pm
I've not managed to reach orbit yet...... Some AMAZING explosions though.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 26, 2012, 04:27:38 pm
i was trying to expand my mun base. i landed 3 more lunar habitat modules and crashed 2 more. the game is starting to slow down a lot due to all the space junk floating around, so i used the laser plugin and designed a fast intercept ship to hunt and kill all the space debris i dont want floating around anymore. im getting good at rendezvous manuvers. ive been using mechjeb but only for holding orientations, but ive mostluy been pulling it off by eyeball. ive intercepted 5 or 6 spent boosters already. some of them still have fuel on board, i kinda whished there was a fuel transfer plugin that allowed in-space refueling from abandoned tankage.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on July 26, 2012, 05:30:51 pm
i was trying to expand my mun base. i landed 3 more lunar habitat modules and crashed 2 more. the game is starting to slow down a lot due to all the space junk floating around, so i used the laser plugin and designed a fast intercept ship to hunt and kill all the space debris i dont want floating around anymore. im getting good at rendezvous manuvers. ive been using mechjeb but only for holding orientations, but ive mostluy been pulling it off by eyeball. ive intercepted 5 or 6 spent boosters already. some of them still have fuel on board, i kinda whished there was a fuel transfer plugin that allowed in-space refueling from abandoned tankage.


DEBRIS SECTION GO

(http://deculture101.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/planetes_earth_moon.jpg)
DIVE IN THE SKY
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on July 26, 2012, 05:33:03 pm
You get a gold star, sir.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Mongoose on July 26, 2012, 05:36:52 pm
Yes yes.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ravenholme on July 26, 2012, 06:21:49 pm
Do people have any absolutely essential mod recommendations for the latest commercial release? (0.16)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 26, 2012, 09:39:06 pm
get mechjeb. it gives you all that instrumentation i have up there. carts is a nice little plugin too, gives you the mun buggy chassis. theres a first person camera plugin as well which comes in handy for flying.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on July 26, 2012, 10:28:53 pm
get mechjeb. it gives you all that instrumentation i have up there. carts is a nice little plugin too, gives you the mun buggy chassis. theres a first person camera plugin as well which comes in handy for flying.

Of course, mechjeb is for sissies. ;) First person camera sounds neat, though, that would make orbital rendezvous a lot easier.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 27, 2012, 03:09:59 am
get mechjeb. it gives you all that instrumentation i have up there. carts is a nice little plugin too, gives you the mun buggy chassis. theres a first person camera plugin as well which comes in handy for flying.

Of course, mechjeb is for sissies. ;) First person camera sounds neat, though, that would make orbital rendezvous a lot easier.

are you kidding? its lost more ships than i have flying manual.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ravenholme on July 27, 2012, 04:11:07 am
Cheers, will grab Mechjeb and the Carts then. Anything else?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on July 27, 2012, 10:32:07 pm
The first-person thing would certainly help landing aircraft. I built a few spaceplanes to fly around and train in, but crashed every time.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on July 27, 2012, 11:30:12 pm
anyone have a decent spaceplane tutorial for me to follow or something?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Thaeris on July 31, 2012, 12:19:09 am
Center of pressure ahead of center of gravity - unstable.
Center of pressure aft of center of gravity - stable.

The center of pressure is where the net lifting force of a wing occurs, and the farther forward the center of gravity is (the location of the net weight downwards) in relation to the center of pressure, the faster the aerospacecraft will have to fly to land safely. The center of gravity of a conventional rocket as we have today will shift significantly over the course of a lauch, as fuel is burned up, etc., etc. You want a stable craft rather than an unstabe one, and the more unstable a craft, the harder it is to control.

...That's basically the basics of figuring out the design of an aircraft or aerospacecraft in a nutshell. I hope that should do. :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on July 31, 2012, 01:37:39 am
Center of pressure ahead of center of gravity - unstable.
Center of pressure aft of center of gravity - stable.

The center of pressure is where the net lifting force of a wing occurs, and the farther forward the center of gravity is (the location of the net weight downwards) in relation to the center of pressure, the faster the aerospacecraft will have to fly to land safely. The center of gravity of a conventional rocket as we have today will shift significantly over the course of a lauch, as fuel is burned up, etc., etc. You want a stable craft rather than an unstabe one, and the more unstable a craft, the harder it is to control.

...That's basically the basics of figuring out the design of an aircraft or aerospacecraft in a nutshell. I hope that should do. :)
so, in short, engines behind, wings forward? :p
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on July 31, 2012, 02:27:26 am
Dear log,

Today, I landed on the Mun, and then hopped back to Kerbin. It was surprisingly simple once they built a launch vehicle capable of actually getting to the Mun and back.

First step was to just turn west after the launch, that put me into a nice ellipse that would carry me right through Mun's orbit. After my ship got captured by the Mun's gravity, all I had to do was plot a course that would put me right onto the back side of it.

(http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3494/screenshot1df.png)

After I had a good course, I burnt up the last of the main drive's fuel to decelerate.

(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/8997/screenshot4ej.png)

Drop that module, and continue to the surface using the landing rocket.

(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/7540/screenshot5or.png)

Came in niiiiiice and easy... easy... eaaaaaasy... dang, too much lateral movement, and me without any RCS.

(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2601/screenshot6nja.png)

Well, I'm on the surface, and everything is still intact. I wonder... yep. Extending the landing gear popped the module right-side-up. Time for a munwalk!

(http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/8245/screenshot9dd.png)

OK, same plan as before. Take off, head East(?), hit orbit, transfer to Kerbin.

(http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/3960/screenshot11cu.png)

Meh, I'm tired. I'm going to just go straight in. Orbit Kerbin, degrade orbit, drop in and land (safely!)

(http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/2725/screenshot13o.png)

Entry point calculated... and burn!

(http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/3761/screenshot16va.png)

Deploy chute! Hope it holds up, those guys who pick these up on the side of the road aren't always the most reliable...

(http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/8375/screenshot18c.png)

Hey, what do you know. It held together, and I didn't die on impact! And I'm only 20 km from the launchpad! Hope somebody invents the truck soon, or it'll be a looooong walk back.

(http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/2605/screenshot21yn.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 31, 2012, 03:34:31 am
Well done mate :yes:
My projects results so far wed-Fri
- A shuttle lost heading off into deep space
- An unmanned orbital vehicle orbiting Kerbin with a full tank
- A pod orbiting the sun with three Kerbalnauts. ... Orbit rapidly degrading


- A lot of VTOL wreckage on my runway
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 31, 2012, 08:15:59 am
Center of pressure ahead of center of gravity - unstable.
Center of pressure aft of center of gravity - stable.

The center of pressure is where the net lifting force of a wing occurs, and the farther forward the center of gravity is (the location of the net weight downwards) in relation to the center of pressure, the faster the aerospacecraft will have to fly to land safely. The center of gravity of a conventional rocket as we have today will shift significantly over the course of a lauch, as fuel is burned up, etc., etc. You want a stable craft rather than an unstabe one, and the more unstable a craft, the harder it is to control.

...That's basically the basics of figuring out the design of an aircraft or aerospacecraft in a nutshell. I hope that should do. :)
so, in short, engines behind, wings forward? :p


center of lift preferebly above the center of gravity, center of drag behind, and center of thrust should be in perfect alignment and balance along the z axis. the higher a wing is the more roll and pitch stability you will have. the cost here is that it puts a source of high drag above the cg giving you a nose up tendency. this is not really a bad thing though, as the nose often drops on its own rather than rising. remember that wings are very draggy so it pays to put them slightly behind the cg. if you get a flip happy plane, try moving the wings back a hair. atmospheric craft give you some play in the tolerances, you can always use control surfaces to handle trim (your joystick/profile software needs to support this as theres no trim axis in ksp) to gain stability if the aircraft has any self steering tendencies.  if building a space plane things are more critical you cannot rely on the control surfaces during all flight phases. the sas and rcs stystems are often nor very powerful or too dependent on fuel, respectively, to be used in this regard, so engine placement is critical. gimbals engines might save you from slight imbalances but avoid major ones.

- A lot of VTOL wreckage on my runway

i played around with vtols, they are kinda tough to get right. biggest problem is the lack of throttle trim. you often have a setting where everything is balenced, but if you raise or lower the throttle you can shift the balance of the whole ship. its quite hard to get the center of thrust centered.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Iss Mneur on July 31, 2012, 12:13:47 pm
atmospheric craft give you some play in the tolerances, you can always use control surfaces to handle trim (your joystick/profile software needs to support this as theres no trim axis in ksp) to gain stability if the aircraft has any self steering tendencies
Unless I misunderstood what you are saying, KSP has had trim for all three axis for a couple of releases now (though the demo does not, IIRC).  The default keys are the same as normal flight except for holding the alt key down.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 31, 2012, 06:06:13 pm
good to know, but ive been using the hardware trim on my joystick since the first c7 packs came out. i was under the impression that the game had no trim controls.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 31, 2012, 06:20:17 pm
I've seen it on a let's play (breaking the sound barrier) I think.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on August 01, 2012, 04:41:45 am
Mechjeb is awesome. Parts suck tho. Tons of mismatched **** all over. What happened with Sunday's Punch pack? i've seen the silisko **** and the nova-something remix but they are so... full of fail its hilarious.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on August 01, 2012, 05:24:04 am
Punch pack is part of Novapunch remix now.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on August 01, 2012, 05:29:48 am
not all of the parts and especially not the more wacky engines and such. and it feels so disconnected.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on August 01, 2012, 09:27:18 am
Just learned about the "fuel bug" and used it to fly this ship all the way to the Mun:

(http://i.imgur.com/qMUje.png)

Note that this is the ship I launched from KSC with. Half of the fuel in one "regular-size" fuel tank was enough to get me all the way to a Mun touchdown. Would have had plenty of gas to get home (or anywhere else) if I hadn't tried to fly the thing through a nearby arch instead (as it turns out, this kills the Kerbal).

(http://i.imgur.com/kBHSe.jpg)

Hope they fix this in the next release, messed up fuel dynamics like this suck my enjoyment out of the game. :(



Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on August 01, 2012, 05:19:09 pm
fuel bug?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on August 01, 2012, 06:21:40 pm
fuel bug?

Basically, as you go from 100% throttle to 0% throttle, thrust scales down linearly. But fuel consumption scales down quadratically.

At 100% throttle, you consume fuel at 100% normal rate.
At 50% throttle, you consume fuel at 25% rate. (.5 * .5)
At 10% throttle, you consume fuel at 1% rate. (.1 * .1)

Keep your throttle at bare minimum levels, and fuel consumption rate is basically 0, giving you practically infinite fuel. And with a ship this small, you never need more than about 10-15% throttle even for takeoff or a mun landing...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on August 01, 2012, 06:50:15 pm
lol, fail.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof on August 01, 2012, 07:12:58 pm
Sure that's a bug?  sounds kind of reasonable to me, except at the absurdly low throttles.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on August 01, 2012, 10:21:13 pm
It makes no sense at all.

Thrust of a rocket can be defined as follows:

F = dp/dt

p = mv

m = mass of propellant

v = ejection velocity of propellant

t = time.


Usually, it is the velocity that is of interest to us. However, it can be said that within the operating propellant flow rates of the rocket, the ejection velocity of the propellant is more or less constant and defined by the operating principles of the engine.

For example, ejection velocity from chemical propellant rocket engines is defined by (oversimplifying a bit) the chemical potential energy in the propellants. For reference, see Wikipedia article about liquid rocket propellants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellants#Propellant_table). The flow rate of the propellants affects this comparatively little, so instead of the typical expression

F = m dv/dt  (or F = ma)

we can use the following form:

F = ve dm/dt

where ve is an approximately constant ejection velocity. Of course, there can be some variation at different thrust levels depending on engine design - typically they have an optimal performance range which they are designed to operate on.

Further inspection of the term dm/dt reveals it is basically the flow rate of the propellant - how much mass is ejected out of the engine per unit of time.


This, essentially, means that within their operational range, most rocket engines have a linear relation between thrust and fuel consumption.



Of course, most rocket engines are also unable to operate at arbitrarily small thrust settings, when the minuscule propellant flow basically just scatters out into the combustion chamber, not generating sufficiently high concentration for ignition. While the small amount of propellant flowing through the nozzle would in fact provide small thrust, this would be extremely wasteful from energy perspective, as the ejection velocity would be very slow, and none of the chemical potential of the propellants would be used at all. It would be about as effective as a constant slow leak on the tanks.

Hypergolic rockets of course require much less fuel flow to function due to the volatility of the propellants, making them ideal for RCS thrusters and in-flight course corrections; the Apollo CSM engine for example was a bipropellant hypergolic engine built for reliability.

Ion engines, of course, would be scalable by retaining high voltage, but regulating the propellant flow to arbitrarily small values. This would  be reasonably simple to do, and would provide a fully linear thrust response curve.


Ideally, chemical rockets in KSP should have a set "lowest possible" thrust rate enabled at 1% throttle, an optimal burn rate at around 75-80%, and maximum power at 100-120% for emergencies.

But they haven't even introduced fuel/oxidizer division yet; every engine acts as a monopropellant - which considering kerbals I wouldn't really be surprised by them using some insanely toxic and corrosive stuff as their main rocket propellant...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on August 01, 2012, 10:24:43 pm
More to the point, it's a confirmed bug the devs said they'd fix. :p
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on August 02, 2012, 11:17:37 am
This bug gives me ideas.......Ideas for a vessel comprised primarily of Turbojet engines.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on August 03, 2012, 06:18:43 am
Fly me to the mün...
(http://egzodus.com/dir/1_ksp.jpg)

We are on it :D
(http://egzodus.com/dir/2_ksp.jpg)

and, we also made it back. mechjeb is awesome. i couldnt do **** otherwise in regards to getting to the mun. the only half-manual thing was the deorbit to kerbin. and i was running on vapors by that point but i managed to land the lander near ksp center.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on August 03, 2012, 08:15:16 am
i think im going to try to land a kerbal on minmus with the jet pack.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: FireSpawn on August 08, 2012, 06:43:34 pm
Am I the only person who thinks that there should be a memorial wall/monument/mountain/planetoids with the names of all the dead Kerbals we sent to their fiery demise?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on August 08, 2012, 06:52:49 pm
Am I the only person who thinks that there should be a memorial wall/monument/mountain/planetoids with the names of all the dead Kerbals we sent to their fiery demise?

Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb

...you get the idea.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on August 08, 2012, 11:22:50 pm
Oh, come on.  Jeb had to have taken Bill and/or Bob out with him on at least a few occasions.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Pred the Penguin on August 09, 2012, 11:01:55 am
Am I the only person who thinks that there should be a memorial wall/monument/mountain/planetoids with the names of all the dead Kerbals we sent to their fiery demise?

Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Jeb Bill Bob

...you get the idea.
Fixed it...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on August 09, 2012, 11:08:09 am
Firespawn will tell you, my "DOOM PLATFORMS™" are heavy contributors to the rise in Kerbal mortality.

My first solar-satellite :D (fondly remembers)

For the record, anyone who's seen BAttle LA, the Aliens heavy fliers, .......... Pretty much my DOOM PLATFORMS™.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: FireSpawn on August 09, 2012, 03:16:39 pm
Firespawn will tell you, my "DOOM PLATFORMS™" are heavy contributors to the rise in Kerbal mortality.

My first solar-satellite :D (fondly remembers)

For the record, anyone who's seen BAttle LA, the Aliens heavy fliers, .......... Pretty much my DOOM PLATFORMS™.

Currently on the prowl from KSP WMD mods.

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23462928.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on August 11, 2012, 04:16:07 am
(http://egzodus.com/dir/ksp_3.jpg)

oh MechJeb landing autopilot, oh you XD
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on August 11, 2012, 04:57:05 am
MAx go into SPAAAAAAAACCCCCEEEEEE!!!!!!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: FireSpawn on August 12, 2012, 02:32:26 pm
This made me HNNNNNG (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inkkLAfFIbY)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on August 12, 2012, 02:38:42 pm
explodie
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: FireSpawn on August 12, 2012, 02:52:52 pm
explodie
I know, right?
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/252/me-gusta.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on August 12, 2012, 07:08:40 pm
This made me HNNNNNG (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inkkLAfFIbY)

So THAT's what multiplayer KSP would be like...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: An4ximandros on August 12, 2012, 08:58:13 pm
I really need to get off my lazy arse and get this game, money would likely feel too well spent with all the trash games nowadays.

This has to be my favorite gameplay video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG3x3yBVqVs
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on August 13, 2012, 04:03:18 am
He didn't even try to sperate the stages and activate the chute to save his brave kerbals^^
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on August 13, 2012, 05:00:08 am
Best launch I ever had was when two pieces on the bottom of my stack fell off shortly after liftoff, shot out sideways, then spun around and smacked into the center of the stack, blowing the entire structure to hell save for the command capsule and a single rocket immediately below it.  So I pressed space a few times to eject the ...er... 'spent' stages and ignite that last rocket, but must have spaced too many times and accidentally the whole thing.  The parachute activated and yanked the command capsule off to the side and detached it from the rocket, which continued shooting on upward.  The Kerbals did not get to return home though -- a piece of the exploded stack somehow managed to fall onto the capsule during its descent.  Death was instantaneous.

I have no idea if that last rocket actually made it into space, but I like to think it did.  *salute*
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on August 13, 2012, 11:44:25 am
I have no idea if that last rocket actually made it into space, but I like to think it did.  *salute*

Meanwhile, in the Kerbiet Union, forced-labor camps redirect their efforts from plowing the snow and permafrost off of the Kerberian tundra to salvaging the shattered remains of your rocket's final stage.  Between that, and the lunar command module that I had parachute down on their soil, they'll be ready for their own Mun mission soon.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: FireSpawn on August 13, 2012, 12:10:51 pm
So, tried running o.16 in my rig last night. From the time it took from running the exe to the opening menu appearing, I managed to watch the closing ceremony for the olympics.  Dekker's rig will be home to my idiot missiles Spacecraft.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on August 13, 2012, 12:15:15 pm
So, tried running o.16 in my rig last night. From the time it took from running the exe to the opening menu appearing, I managed to watch the closing ceremony for the olympics.  Dekker's rig will be home to my idiot missiles Spacecraft.

how?  my ancient athlon 64, 1gb memory and vintage gf6600 GT runs the game fairly well, until I start attaching lots of components together
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on August 13, 2012, 12:58:14 pm
I bought his back in 07, for schoolwork, It was tweo years old back then :yes:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on August 13, 2012, 01:12:54 pm
built mine in about 2004
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on September 03, 2012, 09:21:38 am
in other news, i have started modding KSP: have a link (http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/19233-Gasbag-Industries-are-open-for-business)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on September 03, 2012, 10:36:19 am
you too?

i havent released anything yet, pending balence, plugin integration and some textures (just a couple), i have made about a dozen unreleased parts, mostly half meter upper stage parts. ive started to look to plugin development but their tutorials are kinda derpy and dont produce usable plugins. ive also been trying to add freetrack support to mumech hull cameras, with little success. after i get that working and give em my patch, i think il look into some variable thrust vtol management system or something like it. vtols are notoriously hard to control and need control systems.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on September 03, 2012, 01:02:38 pm
heh. i'm working on different landing gears at the moment mainly. this was a side project while i figure out the main sillyness around the stuff.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on September 04, 2012, 02:06:12 am
yea i got my mumech freetrack support diff up on pastebin (http://pastebin.com/dV2NQwG6). i hope they rush out a new version soon because of it. its gonna make those munar landings much more awesome. coding plugins dont seem all that difficult. c# is like c++ for noobs.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof on September 22, 2012, 06:58:51 pm
:necro:
Good news:  the newest update is out!  Featuring a more complete solar system and a new engine to explore it with!
Bad News:  It came out at least a day ago and I still cant get the patcher to connect.  They're probably still cleaning up the molten slag that used to be the server...

Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on September 22, 2012, 07:10:49 pm
its been out for days, but i havent been able to get on the site and dl the new version yet. should be less busy by now.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon 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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Quanto on September 23, 2012, 01:42:28 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?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta 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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke 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 :D i did a flat transfer to minmus, managed to land on fumes. made it back on rcs thrusters alone.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi 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).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek 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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta 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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on September 23, 2012, 12:52:36 pm
You need to pay for the game right?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman 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:

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/duna20_zps0a8dd2be.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/duna21_zpsbd4e90ef.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/duna26_zpsbf88ee5d.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/duna29_zpsfbf6e25e.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/duna32_zpsb8c4b87d.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/duna33_zpsd8f00a77.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/duna37_zps075ccf3a.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/duna41_zpsc6cab3a8.jpg)

Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on September 23, 2012, 10:58:29 pm
My lander design:

(http://i.imgur.com/gIXkA.png)

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!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Retsof 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
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon 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).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Iss Mneur on September 25, 2012, 10:05:15 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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on September 26, 2012, 04:07:38 am
isnt RCS for transationals with the I,J,K,L keys?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon 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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke 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.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot1_zpse6042e0f.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker 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  :shaking:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Mongoose on October 02, 2012, 04:44:53 pm
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? :p
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 03, 2012, 03:29:15 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? :p

are you kidding i get .5 frames a second when i launch this thing, theres no time to draw fire.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 06, 2012, 04:03:03 am
i released my parts works in .17
link expunged

Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 07, 2012, 09:13:43 am
just launched spinneh station. named after the great spinneh kerman who theorized that if you could spin a roundish base in space you could make jeb really dizzy, also you would get gravity as a side effect.

the launch vehicle weighed 1300 tons on the pad, of which about 125 tons of it is shown here. it has had its fuel tanks refilled from one of the orbital tankers serving as orbiting gas stations around kerbin. with space for 60 kerbals. it is also equipped with mechjeb, a fuel transfer system. about a dozen mpd thrusters, and fully fueled, 12800 liters of fuel. more than enough to park the base around jool if so desired.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot31_zpse0cd26ac.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on October 07, 2012, 09:39:35 am
I want to see your LV on the pad.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 08, 2012, 01:23:34 am
very well

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot37_zps2f2b048e.jpg)

just dont try to attempt your gravity turn while you are still in the atmosphere. all that drag up front will topple your ass.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on October 12, 2012, 01:27:58 am
My most recent project: a Mun mission done entirely in the cockpit, without external views, use of the map, or silly math:
http://imgur.com/a/xfX65#0

Apparently I've done enough Mun missions now that I can just wing it completely. Staying in the cockpit makes landings truly intense, though, especially since I have no way of knowing if I'm about to set down on a slope (besides quickly rotating from a few k above the landing site to take a peek).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on October 12, 2012, 03:18:47 am
As a non-driver, that thought terrifies me..
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on October 12, 2012, 07:49:36 am
My most recent project: a Mun mission done entirely in the cockpit, without external views, use of the map, or silly math:
http://imgur.com/a/xfX65#0

Apparently I've done enough Mun missions now that I can just wing it completely. Staying in the cockpit makes landings truly intense, though, especially since I have no way of knowing if I'm about to set down on a slope (besides quickly rotating from a few k above the landing site to take a peek).


(http://www.fishchan.com/fish/src/134946349293.gif)


Bravo good sir.

Now, someone needs to make a proper Munar module with the default view direction in horizontal position, and with good view... it'll probably look significantly like the Apollo LEM.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 12, 2012, 12:05:32 pm
i moved one of my spinneh stations to mun and one to minmus. and i have a space exploitation vehicle and some rovers and fuel pods on their way to duna. im using one of the hackish docking mod and ive been having trouble keeping all the modules connected, i started with the ship, the two rovers and 3 fuel pods. and i used up one of the fuel pods to get my hohmann transfer started and have jettisoned it. im also not sure about my trajectory, im doing the 90 degree lead that always seems to work, it all comes down to the course correction burns which are the difference between getting capture and just flying on by.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on October 12, 2012, 03:56:14 pm
I get the feeling, that if I get round to playing the latest version... The Kerbal system would be littered with the barren hulks of empty interplanetary craft and Kerbalnauts in just a spacesuit strewn throughout........
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on October 12, 2012, 04:57:19 pm
I've found this useful: http://ksp.olex.biz/

I'm not one of those that actually holds a protractor up to the screen, but it's useful to know in what ballpark I should be guessing and fudging angles.

And yes, I am accumulating an alarming amount of space debris.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on October 27, 2012, 05:53:26 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/dmDII.jpg)

This baby will get you to Duna and back. With fuel to spare, believe it or not.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on October 27, 2012, 07:29:27 pm
I see aerospikes on that design :colbert:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 27, 2012, 07:32:23 pm
i prefer 1500 ton on the pad behemoths myself.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on October 27, 2012, 10:30:23 pm
I see aerospikes on that design :colbert:

I stick to stock, but I have no qualms about using/abusing the best (stock) parts until they get fixed. :D

Also, looking at the shot again, it appears that the angle and backlight has completely hidden the two small parachutes on the middle set of fuel tanks. Go figure.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 28, 2012, 01:50:01 am
aerospikes are stock, ever since squad hired c7.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on October 28, 2012, 09:37:06 am
aerospikes are stock, ever since squad hired c7.

Yeah, we both know that, they're just horribly broken.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on October 29, 2012, 07:09:40 am
in other news (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/19233), i've made another part...
(http://i.imgur.com/4rIbA.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 29, 2012, 05:34:55 pm
ive been working on hall effect thusters lately. ive been slowed up by a recent drive failure so i havent got to the textures yet. i also figured out that unity is better at generating normal maps from height maps than photoshop is. i also figured out how the virtual cockpit system works, now i just need to remodel everything to fit your typical kerbal.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on November 03, 2012, 07:35:17 pm
I think this is my greatest KSP achievement to date (http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/12kovs/jeb_goes_to_duna_without_a_spaceship/)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: jr2 on November 03, 2012, 08:29:10 pm
FYI, one of the .17.1 updates was removing the parachute unspawning when deployed high speeds (!).  I was wondering what was going on.  :lol:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on November 04, 2012, 02:04:08 am
Using docking and fuel transfer I just launched a successful twelve-ship mission to Duna. feels good man
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on November 04, 2012, 06:34:06 am
I think this is my greatest KSP achievement to date (http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/12kovs/jeb_goes_to_duna_without_a_spaceship/)
Awesome man, what about a mission to get him back?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on November 04, 2012, 06:39:05 am
A Mass Relay network would be absolutely hilarious to find. I expect it to eventually happen as a mod.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 04, 2012, 10:11:25 am
i launched a 6 ship duna mission (5 now as one of the fuel post has gone empty), it hasnt gotten there yet. fast forwarding would get in the way of my munar stripmining activities.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on November 11, 2012, 04:22:16 pm
Landed pretty much everywhere with stock parts and kind of got bored of them so I went to check out what new mod parts are available these days. This made it possible to make a, shall we say, different approach to landing on other planets / moons :) I made some kind of truck / helicopter hybrid (basically just slammed two VTOL rotors on the thing) to see if this would even fly. Surprisingly enough, when thrust and mass centers coincide this thing actually flies like a proper helicopter, so after testing it on Kerbin, I decided to test it a bit further away: on Laythe (one of Jool's moons; Jool is a gas giant and currently the outermost planet in the Kerbol system - call it a Jupiter analog for lack of a better one. Laythe is an ocean moon that seems to be all about sandy beaches on it's bunch of small islands; perfect vacation spot for Jeb and the gang).


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot217.jpg)

So, I slapped this truck with rotors on a massive rocket. What could go wrong?


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot226.jpg)

Trucks in spaaaaceee!


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot239.jpg)

Here's something you don't see from a truck's cabin every day. Chew on that, History Channel.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot253.jpg)

Picked a landing spot in relative vicinity of one of my previous landed missions. What's the point of awesome maneuvers if nobody's around to see your showing off, after all?


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot256.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot259.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot268.jpg)


Amazingly enough, after ditching the interplanetary stage, the helicopter / rover stage didn't decide to have any nasty stability issues and instead flew like you'd expect a real helicopter to. That's definitely one of the cooler ways to land a spaceship :)

Lots of fuel left in the truck's main tank, these VTOL rotors are pretty efficient. Doesn't exactly fly too fast (managed to get it flying close to 100 m/s while maintaining a 500m altitude) and it's ceiling is just below 10k, but it's certainly a better way to explore Laythe than just having a regular rover - this thing can drive just fine, but it can also air hop between islands.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on November 11, 2012, 07:59:11 pm
Nice, Newman. :)

I just discovered the hard way that jet engines don't work on Eve. So much for that round-trip... (I'd been counting on the jet engines to get me most of the way out of the atmosphere with good fuel efficiency).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on November 12, 2012, 05:52:09 am
Yea, Eve is difficult to get back from. Once you get down there it sticks to you like glue :) I wonder if the helicopter rotors might function well to handle a part of the ascent though - get you through the thickest part of that soup it's got for atmo, than ditch them and burn Nervas. Due to the thick atmo I suspect the VTOL rotors would remain effective on much higher altitudes than on Laythe.

Doing a round trip stock only.. I tried several times. Only combos I came up with are either having enough fuel but not having enough power to take off again, or having enough power but not nearly enough fuel to get back into orbit. Fairly sure it's possible but it stopped being fun after lots of attempts so I went to have some fun with different stuff. Like my "Dune Jumper" rover/chopper hybrid :)

BTW, have you landed on Moho? I was finally able to put a one man capsule down there; used what was left of the interplanetary stage to get close to the surface in a vertical descent, then when the engines started seriously overheating and I wasn't able to maintain enough throttle to slow myself down, I detached the last stage (one man pod + RCS tank + thrusters) and managed to land on RCS only. Reaching orbit again is a no-go using this approach, though.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Pred the Penguin on November 12, 2012, 11:59:48 am
For a moment there I thought you were talking about a very different Eve, but then I realized I clicked on the KSP thread... :drevil:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on November 12, 2012, 02:33:40 pm

BTW, have you landed on Moho? I was finally able to put a one man capsule down there; used what was left of the interplanetary stage to get close to the surface in a vertical descent, then when the engines started seriously overheating and I wasn't able to maintain enough throttle to slow myself down, I detached the last stage (one man pod + RCS tank + thrusters) and managed to land on RCS only. Reaching orbit again is a no-go using this approach, though.

I got one rover down on Moho, haven't tried to do a round-trip yet.

A lot of round-trip things are going to be much easier in .18, when we get docking and multiple CMs (so we can do ultralight Apollo-style landers that don't need to carry all the fuel to get home as well).

Still working on the landing/return vehicle for my next Eve attempt. I think it's got a chance, although I need to tweak the rocket to make sure I've got enough fuel to get it there. I just need another 6-800 delta-V...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on November 12, 2012, 02:48:45 pm
Well, I've found that a 3x3x5 large tank ascent stage with 8 mainsails gets any interplanetary stage I want into orbit, or very close to one :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on November 12, 2012, 03:42:32 pm
Is it at the point where you can dock/reconnect with other ships? 
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on November 12, 2012, 04:49:15 pm
Is it at the point where you can dock/reconnect with other ships?

You can do that right now with mods, or next release on stock.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on November 26, 2012, 07:39:24 am
I miss this soooooooooooo much...

Any Orions/Sobeks floating around yet?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 26, 2012, 10:15:35 am
i know theres at least one other person in the freespace community making mods for ksp. mine are kinda crappy and im not sure i want to continue makeing them. but that said it doesnt seem like it would be hard to import freespace models into the game. youd probibly have to sub-divide ships into parts though (however the way they do parts modules might make it possible just to have single part ships, ive seen some mods that do that already). like what if the ancients were kerbals?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Pred the Penguin on November 26, 2012, 02:43:17 pm
Explains how they died off. :lol:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on November 26, 2012, 06:20:28 pm
i know theres at least one other person in the freespace community making mods for ksp. mine are kinda crappy and im not sure i want to continue makeing them. but that said it doesnt seem like it would be hard to import freespace models into the game. youd probibly have to sub-divide ships into parts though (however the way they do parts modules might make it possible just to have single part ships, ive seen some mods that do that already). like what if the ancients were kerbals?


Well, if you go and split the ships we love so much into sort of modules... we could then create all sorts of absolute monstrosities in KSP...

Just remember to make them realistically sized. I mean, how hard could it be to have a real sized Orion in KSP?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on November 26, 2012, 07:11:47 pm
We're gonna need a bigger VAB. :p
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on November 26, 2012, 07:35:07 pm
Get the VAB obliterator plugin. It should do the trick.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 26, 2012, 09:22:16 pm
Explains how they died off. :lol:

they let jeb build and fly the subspace assault ship.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on November 27, 2012, 06:21:48 pm
0.18 feature trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EztbWGjkhus)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Pred the Penguin on November 27, 2012, 07:59:16 pm
Holy crap... I need to spend more money.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on November 28, 2012, 09:56:40 am
Is it just me or will maneuver nodes make travelling much easier for...noobs like me?^^
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 28, 2012, 10:03:57 am
Probably. I'm really anticipating 0.18. I've been playing since 0.8.0--it was one of the last things I did before graduating. I sat down in a computer lab between finals and played for a while.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on November 28, 2012, 02:21:24 pm
Is it just me or will maneuver nodes make travelling much easier for...noobs like me?^^

You already got protractor, but yeah, I think the nodes will be a big deal.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on November 28, 2012, 04:26:07 pm
I'm still stuck with the demo ;)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on November 28, 2012, 05:28:19 pm
Sticking to the demo wasn't a good idea unless finances were really dire - differences between demo and full got so big, especially with the latest versions, that the two versions are barely comparable; the full version offers so much more than the demo, it feels like a completely different game (a much better one). I got the whole thing back when it was 7$. As far as the bang for buck ratio is concerned, best gaming investment I ever made. Of course now it's over double that, and it'll just rise. Still worth every penny.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on November 28, 2012, 05:33:13 pm
Sticking to the demo wasn't a good idea unless finances were really dire - differences between demo and full got so big, especially with the latest versions, that the two versions are barely comparable; the full version offers so much more than the demo, it feels like a completely different game (a much better one). I got the whole thing back when it was 7$. As far as the bang for buck ratio is concerned, best gaming investment I ever made. Of course now it's over double that, and it'll just rise. Still worth every penny.
You and me both. I spent $7 on it on August 12, 2011.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Pred the Penguin on November 28, 2012, 09:22:21 pm
I should have bought it then...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on November 30, 2012, 05:12:56 am
Bought it for 18$...something around 14€...
So future updates are for free...sweet I guess.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on November 30, 2012, 07:23:54 am
i missed the 7$ window by a couple days. i forget what i ended up paying.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 01, 2012, 01:58:19 am
looks like .18 just came out, downloading nao!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 01, 2012, 06:28:13 am
Hm...While I have a plane that is actually not crashing,  a spaceship is beyoind my...skills.
But if the update is for free...who cares^^
Edit: anyone else gets a servererror?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on December 01, 2012, 06:37:56 pm
Yay 0.18 is out!! I'm updating now!

Anyways, grab the new patcher and make a new directory for it.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 01, 2012, 09:36:24 pm
Maneuver nodes are immensely helpful.  I had only managed to intercept Eve once in 0.17, which involved about a ten year chase on an orbit slightly inside Eve's, and the rest of the planets (save the Mun and Minmus) not at all.  Playing around in the wee hours of the morning, after the 0.18 release, my first interplanetary rocket got to Duna, orbited Ike a few times and then returned to Kerbin, with a final gravity assist from Ike on the way out.  The only reason I didn't touch down on either body was because the ship was designed to land on Minmus, where it would be light enough to land on the engine without knocking it off.

Upon return, I dropped the command capsule 30km west of the space center, upon completion of the nearly one-year mission.  With the capsule that close to base, I decided to make a rescue rover, using one of the probe modules and the large shuttle cockpit.  The pilots are now sitting comfortably outside the VAB, where they can watch further launches from a safe distance or join further missions, if I make some obnoxiously huge, multi-capsule vessel.

Methinks an orbital fuel depot is in order, so that subsequent interplanetary missions don't require the same massive, unwieldy rockets, unless I just happen to feel like derping around with a giant bomb that might happen to fly.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on December 01, 2012, 10:52:02 pm
I've been trying to put up a space station. It's tough to figure out what I want to build up there, though. My early designs have a fuel tank and 6-way port. I forgot about docking clamps on it though--so I can't dock anything even if I wanted to.

Next design will probably keep the big fuel tank for cargo (and 3 tiny radial engines for adjusting orbit) but I'm trying to think of how to adjust it. Unfortunately, MechJeb isn't yet an option. (No 0.18 release yet.)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on December 02, 2012, 12:42:45 am
Docking (and multiple CMs on a ship at launch) is immensely fun and satisfying. I've been itching to do a proper Apollo-style lander mission forever.

I couldn't get crew transfer to work without doing EVA, though, which was slightly annoying.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 02, 2012, 03:25:05 am
I have a hub with two habitation modules currently in a 110km orbit.

I've been rather ambitious with my fuel depot design, given how much excess fuel my lift vehicle had, upon reaching orbit.  The problem I'm running into with lifting the depot is that I have a whole lot of thrust at the back and a whole lot of mass at the front, and an itty-bitty control probe, sandwiched in the middle.  I've got a mess of struts distributing the competing loads well enough to get the ship out of the atmosphere, but when I was burning to establish orbit, I dropped the last of my radial stages, and the thrust from the central stage was still sufficient to overwhelm the remaining struts and crush the probe.  I think a certain measure of finesse will be the solution, rather than MOAR STRUTS, but we'll see.  Struts, after all, are a less finite resource than my available level of finesse.

I'll post some screenshots, when I'm a little more awake and have a little more of a station to show off.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 02, 2012, 06:44:56 am
Puh...I'm just too stupid ro get a rocket in space o.O
And, I have to reinstall the whole game, 'cause saving is impossible.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on December 02, 2012, 10:54:25 am
what
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 02, 2012, 11:01:19 am
Yeah, are there usefull approaches while designing a rocket or a plane?
My planes are all deltawing with wing mounted engines.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on December 02, 2012, 11:02:40 am
Planes are universally terrible.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 02, 2012, 12:14:18 pm
The aerodynamic model in KSP is still in its early infancy, so planes are pretty rough right now.

Update on the station:  Still no fuel depot attached.  Every problem with the depot lift that I solve just reveals another problem.

First, I had the structural issues, described above.  Well, some finesse on the throttle kept the probe from getting terminally sandwiched, but after about four attempts to get into an orbit (ANY orbit), I was frustrated by having inadequate fuel to keep from returning to the surface.  Well, I had a great brainwave:  Instead of trying to push all of this fuel around, why not drain the depot into the lift stages, so that you can dock the empty tanks and send smaller supply craft to refill them later?  Brilliant!

...or not.  See, once the depot drains, you have a voluminous, lightweight object that's being subjected to massive drag forces, causing the whole rocket to tip over.  So, for my next attempt, I'm going to shut down fuel flow from the center tank in the depot to see if that will leave enough mass to provide some stability, until I've escaped the atmosphere and no longer need to worry about the drag, without leaving behind so much mass that I can't get the damn thing into orbit at all.

Incidentally, this thread has earned its title, yet again.

[edit] The empty tanks have reached orbit, with tons of fuel left in the final stage of the lift vehicle!  The chase is now on, with the depot orbiting about three kilometers lower than the station hub.  They're on clear opposite sides of Kerbin, so it's going to take time to catch up, but time expenditure aside, everything is in place for a rendezvous. [/edit]

[edit 2] I figured out the fuel transfer system and shifted the rest of the fuel from the lift stage back into the depot, so that I could drop the last of the lift vehicle, without wasting that fuel.  I think two-and-a-half Rockomax 32 tanks will be sufficient fuel for the rendezvous maneuver.  ;)  Still chasing the station, in the meantime, limited to 50x time compression.  Fun fact:  The camera centers on your ship's center of mass, not its geometric center.  Found that out, as the camera slid upward, with the excess fuel, during the transfer. [/edit 2]

[edit 3] After a two day chase and a harrowing adventure, finding out that I had placed no RCS thrusters properly for vertical translation, I finally docked the fuel module to the station hub, where it joins the two (empty) habitation modules.  Watching the docking ports make contact was actually a bit hilarious, since I've seen more than a few KSP docking videos, where the incoming module is pulled toward the station, while in my case, the fuel depot was so much more massive than the rest of the station that the incoming module pulled the station towards it.

My next trip will be with a supply ship, which will refill the depot and drop off a couple of Kerbonauts to manage the place, while the probes are away.  After that, I'm going to bring up a transfer module (basically a NERVA or three and the necessary bits to attach it to the station), so that I can move it about, should the 100km orbit get a little too densely packed.  That will leave two docking ports on the hub, which I'm reserving for incoming ships, and one on the back of the fuel depot, reserved for future expansion.

Screenshots to come. [/edit 3]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 02, 2012, 06:39:36 pm
Since my game is repeatedly crashing...where should I send the reports to?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 02, 2012, 07:25:29 pm
[edit]

Since my game is repeatedly crashing...where should I send the reports to?

I'd suggest the great, big contact link, on the KSP website.

[/edit]

The promised screenshots:

First, the hub and habitation modules.  I sent them up pre-assembled because I had a big f'n lift vehicle, so why not?  On the top docking port, I've got a cap structure attached, because I didn't want to run the risk of the port being damaged on the way out through the atmosphere, during launch.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station01.png)

Now, the hub and habitation module assembly looks heavy and awkward to launch, but it's heavy and awkward in a very intuitive way, so this was actually a one-and-done launch.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station05.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station05.png)

By contrast, the fuel depot looks compact and simple, and even though you know it's heavy, you don't fully grasp how heavy it is, until you try to launch it.  Just to illustrate the point:

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station06.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station06.png)

This was the cage of struts that I had to build around the control probe to keep the sheer weight of the depot from crushing the rocket on the launch pad and then keep the rocket from blasting through the depot upon launch.  Even with that, I could not raise the throttle above about 80% at any time, until the lift stage was completely jettisoned, or else it was an unstoppable force fighting against an immovable object, with the control probe caught between.  I did finally, after I don't even remember how many attempts, get the fuel depot into orbit, though.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station07.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station07.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station08.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station08.png)

While chasing the station hub, I had plenty of time to think.  It occurred to me that faffing around, trying to turn that stupid lift rocket, dangling off my back end was pretty stupid, but I was hesitant to eject it, because I had only used about two-thirds of one of those Rockomax 64 tanks.  That's a lot of fuel to just drop.  It hit me then that I had a lot of empty capacity on the other end of the ship.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station09.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station09.png)

Fuel transfer complete, it was time to part ways with the now-empty lift vehicle and return to the chase (which still had about another thirty-six hours to go).

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station10.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station10.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station11.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station11.png)

I intercepted the station at night, which was a little unfortunate.  I had forgotten to turn the station lights on, prior to undocking the control probe that had put it in orbit, so the station was dark.  I did have the foresight to mount spotlights to the front of the fuel depot, but four proved to be too many, and my docking maneuver had to wait for daylight.  Fortunately, at this altitude, it only takes about an hour to orbit Kerbin, so by the time I was in a rough position to begin the docking maneuver, the sun was shining brightly.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station12.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station12.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station13.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station13.png)

The downside to the rapid orbit is that, by the time the docking ports finally mated, the sun was beginning to set again.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station14.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station14.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station15.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station15.png)

Its job nearly done (I remembered to turn on the lights, but forgot to rename the damn station this time), I undocked the control probe and sent him on his way home.  Splashdown was about 10km east of Kerbal Space Center.  I'm sure those sensitive electronics will be just fine, out in the salt water.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station16.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station16.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station17.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station17.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station18.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station18.png)

(For the record, no, I did not kick the station out of orbit with the probe's engine.  I just did a final visual inspection, with the probe's rear-facing lights, before turning the exhaust well away from the station and doing a short burn to get away.  I am going to duplicate the save file at some point, though, so that I can build something to properly blow the station up.)

Next time, a supply ship, with fuel and slaves political dissidents persons of interest Kerbonauts!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on December 02, 2012, 07:41:11 pm
My personal solution to the "make a space station" issue is that I will carry a single large 1M fuel tank into orbit every time. My craft are pretty damn big, but going with a 1M tank does help things out a bit. For an initial construction, a crew depot (with two converter parts, two fuselages, and two large docking ports) is necessary. After that, a couple of missions to attach 6-way converters would be cool.

What I do find really cool now is that you can use WASDQE to rotate your parts--so you can put a stack decoupler together or build an Apollo-style launch vehicle. (I did that already--it was pretty challenging to maneuver the command pod and the lander so to dock again.)

Otherwise, the game still needs one thing: something to consume a lot of electricity.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 03, 2012, 02:42:55 am
Sent an oiler up to the station and noticed the docking port on the fuel depot was misaligned.  After offloading the payload fuel, I undocked the oiler and hooked it up to the extra docking clamp on the back of the depot.  Upon undocking the depot from the hub, the game went a little crazy, and disintegrated both the depot and the oiler (oddly without having any noticeable effect on the hub/hab assembly).

Turns out, there's a known bug relating to modules docking with something and then having their core removed.  A hotfix is in the works, but if you're building a station, using similar methods to me (i.e. sending modules up with a probe or command pod that will be detached, after the module is added to the station), you'll want to hold off, until the patch.  Any docked objects that have been hit by this bug cannot be repaired, but 0.18.1 will prevent the problem from occurring again.

After the patch, I think I'll let the bug-addled fuel depot go, and if it doesn't disintegrate (which is a really big 'if', from what I've read), I'll send the oiler up to try a salvage op.  If it does disintegrate, let's be honest, I was probably going to relaunch the damn thing anyway, because my odds of recovering something that ridiculously massive from a screwed-up nonorbit are pretty minimal.

There also seems to be a bug, where habitation modules eat Kerbonauts, instead of housing them, but I'm not sure if that's an independent issue or something related to the docking bug.  That's not so troublesome, as long as you're going up with a two/three-person capsule, though.  (Also, recycle slave labor/Soviet Siberia/Guantanamo Bay joke.)

On the bright side, I'm pretty pleased with the little oiler.  Its lift stage is basically the heavy lift vehicle's initial ascent stage, sliced in half.  The payload container is a single Rockomax 32, isolated from the rest of the fuel system.  It's guided by the three-man command capsule and propelled by six LV-909's, each with its own FL-T400 tank.  Being meant for docking, it has an RCS system, with one of the big tanks to fuel it and replenish the station's RCS tanks, as necessary.  It's meant to return to Kerbin for a parachute-and-rocket-assisted soft landing, though, for aforementioned reasons, I haven't yet been able to test that capability.  Still, it's a plucky little ship, and even with the RCS turned off, it turns faster than anything that heavy has a right to.  Methinks, I'm going to make a version that replaces the main stage's engines with NERVAs and integrates the payload tank into the fuel system, so that it can go on a proper adventure.

Back to today's antics, though, the current version also has some lights attached, which means it also has a battery and (way too goddamn many) solar panels to charge it.  Well, when the oiler came round to the day side, whilst chasing down the station, I thought I ran into another bug.  I had the oiler facing north, so that plenty of the solar panels would receive daylight from sunrise to sunset, but the battery was still discharging, nearly an hour after sunrise.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Oiler01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Oiler01.png)

It wasn't a bug.  It was just a phenomenon that's happened a million times, unnoticed, because we were all in the map screen, with nothing to call our attention to the event.

So, whilst I'm not happy about the high liklihood of having to relaunch the fuel module (have I mentioned what a pain in the ass it is to get into orbit?), I did get a new desktop image out of the deal.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on December 03, 2012, 07:18:02 am
I thnk i need to buy this.........

AFTER FIRESPAWNS MATE FIXES MY DAMN PC  :mad:


I'd just love to create Confed SolSec HQ in orbit of that Gas gianty planet....
Maybe some sort of TCS Victory too.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on December 03, 2012, 10:21:14 am
Do all those science-y parts for data collection and transmission actually do anything right now?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 03, 2012, 10:52:36 am
Do all those science-y parts for data collection and transmission actually do anything right now?

The measurement devices do take measurements, which you can see by right-clicking on them, while they're turned on.  The communication devices are currently purely aesthetic.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on December 03, 2012, 01:54:53 pm
Do all those science-y parts for data collection and transmission actually do anything right now?
I suppose they're for future-proofing. I did add some of those doodads to my space station but, so far as we all know, we can't do jack with them.

On a side-note, I now need to remember to either use real decouplers or to add those ejection rockets to my detachable parts. Otherwise, there seems to be no real way to clean up orbiting junk around your space station. And being at 400KM, it's not like their orbits will decay. The best bet would probably be to collide with the debris
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 03, 2012, 05:38:13 pm
You can use the scientific equipment on probes to get basic information on a planet, such as how strong a gravity it has, see atmo pressure, temperature, etc. Not exactly data that will help you play the game in any way, but it's cool to have and once they put career mode in I imagine finding out stuff about planets will be in mission goals.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 03, 2012, 05:48:00 pm
Otherwise, there seems to be no real way to clean up orbiting junk around your space station. And being at 400KM, it's not like their orbits will decay. The best bet would probably be to collide with the debris

Or you could plan stuff ahead and put a docking port on parts that will get jettisoned in orbit. At one point I wanted to add an emergency escape vehicle to my space station without adding to it's crew complement already aboard. I still wanted to make this a manned mission, so I put a docking port on the stage that gets me from upper atmo to the station itself. The craft consisted of a small one man craft that had a small engine, RCS, one man pod, chute, and a docking port. That small craft was docked to the actual escape pod (larger vehicle based off the 3 man command pod). That was docked to a larger stage that had a big fuel tank, more engines and additional RCS fuel. This is the stage that got me from upper atmo to the station itself. This was all on a larger ascent stage.

Once parked some 100m off the station, orbit more or less matched, I ditched the big fuel stage, decoupled from the escape pod. Now there were three separate parts of the rocket floating off the station. I did an EVA to transfer my kerbonaut to the escape pod, and docked the pod to the station. Two parts left, did an EVA again, returned to the small one man craft, docked that to the discarded large stage still floating off the station, did a retrogade burn till the map showed I was on a collision course with Kerbin, detached again, and the rest is your classic chute splashdown. Result, escape pod delivered with no debris floating around my station.

tl;dr: Put docking ports somewhere on stages you suspect will get discarded someplace in orbit - this way you can dock and deorbit them later on.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on December 04, 2012, 01:27:00 am
I figured out another way to do it: to place a basic stack decoupler surrounded by Sepratrons. For light-weight ejections, it should result in a minimally changed orbit and, with luck, the part in question will aerobrake on Kerbin if not entirely plummet to the surface. The only question for my solution is how many Sepratrons to place on each part group.

0.18.1 is out--the patcher crashed several times on me so I had to delete everything & start again. I lost my in-progress space station and my unfueled Eve Lander/Return Vehicle ("eRV"). That vehicle has been my goal for some time now--so to land Jeb on every rocky surface and return him safely each time.

Anyways,
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 04, 2012, 03:45:34 am
0.18.1 is a go!  Huzzah!

...

So, I started this post two-and-a-half hours ago, as I was nearly ready to dock the oiler with the station.  That was a pretty routine docking operation.  I then shuffled fuel around to redistribute mass and hopefully minimize the inevitable chaos that would result from undocking the bugged fuel depot.

At this point, I will make an admission:  My inner save-scummer came out from this point on.  I was quicksaving whenever my situation looked like it had gotten slightly less bleak than the moment prior.  In my defense, I've only reloaded twice, so far.  That was when I tried repositioning the fuel depot by docking the oiler on the back and undocking all of that from the station.  The rest of the station was so light, though, that it went tumbling away, when the docking clamps released, and with no command module, attached to it, there was nothing I could do to recover it.

On attempt number two, I knew that one part of the station or the other was going to go flying, when I released the misaligned docking port, and I'd only be able to easily regain control of one.  Keeping the hub stable was more important, because anything else can be relaunched, but if the hub is lost, the station has to be abandoned as a lost cause.  So, I let the fuel depot go, and it got pushed away, in a spin.  I'd like to avoid that, if possible.

Attempt number three picked up with the oiler and fuel depot still docked to the hub.  This time, I tried activating the large SAS modules (one on the oiler and one on the fuel depot) to see if that could fight the spin, after undocking.  Unfortunately, SAS only stays active on vessels with a probe core or command capsule still attached, after undocking, so the depot got pushed away, in a spin, again.

Since this bleak picture was somehow still the best of all possible scenarios, I rolled with it.  I got the station hub & hab section stabilized, and undocked the oiler, before the fuel depot had traveled more than fifty meters from the hub.  I quickly gave chase, but was rather stumped about what to do, once I got close again.  I made several attempts to pick up either one of the docking ports, as they rotated past.  On one pass, I got close enough for the docking ports' magnets to just barely attract, but to no avail, as it just altered the depot's rotation.

At that point, I realized that there's more than one way to alter the depot's rotation.  No, I didn't fire up the main engines to get a running start and smash the thing into a million pieces on a decaying orbit.  I moved in and nudged the depot to counter its rotation.  After three gentle nudges (I didn't even break anything off of the nudger or nudgee!), the rotation had nearly stopped.  At that point, I backed off to about twenty meters, picked the back docking port (the one to which the control probe had originally been attached) and began to match the depot's spin.

Incidentally, if you ever want to confuse the **** out of yourself, look down at the planet, while trying to dock with a rotating body.  I accidentally did this a couple of times, and my eyes just could not pick a frame of reference to treat as stationary.

But, after two-and-a-half hours of effort, did I manage to dock with a rotating body?

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Oiler02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Oiler02.png)

Hell, yes, I did!  This humble oiler just got promoted to best f'n ship ever.  It was sent up for a routine supply run, and wound up pulling off an elaborate salvage operation that went way beyond its design scope.

All that's left now is the relatively simple task of re-attaching the fuel depot to the station, dropping off a couple of Kerbonauts, and finally testing the best f'n ship's landing capability.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 04, 2012, 04:26:18 am
I figured out another way to do it: to place a basic stack decoupler surrounded by Sepratrons. For light-weight ejections, it should result in a minimally changed orbit and, with luck, the part in question will aerobrake on Kerbin if not entirely plummet to the surface. The only question for my solution is how many Sepratrons to place on each part group.

I'm not sure if they changed this in 0.18, but in previous versions physics was only applied to the player craft, the rest was "on rails" (as in, follow a pre-determined orbit without any physics calculations). This means it was actually possible to have a piece of debris fly through atmo without ever having it's orbit degraded, as long as it didn't go low enough for the game to auto-kill it. Also, docking to stuff is simply more fun :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 04, 2012, 06:22:53 am
Funny, I can build a ship, launch it ONCe, return to the assembly, fuddle around and when I try a second launch, no matter if it is a new ship or a modified, the game crashes...well...

On another matter. I tried to bring a base module for a space station in orbit, but I guess the weight of the module and the rocket it is attached to are far too heavy for the radial decouplers, so the central missile tears free and crashes into the other rockets...big bang ensured.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: FireSpawn on December 04, 2012, 07:25:10 am
big bang ensured.

Kerbal rocket science at it's finest.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 04, 2012, 07:53:03 am
idk about you all but im going to build a destroyer in kerbin orbit. one launch at a time.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 04, 2012, 12:14:02 pm
Update on the station:  The fuel depot is reattached and largely refilled, and I've got a Kerbonaut in each habitation module.  I have a drive module built, consisting of three NERVAs, a large command pod, and a few miscellaneous bits and bobs to aid with docking.  It carries no fuel of its own, but will have access to the fuel in the depot, during maneuvers.  I have it mounted to the same heavy lifter that took the other station components to orbit and which should have no trouble with this little section, as long as I'm judicious with the throttle.

Update on the most awesome f'n ship ever:  It can land on Kerbin, but my technique needs work.  First, I undershot the space center by about seventy kilometers, which means I'm out in the mountains, where the rescue rover is having a very hard time traveling, due to its long overhangs.  (I keep knocking the probe core off of the nose.)  Moreover, while the oiler was descending, I began my final burn just a bit too late, so that when the parachutes fully deployed, it broke the control linkages between the rocket motors and the rest of the ship.  I still managed to deploy the landing struts, but I couldn't throttle up, as I got closer to the ground, so the shock from touchdown popped the capsule off.

Prior to launching the station's drive section, I think I'll be building a STOL plane for rescue operations outside of the rover's effective area of operation.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on December 04, 2012, 07:53:14 pm
Incidentally, if you ever want to confuse the **** out of yourself, look down at the planet, while trying to dock with a rotating body.  I accidentally did this a couple of times, and my eyes just could not pick a frame of reference to treat as stationary.
i actually find this to be a huge problem with ksp in general when trying to do orbital stuff manually.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 05, 2012, 03:20:19 am
idk about you all but im going to build a destroyer in kerbin orbit. one launch at a time.

Actually, building a huge ubership in orbit by docking modules together, similar to a space station isn't necessarily a bad idea.  You can start off in orbit with all the fuel that a heavy lift vehicle needs just to get off the ground, except that you can budget it for going wherever you damn well please.

Incidentally, if you ever want to confuse the **** out of yourself, look down at the planet, while trying to dock with a rotating body.  I accidentally did this a couple of times, and my eyes just could not pick a frame of reference to treat as stationary.
i actually find this to be a huge problem with ksp in general when trying to do orbital stuff manually.

I think it's a consequence of celestial bodies being smaller than their real-world counterparts.  Planets and moons in KSP are smaller and denser, so that you have to deal with the same challenges inherent to launching and escaping from these bodies, while keeping travel times reasonable for a gameplay experience.  That means, though, that since your orbits tend to be lower, they tend to be faster as well.

My solution is to orient things, during a docking maneuver, in such a way that I can keep the camera pointed at the sky or have just a bit of the horizon visible as a reference point, turning my view toward the surface, only when I want to grab a screenshot.  Dealing with the out-of-control fuel depot, I didn't have the luxury of positioning the docking ports in such a way to make these camera angles convenient, and in the early attempts, I didn't really have time to be faffing around with the camera at all.

In other news, I've made the long-range variant of my oiler.  I had to shift the smaller fuel tanks forward to accommodate the longer engines.  I'm a little concerned about this placing the six extremely hot exhaust nozzles right next to the large SAS unit at the bottom of the craft and the Rockomax 32 fuel tank in the middle, but we'll see how justified that concern is, when I test it.

Current mission schedule:

1)  Launch station drive module, and affix to station.  Transfer Kerbonauts from habitation modules to the drive section's command capsule.  Tweak rotation angle of the fuel depot, relative to the station to improve symmetry.  Deorbit control probe.

2)  Launch the long-range oiler.  Top up the fuel tanks, using the depot at the space station.  Set course for Ike.  A previous mission went there and back, but without a landing.  My hope is that the long-range oiler can manage a round-trip, including a landing.

3)  (May be postponed, depending on how much fuel remains, after the long-range oiler has come and gone.)  Launch the conventional oiler on a supply run to the station.  Drop off fuel and Kerbonauts and return to Kerbin, preferably without popping the command capsule off the top of the rocket this time.

4)  Raise the space station to a 250km orbit above Kerbin.  The 100km orbit looks like it might get pretty busy, with the final lift stages of just about everything getting jettisoned at that altitude.

5)  (Requires a new vessel.)  Launch a vessel designed to rendezvous with and de-orbit debris.  Possible targets include the old nose, dropped off of the space station hub, the final lift stage from the fuel depot launch (both in a 100km orbit) and the final lift stage for a satellite launched some time ago (in a 165km orbit).  Ideally, this ship can put a piece of debris on a terminal trajectory, then recover its own orbit, and head off to the next target, stopping by the station to refuel, as necessary.

Except for #2, which is admittedly, just a diversion, under the guise of testing the refueling capability of the space station, this is all laying the groundwork for more ambitious stuff to come.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Turey on December 05, 2012, 05:43:46 pm
I love this game, bought it back in January for $7. I haven't had time to try out 0.18 yet, but this weekend should see that remedied. In the mean time, stories from previous versions.

I've been playing around with the Spaceplane builder.
http://i45.tinypic.com/svjt5g.png (http://i45.tinypic.com/svjt5g.png)
Here's my first attempt at a plane, which actually flew remarkably well. I'm used to my first attempts at things in this game going up in flames, but this actually took off, flew and landed just fine! Even when I lost half a wing! Note the reasonable, realistic construction of the plane. You won't be seeing that again.

http://i49.tinypic.com/1z2qe4p.png (http://i49.tinypic.com/1z2qe4p.png)
Next, I tried making a VTOL (Vertical TakeOff and Landing) jet. Here's my first attempt. The tiny bumps on the bottom are RCS thrusters, which use seperate fuel from the main engine, and are independently controlled. This one flew just fine, but the VTOL thrusters couldn't lift it. I decided to add a couple more thrusters...

http://i49.tinypic.com/2liu9nl.png (http://i49.tinypic.com/2liu9nl.png)
Here we are several iterations down the line, with the Seagull MK5. This has seven times the RCS fuel of the MK1, and 235 RCS thrusters. It has barely enough RCS fuel to do both a takeoff and landing. Note the absurd wing configuration, with eight main wings (the back four are in an X-wing-like configuration, to save space.)

http://i48.tinypic.com/107w1oz.png (http://i48.tinypic.com/107w1oz.png)
Here's the MK5 taking off, note how the entire plane flexes quite dramatically from the upward thrust.

http://i49.tinypic.com/21295cn.png (http://i49.tinypic.com/21295cn.png)
Here's a rocket that landed at the north pole. Note how the advanced SAS module has exploded, but left the capsule intact. Also, ice!

http://i50.tinypic.com/1pwcnl.png (http://i50.tinypic.com/1pwcnl.png)
Back to planes, I set out to attempt an around-the-world flight, and here's my first try: The Jorneyor (typo mine). With 4500kg of fuel (ten times that of an average plane, such as the Seagull), a top speed of 700m/s, and a flight time of over an hour at max throttle, this is an endurance plane. Remarkably stable despite its insane wing configuration, this thing, flown from full to empty, goes...

http://i50.tinypic.com/iyosn4.png (http://i50.tinypic.com/iyosn4.png)
...between a third and a half of the way around the world. (about 150° longitude traveled) I know I can do better.

http://i48.tinypic.com/29en19w.png (http://i48.tinypic.com/29en19w.png)
This is the finished Journeyer MK2, with 7500kg of fuel, 3000 more than the previous version. It also has added wings and tailfins for more lift. Despite that, it still has severe attitude problems, needing to be flown at a 50° angle just to maintain altitude.

http://i50.tinypic.com/28sx213.png (http://i50.tinypic.com/28sx213.png)
I sure do love these dawn shots. It's just so... majestic.

http://i46.tinypic.com/fk4nyq.png (http://i46.tinypic.com/fk4nyq.png)
Out of fuel, nearly two hours in, the Kerbals spot a tropical island. Commander Kenton decides to set down there. His crew are not so pleased with his decision.

http://i48.tinypic.com/fjm369.png (http://i48.tinypic.com/fjm369.png)
Kerbals land on the tropical island's beach. Time for a beach party. But how far have they gone?

http://i46.tinypic.com/2sbap7a.png (http://i46.tinypic.com/2sbap7a.png)
Halfway around the world! Kerbals everywhere rejoice, but there's gotta be more we can squeeze out of this plane.

http://i50.tinypic.com/sb6gs1.png (http://i50.tinypic.com/sb6gs1.png)
The Journeyer MK3. One of the biggest, stupidest planes I have ever constructed. Third time's the charm, apparently.

I'm just going to say this now:

This is the best plane I have ever made.

It's stupid. It doesn't work under time compression, and it's not very fast, but everything else is perfect. Better than perfect, even.

http://i49.tinypic.com/2moxkie.png (http://i49.tinypic.com/2moxkie.png)
Here's it taking off. Notice that when it's under time compression, as in this picture, the wings bend up and the whole thing goes to ****. This means the whole flight you are about to see was done in real-time.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2vsozo4.png (http://i45.tinypic.com/2vsozo4.png)
Here we are passing the first Journeyer...

http://i49.tinypic.com/307rvxd.png (http://i49.tinypic.com/307rvxd.png)
...and the second. Note the fuel used on the left. In order to get this far, using the same basic parts, and one less engine, the MK2 took 15 fuel tanks to reach this point. The MK3 took... just over 3 tanks. I don't know why. More lift, a better flight attitude, and a lower cruising altitude? Maybe. I don't particularly care. What is clear by this point is that I have way more fuel than needed.

http://i47.tinypic.com/1zchdo6.png (http://i47.tinypic.com/1zchdo6.png)
The dawn of a record-breaking day.

http://i48.tinypic.com/33ljs43.png (http://i48.tinypic.com/33ljs43.png)
Passing the Kerbal Space Center. Just over four hours in, I finally accomplish a round-the-world nonstop atmospheric flight. The worst part? I used just under 6 tanks in those four hours. That means that the total full-throttle flight time for this plane is somewhere around 20 hours, and given the nature of diminishing fuel tank returns, has a good chance of going around the world at least five times. Insanely impressive, considering no other plane either I or my friends have made comes anywhere close to this.

I've already landed successfully on Eve, Duna, and Jool, although "landing" on Jool isn't really possible. You just kind of sink through the soup-like atmosphere until you get to like 98m above the "sea level", at which point you just float there, buffeted about by the winds.

Here's some pics:
Eve Landing (http://i46.tinypic.com/23mljiv.png)
Duna Landing (http://i49.tinypic.com/246kg3l.png)
Jool "Landing" (http://i50.tinypic.com/29b21zt.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Mongoose on December 05, 2012, 07:39:01 pm
Does the game randomly assign names to the Kerbonauts now?  It doesn't seem right not seeing Jeb's insane smile in the middle seat. :(
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on December 05, 2012, 07:46:37 pm
Does the game randomly assign names to the Kerbonauts now?  It doesn't seem right not seeing Jeb's insane smile in the middle seat. :(

Bill, Bob and Jeb are always your first crew and will be slotted back into the roster even if they explode. But with the possibility of having dozens and dozens of Kerbals on missions at the same time there's no way to have them on every rocket.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 05, 2012, 09:31:16 pm
Made my first landing on another world.  No, not the Mun!  **** the Mun!  EVERYONE goes to the Mun!  It's grey and dead and BORING there!  Duna?  More like SCREWYA, that place just ain't got no FLAVOR!  Naw man, I sent my guys straight to the deliciously purple world of EVE.  ****, they just landed.

(http://i.imgur.com/VXuua.png)

They report that the whole planet is made of LAVENDER, and it smells ****ing NICE.  Man, look at those smiles and big bulging eyes, I think they're getting high off it or something.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 05, 2012, 11:15:19 pm
Now, you've got to build an interplanetary rescue craft paddy wagon to bring those damn druggies to justice!  ;)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Turey on December 06, 2012, 11:29:06 am
Made my first landing on another world.  No, not the Mun!  **** the Mun!  EVERYONE goes to the Mun!  It's grey and dead and BORING there!  Duna?  More like SCREWYA, that place just ain't got no FLAVOR!  Naw man, I sent my guys straight to the deliciously purple world of EVE.  ****, they just landed.

They report that the whole planet is made of LAVENDER, and it smells ****ing NICE.  Man, look at those smiles and big bulging eyes, I think they're getting high off it or something.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Don't forget the freaking SILVER SEAS.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 06, 2012, 02:53:13 pm
Liquid metal seas are indeed delicious and good for the brain; they shall sustain the crew until Mission Control figures out how to bring them home.

Now, you've got to build an interplanetary rescue craft paddy wagon to bring those damn druggies to justice!  ;)

Man, if I were into modding I'd so be making an interplanetary police wagon now, complete with flashing blue/red lights. :P

KERBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
BAD BOYS BAD BOYS
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 06, 2012, 04:13:55 pm
KERBAL SPACE POLICE

Now I'm even more mad they took away the Comet's police flasher in EVE.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 07, 2012, 12:12:41 pm
The space station is complete, for the time being, save for raising its orbit.

The long-range oiler proved itself interplanetary-capable, launching toward and landing on Ike.  Sadly, though, because some doofus in mission control decided that launch windows were for pansies, it launched when Duna was about 180º from the phase angle necessary for an efficient trip.  The initial Duna encounter also had a very high periapsis, so my capture burn required a couple of kilometers-per-second of delta-v.  What I'm getting at is that the oiler is out of fuel.  It's got some RCS fuel left (though I burned two-thirds of that modifying my Ikian orbit to ensure I'd have enough fuel for the main engines to land safely), but not enough thrusters to break the hold of Ike's gravity.

Yeah....  The ship that's meant to go save vessels that are stranded, without fuel, is now itself stranded, without fuel.  Worse still, because I was so bound and determined to do this landing, it's stranded on the surface of Ike, making a refueling mission practically impossible.  Did I mention it touched down on a fifteen-degree incline?  I can't even try to drop something onto the top docking port.

In light of this turn of events, my mission schedule has been updated:

1)  Station supply run
2)  Station orbit modification (raise to ~250km altitude)
3)  Orbit cleanup (sending up a drone to de-orbit spent stages littering the 100km orbit)
4)  Possible station supply run, depending on how many times the orbit cleanup drone needs to refuel
5)  Rescue the Kerbonauts of Dwight Base.
[Preliminary Joolian operations to follow.]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 07, 2012, 01:46:06 pm
So, I wanted to put probes on other planets and their natural satellites without the need for multiple interplanetary launches. I tested this with a large interplanetary umanned vessel that had two probes docked. Sent it to Eve orbit, undocked the probes, sent one probe to Eve and the other to Gilly, it's eccentric-orbit moon (though a pebble might actually be a more accurate description).

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot193.png)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot195.png)

The interplanetary craft, being fueled and prepped in orbit before Eve injection burn.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot209.png)

In orbit of Eve. I was slightly worried the docked probes might make the ship difficult to handle, but as it turns out it maneuvered just fine. I'm loving the new node system, helps me plan more fuel efficient routes.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot227.png)

If you're going to Eve, park it on the beach! Might use this as a slogan for the fledgling space tourism industry.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot232.png)

Landed on Gilly. Funny, that. I never tried to land on it before. It's so small it's gravity pretty much doesn't factor in at all during approach or landing. You know how when you're landing on a planet or a moon, and you typically establish a flyby route, then turn it into an orbit? Well, that doesn't work with Gilly - it's gravity is so low you can't establish an orbit. At least, I couldn't. Instead, I set a collision course and just sort of glided, slowly, to the surface. And then another funny thing. As I gradually killed my velocity while getting nearer to the surface, I noticed that Gilly doesn't exactly accelerate me towards herself when I cut the throttle. When I actually touched the surface, I lightly bounced off of it, and it took me quite a while to get the probe to stop moving and settle down on the surface. It's almost like trying to land on another ship in orbit, without using a docking port.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 08, 2012, 12:03:29 am
Pretty spaceship. :)

I've been chuffing about in LKO with building a space station.  It's pretty tiny at the moment.
Also learned the hard way that docking is a lot harder more awesome when you forget to put RCS on your ship.

(http://i.imgur.com/s1vQb.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 08, 2012, 01:17:56 am
i ran into a problem while laying the keel for my destroyer. some of the packing material stuck to the docking connections on the structural members. i had launched a few rockets containing nothing but girders packed together with bcouplers. some of those couplers broke during launch leaving them attatched to the ports, and with no command and control i couldn't detach them. so i got out and went over there, aparently the kerbal can activate some things externally if they are within range. they were able to free the docking ports. you also ocassionally have to get out and push on a part to stop it from rotating so you can dock with it. heavy space construction is awesome.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 08, 2012, 03:09:08 am
Also learned the hard way that docking is a lot harder more awesome when you forget to put RCS on your ship.

[image snip]

You, sir, are the man.

I ran quite a few missions today and took screenshots throughout.

First up, I attached the final planned module to the station:

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station19.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station19.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station20.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station20.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station21.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station21.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station23.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station23.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station24.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station24.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station25.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station25.png)

Then, the long-range oiler came up for some fuel and oxidizer....for it's nuclear engines....and then parted company with the station and Kerbin.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/LROiler01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/LROiler01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/LROiler02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/LROiler02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/LROiler03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/LROiler03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/LROiler04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/LROiler04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/LROiler05.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/LROiler05.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/LROiler06.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/LROiler06.png)

Some 200 days after the incompetently timed departure from Kerbin orbit, it was time for an incompetent approach on Duna and Ike.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/LROiler07.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/LROiler07.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/LROiler08.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/LROiler08.png)

Realizing the gravity of my fuel problem, instead of aborting and using what energy I had left to put myself in a position to be easily recovered, I used my RCS fuel to enable a desperate grasping at straws for an Ike landing.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/LROiler09.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/LROiler09.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/LROiler10.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/LROiler10.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/LROiler11.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/LROiler11.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/LROiler12.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/LROiler12.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/LROiler13.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/LROiler13.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/LROiler14.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/LROiler14.png)

It was time for some housekeeping, back around Kerbin, at this point.  The space station's fuel depot was still down on fuel from when it was launched, and I wanted to get another oiler run done, prior to raising the station's altitude.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station26.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station26.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station27.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station27.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station28.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station28.png)

And remember, young Kerbonauts:  It's always more picturesque, the further you are from the dirty plebians below.  ;)

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station29.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station29.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Station30.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Station30.png)

After getting the station to altitude, the space center was on the day-side of the planet, so I de-orbited the oiler and had another crack at landing it.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Oiler03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Oiler03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Oiler04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Oiler04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Oiler05.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Oiler05.png)

Then there's the matter of the rescue operation for the oiler stuck on Ike.  For all I had to say about the space station enabling smaller rockets to perform longer missions, I came to realize that rescue operations carry a pretty broad mission profile.

I needed a rover...

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue01.png)

...and a lander...

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue02.png)

...and an interplanetary transit vehicle...

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue03.png)

...and a giant bomb to get the whole mess off the ground:

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue04.png)

Someone who's not quite so thick might have launched the three mission-critical vehicles separately and either rendezvoused them in orbit or sent them independently to Duna.  Some of us, though, feel like it's a disservice for the Kerbal tax-payers to have shelled out for this huge VAB, only to have half of it ever get used.  There might be an issue getting the whole craft out the door, since it does not open to the ceiling, but that's for men with hacksaws and dubious architectural certifications to sort out.

In any case, the first launch went well predictably.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue05.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue05.png)

Moreover, the pilots of the second attempt were oddly nonplussed about their immediate predecessors not even being cleared from the vicinity of the launch pad.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue06.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue06.png)

Eventually, after some modifications to the vehicle and launch technique (but still much less frustration than the fuel depot), I did get the rescue vehicle to orbit.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue07.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue07.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue08.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue08.png)

And that's where the rescue op stands, as I head to bed for the night.  I'm holding onto the empty fuel tanks on the transit stage, so that I can fill them back up at the station, before burning for Duna.  I'll also point out that those girder structures are an immense help when building and launching tall rockets, with lots of narrow bottlenecks.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 08, 2012, 06:00:46 am
Oh, space stations? I have those, coupled with a space dock (currently under construction) :)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot238.jpg)

That big cage thing was brought up in one go, and it was a ***** to dock. Originally I was going to dock a lot of cage segments like that to create a long space dock, but that plan has changed for two reasons. One, docking another large segment like that so it's at the exact correct angle would be difficult at best. More importantly, the number of parts is starting to have an impact on the FPS, so if I intend to actually build spaceships in there I better finish up the dock soon or by the time a ship's docked there fps will drop to single digits.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 08, 2012, 12:56:45 pm
oooh nice!.

i really like my construction ship

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot5-1.jpg)

it offers a really nice view of the dock connection. so its really easy to dock in iva. the stack of batteries opposite the cockpit is really just there as a counter weight but it does let me keep the lights on all night. you can even spin the ship and produce some gravity for the kerbal. it has a nuclear engine for orbital manuvers. a little bit overkill, but ion engines are frustratingly slow and the small 1m engine would eat the fuel in no time. the rcs tank is holding out well though. its enough power to move pretty big loads without wasting too much fuel. and what good is a construction vehicle without some building materials.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot3-1.png)

that thing is a ***** to launch, but i got two of them in space. which should get be enough to get a nice squareset built. to which i will mount destroyer parts. likely using modular fuel pods and drive modules which will connect to either side of the keel. but first i have to build said keel. enter the space construction vehicle:

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot7.jpg)

here we are grabbing the first peice off the cargo stack. the long outer girders are the main runners that will go form bow to stern. i plan to just use a basic square set which will support 4 outrigged drive pods. really i should have ran fuel lines down the main girders so i could just outrig the fuel tanks, but lack of forethough. really this is just the expiremental part. i will come up with a better ship design later. im also not sure if you can multidock. so this is an expirement which may or may not yeild fruit.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot9.jpg)

and here we are pulling the first girder off of the stack. this was really not tht hard to do, connect to it and then disconnect it from the ship. while i was docked i also uncoupled some of the smaller girders. but i had to get out and push away some of the packing bits, and disconnect some of the joins with a kerbal, there was also the get out and make it stop spinning manuver that i did a lot.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot10.jpg)

and some more progress. keeping your entire construction yard in one spot has actually proved difficult. things could drift away several kilometers in the time it takes to connect a couple bits.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot11-1.jpg)

and this is where i got tired and went to bed. i havent finished the keel yet. i havent even finished a squareset. i ended up working on my ksp mods instead. i wanted to get my mpd engines and hall effect thrusters in the game to improve my construction vehicle.




 
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on December 08, 2012, 02:08:45 pm
Ok, so it looks like i am the only one here who can't get two ships to approach well enough to dock x( *goes cry in the shame corner*
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 08, 2012, 04:54:02 pm
Where in the approach process are you having difficulty?  Perhaps we can give some tips.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 08, 2012, 05:10:59 pm
There are two main factors in successfully being able to match orbits and dock with other ships; understanding how orbital maneuvers work, and designing craft with docking in mind (so docking is not only possible, but relatively easy to pull off). It can seem a bit difficult at first, but once you get the hang of it it's actually not that hard. Unless you make your life difficult and decide to dock a huge space dock part to a space station. Fine-tuning my course so I hit that tiny docking port with something the size of a building that pretty much flies like one wasn't fun :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 08, 2012, 06:46:17 pm
im still not sure how to use the sync orbit thing the game comes with. but ive been doing it manually for some time now. its all about the difference in the orbital period between the 2 objects. if you need to catch up to the target, you need to decrease your orbital period to be lower than that of the target. all you need to do is lower your orbit a little and wait. if you overshoot, you need to increse your orbital period by making it bigger, and again wait till it catches up to you. once im within about 5 clicks of the target i match speed with it. just set it as your target and then burn in the direction of the retrograde cross-hair till your relative velocity is 0, then point the ship at the target and fire your buners. a good approach speed is 10m/s (if your using ion engines you might need to use less speed because changing velocity takes forever). if your in a fast manuverable ship and you are an impatient ****, feel free to gun it (this is the violently introduced shortcut for loosers, referenced in arcturus's shipwrecked frontier pioneer). after that begin docking manuvers.

for docking set the view to chase (unless you have a badass view of the docking port like i do in my station builder of doom), reduce speed to some small amount that your rcs system can nullify (rcs thrusters have horrible specific impulse so just use your main engine until you are close and slow). then switch to docking input mode. try to lign up with the docking port, then switch to linear. then just keep your prograde reticle over the purple blip on your nav ball that represents the station. you may need to tweak your rotation at the last minute. just remember small manuvers are all you need. get close and you dock automagically. its not like in orbiter where you got badass instrumentation to help you out, but you got to do it all on manual.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 08, 2012, 08:15:06 pm
My first docking experience was incredibad.  Having never bothered to use RCS before, I just randomly slapped a few thrusters on my ship like an idiot, thinking it would work okay.  It did NOT work okay.  Want to slide up?  NOPE.  Let's go like 60° left of up instead!  Go forward?  No thanks, let's start spinning around instead!  Did I mention I've never used RCS before...?  This is greaaaat!

Well eventually I did relearn how to fly, and with very careful management of both linear and rotational modes (and a lot of punching the ship in the right direction), I somehow managed to ram into the docking port and the game went 'CLOSE ENOUGH". :P  Best space flight ever.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 10, 2012, 03:26:45 am
Remarkably, that stupid-huge rescue craft has made it to Ikian orbit, with all its bits still attached, save for spent stages.  Fuel levels look promising for the return trip too, though I'm hoping that the lander will have some surplus, upon its return to the transit stage, to serve as a margin for error.

The only thing really in question, then, is finding a good (flat) spot to set down the lander and the rover and actually carrying out the rescue.  I'll have plenty of time to address those open issues, the next time I get some KSP time, since the sun was just setting on the stranded oiler, when I finished circularizing the rescue craft's orbit.  Given how long the rescue ship has been underway, I don't think that either crew is going to be particularly bothered by one more day of waiting.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Starman01 on December 10, 2012, 04:23:03 am
So, finally I tried this game myself. Tried the demo only a few minutes and then picked the complete game right away, it's just awesome and hillarious :D

I played with it a few hours, yet I do not reach stable orbit, only really big ballistic flight paths, though that's just because I simply speed up too much.

But I can't remember when I had so much fun and laughs with just such a "simple" game..... 3 of my guys in a standard control pod (no storage or moduls attached )are currently orbiting the sun in a few million mile radius because I accelered them so much that I catapulted them out of orbit and Eve's gravity    :lol: Dunno if they are still alive (but afaik the Kerbals can't die, or only in exlosions). Maybe, when I'm better I manage to rescue them, but I doubt i can dock and they have a speed of +9000 m/s 

The biggest laugh was a huge rocket I build with 3 stages, and on the lower I had 5 external solidfuel boosters. When launching the boosters, they rip themself from the rocket, immediately crashing into the middle of the rocket (one missed and just flow away vertically a few miles), the big rocket brakes apart and fall to the ground while I was hitting "space" and activating the other engines, which makes the upper rocket part slide over the ground before everything explodes..... That view, together with the 3 paniced faces of the kerbals nearly made me wet myself... :lol: :lol:

I just love this game !!!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 10, 2012, 04:47:57 am
Maybe, when I'm better I manage to rescue them, but I doubt i can dock and they have a speed of +9000 m/s 

Oh, it's definitely doable. If the ship that needs rescuing has a docking port it might even be possible to get it back home (as opposed to just transferring the crew to the rescue craft), provided you can build something with enough fuel to loan some to the stranded ship. You could build a dockable unmanned tanker / solar probe combo, for example. Once it intercepts your stranded ship, it gives all of it's remaining fuel to it and remains as an unmanned solar probe, while the kerbonauts blast on home. That's what I like about this game - there's always options, some of them crazy, and it's totally gratifying when they actually work :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 10, 2012, 04:51:28 am
I actually never figured out how fuel transfer worked^^
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Starman01 on December 10, 2012, 05:06:10 am
Quote
If the ship that needs rescuing has a docking port

Well, it hasn't, and no engine neither :) Just the capsule with a parachute  :p  Guess they will become a memorial manifest for the kerbal space programm for the next million of years :)

However, I just saw a video on youtube about one guy landing a fantastic designed spacestation on the moon. It has some huge "robot arms"..... These would be the only solution, If I managed to get a vessel there, grab the capsule, fly them home and drop them into orbit, then they could land with their own parachute.

Sounds like a plan .... but first I need to learn how to reach orbit correctly. Have to learn speedmanagent, I'm using way to much speed. Found a good tutorial, have to try that.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 10, 2012, 08:31:12 am
Well, it hasn't, and no engine neither :) Just the capsule with a parachute  :p  Guess they will become a memorial manifest for the kerbal space programm for the next million of years :)

Or you could launch a rescue vehicle with enough room for that crew too, and just EVA over there.


I actually never figured out how fuel transfer worked^^

KSP is getting more complex with every iteration, and the need for some kind of an interactive tutorial is becoming greater. Fuel transfer is simple, but not that obvious if you didn't happen to find the info online. What you do is, you alt-right click both tanks. You should get the "In" and "Out" buttons on both tanks and can transfer fuel. Obviously, for this to work the ships need to be docked to one another. In general, right now most (if not all) parts allow for fuel crossfeed so it doesn't matter where the docking ports in relation to fuel tanks are - if the ships are docked fuel transfer will work.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Turey on December 10, 2012, 11:58:06 am
KSP is getting more complex with every iteration, and the need for some kind of an interactive tutorial is becoming greater. Fuel transfer is simple, but not that obvious if you didn't happen to find the info online. What you do is, you alt-right click both tanks. You should get the "In" and "Out" buttons on both tanks and can transfer fuel. Obviously, for this to work the ships need to be docked to one another. In general, right now most (if not all) parts allow for fuel crossfeed so it doesn't matter where the docking ports in relation to fuel tanks are - if the ships are docked fuel transfer will work.
I'm fairly certain any tank can transfer fuel to any other tank on the same vehicle/set of connected vehicles. I use a fair number of non-crossfeed compatible parts and I'm pretty sure I've transferred fuel across them.

There's also a training section now for learning the basics, but it needs to be expanded.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 10, 2012, 01:41:44 pm
I'm fairly certain any tank can transfer fuel to any other tank on the same vehicle/set of connected vehicles. I use a fair number of non-crossfeed compatible parts and I'm pretty sure I've transferred fuel across them.

Yep, it indeed works this way; quite handy. :)

I'm happy to say that I finished the main structure of my first space station, at least the first station that I feel proud of (preceding efforts were very lulz-worthy failures).  Since my motif for this game file is that of Descent's Post Terran Kerban Mining Corporation, the station is named Shiva.  All it needs now is some fuel storage underneath the main hub area.  And for once I did not forget to add floodlights!

(http://i.imgur.com/GRJBx.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/jYejz.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 11, 2012, 01:34:22 am
This rescue operation has turned into a shambles.

As with my rescue rover for retrieving parachuted craft on Kerbin, this rover had a very long nose, with the probe core at the front.  Also like the rescue rover on Kerbin, this one knocked its ****ing nose off, the first time it reached the bottom of a remotely steep slope.

Well, fine.  I'll just have to be careful to put the lander down closer to the stranded oiler.  This I managed fairly well, setting down within about four kilometers of my target.  Unfortunately, because of the position of the fuel tank, the lander is a top-heavy beast and won't stand upright on the slope on which it touched down.  I've thus far had no success righting the lander, because of those structural gantries still dangling off of the engine pods.  On the bright side, I've knocked off one of its two solar panels.  Wait....  That's not a bright side at all.

To rescue the rescue mission (yes, we're at that point), I sent one of the oiler's crew flying out to the rover, which still had a three-man command capsule attached, via EVA pack.  He's now carefully driving the rover back to the lander, where he will hopefully be able to use the rover's tapered front end and retractable wheels to give the lander enough of a boost to right itself with RCS thrusters.

If this doesn't work out, then I'll be sending the interplanetary stage back to Kerbin, empty-handed, and the boys back home will be having a rethink about the rescue ship.  Meanwhile, the Kerbonauts stuck on Ike will just have to enjoy their new-ish, busted toys for another year, while waiting for the next rescue attempt.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 11, 2012, 09:37:27 am
Pics or it didn't happen :P
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on December 11, 2012, 09:51:18 am
See? That's what happens when you load the command capsules with booze, weed, & munchies! You get drunk, high, fat kerbanauts!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 11, 2012, 11:57:17 am
what? no hookers?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 11, 2012, 02:16:17 pm
Pics or it didn't happen :P

...

Hey, like Vegas, what happens in the Kerbal solar system.....gets out almost immediately, because every character assassin and their mother has a cellphone camera.  Huh.  Dammit.

Picking up from where the last batch of screenshots left off, there was no specific refueling port on the interplanetary stage, so I needed to park the lander and rover assembly to use the docking port on the interplanetary stage's nose.  Incidentally, after refueling this beast, the fuel depot is almost empty again.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue09.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue09.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue10.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue10.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue11.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue11.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue12.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue12.png)

The flight to Duna was uneventful.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue13.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue13.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue14.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue14.png)

I was planning on doing an aerobraking maneuver to capture, without having to use fuel to burn off all of my speed, but as I was plotting out the maneuver, I got a lucky encounter with Ike, before my Duna-periapsis dropped into the atmosphere.  Rather than capturing over Duna, transfering, and capturing again over Ike, I decided to just use that lucky encounter, doing the one partial capture and the final capture over Ike.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue15.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue15.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue16.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue16.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue17.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue17.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue18.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue18.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue19.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue19.png)

After waiting for sunrise over the stranded oiler, it was time to split up the ship and drop the lander.  I'll mention at this point that a side-effect of the structural girders is that, after all of the outer engines and fuel tanks have been dropped, they do help kill the rocket's resemblence to a giant sex toy.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue20.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue20.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue21.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue21.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue22.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue22.png)

It got exactly one-and-a-half kilometers before knocking its nose off.  (Incidentally, this demonstrates why, in biology, there may be evolutionary selection against an organism growing its brain in its nose.)

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue23.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue23.png)

Right, let's get the lander down, close to target, then.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue24.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue24.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue25.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue25.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue26.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue26.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue27.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue27.png)

By the fair and scientific process of "Not it," Lanbald Kerman was chosen to fly out to the rover to try to salvage this mission.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue28.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue28.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue29.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue29.png)

The drive was tricky, because there is no position in which those landing legs stop dragging on the ground, but it turns out that there's a certain correlation between being slow to say, "Not it," and being a decent driver.  Lanbald managed to ride on two wheels in a couple stretches to get his speed up, and recovered from some pretty stupid sick flips.  He even got where he was going alive!  Think about that, the next time you shove that bloke into the center seat in the back of your car.  :P

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue30.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue30.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue31.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue31.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue32.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue32.png)

Unfortunately, the rover's nose was too blunted, after losing the probe core, to get underneath any part of the lander.  I tried pushing the lander backwards, down the hill to see if supplementing the RCS with some momentum would do the trick, but all that accomplished was getting the lander further down the hill.  ...  Okay, the docking port got sheared off as well.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue33.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue33.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue34.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue34.png)

With that, then, it was time to send Lanbald back to the oiler and the interplanetary vehicle back to Kerbin.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue35.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue35.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue36.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue36.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue37.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue37.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue38.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue38.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue39.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue39.png)

Upon return, though, Nelfurt Kerman noticed something about my planned aerobraking maneuver that I did not.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue40.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue40.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue41.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue41.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue42.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue42.png)

Even if you're going four kilometers a second on entry, a twenty-five kilometer periapsis is too low to recover an orbit.

On the bright side, I don't have to rescue those Kerbonauts.  I also don't have to listen to Nelfurt's smug, "I told you so."  Heh.  Joke's on you, asshole.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scotty on December 11, 2012, 03:04:53 pm
I very much approve of the smaller pictures you used in your post.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 11, 2012, 11:58:03 pm
i decided to put some more work into my battlestar-analogue. moving girders around wasnt all that interesting. just a bunch of floating metal bits of varying dregrees of completion. a major issue thus far is i havent had a clue what my mega-ship is going to look like when its done. in an effort to do away with such abiguity i decided to work on something that is recognizable in a very large space craft. engines! im going with large nerva clusters. in the past i had used ion clusters. but military craft are seldom designed for economy. its gonna be a gas guzzler. heres one of the engine pods on the pads, ready for boosing:
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot12.jpg)
amd do give you an idea about its thrust here it is pulling off the final trim burn to orbit. these things ended up with way too much fuel in the boosters, and i ended up with considerable fuel left over to bring them all together.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot13-1.jpg)
thats right im going to be connecting four of these together and building my starship on the front end of it. with that much thrust it soon becomes clear the size of the monstrosity that i am building. here we are connecting the first one to the central interconnect assembly.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot15.jpg)
i really hate these lateral docking maneuvers. first of all the ship has an unbalanced rcs layout. i decided on a design that included a light tug to provide the neccisary maneuverability, where the engines themselves provide the main propulsion, and a small amount of fuel for the rendezvous maneuver (it turned out to be way too much). instead of placing any thusters on the engine pods themselves to place them at the end of long booms to give me a little bit pore torque, which is just enough to provide adequate lateral and vertical translation. it worked for the most part but it took every ounce of skill i had.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot19-2.jpg)
after that things started acting weird. my tugs decided to self destruct shortly after docking. the stayputnik at the front of one of the docked tugs came off for no apparent reason. figuring that i only needed one or two i considered this an acceptable loss. i was still able to siphon off the fuel before getting rid of the dead tugs.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot21.jpg)
another hard as **** lateral docking manuver, i think this one was easier because of additional rcs thrusters. and the final bit, you can see i lost another stayputnik, also for unknown reason.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot23.jpg)
finally i finished the drive module. you can see i lost another stayputnik, and im not sure what happened to the interconnect tug either.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot25.jpg)
and there you have it, next task is to bring the whole assembly to the construction yard, which is a little spread out at the moment. need to get all my bits together to finish the construction. i think what im going to do is attach the fuel directly to the engine pods, as that will be most of the weight. the command section will be on the central keel, as will most of the rcs system. so i kind of have an idea of what im doing now.
 



Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 12, 2012, 10:28:36 am
Anything with any sort of command module is considered a ship (anything that gets ditched without it is either "debris" or "unknown"). So maybe too much command modules confuses the frak out of the game and things start falling apart? Just a wild guess here.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 12, 2012, 11:42:43 am
I've seen many people build space stations with a bunch of command modules in them with no apparent ill effects, though nuke is using quite a few more of them than I've typically seen, so who knows.  Maybe it's a lesser form of the Space Cthulhu? (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/archive/index.php/t-21038.html)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 12, 2012, 12:18:47 pm
even when this thing is done its going to need landing craft, fuel tugs to manage tankage, probes, etc. so there will be a lot of differentvehicles attatched to the ship. each of those 5 sections had its own tug and 5 of them blew up. but i think this is a common issue with the stayputnik pod.

im kinda concerned that the fact that you cannot connect a part assembly at 2 points to another assembly (at least i dont think you can). this prevents you from doing any serious structural design. just hook everything up to a center keel and hope for the best.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 12, 2012, 01:07:25 pm
I've seen many people build space stations with a bunch of command modules in them with no apparent ill effects, though nuke is using quite a few more of them than I've typically seen, so who knows.  Maybe it's a lesser form of the Space Cthulhu? (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/archive/index.php/t-21038.html)

Yeah, there's some new, more violent, variant of the space kraken in 0.18.  It hit me, when I was sending Lanbald back to the stranded oiler.  When I got within two kilometers (the maximum range at which the physics engine is active), the oiler jumped to another hill, and when I got within two kilometers again, it exploded.  Fortunately, the game auto-saved, when Lanbald got out of the rover, so I was able to reload, and when I approached the second time, everything was fine.  Might be worth saving, when you're getting within a few kilometers of your space stations and shipyards.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on December 12, 2012, 06:24:22 pm
Girders are awesome.

So far, I've attempted building a girder-based Enterprise, girder-based gravitron station (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GZah1JWt24), and an abortive attempt of a Zeppelin (too much CPU load).

However, this is probably my most bestest creation in the realm of KSP aviation so far.

(http://i.imgur.com/VrjdX.jpg)

This is the A-1 variant which didn't have a skin on the fuselage, so you can see the underlying structure. The exact positioning and angle of wings has also changed a little, main landing gear are now doubles instead of single wheels, the control surface layout is different, but the basic structure remains unchanged.

She flies quite a bit like a medium-sized jet should. Here be a video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXyRIgm7Vc0)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: FlamingCobra on December 12, 2012, 09:10:43 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/6ERys.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 12, 2012, 09:52:03 pm
Cleanup on launchpad three!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 12, 2012, 09:57:47 pm
Orion test variant unsuccessful.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Pred the Penguin on December 13, 2012, 10:57:01 am
Any good Youtube channels of lots of KSP stuff? (Hopefully instructional ones as well. :nervous:)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 13, 2012, 12:21:47 pm
Scott Manley

Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/szyzyg/videos
Newbie's first tutorial - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgPr4q5tj-Q
Rendezvous and docking tutorial - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHkY3FusJIQ

He's also very good about explaining what he's doing in his non-instructional videos, so you'll stand to learn quite a lot, even when you're not on his channel to sit through a tutorial.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on December 13, 2012, 01:51:54 pm
He's my favorite goon :allears:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: carbine7 on December 14, 2012, 12:11:41 am
Scott Manley

Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/szyzyg/videos
Newbie's first tutorial - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgPr4q5tj-Q
Rendezvous and docking tutorial - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHkY3FusJIQ

He's also very good about explaining what he's doing in his non-instructional videos, so you'll stand to learn quite a lot, even when you're not on his channel to sit through a tutorial.

You'll stand to learn quite a lot about pretty much everything astronomy related really, the man is a Scottish encyclopedia of information. Listening to his videos made me many times better at KSP than I can count.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 14, 2012, 04:25:43 am
So I was thinking on how to put a probe on each of Jool's moons without having to send over 5 interplanetary missions. I already pulled a two-docked-probes mission to Eve, having successfully landed a probe on both Eve and Gilly, so now I wanted to test this on a larger scale. As a result, project Jool Orbital was born. It consists of the Jool Orbital herself, with 5 probes docked to it.

After 135 days in orbit, the ship is finally complete, with all the probes and equipment docked to it, she's fully fueled up and as ready as she'll ever be.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot487_zps62422489.jpg)

How it began: delivering the core of the ship into orbit.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot515_zpse4c375cd.jpg)

Atlantis 4 docked, having just delivered a probe and a drop tank.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot529_zps07632e5c.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot521_zps06c3ee2d.jpg)

Advanced stages of construction..


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot638_zps768449d8.jpg)

Last of the probes docking.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot645_zps9a85b198.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot653_zps9b7da31c.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot660_zps4078bc4d.jpg)

Ship complete, doing last EVA checks...


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot680_zps8f637fc1.jpg)

..and the obligatory tacky postcard shot of the completed vessel.


Flight plan and mission objectives are as follows:

1) Jool Orbital will leave Kerbin's SOI and proceed on a trans-Jool trajectory via a Hohmann transfer maneuver.

2) The aft drop tank has been equipped with a small probe core, limited battery power with a few fixed solar panels, parachutes, scientific instruments and comm equipment. Upon entering Jool's SOI, the Jool Orbital will set a collision course with Jool. If there will be any fuel remaining in the aft drop tank, it will be pumped over to the main body tank, at which point the aft drop tank will be detached from the ship.

The drop tank will proceed on a collision course with Jool. Comm equipment will be deployed to transmit information about various layers of Jool's atmosphere to Jool Orbital, which will relay this information to Kerbin when it's in a position to transmit. The Jool impactor probe will continue transmitting data until it is destroyed. The parachutes will hopefully slow it's descent and extend it's useful life time.

3) After separation of the aft drop tank, the Jool Orbital will then perform a correction burn to set Jool periapsis at some 115km altitude for an aerobreaking maneuver.

4) Having achieved Jool Orbit, the Jool Orbital will commence deploying probes to each of Jool's moons.

5) Upon completion of all mission objectives, the Jool Orbital will settle in a final orbit around Jool. If enough fuel remains aboard, it will be possible to use it as a refueling depot for a future manned mission to one of Jool's moons (probably Laythe).


If this all works, I will have a probe on each space object in the Kerbol system in 0.18. Two concerns are, one, the 4 NERVAs have their work cut out for them, having a lot of mass to push; it may have been better to use a 6 engine layout. A manned interplanetary ship will probably use just such a setup. Another is, the ship has lots and lots of parts fully assembled, FPS takes a bit of a hit, and I do hope it won't all fall apart at full thrust. So, wish me luck :)


Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 14, 2012, 07:26:47 am
That's one hell of a mission plan; good luck to you indeed! 
So far the only interplanetary thing I've done is abandon a 3-man command capsule on the surface of Eve.  I need to learn how to be more awesome. :(
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on December 14, 2012, 07:38:43 am
So many kerbals are alive because I DON'T have a working system capable of running 0.18.....
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 14, 2012, 09:12:37 am
So many kerbals are alive because I DON'T have a working system capable of running 0.18.....

0.18 is finally capable of unmanned missions without using mods, so not necessarily :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 14, 2012, 09:23:17 am
0.18 is finally capable of unmanned missions without using mods, so not necessarily :)

Killing my crew is part of the fun!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on December 14, 2012, 09:35:52 am
Killing my crew is part of the fun!


Well, I have good news and bad news for you.

The good news: With this, not only can you kill your crew, but also your passengers!

(http://i.imgur.com/caKh3h.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/uO11Fh.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/4BP1B.jpg)

This particular configuration seats ladders 26 kerbals in cabin + one man crew (pilot) in cockpit.

My ultimate goal is a wide-body airliner (diameter 3 metres)... Some day...

(http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/5249/screenshot76edit.png)


The bad news: See all those girders? Yeah, those. They are bad for performance.

Really bad. You wouldn't believe how much time this sucker takes to load up in the game. And once it starts simulating it, it lags the game to at least 0.5 x normal simulation rate, at about 8-10 FPS, so I need to figure out some way to optimize the construction...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on December 14, 2012, 09:44:18 am
Create custom fuselage parts with the shape predefined?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on December 14, 2012, 10:15:49 am
Yes, that's probably the only way to make these things performance-efficient. I found some ring parts; I suppose I'll be scaling them to right size. Still need to get some fuselage skin and tail cone fairings that snaps radially to the girder mesh, rather than faking it with the silly fairing factory fairings which are only there for the looks.

I don't want to create specialized parts for a certain aircraft design, though. I want to create a lot of airplane designs from simple basic parts.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 15, 2012, 03:23:25 am
The second Ike rescue attempt is underway and has reached Ike orbit.  The rover has been removed and the lander redesigned.  Of course, I managed to arrive, again, while the stranded vessel was on the night-side of Ike, so I'm endlessly waiting for the sun to rise again, before I attempt a landing.  That and the inevitable screenshot dump will have to happen later this weekend, though.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 15, 2012, 05:30:54 am
The Jool Orbital mission has been carried out, and most mission objectives have been successful. Having spent 135 days being readied in a 250km high orbit of kerbin, the ship left Kerbin's SOI and initiated a Jool transfer burn as planned. Ship's systems performed as expected, and after the 22 minute long (!) burn the ship was injected on a collision trajectory with Jool.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot008_zps478b8b98.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot003_zps639c34b5.jpg)

The Jool Orbital, making it's escape burn.


This ship carried the last 5 probes of my Zond program, the first 6 already landed on Duna, Ike, Eve, Gilly, Moho, and Dres. It's mission objective: probe Jool's atmosphere and each of it's natural satellites.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot30_zps977ddb01.jpg)

Detaching the aft drop tank that has been drained of fuel, while on a collision course with Jool. The tank was equipped with basic systems needed to operate scientific instruments, chutes, and comm equipment to transmit it's findings for as long as the onboard instruments remain operational.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot33-1_zpsb0d47edf.jpg)

The Jool Orbital making a correction burn after deploying the probe / tank. This burn put it on an aerobreaking trajectory and also had a purpose of delaying it's contact with Jool's atmosphere in relation to the probe / tank (in further text, I'll refer to is as the Jool Impactor), allowing me to focus on the probe while the Jool Orbital is still roughly two hours away from atmosphere contact.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot36-1_zps6466191c.jpg)

The Jool Impactor, getting closer to Jool's atmosphere. Comm equipment deployed, all scientific equipment operating.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot39_zpsc240f5a2.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot179_zps76e56911.jpg)

I monitored the Jool Impactor as it descended. As expected, atmospheric pressure and temperatures began to rise exponentially as it got below 20km altitude. Just a few meters (one, actually) above the surface, it was picking up some 15 atmospheres and approximately +980 degrees (I assume °C since the rest of the units are metric). Yikes, whatever comes down there isn't coming up.. Unless you let the game glitch; in previous versions some of my dropped tanks which I allowed to impact Jool proceeded straight through it and ended up on some weird, extremely elongated elliptical orbits around the Sun. So this time when the probe went below surface, I hit "end flight" and focused back on the Jool Orbital.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot183_zpsa3be8d10.jpg)

The Jool Orbital after having made a successful aerobreaking maneuver. The down side of me being focused on the Jool Impactor probe while the Jool Orbital was approaching was that I failed to correct for a 12 degree orbital inclination in time. Correcting this took a lot of Δv, which in turn cost a lot of fuel. Due to this development, I was unable to manually carry the probes to some of the more.. problematic to reach Jool's moons. Instead, I deployed one to Laythe and Vall, and then used the remaining fuel aboard ship to settle the Jool Orbital in a 14 million km circular orbit around Jool, hoping the high orbit would give the probes enough of a head start to reach their destinations.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot201_zpsd6e8c109.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot203_zps5d67aa8d.jpg)

Deploying the Zond 11 to Laythe. Incidentally, I love sunrises over Jool.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot223_zps4df7b305.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot226-1_zps259c1a30.jpg)

First of the probes reached it's destination. So far, so good.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot233_zps09cffb51.jpg)

Time to put another one on Vall.



(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot239-1_zpsdb14403d.jpg)

Reached it with enough fuel to spare to light a zippo. Briefly. Scientific analysis: it's blueish grey and kind of boring. On to the next one!


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot252_zps653d7000.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot255-1_zps2b7d4f98.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot256-1_zps95ac39c6.jpg)

The next one attempted to reach Tylo. I say attempted, because after the probe reached a 50x50km, landing on Tylo safely would require over of 2km/s of Δv. The probe simply didn't have that much left, so I left it in orbit instead.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot263-1_zpsd4033f8e.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot275_zps96c86534.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot279_zpsde6c2fc4.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot288_zps4cfdfe08.jpg)


The next one went to Pol. Pol is further than Tylo, much smaller, and on an inclined orbit. So why, you might ask, would I even try to reach it when I couldn't land on Tylo? The answer is, the further away you get from a body you orbit, the less fuel you need to climb literally millions of km. And Pol is much smaller so once you do reach it, you actually need very little fuel to land. In fact, my distinct impression is it's entirely doable with RCS only, and it probably wouldn't take more than a few units of monopropellant. Main problem in reaching Pol (and Bop) was that their orbits are very much inclined. I didn't have enough fuel to do plane change burns of that magnitude and reach the targets, so I had to catch both moons while they were on a point where their orbits intersected my own. The new node system makes this a bit easier, since you now have ascending and descending nodes that tell you exactly where those orbital intersections are.

BTW, I love Pol. It's surface isn't grey and boring, it's small but really irregular which makes landings interesting, and sunrises over it are awesome with Jool appearing larger than the Sun :)


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot299_zpsdd7d20b5.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot310_zps36b32606.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot327_zpsbdcb0ec2.jpg)

Lastly, using the same method I used to reach Pol, the final probe arrived safely on Bop. It's gravity is very, very low and it's surface is very uneven, which makes landings fiddly. If you touch the surface that is angled in relation to your probe, it will bounce back, and it will take some fine RCS control to make it settled down. Scientific analysis: cool tiny irregular asteroid captured by Jool, but not as interesting as Pol.


Final mission results:

- probe Jool's atmosphere with a disposable drop tank turned probe: success;
- land a probe on Laythe: success;
- land a probe on Vall: success;
- land a probe on Tylo: failure. Probe low on fuel in a stable 50km circular orbit. Probe is equipped with a docking port so future refueling operations would enable it to land.
- land a probe on Bop: success.
- land a probe on Pol: success.

Status of Jool Orbital: in a stable 14 million km circular orbit around Jool. Very little onboard fuel remains, so it will not be possible to use it as a refueling depot. Other systems operational, and the ship is now used as a comm relay between the probes and Kerbin.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot1-1_zps19cdefea.jpg)

The Jool Orbital after having deployed all of it's probes and spent a vast majority of it's fuel in a high orbit over Jool.

All in all, I'm calling this a win as I'm considering ways to refuel the Tylo probe, enabling it to land on it's intended target.




Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 15, 2012, 03:58:54 pm
In this mission that has been characterized by fuel shortages, the knackered rover from the first rescue mission predictably ran out of fuel, ten kilometers away from the second rescue lander.  That's alright, though, because on a moon like Ike, ten kilometers is a pretty quick EVA hop.  Now, I get to take the lander up and dock it ass-first with the interplanetary stage.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 15, 2012, 07:22:48 pm
In the interests of fuel conservation, there's two principles of orbital mechanics that everyone should know:

1:  Plane change maneuvers are EXPENSIVE, but there are good ways and not so good ways of doing them.  The lower the orbital velocity, the less expensive it will be to change the inclination.  Therefore, do this as far from the object you are orbiting as possible.  Let's look at an extreme example:

Imagine you are in a 100km altitude, prograde, equatorial orbit around Kerbin, and you want (for whatever reason) to switch this to a retrograde orbit.  If you were to try to plane change by 180° at this altitude, (basically cancelling all of your orbital speed, and then regaining it in the opposite direction), that would cost you a delta-v of about 4500m/s.  That's several times the cost of going to the Mun!  There's a far cheaper option:  Instead, make a prograde burn and ellipticize your orbit significantly, perhaps with an apoapsis at the distance of the Mun.  Then do the plane change maneuver at apoapsis, then recircularlize the orbit when you've fallen back to periapsis.  Even though you'll be be going much farther out of your way, the fuel cost is much less -- in this case, only ~2050m/s (840 to Mun, 370 to reverse the orbit, then another 840 to recircularize).  In all that's less than half the cost of the single low-orbit plane change!

2:  Prograde/retrograde burns are more efficient at higher orbital velocities, because the work done by the rocket is greater if it travels through a greater distance.  (This is the Oberth Effect). 

Example:  Going from Munar orbit (I experimented with a 133km circular prograde equatorial munar orbit) to Eve.  You might think to try a single ejection burn to get you straight to Eve's orbit.  This has a delta-v cost somewhere around 1000m/s, depending on the exact geometry of your ejection burn and where the Mun is in its orbit.  But there's a better option, by taking advantage of the Oberth effect: 

First cancel out your orbital velocity around Kerbin by burning prograde when your ship is in front of the Mun's direciton of motion (use the map and check the Mun's orbital path).  So you'll give yourself just enough speed to escape from the Mun, then slowly fall back toward Kerbin with as low of a periapsis distance as possible, then do your ejection burn at periapsis and go to Eve.  (This maneuver works best if the Mun is located behind Kerbin's direction of motion -- that way your ejection from Kerbin is retrograde and brings you to the inner solar system.)  This maneuver sequence has a delta-v of 230m/s (Mun escape) + 230m/s (Kerbin escape) for a total of 460m/s.  Again, less than half the cost of the more straightforward direct trajectory!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on December 15, 2012, 10:38:39 pm
I'd add to 2 that if you are planning a mission to another planet with a Kerbin orbit rendezvous between mission spacecraft, you should establish the rendezvous (and begin your joint insertion burn) from as low an orbit around Kerbin as feasible.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 15, 2012, 10:46:06 pm
i just found out you can double-dock parts, this solves my structural concerns about my kerbalstar.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 16, 2012, 02:14:07 am
On the second rescue attempt, I took 253 screenshots.  I pared that down quite a bit, so if it seems like there's some bits of the mission that are missing from the below post, that's probably because there is.

Roight.  Rescue Attempt Number Two, Electric Boogaloo:

This time, instead of going to the station for a pit stop, prior to transfering to Duna, the pit stop came to the interplanetary vehicle.  Since the station's reserves were low, and the interplanetary stage just needed a little topping up, after reaching its low, eighty-five kilometer parking orbit, I just sent the oiler straight to the rescue ship.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-001.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-001.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-002.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-002.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-003.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-003.png)

After topping up the rescue ship and dumping the rest of its reserves in the station's fuel depot, the oiler returned to Kerbin for the most perfect landing ever.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-004.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-004.png)

The blokes at the Kerbal Space Center saw this as a wonderful sign for things to come, and so they ordered the rescue mission to depart Kerbin orbit.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-005.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-005.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-006.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-006.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-007.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-007.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-008.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-008.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-009.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-009.png)

Upon reaching Duna, the capture process was much the same as before, dropping the Duna periapsis, until we got a decent Ike encounter, and then doing a proper capture around the moon.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-010.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-010.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-011.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-011.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-012.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-012.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-013.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-013.png)

Ike orbit established, the automated lander was turned loose.  I had a strategy for landing on a slope, as level ground seemed a rare commodity on Ike, but as it turned out, the lander found a patch of the stuff about sixty kilometers from the stranded oiler.  That was too far for an EVA hop (at least too far for a safe EVA hop), but the knackered rover from the previous operation was still near the oiler, so sixty kilometers didn't seem unreasonable.  Moreover, any leftover fuel in the lander was going to make a handy reserve for the return trip, so I didn't really want to go burning all of it looking for another landing site.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-014.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-014.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-015.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-015.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-016.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-016.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-017.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-017.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-018.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-018.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-019.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-019.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-020.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-020.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-021.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-021.png)

Speaking of the knackered rover, that thing had been sitting around for about a year.  Hopefully the vaccuum kept the rover from breaking down the way cars do, when left unused too long.  After one last look around the oiler, it was time to find out.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-025.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-025.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-022.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-022.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-023.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-023.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-024.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-024.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-026.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-026.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-027.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-027.png)

One-fingered salute to the old lander!

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-028.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-028.png)

If you do intend to send a ground vehicle to Ike, think rock-crawler, instead of rover.  There's no getting around the canyons, besides going straight through them, and the slopes on each side get pretty immense.  I hit a thirty-degree incline at one point, and twenty degrees seemed to be the norm for the steepest portion of any given wall.  You'll also notice that the indicator for the interplanetary vehicle passes by....twice.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-029.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-029.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-030.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-030.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-031.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-031.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-032.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-032.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-033.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-033.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-034.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-034.png)

Eventually, the oiler crew found themselves in a familiar position:  out of fuel.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-035.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-035.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-036.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-036.png)

Keldon, having a name vaguely Klingon-ish, was given the duty of diving head-first toward the second lander, because surely, his skull would be the most capable of surviving the impact, right?

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-037.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-037.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-038.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-038.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-039.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-039.png)

After Keldon's compatriots joined him, they all paused, briefly awestruck.  After a year-and-a-half, most of it spent on a desolate, gray rock, it was hard to believe that their return trip to Kerbin was at hand.  The Kerbonauts orbiting above regretted not sending one of their number down in the lander, so that they could bring the KSP cattle prod to bear on those morons, who'd apparently exposed their brains to vaccuum one too many times.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-040.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-040.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-041.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-041.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-042.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-042.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-043.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-043.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-044.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-044.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-045.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-045.png)

I kept a shot of the map view handy, just to show the expanse of terrain that the stranded crew ultimately traversed.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-046.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-046.png)

Crew finally aboard, the lander pulled up stakes and set itself to intercepting the interplanetary vessel above.  It started out orbiting in the wrong direction, initially, so I wound up burning off all the extra fuel I hoped to keep handy, but mistakes are what reserve fuel is there for!

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-047.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-047.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-048.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-048.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-049.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-049.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-050.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-050.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-051.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-051.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-052.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-052.png)

Now, I wanted to have a bit of a pause in the commentary here, since there was at least one complaint about difficulty docking, using side- or rear-facing docking ports.  If you right-click on a docking port and choose "control from here", your navball and controls will all reorient themselves so that the selected docking port is treated as the front of the ship.  I use the technique here for an effortless docking maneuver, using the rear-facing port on the lander, instead of having to switch to the interplanetary ship to use its forward-facing docking port.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-053.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-053.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-054.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-054.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-055.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-055.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-056.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-056.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-057.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-057.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-058.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-058.png)

After shuffling some fuel around, the interplanetary craft dropped its remaining boosters.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-059.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-059.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-060.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-060.png)

Then they plotted out a nifty course that would take it to a fifty-five kilometer periapsis above Duna, before blasting out into interplanetary space at ludicrous speed.  (Okay, maybe they didn't quite go plaid, but it was a fun escape maneuver that took me closer to Duna than I'd previously been.)

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-061.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-061.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-062.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-062.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-063.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-063.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-064.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-064.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-065.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-065.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-066.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-066.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-067.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-067.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-068.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-068.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-069.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-069.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-070.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-070.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-071.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-071.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-072.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-072.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-073.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-073.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-074.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-074.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-075.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-075.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-076.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-076.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-077.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-077.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-078.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-078.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-079.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-079.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-080.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-080.png)

After a couple of corrective burns, the crew of the rescue craft realized that they needed a new mission planner, namely anyone who pays heed to phase angles.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-081.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-081.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-082.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-082.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-083.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-083.png)

Eventually, the ship made it back to Kerbin's sphere of influence, where an aerobraking maneuver was plotted out.  The blokes at Kerbal Space Center promised that this aerobraking maneuver wouldn't be quite so ambitious as the one they sent Nelfurt and company on.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-084.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-084.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-085.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-085.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-086.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-086.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-087.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-087.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-088.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-088.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-089.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-089.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-090.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-090.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-091.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-091.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-092.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-092.png)

After everyone survived the aerobraking manevuer, I did a corrective burn to keep the interplanetary vehicle in orbit.  It's got a 2,000,000 meter apoapsis, but a seventy-five kilometer periapsis, so if I can get an oiler out to intercept it for refueling, it will only take a relatively short burn to get the ship back out of Kerbin's sphere of influence, where that NERVA can get it damn near anywhere in the solar system.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-093.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-093.png)

After ensuring that section's safety, it was time to transfer the crew to the lander and let the two sections have their final parting of ways.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-094.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-094.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-095.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-095.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-096.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-096.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-097.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-097.png)

On the next close approach to Kerbin, the lander circularized its orbit at seventy-five kilometers to bide its time to land.  Remember that the ship came in on a highly inclined orbit, and the reserve fuel to be used for a plane change was spent correcting for a wrong turn over Ike.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-098.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-098.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-099.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-099.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-100.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-100.png)

Eventually, the lander decided the time was right, retracting its solar panels and beginning its descent.  Because it was an unusual angle of approach, I got to see some parts of the southern sea, that are usually over the horizon.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-101.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-101.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-102.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-102.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-103.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-103.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-104.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-104.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-105.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-105.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-106.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-106.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-107.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-107.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-108.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-108.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-109.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-109.png)

Land ho--holy ****.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-110.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-110.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-111.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-111.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-112.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-112.png)

With a narrow base and high dry center of mass, this thing was not designed for a water landing.  Still, there was nothing for it at this point, but to pull the chutes.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-113.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-113.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-114.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-114.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-115.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-115.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-116.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-116.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-117.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-117.png)

Beautiful!  Not even one bit torn off!  What somebody failed to mention was that even empty fuel tanks are highly reactive to water.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-118.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-118.png)

Still, checking the tins, we see that of nine six Kerbonauts deployed on this mission and subsequent rescue, all six are alive and well!

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-119.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-119.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-120.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-120.png)

Now, those Kerbonauts just need to wait for a version of the game that will implement a nautical shipyard, so that the Kerbal Coast Guard will have something with which to retrieve them.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Rescue2-121.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Rescue2-121.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on December 16, 2012, 02:46:54 am
Meanwhile, my research into supersonic atmospheric transportation meets completely expected challenges.

(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4180/noodleplane.gif)

I need to buy more space tape.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 16, 2012, 02:58:36 am
That Concorde look-alike seems to think it's a bird...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on December 16, 2012, 04:32:12 am
Fugly structural pylons?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 16, 2012, 05:13:33 am
@BlueFlames: That was a cool mission, I really like the two-engined lander design :)

If I might make a suggestion, while I do love a ton of pictures accompanying ksp missions, too much means your browser's going to jump around like a Jack Russel terrier while it's loading pictures and you're trying to read something. While annoying on a desktop browser, it's an utter pain on a mobile device. This is still ok if you don't post a bunch of pictures that show more or less the exact same thing. I'd suggest censoring that a bit - for example, 5 pictures showing almost the same angle of a ship making a burn over Ike aren't really necessary; posting one or two (if sufficiently different angles and you like them both so much) would suffice. You also don't really need 5 pictures of parachuting back to Kerbin, three showing the landed thing etc. Like I said, it's all cool but doing a bit of a critical selection would improve the readability of posts here.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 16, 2012, 06:13:45 am
i try to use really efficient compression (quality level 4 in photoshop). i used to half the resolution but the jpeg compression makes the image filesize really small (about 80k per shot), so the halving of resolution really isnt neccisary. so long as you dont post pngs at 1080p everything should be ok.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 16, 2012, 06:25:47 am
True, though the sheer number of shots can be a problem too. 50 pics in a post aren't going to play nice no matter how efficient compression you use, and there really is no need to post 5 pics of the exact same thing from very slightly different angles.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: TwentyPercentCooler on December 16, 2012, 06:27:52 pm
I sorta like the photo-journal bits.

I only just picked this game back up and I'm getting used to all the new stuff. I launched a few satellites into Kerbin orbit and the beginnings of a space station, and now I just launched a probe to Eve. Unfortunately, my launch vehicle needs a bit of tweaking - I ran out of fuel before I could do the transfer and now I'm attempting it with an ion thruster. It's working...just...very slowly. Maybe I should have just aborted and tried again, but damn it! I've watched too many missions fail already; the Kerbal voters are getting restless and mumbling about cutting my funding. I'll show them! 760 m/s of delta-V on 0.5 kN of thrust may take 40 minutes, but I'm going to do it.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 17, 2012, 02:15:09 am
I like the photo journal bits too. I'm just saying they could be a tad more browser and mobile device friendly by not having 5 almost identical shots. Select one out of 5, apply the principle to the whole post, and suddenly you get a post that offers the same amount of info and fun with far less frustration on load.

Also, ion engines are ok for small probes, anything else use nuclear engines (NERVAs). More efficient than standard LFEs but more powerful than ion engines, they can move heavier loads on interplanetary transfers and the burn won't last till your grandkids graduation day.

Eve, with it's thick atmo, is a place of delta-v happy hour; you can use the atmosphere to slow yourself down into orbit. Just save before you do it, if you set your periapsis too low you'll crash. If you mean to land a probe on surface, pack chutes - they work wonders in that thick soup Eve has for atmo.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 17, 2012, 06:57:35 am
Eve is indeed fantastic for aerobrake/capture.  Conversely, I tried that with Duna and did horribly.  25 kilometers was too ****ing high and I barely lost any speed.  Tried again at 15km and nearly crashed.  I guess 18-20 is the sweet spot?

Yesterday I sent a lander to Minmus to mine it's delicious wintergreen mint flavor crystals.  Had barely any fuel left for shipping them back to Kerbin, but lucked into this awesome trajectory.

(http://i.imgur.com/y08vk.png)

Thank you Mun!  I'm sorry I told you to **** off earlier.  You're cool.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 17, 2012, 07:04:28 am
anyway i spent most of the day moving things around in kerbin orbit. i started working on the kerbalstar's spaceframe, but had to stop to launch some tankage which will be permanent internal tanks (there will be a number of places to mount external drop tanks). there will be 8 large tanks in all. plan is to build a ship capable of visiting every planet in the solar system without refueling and return to kerbin.

i also assembled a make shift space dock so i have a place to park my tugs, thruster pods, and bits when im not using them, i also docked one of my failed tanker tanks to it so it can also serve as a refueling station. i decided not to use the longer girders, and only some of the smaller ones. instead i will launch the space frame in what i think will be 4 or 5 pieces, put them together, and attach it to the drive section as one piece. i wonder how many simultaneous dockings can occur. ive had 2 ports connect simultaneously, and i hope i can get 6 simultaneous connections between the space frame and the drive section.

this ship is at least 120 tonns (crude estimate) right now. and it doesnt even have much fuel yet (just a few droptanks that never got emptied all the way, enough to move it about somewhat, though that is becoming structurally troublesome as the ship gets bigger). il post some pics once i get the first 4 tanks installed. i wish they would come up wit a sas that didnt cause large ships to vibrate violently. this makes docking large tanks troublesome. perhaps i can transfer the bulk of the fuel into a temporary tank and use a smaller ship to move the fuel back into the main tank one load at a time.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on December 17, 2012, 08:54:16 am
Meanwhile, my research into supersonic atmospheric transportation meets completely expected challenges.

[lolshot]http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4180/noodleplane.gif[/lolshot]

I need to buy more space tape.

Nice Ornithopter, now get it to Duna.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 17, 2012, 09:01:46 am
What I actually find most amusing is the nosecone trying to come off, not the wingflap.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on December 17, 2012, 04:19:32 pm
1:  Plane change maneuvers are EXPENSIVE
2:  Prograde/retrograde burns are more efficient at higher orbital velocities

How do you determine/quantify when and to what extend it's worth going out of your way to do these? For example, for #1, if you only need to shift a few degrees, is it really worth elipticizing your orbit first? By how much should you elongate it to maximize efficiency? For #2, if you're already in orbit at 100km, is it worth dropping to 70 for your Kerbin Escape burn? Is there a point at which it's not worth it? And if so, what point is that?

I'm as interested in when these tips DON'T apply as when they do, and where the boundaries are.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Mongoose on December 17, 2012, 04:46:46 pm
I like the photo journal bits too. I'm just saying they could be a tad more browser and mobile device friendly by not having 5 almost identical shots.
I sort of feel like people deserve what they get if they bother using a mobile browser. :p
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 17, 2012, 05:57:26 pm
Meanwhile, my research into supersonic atmospheric transportation meets completely expected challenges.

[lolshot]http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4180/noodleplane.gif[/lolshot]

I need to buy more space tape.

Nice Ornithopter, now get it to Duna.

and dont get swallowed by a worm.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 17, 2012, 06:15:08 pm
1:  Plane change maneuvers are EXPENSIVE
2:  Prograde/retrograde burns are more efficient at higher orbital velocities

How do you determine/quantify when and to what extend it's worth going out of your way to do these? For example, for #1, if you only need to shift a few degrees, is it really worth elipticizing your orbit first? By how much should you elongate it to maximize efficiency? For #2, if you're already in orbit at 100km, is it worth dropping to 70 for your Kerbin Escape burn? Is there a point at which it's not worth it? And if so, what point is that?

I'm as interested in when these tips DON'T apply as when they do, and where the boundaries are.


MATH. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gENVB6tjq_M)

Actually, this doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to figure out, if we make some (very) simplifying assumptions.  Basically, we need to compare the delta-v cost of the plane change as a function of i (for which we will assume a circular orbit, because otherwise the formula is nasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination_change), and compare that to the total delta-v of the other maneuver.

Noting that the plane-change cost goes to zero as orbital velocity goes to zero, which happens as apoapsis goes to infinity, and further noting that the marginal cost to increase eccentricity decreases as e-->1, then this means the ideal case is to go to an escape trajectory.  (We'll further simplify this by ignoring other gravity sources once you escape -- e.g. the sun).  The total cost then is just two times the difference of the escape velocity minus the current orbital velocity.  (Two because I'm assuming you want to re-circularize the orbit afterward).

Delta-v for the plane change is:
(http://i.imgur.com/Z0lNe.png)

Set that equal to the cost of the alternate maneuver:
(http://i.imgur.com/jFbGk.png)

do the algebra and solve for the inclination angle change desired, we get:
(http://i.imgur.com/LwOX7.png)

Hmmm.  We've got escape speed (at current altitude) divided by orbital speed (again at current altitude) there.  That's just root(2/r) divided by root(1/r), which is just root(2).  Should be true for all altitudes.  Well then, so that's just a number -- put it back in the equation and we get delta-i is 48.9°.  Any maneuver requiring a larger inclination change than that (from a circular starting orbit) should instead use the other method.  There ya go!  I learned something today. :)
(Now I think I did all that correctly; if not then point out the mistakes and I'll give that person a gold star.)

Again this is the simplified case of a circular orbit -- if the orbit is not circular then results will be more varied, and you'd have to consider both the eccentricity of the orbit and the location of the nodes.

TL;DR:  Just do your plane changes at whichever node happens to be higher. :V

edit: as for part 2 (Oberth Effect), that's always true.  Always aim for doing your transfer/capture burns at the lowest possible altitudes.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 17, 2012, 06:41:33 pm
its also important to make your apoapsis coincide with one of the nodes? correct? im wondering how much fuel ive been pissing away (its ok i always bring 4x as much as i need so i can screw around abit).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 17, 2012, 06:53:20 pm
If your orbit is already aligned with the target (relative inclination is zero) then the location of the nodes doesn't matter.  Otherwise, do your basic Hohmann transfer and then plane change farther out to intersect the target.

Having the nodes aligned with periapsis/apoapsis is good if you're planning to continue orbiting the same object and want to cheaply change the inclination later.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 18, 2012, 05:01:56 am
One thing a lot of players miss out on is that you can drag maneuver nodes along the orbital path. So if you're going from your orbital path to a body on another orbital path, after making sure the planes are aligned, and with the target body still targeted in the map view, make a maneuver node and set a prograde burn maneuver until your orbit intersects the target's. If your node location is even close to being passable you should get two small light blue icons, one showing your position at closest approach to target, and the other showing target's position. Drag the node around the orbital path and adjust burn parameters (prograde / retrograde, up/down/left/right, yes I know there isn't really up or down or left or right in space but you get my meaning). Watch how the two icons move - your goal is to get them as close as possible to one another. Once they're close enough they'll disappear and you'll get an encounter / projected target periapsis. Now just fine tune to get the distance and inclination to your liking, orient in node's direction (marked blue on the navball), wait till you reach T-0 and burn (actually, if it's a longer burn, say two minutes, I like to split the difference by starting the burn early and finishing a bit late, it tends to even out. Then I tend to kill the node and use RCS to fine tune my approach while still far away and it's dirt cheap in the all powerful delta-v currency).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 18, 2012, 08:03:32 am
So, the maneuver nodes...
I add a node and the ship does the rest?
Added one, but when I reached it, there was no power left...guess if you have a probe as command section, you need juice to do anything...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 18, 2012, 08:09:50 am
When you put in the maneuver node, an extra (blue) indicator shows up on the navbal showing you what direction to burn, a green slider showing how much delta-v you need, and a countdown to when the ship is at the node.  So you are doing the burn manually, the node just shows what to do.  Quite handy.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: TwentyPercentCooler on December 18, 2012, 08:19:05 am
After some...okay, a lot of extremely frustrating failures in building a viable heavy-lift launch vehicle, I've been messing around with atmospheric craft instead. Despite having the spaceplane hangar and runway, I still like to use the launchpad and take off vertically - it's a pretty good way to figure out if you've got enough thrust. I just managed to build a 3-engined beast that climbed out to 60,000 ft. and decided to go mach 4. I say decided because after I launched and leveled it out, it was so stable that I only needed to use a bit of aileron trim to keep it from climbing too quickly and it pretty much flew itself. I'll call that one a success - eat my dust, SR-71!

I also am trying to build a 4-nacelle X-wing sorta thing, but it's not working out at the moment, stability-wise, although the TTW ratio is more than fine. Also having a bit of success with some solar-powered aircraft, although you have to make the little jerks almost entirely out of tiny girders or the pitiful ion engines don't have enough juice to get 'em in the air.

I will tell anyone who asks that this is the best couple of bucks I ever spent on a game.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 18, 2012, 09:23:58 am
After some...okay, a lot of extremely frustrating failures in building a viable heavy-lift launch vehicle, ...

Try this. Take a large orange tank, and attach another one below it. Now take a large white tank (half capacity of the big orange one) and attach it at the bottom. Put a mainsail engine below it. Now alt-click the top tank - this will copy the whole shebang. Attach it to the center tanks/engine row in a 4x symmetry mode. Now alt-click one of the rows again and again put it in a 4x symmetry so that you have a 3x3 arrangement (you should have nine rows of tanks with 9 mainsails below them).

Use a lot of struts to connect the tanks. If there's a lot of rocket left in the upper stages, use even more struts to stabilize it. Equip it with winglets and it'll practically fly itself upward. Also use those structural supports that keep the rocket in place until you launch and make them activate in the same stage as the mainsails. Things to look out for is to go easy on the throttle, and don't start the gravity turn too early. When doing a gravity turn do it with a much decreased throttle to cut down on the g-forces; large rockets love to fall apart otherwise.

With a few of these precautions, this heavy lifter put some very heavy stuff into orbit for me.


I will tell anyone who asks that this is the best couple of bucks I ever spent on a game.

Absolutely agreed.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 18, 2012, 10:18:04 am
my space construction shenanigans continue! first order of buisness is to launch yet another tug. you can never have enough of these. a tug needs a dock or two, a lot of rcs power (same thrusters as normal, but on a stick! all that leverage comes in handy when maneuvering large and very off center loads), and powerful engines. fuel is not so important since you mostly keep it close to the same orbit the whole time. only doing short burns for sync orbit maneuvers. most manuvers are done with the rcs thrusters. the only time you need the engines is when your construction yard expands from a 200 meter sphere to a 10 kilometer sphere over the course of an hour, so fast engines let you dash out and grab that stuff before you have to do a sync orbit maneuver to get your stuff.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot37_zps41637d30.jpg)
this one has twin nuke engines, and is a little lighter, and also not as wide as my previous design, i had trouble maneuvering it into position in a couple spots, less rcs spread so docking is a little harder. given the epic fuel economy of my previous tug design i decided to reduce the fuel quantity, and increase engine power by adding a second engine (this also balances out your load better). this makes short work of rounding up drift happy construction materials. twice the power means its a hell of a lot easier to grab that 4 ton piece of structure and bring it where you need it. i also decided to add more lights, because construction sucks while the sun is on the other side of the planet. this tug can also fly with or without a kerbal in the cockpit, and unlike the older tug has a big docking port up front and a small one in back, so it can hall stuff with either. here it is collecting girders from one of the container modules (its really just 20 tons of scrap metal glued together with bondo).
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot35_zpse185141d.jpg)
meanwhile at the kerbalstar there is a problem. i dont have any place to put all the ships i need to build the damn thing. they are all just docked to the kerbalstar which makes it hard to install new stuff without moving everything around. so i started work on a space dock with some of the surplus girders. oddly enough this mash of structure and ships maneuvers quite well. on with the task of gathering up all the crap from orbit and putting it together in one thing.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot30_zps8959bcca.jpg)
pretty much over night it grew to epic proportions. i forgot to take screen shots after i added each piece. but here it is about 50% "done" (done is subjective, i figure i will just keep adding to it as i need more parking space). happened to catch this awesome shot. you can see the station with no fewer than 9 ships attached.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot40_zpsbcecddd8.jpg)
the "final" piece. this closes the box, so to speak. this was a very hard maneuver to pull off. i launched 4 ultra light tugs (this is 4 of the 9 ships by the way) just for this manuver, of which i only used 2. this gave me a chance to test some construction techniques. moving this thing into place went smoother than expected, and it connected up perfectly the first try.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot44_zps5d3d3201.jpg)
and there she is. a triumph of redneck engineering. and now with what i think is 11 ships attatched.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot45_zps701d548d.jpg)
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot46_zps8a21a2fb.jpg)
i also docked the first tank to the kerbalstar, however i neglected to hit f1. so you can just kind of imagine it.

 
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 18, 2012, 10:37:55 am
I fail to build a heavy lifter... My maximum are five of the heavy tanks staked together, so I have 2x5 tanks with engines...but they are not enough...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: TwentyPercentCooler on December 18, 2012, 10:40:19 am
Meet the Solar Explorer II! This thing has such a ridiculous lift:weight ratio that it's almost impossible to land, but its only flight instability is a noticeable but non-divergent phugoid oscillation. Not exactly awe-inspiring, but shut up, it was fun.  :p

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-yHBFIPXXA8M/UNCam1tuGII/AAAAAAAAAC8/gs659MQ6rTo/s1280/solarexplorer.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 18, 2012, 11:23:52 am
I fail to build a heavy lifter... My maximum are five of the heavy tanks staked together, so I have 2x5 tanks with engines...but they are not enough...

I described how I build my heavy lifters above, but here are a few pics, maybe it'll help:


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot372_zps791460c9.jpg)

This 3x3 beast has 9 mainsail engines and has delivered all of my heavy interplanetary stuff into orbit (where it was typically added to by smaller lifters bringing in additional modules).


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot374_zps645b7076.jpg)

Another look at just the lifter stage, discarded in orbit. Note that it was carrying a full on interplanetary ship that eventually carried 5 probes to Jool's moons. I also used it to bring all my other interplanetary stuff into orbit.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot403_zps4a1f363d.jpg)

Here's another slightly lighter version of a heavy lifter carrying a one-man space plane prototype into orbit.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot3-1_zps873bfd2f.jpg)

Another view of the heavy lifter carrying a Jool-capable ship into orbit.

The thing to remember with heavy lifters is the following: just because it blew up when you tried it, doesn't mean the design isn't sound in principle. There are typically two ways a heavy lifter will fail. One, a part of it will lose linkage with other parts, resulting in the whole thing literally flying itself apart. You'll recognize this has happened if, say, one or more of the tank/engine rows suddenly detaches and flies off (usually starting a chain explosion that consumes the whole rocket, or if you're very lucky, merely destabilizes the rocket so the whole thing crashes down. Not so lucky now that I think about it, but definitely more rare. Once you lose structural integrity on the ascent a huge fireball is a given..) This is fixed by strategically interconnecting parts with struts, and being careful with the throttle.

Another typical way of heavy lifter failure is a failure on a decoupler; the g-forces created by the upward thrust of the lifter coupled with the mass of a heavy upper stage exert too much force on a coupler, usually the one connecting the heavy lifter with the upper stages. This is a common problem when lifting up something big and heavy. Once a coupler gives in, you'll recognize this issue by seeing the rocket's upper stage literally "overrun" by the heavy lifter, as it flies right through it before it all goes up in a huge fireball. Struts can help a bit, but you also need to decrease the forces on the decoupler by decreasing throttle and making a gravity turn later and with less throttle. Big rockets are especially susceptible to this kind of failure when angled, which is why I said to fly upwards longer if this is happening. Before making a turn, decrease throttle so you're still accelerating slowly (but not losing speed) to decrease the forces exerted on the decoupler.

Not using ASAS but manually steering the rocket in lower atmo can help too, since ASAS will keep trying to keep it straight by turning it back and forth, introducing vibrations along it's length. This can be very unhealthy with large, long rockets. A few well placed winglets will do wonders in terms of making large ascent stages controllable manually.

Also, now that we have docking, if something just won't make it into orbit, maybe it's time to redesign it so you bring it up there in more pieces and assemble in orbit.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 18, 2012, 12:01:08 pm
Yeah, I noticed the linkage failure happens quite often when the enginges have contact with the landing pad.
I tried to copy the lifter layout, but I don't get the nine fuel tanks attached to each other.
My current lifter starts to roll and pitch, but while I can handle this it achieves not the orbit I want.
But I keep on trying. Right now I'm obsessed with an A-10 like jet.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 18, 2012, 12:31:26 pm
I did a follow up mission to my Jool Orbital one described previously in this thread. As a reminder, the goal of Jool Orbital was to use a single interplanetary craft to deliver 5 probes to the surface of each of Jool's moons, and additionally probe Jool's atmosphere with a detachable drop tank equipped with scientific and comm equipment, chutes, small probe core, etc. The mission was successful in everything but one thing; put a probe down on Tylo. As it turned out, Tylo is the toughest of Jool's moons to land on (indeed, maybe the toughest in the game, more about it later), and the little probe just didn't have enough delta-v to pull it off, so I left it in a 50x50 km orbit instead. The probe had a docking port that was used to bring it to the Jool system attached to the interplanetary craft, which left open the possibility of a future refueling effort, hopefully allowing it to land.

So I planned another unmanned mission to Jool. There were three mission goals:

- bring a Tylo probe refueling craft in a position from where it can enter Tylo's orbit and refuel the Tylo probe orbiting there;

- put an ocean floating probe in a Laythe ocean;

- leave the interplanetary stage in orbit of Laythe with, hopefully, enough fuel left to be of help to future manned missions to Laythe.


Here's how it all went down.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot13-Copy_zpseef1ea7d.jpg)

First, I brought the interplanetary stage into orbit and docked the Tylo probe refueler with it. The interplanetary stage was similar, but simplified a bit since this time around I didn't need it to carry 5 probes or drop the aft tank into Jool's atmo. The very long forward bit is the Tylo refueler.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot16-Copy_zpsc980cfb5.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot26-Copy_zpse7a370bf.jpg)

Then I started playing with various design ideas for an ocean probe, testing it on Kerbin.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot44-Copy_zpsf8aa67bf.jpg)

... and then it was time to dock the thing to the interplanetary stage. To the aft docking port, to be exact - which meant being careful that it's angled so none of the probe's "flotation devices" aren't in the way of the main nuclear engine's exhaust.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot102-Copy_zpsc5e57eb4.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot109-Copy_zps697c4323.jpg)

Another interplanetary ship leaves Kerbin.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot121-Copy_zps9f59afee.jpg)

What made this mission special is the fortunate timing of my Jool aerobreaking maneuver. After aerobreaking, I had an encounter with Laythe. I decided to utilize that, which paid off in fuel later on. This time around I was also more careful to fix inclinations early on so from the moment of aerobreaking onwards I was on the exact same orbital plane as Laythe / Tylo.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot142-Copy_zps247edb04.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot140-Copy_zps071e3ea3.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot154-Copy_zpsd22a2e7d.jpg)

On approach to Laythe, I decoupled the Tylo probe refueler, leaving it on a fast flyby course. Then I set the periapsis of the Laythe Orbital low enough for aerobreaking, and had it enter Laythe Orbit.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot156-Copy_zpsc2177a0c.jpg)

With the Laythe Orbital safely inserted into an 80x80km orbit, I turned my attention to the Tylo probe refueler. It was left on a fast flyby and was now close to Laythe escape. A relatively short burn put it in a large elliptical orbit over Jool, which made a low-consumption transfer to Tylo possible. This proved essential later on.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot167-Copy_zpsd2706afa.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot173-Copy_zps263feae6.jpg)

Once in Tylo's orbit, the refueler intercepted it's target and docked with it.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot202-Copy_zps945e5ba1.jpg)

Once I was happy with the selected landing spot, I filled the probe's tanks to capacity, and used the remaining fuel aboard the refueler to do a deorbit burn.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot204_zps0d89a077.jpg)

Then I decoupled the probe from the refueler, leaving it to crash on Tylo's surface. This part couldn't be helped - Tylo is easily one of the toughest places to land on in the game, and in fact this probe would never have made it down there in one piece had it not been for the refueler making that deorbit burn for it. Tylo is kind of the opposite of Eve, it hates visitors. Eve loves them, by requiring comparatively low amounts of delta-v to reach it, and by having the ever so helpful atmosphere handing out free delta-v like it's candy. It also makes landings easy since parachutes work. The downside is that Eve loves visitors so much it does it's best to hold on to them forever once they're on the surface. Opposite to Eve's psychopathic levels of hospitality, Tylo's the grumpy neighbor that would just as soon you didn't come. It takes tons of delta-v to reach it, and once in a 50km orbit, you'll still need to kill over 2 km/s to safely land. This is because it's almost as big as Kerbin, and has no atmosphere; onboard instruments show 80% gravity to that of Kerbin, which makes it's gravitational field almost three times as strong as Duna's. Tylo really doesn't help you land on it in any part of the mission - it makes your life difficult in every aspect of it. If anyone is planning on landing there, I recommend using a large lander, landing a small probe is really difficult there.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot209_zpse275ba59.jpg)

Due to Tylo's high gravity, this was my first landing where the engine operated for the entire way down. I even used the RCS to help it, for what little that was worth. RCS is painfully inadequate when it comes to fighting Tylo's gravity, and a small probe with 180 fuel capacity is very, very tricky to bring down safely here.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot206_zps398f351a.jpg)

A view of the Great Wall of Tylo, as I call it. If you look better on the map view, you'll see it's basically a large slope that goes all around the moon, more visible on some places and less visible in others. In truth I have no idea why a large slope would circumvent an entire moon like that, but I'm sure there are people with bizarre haircuts over on History Channel with their own theories on this.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot210_zps7d835519.jpg)

After running out of fuel a meter or so above surface, I was happy the probe was equipped with heavy legs. Anything less would have had unfortunate results. The probe nearly tipped over as it is, but eventually it settled down on the surface. Victory!


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot213_zpsb6f7f9e5.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot217_zps584404c2.jpg)

After a short celebration at the KSC, it was time to focus back on the Laythe Orbital, and land the ocean probe still docked to it down on Laythe.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot220_zpsef4f10c6.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot225_zps21b21d90.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Laythe%20Orbital%20mission/screenshot232_zpsd35fc68a.jpg)

This part of the mission was far easier than the Tylo part. Laythe is quite more forgiving, with it's lower gravity and atmosphere that makes chutes useful. The probe floated upwards just like during tests on Kerbin. Onboard instruments show a temperature of around 5 degrees at sea level. Another probe I landed earlier landed on an island on a hill some 1600m high; temperatures recorded there were -6. This does answer the question of why Laythe's oceans aren't frozen.. but I still wouldn't go swim in them without a space suit :)

So, I'm happy to report all parts of the mission were a complete success. I now have at least one probe on each planet/moon in the Kerbol system, and a ship in orbit of Laythe with almost 3000 units of liquid fuel along with it's accompanying oxidizer, which will be useful for a future manned mission.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 18, 2012, 01:49:50 pm
My A-10 attempt failed, but I got a pretty neat delta wing, which flies well, but after using the timecompression it stalled, started spinning, in other words, I lost controll...
Jeb had his share of work to get the jet back under controll, while whirling from 10.000m to 1500...Damn...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on December 18, 2012, 02:09:28 pm
A view of the Great Wall of Tylo, as I call it. If you look better on the map view, you'll see it's basically a large slope that goes all around the moon, more visible on some places and less visible in others. In truth I have no idea why a large slope would circumvent an entire moon like that, but I'm sure there are people with bizarre haircuts over on History Channel with their own theories on this.

"What is most fascinating about the Wall is that it does not appear to be natural. The geological record suggests it is the result of a "glancing blow" by a mass accelerator round of unimaginable destructive power. This occurred some thirty-seven million years ago."

Great mission reports newman, having just gotten back into KSP after dabbling around with it months ago your operations are very inspiring.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: TwentyPercentCooler on December 18, 2012, 02:45:59 pm
My A-10 attempt failed, but I got a pretty neat delta wing, which flies well, but after using the timecompression it stalled, started spinning, in other words, I lost controll...
Jeb had his share of work to get the jet back under controll, while whirling from 10.000m to 1500...Damn...

The time compression will mess with the physics - probably makes the computations less complex or less frequent to keep it from being a slideshow. A perfectly sound aircraft in 1x can totally vaporize itself in 2x. It just gets worse at the higher levels.

I finally got the hang of getting the heavy lifter into orbit without blowing it up - turns out my design was fine, it was just the execution that was lacking. I haven't shot anything really heavy yet, just unmanned probes and bits of space station. Now I have to figure out orbital rendezvous and docking; this should be fun. Thankfully my pieces have tons of fuel and monopropellant for my inevitable failures.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 18, 2012, 02:58:21 pm
True enough about the time comprission, but using jet engines they stall at an altitude about 20000m and it will get realy ugly.  :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 18, 2012, 04:25:24 pm
"What is most fascinating about the Wall is that it does not appear to be natural. The geological record suggests it is the result of a "glancing blow" by a mass accelerator round of unimaginable destructive power. This occurred some thirty-seven million years ago."

Great mission reports newman, having just gotten back into KSP after dabbling around with it months ago your operations are very inspiring.

Heheh, it reminded me of the same thing actually :)


True enough about the time comprission, but using jet engines they stall at an altitude about 20000m and it will get realy ugly.  :D

Yea, jet engines need enough air flow to function. I used to toy with the idea of a jet powered ascent stage, but it turned out impractical and inferior to SRBs in every way as low atmo lifters. I did make a one seater space shuttle / jet plane hybrid that worked fine. It'd launch vertically on top of a rocket, use it's in-built liquid fuel engines and RCS for orbital operations, then once it got below I'd switch to jet engines and land back on the runway. It even had parachutes for emergencies if I screw the landing up..
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 18, 2012, 05:05:56 pm
I...retire for today...build a lifter which worked fine, but then again I burned too much fuel for a correction burn to get my space station into orbit.
Then I added four SAS modules, reworked the RCS thrusters and then some of the fuel tanks with their respective engines say 5 seconds after launch "Screw you crizza, we take our fuel, disconnect from your lifter and fly our own way :mad2:"

My jet did 1,500k metres above ground...while it is a stable design, I cannot build it...bigger. But I love to mount my engine block upon my wings :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: TwentyPercentCooler on December 18, 2012, 09:20:22 pm
"What is most fascinating about the Wall is that it does not appear to be natural. The geological record suggests it is the result of a "glancing blow" by a mass accelerator round of unimaginable destructive power. This occurred some thirty-seven million years ago."

Great mission reports newman, having just gotten back into KSP after dabbling around with it months ago your operations are very inspiring.

Heheh, it reminded me of the same thing actually :)


True enough about the time comprission, but using jet engines they stall at an altitude about 20000m and it will get realy ugly.  :D

Yea, jet engines need enough air flow to function. I used to toy with the idea of a jet powered ascent stage, but it turned out impractical and inferior to SRBs in every way as low atmo lifters. I did make a one seater space shuttle / jet plane hybrid that worked fine. It'd launch vertically on top of a rocket, use it's in-built liquid fuel engines and RCS for orbital operations, then once it got below I'd switch to jet engines and land back on the runway. It even had parachutes for emergencies if I screw the landing up..

I actually use some turbojets with ram air intakes for the first stage in putting lightweight probes/satellites up. To 15000m, where I jettison them, they take a ridiculously tiny amount of fuel. My second stage is one aerospike with one of the 1m long-body tanks and that's enough to boost to orbit with enough fuel left for corrections. Maybe not the best way ever, but I wanted to play around with air-breathing engines on a rocket and it worked out pretty well. Keep in mind the payload was a Probodobodyne core, a couple of girders and solar panels, and an ion engine. I might try something a bit heavier, though; the turbojets are a pretty awesome first stage for light payloads.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 19, 2012, 02:35:31 am
Anyone remember The Probulator (http://pool.theinfosphere.org/images/1/17/Probulator.png)?

Its great-great grandfather turns out to have been the Probulator 1000.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Probe1-01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Probe1-01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Probe1-02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Probe1-02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Probe1-03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Probe1-03.png)

It still has the last part of the lift stage attached, but this is my first unmanned mission out to interplanetary space.  Since the intensity of light from the sun in KSP doesn't follow the inverse-squares law, like light does in the real world, Probulator 1000 will soon be on its way out to Jool and possibly Dres to see how well solar panels function at great distances from the sun.

In the planning phases are Probulator series 2000, 3000, and 4000, being (in no particular order) a probe carrier, a geological probe, and an orbital probe.

Further out, I'm considering manned missions to Gilly and Moho, now that you can land on them, instead of having your rockets eaten by defective meshes.  For something rather more ambitious, I want to do a land-on-and-return-from Eve mission.  Before that, though, I'll want an unmanned fuel depot in orbit of Eve, so that I can undertake the mission confident that, if the lander can get free of Eve's atmosphere, it won't have to worry about having too little fuel to get home.

One mission at a time, though.  More from Probulator 1000 to come.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 19, 2012, 05:03:32 am
Solar panels produce less electricity at Jool distances, but I've found it's still enough to run the probe core and all the instruments aboard. I wouldn't count on them powering an ion drive at those distances though - pack RTGs if you're going far away from the sun on ion propulsion. Heck, pack RTGs if you're going anywhere on ion propulsion, solar panels are inadequate, and will likely force you to keep the throttle at 1/3 or so to prevent the batteries from draining, and you won't be doing any burns in a planet's shadow.

Ion drives are boring anyways. Burns take forever and they suck with orbital maneuvers, such as slowing yourself down into an orbit, where having more power and shorter burn durations helps.

Moho worked before, at least for me, though it had the overheating atmosphere problem that made landings very difficult (or easy, if you take a light, RCS only lander). In 0.18 Moho's atmosphere is gone and there's no overheating, you can land on it just like you would on the Mun. Gilly's collision mesh has been fixed since 0.17.1 so knock yourself out with that one :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 20, 2012, 02:53:31 am
The Best of Both Probes, Part 2
Think about it at your own peril.

Since we last left off, Kerbal Space Command demonstrated that they do care more for their expensive probes than their cheap Kerbonauts, by waiting for Jool to get into roughly the right position, before sending the Probulator 1000 chasing after it.  That chase began on the night side of Kerbin, beginning with the last of the lift stage's fuel.  Once that was expended, the probe dropped its lift stage and started its ion engines at low throttle to stretch its battery capacity, until morning.  When the sun did rise, the probe rolled to maximize solar exposure to its panels and throttled up.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Probe1-04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Probe1-04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Probe1-05.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Probe1-05.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Probe1-06.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Probe1-06.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Probe1-07.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Probe1-07.png)

Because the total thrust provided by the ion engines is so low, it's pretty easy to set up and tune close-encounters from half a year out, while still in Kerbin's sphere of influence.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Probe1-08.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Probe1-08.png)

About sixty days out from my Jool encounter, I set up a final correction maneuver, which would put me in an equatorial orbit over Jool, with a low periapsis, and promising a Laythe encounter, if I weren't planning to capture over Jool itself.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Probe1-09.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Probe1-09.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Probe1-10.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Probe1-10.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Probe1-11.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Probe1-11.png)

Ion drives are boring anyways. Burns take forever and they suck with orbital maneuvers, such as slowing yourself down into an orbit, where having more power and shorter burn durations helps.

4,200s specific impulse.  I've completed my Kerbin-Jool transfer "burn" (if it can be called such a thing) and fine-tuning maneuver to put me Jool's equatorial orbital plane, with a 175km periapsis, all while using less than a third of the Probulator 1000's xenon fuel.  Your impatience does not negate the unimpeachable efficiency of ion propulsion in KSP.  Their ability to suck through electricity also goes to the point of the experiment of seeing exactly how well solar panels work at ludicrous distances from the sun.  The sustainable throttle level, under solar exposure, will provide a practical measure of the panels' effectiveness.

Finally, leaving those ion engines fully dependent on solar power adds another layer of challenge to space flight, which I'm quite enjoying.  I've got to ration out battery power on night-side maneuvers and constantly consider the probe's orientation, relative to the sun, to maximize solar exposure.  Having to be more aware and plan around more obstacles is quite the opposite of boring.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: TwentyPercentCooler on December 20, 2012, 03:56:17 am
Yeah, I actually like the ion drives; the lack of thrust can actually work in your favor if you attach them to things that require extremely precise maneuvers. I wish there was a larger ion drive in stock parts (I'm aware there's at least one mod with bigger ones, but it's "re-balanced" and I can't be arsed to go into the mod files and change the consumption rates). Or just make it a bit more scalable in that the maximum thrust would be less of a hard limit and more limited by max power output - actual ion thrusters work that way, as far as I'm aware.

I'm finally getting the hang of docking things, after feeling like a total moron for a while because of failing pretty hard at it. Space stations ahoy!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 20, 2012, 08:54:25 am
I'm not saying ion drives aren't efficient - it's just a matter of personal preference. Ion drives have their uses, but for the most part I've preferred to use the good old nuclear engines, which is pretty much the only way to go to Jool if you want to deliver a payload of 5 probes on a large interplanetary craft that you mean to use as a fuel depot for future missions. So it's not so much impatience as a matter of being practical for the task at hand - which is different with every player, and so are the solutions. I'd say there's no wrong way to do it in KSP as long as you achieve what you set out to do.

Also, check out the price of a single ion engine in the VAB - once we get a real career mode in where money's a factor I'd wager you'll want to be really careful what you use these for.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on December 20, 2012, 12:47:33 pm
And now for something completely different

(http://i.imgur.com/4AP5x.gif)


Not sure if anything can be done with this at all...  :nervous:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 20, 2012, 12:52:14 pm
A space dragon! It needs a small LFE in it's mouth to make it appear to breathe fire :) Is that yours or..?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 20, 2012, 01:01:47 pm
Don't tell me this is possible without using a mod :eek2:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on December 20, 2012, 02:27:38 pm
HT's successfully bridged the gap between KSP and MC and built a Kerbal Ender Dragon.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on December 20, 2012, 02:31:16 pm
And now for something completely different

[lolshot]http://i.imgur.com/4AP5x.gif[/lolshot]


Not sure if anything can be done with this at all...  :nervous:
Damned Robotics/aerospace got an update? :p
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on December 20, 2012, 02:39:38 pm
what would happen if you mounted wing parts at an angle along the girders, does the game register the movement in a way to generate lift?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on December 20, 2012, 05:26:37 pm
Well, it's a useless lump of parts, it doesn't really fly and is really rather unstable during taxi... but these are not obstacles, merely speed bumps.

(http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/6627/screenshot118py.jpg)

(http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/882/screenshot120r.jpg)

(http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/2583/screenshot121g.jpg)

(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8484/screenshot117n.jpg)


Claws also move and could be used (in theory) to grab things!

No, it does not fly, it flops hopelessly. And that GIF animation is sped up by about 60 times... The connections are too floppy for the mechanism to work properly as it is. We shall see what happens with it in the future...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 20, 2012, 05:51:44 pm
i did try my hand with rotating ship sections. they counter-rotate to keep the ship from spinning. its something a lot of sci-fi (points finger at b5) really missis on. if you have a rotating ship section you need another rotating section to counteract the first. from what i can tell both sections need the same angular momentum, so you can use a lower mass section spinning much faster, but you still have to have a counter rotating section.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot0-3_zpsb1cabfca.jpg)

it did register some gravity, then the ship got devoured by krackens. also the iva view is really disorienting.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 20, 2012, 06:06:13 pm
Sent a bigass cluster of interplanetary probes to Jool.  Predictably, I forgot to deploy the solar panels.  Now they're all at 0 power and useless, and the favorable launch window has passed.  Fuuuuuuck!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on December 20, 2012, 07:58:40 pm
RTG's man, RTG's.

In other news, 0.18.2 (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entry.php/426-18-2-Patch-is-out!) is out.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 20, 2012, 08:28:57 pm
dont get too excited. as usual they are having patcher trouble. the solution is to "wait a while".
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 20, 2012, 08:50:18 pm
New Dwarf planet?  Yahoo!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on December 20, 2012, 09:17:10 pm
Well, it's a useless lump of parts, it doesn't really fly and is really rather unstable during taxi... but these are not obstacles, merely speed bumps.
Claws also move and could be used (in theory) to grab things!

No, it does not fly, it flops hopelessly. And that GIF animation is sped up by about 60 times... The connections are too floppy for the mechanism to work properly as it is. We shall see what happens with it in the future...

Well since you just built the white ninja falconzord and KSP supports docking any chance of a full megazord?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 22, 2012, 04:10:25 am
A word of warning to anyone who hasn't tried 0.18.2 yet: they completely rebalanced the RCS system making ships burn through monopropellant at a significantly increased rate. You may find your old designs used to dock large parts to orbiting bodies now lack enough RCS fuel to complete their jobs.

A large RCS tank now carries 750 fuel (used to be 200) but it last significantly less than before. To compensate, you may want to bring more RCS fuel aboard and tweak those thrusters so they're aligned with the center of mass and kill any thrusters that aren't necessary.

Even with that I'm afraid small probes got the short end of the stick since they still use the same thrusters as the big stuff, and 8 thrusters will drain a small tank very fast now.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 22, 2012, 05:10:21 am
i like that you can disable quads you dont need. 4 quads (or 2 quads and 2 linear thrusters) is all you need for steering. if you want good linear control 8 is usually the way to go. you can pull of docking maneuvers without lateral thrusters though. like when docking large fuel tanks attempting to translate causes a rotation. so what you do is do a slow pass in front of the docking port, come to a complete stop when your cg is directly in front, rotate and thrust in slightly. it takes practice but its doable. sometimes a load is way to big, so i like to install a couple small docking ports on the sides of big parts, and then dock small mooring probes to them. dock the part, and remove the probes (it helps to keep a few on station during a construction operation). if you have several ships docked together, disable as many thrusters as you can get away with. too many thrusters can work against eachother and cause violent oscillations.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 22, 2012, 08:33:58 am
Well since you just built the white ninja falconzord and KSP supports docking any chance of a full megazord?

FUND IT. GREEN LIGHT, GREEN LIGHT!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 22, 2012, 02:02:30 pm
So, until 0.18.2 came out I had a probe on everything you can put a probe on in the system. Then they introduced Eeloo, so my Zond program got an extension. I used a very similar setup I used for other long distance probe missions. Eeloo's orbit is inclined a lot more than Jool's is, and it's eccentric. At it's closest point to the Sun, Eeloo's orbit intersects that of Jool's, meaning for a short time in Eeloo's orbit around the Sun it's closer to it than Jool. To conserve fuel, this is the point I aimed to catch it in, and it worked like a charm.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot51_zps6a97093f.jpg)

I still needed to kill some 1700 m/s to end up in orbit, so whoever goes there make sure you have enough fuel aboard for that breaking burn, otherwise your landing mission will turn into a fast flyby instead. This thing looks like some kind of an Europa / Enceladus hybrid. I was hoping for some steep cracks in the ice, and canyons made exclusively of ice, but closer inspection reveals it's surface is covered with some kind of a snow-like substance. This reminds me of Enceladus, which has geysers that spew liquid material from it's warmer insides. The water freezes while flying over surface and turns to something resembling snow, which covers a lot of Enceladus's surface. I wonder if that is the case here as well?


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot76_zpsfe2fbd5f.jpg)

Orbiting Eeloo at 50km altitude. This was taken after the probe has already detached and landed.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot57_zpsedcaec2a.jpg)

Landing near one of the larger canyon intersections to get a closer look.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/screenshot69_zps1d3ccab0.jpg)

Obligatory sunset over Eeloo. Onboard instruments show no atmosphere (wasn't expecting to find one, either), very low gravity (I think it was some 18% that of Kerbin's), and a surface temperature of -30 degrees. Now, that's cold, but not as cold as I'd expect from a small ice dwarf planet orbiting at that distance from it's host star, which does bring some merit to my Enceladus analogue theory. Only Enceladus has Saturn that helps keep it tectonically active with it's gravitational force; Eeloo is a standalone dwarf planet so it'll be up to Kerbin's science division to figure out what's keeping it's core warm.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on December 22, 2012, 05:19:07 pm
A word of warning to anyone who hasn't tried 0.18.2 yet: they completely rebalanced the RCS system making ships burn through monopropellant at a significantly increased rate. You may find your old designs used to dock large parts to orbiting bodies now lack enough RCS fuel to complete their jobs.

A large RCS tank now carries 750 fuel (used to be 200) but it last significantly less than before. To compensate, you may want to bring more RCS fuel aboard and tweak those thrusters so they're aligned with the center of mass and kill any thrusters that aren't necessary.

Even with that I'm afraid small probes got the short end of the stick since they still use the same thrusters as the big stuff, and 8 thrusters will drain a small tank very fast now.

Balls

Guess I won't be using RCS to deorbit in case I fumtu and use up all my main fuel.  Setting up a manuver node, switching to Docking and using RCS for precision orbit adjustment is out as well.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 22, 2012, 06:51:07 pm
Still I got nothing in a stable orbit^^
And i even don't get what kind of fuel the nuclear engine needs...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on December 22, 2012, 06:53:46 pm
Normal rocket fuel and oxydizer.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Bob-san on December 22, 2012, 07:29:36 pm
Just a whole lot less of it (thanks to its 800 isp).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 22, 2012, 08:37:58 pm
Scratch that, now I have a station in orbit...two big tanks, a probe as command capsule, a doking ring...and for very small engines with four RCS...next step is to get other things to the station, but how to dock them...if I manage to get them to the station, I guess I'll ramkill the whole thing :banghead:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: TwentyPercentCooler on December 23, 2012, 03:29:29 am
Scratch that, now I have a station in orbit...two big tanks, a probe as command capsule, a doking ring...and for very small engines with four RCS...next step is to get other things to the station, but how to dock them...if I manage to get them to the station, I guess I'll ramkill the whole thing :banghead:

I know someone in this thread has already linked one or more of these, but Scott Manley's tutorial videos are extremely helpful, and also his accent is awesome:
http://www.youtube.com/user/szyzyg

Docking takes some practice - I just figured it out in the past two days or so, after failing miserably for a nice, long while. It's not hard once you figure it out, though. The game is pretty forgiving. "Eh, close enough, go go Gadget magic magnetic clamps!"
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 23, 2012, 10:32:33 am
Hm...I was drunk when I brought the station into orbit...and hell, the orbit is going over the north and south pole...so, to get other modules there, I have to reproduce my drunken pilot skills...so far, it didn't work^^
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 24, 2012, 01:57:47 am
When you are about to launch, go to the map view and time accelerate until the station's orbit goes over the launch site.  When the station itself is about to pass overhead (say 10 to 15 degrees beforehand), launch and then instead of leveling off eastward as normal, point your ship in the direction the station is moving (presumably near due north or south) to get into a similar orbit. 

You may need to fine tune your orbital inclination afterward, as well as the eccentricity to get a good close approach for docking.  The youtube tutorial vids linked above are helpful for getting a handle on how to do that.  Any specific questions/problems just ask!

In other news, I finally sent a probe to the Joolian system.
Aerobraking at Jool
(http://i.imgur.com/LBqO1.png)
Entering Laythe atmo; deployed chutes.  (I ****ing love drogue chutes!)
(http://i.imgur.com/jdoDb.png)
Landed, just in time to watch the sun emerge from behind Jool.  What a sight.
(http://i.imgur.com/ecAiN.png)

Meanwhile, back at Kerbal Space Center...
(http://i.imgur.com/FxyiV.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 24, 2012, 02:12:02 am
Stations in KSP are mostly useful as fuel depots. As such, they'll be of most use in an equatorial orbit, which is also good for newbies to practice docking - much better than a polar one for that. So in crizza's shoes I'd deorbit it and start again in equatorial, tbh.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 24, 2012, 03:17:21 am
Prograde equatorial orbits also take full advantage of Kerbin's (or any other body's) rotation, so yeah, it's a good habit to launch things east even if you're not planning to do interplanetary stuff yet.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 24, 2012, 05:38:07 am
Starting to get used to the new RCS system. It's not so bad once you get used to it. I just modified one of my heavy lifters to stop using quad RCS thrusters at all. They were all replaced with the linear ones - I have two pairs of 4 placed near the top/bottom, I also have 4 in the nose oriented towards the front (breaking thrusters) and 4 in the "ass" to provide forward thrusts. The thing works great, doesn't wobble and spray all over the place when ASAS is on, and I just docked a part to my space station using this setup and spent a grand total of 30 monopropellant to do it. Looks like 750 is more than enough if you make the thruster setup efficient - I packed two large tanks and returned to Kerbin with 1470 units of unused monopropellant :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on December 24, 2012, 08:35:39 am
The orbit of my station doesn't go about the launch site at all...But since I have fuel left I try to change it.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 24, 2012, 09:20:04 am
Quick tip: in the map view, set the Mun as your target when doing that. It's pretty much in equatorial orbit over Kerbin and is a good reference point. Set your maneuver node at either the ascending or descending node, see how much delta v it will take to get back to equatorial orbit, and if you estimate there's enough fuel for that, go for it. If you're really in a polar orbit it'll take a long burn, so you may want to break it up into several shorter burns to get the optimal results.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 24, 2012, 03:07:02 pm
The orbit of my station doesn't go about the launch site at all...But since I have fuel left I try to change it.

Just time accelerate until it does. :)  Think of an orbit as a loop that just hangs stationary in space, and the planet rotates underneath of it.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 27, 2012, 04:49:34 pm
Time to show off my orbital shipyard - I just delivered an engine section of the Discovery to it, marking the beginning of it's construction. Now I'll need to dock the command module to it, and also fuel and crew it. The ship is designed to be able to make return trips anywhere in the Kerbol system, delivering docked landers as the missions require. Yay for reusable interplanetary ships, might use this to start a colony somewhere :)


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Orbital%201%20Spacedock/screenshot166_zps4ab75fa7.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Orbital%201%20Spacedock/screenshot172_zps167e3fac.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Orbital%201%20Spacedock/screenshot173_zpsac7026b3.jpg)

Discovery engine section on final docking approach to Orbital-1.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Orbital%201%20Spacedock/screenshot232_zpsf2672446.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Orbital%201%20Spacedock/screenshot205_zps88176663.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Orbital%201%20Spacedock/screenshot209_zps99bcc3ba.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Orbital%201%20Spacedock/screenshot211_zps7edf46c2.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Orbital%201%20Spacedock/screenshot224_zpsbcb03067.jpg)

Nice to finally have something inside that shipyard, it's been empty / under construction for ages :)


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Orbital%201%20Spacedock/screenshot216_zps0f5e94bf.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Orbital%201%20Spacedock/screenshot225_zps9d39b19f.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Orbital%201%20Spacedock/screenshot184_zpsa298223a.jpg)

All that was left was to detach the tug that maneuvered the engine section up to here and return the crew home. I'll be docking a real command module in it's place, with a greater crew capacity and other equipment necessary. Though a part of me will be sorry to undock the ship because it's really cool to just have it docked in the yard :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on December 27, 2012, 05:11:06 pm
Nice looking spacedock you have there, newman.

Say, I've been having a bit of difficulty with something: Is there a way to attach a vehicle to something using two separate decouplers? Say, a large solid booster(s) on the side of the main launch vehicle. Or something like a spaceplane piggybacked to a jet-powered launch vehicle? Or a vehicle attached on top of a large delta wing assembly instead of having the wings actually stuck onto the side of it?

Every time I've tried, even though they were lined up properly, only one decoupler actually stuck, and the vehicle sort of clipped through the other one like there was nothing there.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 27, 2012, 06:54:43 pm
yep thats badass, i kinda gave up work on mine because framerate < 1.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 27, 2012, 08:13:17 pm
Your station's so big the framerate is measured in SPF.  Awww yeeeah.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on December 27, 2012, 08:16:06 pm
I have built... a VTOL jet. It is ugly, and flies like a drunken chicken, but it works (for various definitions of the word "works").

(http://imageshack.us/a/img266/811/screenshot5lb.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img22/5248/screenshot4ud.png)

Still haven't been able to actually turn it around and land without horrible flopping about and crashing.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 28, 2012, 02:50:59 am
I've made a few attempts at sending a fuel depot to Eve orbit, though, admittedly, none of them has yet to get to Kerbin orbit.  It suffers from a bad case of OMGTEHPHYSICS at various stages of launch and orbital insertion.  For the longest time, the issue was the primary lift stage causing a massive stack collapse, as it dropped empty tanks, since with those empty tanks would drop the gigantic, egg-shaped mass of struts and girders that distributed the engines' force around the secondary (and almost entirely superfluous) lift stage.  While I did manage to sort that out, the secondary (and almost entirely superfluous) lift stage has so much thrust that, without any of these structural outriggers of its own, its thrust causes a massive stack collapse.

Now, while I think I honestly could make this version of the Eve depot work, I'm probably just going to give it a rethink and redesign instead.  This version was designed more with the goal of being giant and silly, while I was in a sleep-deprived stupor, so I think I want to restart with a more sensible foundational design, rather than continuing to use the current, tempermental version.

Probulator 1000 also carried out its mission around Jool, providing crucial information about the viability of solar power at that range.  Apparently in the Kerbal solar system, the law of inverse squares is more of a law of inverse square-roots, at least with respect to light.  With Jool about four times as far from the sun as Kerbin, you'd expect power output from solar panels near Jool to be one-sixteenth that of solar panels near Kerbin.  In fact, output was only halved.  This means that solar arrays are a lot more useful in the far-flung reaches of the Kerbal solar system than you'd expect, but not as great around the inner planets as you'd hope.

After carrying out that mission, Probulator 1000 performed a series of aerobraking maneuvers, only to find that you can't really use aerobraking to tune your Joolian orbit, the way you can with Kerbin.  Because Jool is so huge, even if you don't go very deep into the atmosphere, you'll be in it for absolute ages.  All the while, your apoapsis just drops and drops and drops.  It's great for a capture maneuver, certainly, but if you try to drop your apoapsis below a couple million meters by aerobraking, you'll drop your apoapsis into the depths of the planet, even if your targeted periapsis is in the upper ten percent of the atmosphere.

Other than that, I've just done a couple of supply runs to the Hub & Grub.  With the prospect of having a depot in orbit of Eve, I've come to the realization that I'll need to make a long-range oiler, and probably one with a bigger payload capacity, since multiple fueling runs to and from Eve would be a huge pain in the ass.

Anyway, loads of good SCIENCE! going on.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on December 29, 2012, 10:47:01 pm
My Program is still in its infancy but its slowly growing. 

Early work consisted of some initial manned orbital missions and putting up some satellites, both small orbiters and larger geostationaries:

(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/902110063623924307/2A5B00CB2312621F228496A242105A97556DC370/)

(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/902109343788517327/07DDF49ECA57BFD16AE3FA764CEB6DF7FC588497/)

(http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/902109343790988670/F9D6349F9E29913ED1D4D5C53692AC1091F5E1DC/)

(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/902110063623873260/CED05FFFA319FEBC733001EB6F23CC1292520CC4/)

Current project directives are working towards setting up missions to the Mun and beyond.  Thus a slowly growing stable of interplanetary drone ships are being tested and fitted out:

(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/902110063623608933/018892E829D96F239AC5EC3A63094D249EA2BB9B/)

Noticing that the space above Kerbal is beginning to thicken with spent stages I've put together a Fleet Tug design in hopes of chasing down and de-orbiting spent crap:

(http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/902110063623609822/D2CD1425970764CB1C7423E84DB5AD2DB1D2495F/)

With an eye towards supporting future long haul missions this Fleet Oiler/Depot design is being tested out, its by far the largest rocket I've slapped together:

(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/902110063623597453/D976196EBD72E7C3B12239EC30600D9347DD73CD/)

Plus a few silly things like a Kerbal X-Plane and SA-23E Kerbal Fury:

(http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/902109343788518508/EC731CC0CB2E01F5D9DEE2D3E62F7E1DA4C88A37/)

(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/902109343788593865/90EF7EE8F646AE3CD0FCF01A65E6198EBEF59733/)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 30, 2012, 05:19:42 am
Hey Slayer, cool stuff there. That interplanetary drone carrier is a good, rugged design. I should know, since mine's almost identical and has delivered probes and even heavier payloads to every corner of the Kerbol system :) It's latest mission was delivering an empty habitat to Duna, for a future manned visit once the Discovery gets finished in it's orbital berth. In addition, it's aft drop tank was once again refitted into a probe, this time not to probe Jool's atmo but to land on Duna's north pole instead. The probe was dropped 12 hours before Duna periapsis and has managed to safely land at Duna's North Pole using parachutes only (since it wasn't equipped with any means of propulsion whatsoever - this made choosing the atmosphere insertion angle rather important; too steep and the force from main chute activation would have ripped the probe apart, not steep enough meant missing the polar region completely or even having the probe escape Duna). Having detached the probe, activating all it's systems, putting chutes on standby and extending panels, the Duna Orbital changed course and eventually ended up in Duna 70km equatorial orbit, from which it deployed the empty habitat capable of supporting 6 Kerbonauts, to be delivered later by the Discovery.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Duna%20Orbital%20Mission/screenshot321_zps19ff1e0d.jpg)

Duna Orbital departing Kerbin, carrying the surface habitat for a future manned mission and a polar probe (re-purposed aft drop tank; I find this rather practical).


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Duna%20Orbital%20Mission/screenshot346_zps54846fdd.jpg)

Detaching the polar probe 12 hours and 44 minutes away from Duna. Course has been set for polar collision, making the angle as parachute-friendly as possible. I've seen probes ripped apart from too steep interplanetary atmo injections before when chutes activated, so I was kind of worried about this part, thinking I should have at least put some means of propulsion on it. Luckily, it turned out well.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Duna%20Orbital%20Mission/screenshot349_zps44114c37.jpg)

Polar probe on approach.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Duna%20Orbital%20Mission/screenshot356_zps2d093334.jpg)

Chutes deployed, probe still in one piece, that's a relief.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Duna%20Orbital%20Mission/screenshot357_zpse7f70612.jpg)

And it hasn't even tumbled over when it touched down!


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Duna%20Orbital%20Mission/screenshot358_zpsedc06775.jpg)

Gravity is awesome. This was taken during Duna Orbital's final breaking burn that resulted in a 70x70km equatorial Duna orbit.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Duna%20Orbital%20Mission/screenshot363_zps1bf69c43.jpg)

Habitat detached and breaking for atmo contact. It was equipped with a small 360 capacity fuel tank and a few of those small radial LFE's to give it minimal maneuverability when picking a landing spot. The target is the mouth of a large canyon. The engines were also critical in lower atmo...


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Duna%20Orbital%20Mission/screenshot368_zps827fa21e.jpg)

..because without them slowing the craft down just before the main chutes activated, it would have probably been ripped into a bunch of spare parts.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Duna%20Orbital%20Mission/screenshot376_zps45f4630f.jpg)

And here we are, on the ground. You can see that large canyon in front of the habitat. All deployed, it's now waiting for it's future occupants.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 30, 2012, 12:06:14 pm
my attempt to mod air breathing engines created some kind of super-engine that can get you most of the way to the mun without any out of atmosphere burns. of course my ship was meant to be an aircraft and didnt have any space propulsion, so i was unable to correct my return trajectory which pointed right at the middle of kerbin. this was made worse by the fact that my aircraft was a slap together and had horrible pitch control. no chance of pulling out of that 4000 m/s dive.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 30, 2012, 01:08:40 pm
So, I made that bigass, interplanetary refueling ship that I was talking about.  Its payload is two large RCS tanks, a Rockomax X32 tank, and twelve FL-T400 tanks, for a total liquid fuel capacity of 3600 units.  Now, to get it into Kerbin orbit, I did have to drain some of the payload into the lift stage, but it is up there with a whole 150 units of liquid fuel left.  (There's quite a bit more in the tanks feeding the transit engines, but there's no sense sending it anywhere, without any payload onboard.)

Fortunately, the way I designed this thing, the payload stage is meant to remain perpetually in space, while the command module can detach and land on Kerbin, only to be replaced for later missions.  I'll just be using the smaller oilers to refill the big one a little sooner than I expected.

In other news, I finally managed to successfully launch my next attempt at an orbital cleanup drone.  It used nearly all of its fuel to get it into orbit, so it's also waiting on an oiler to come round, before it can get to work, since it doesn't even have enough juice left to get to the space station.  Once its been refueled, though, I'll be able to start deorbiting some of the clutter in Kerbin's 100km orbit, without resorting to the cheesy 'End Flight' button.

I'm fast learning that the most important vessel to a successful space program is a capable, low-orbit refueling craft.  I'd have been frustrated long ago, had that little oiler not turned out to be so awesome.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 30, 2012, 01:46:17 pm
when building large ships with large tanks, i tend to use those tanks to fuel boost engines, so i can have a more massive upper stage, i then have to send a tanker up as well to refuel it for its mission.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 30, 2012, 02:07:59 pm
when building large ships with large tanks, i tend to use those tanks to fuel boost engines, so i can have a more massive upper stage, i then have to send a tanker up as well to refuel it for its mission.

That's exactly the ticket for some of the more massive parts. For example, when I was launching my Discovery (interplanetary manned ship) engine section, which is quite big, the ascent stage just couldn't launch it quite high enough for the engine section's NERVAs to finish the job. Then I added fuel lines that lead from the engine section's tanks (a bit over 13,000 units of fuel + whatever oxidizer) to the ascent stage. The mainsails first started draining the ship's engine section tanks (upper stage), when they were down to some 500 units of fuel I cut flow and the ascent stage tanks took over. What this gained me is not only more fuel and duration for the mainsails, but also much less mass for them to lift for most of the ascent - with this approach the whole thing got the engine section to a 200km altitude, from which the engine section's NERVAs with the remaining fuel easily finished the job. Three fuel lines literally meant the difference between successfully orbiting the thing and having it crash back down. Easy enough to refuel the thing once in orbit..
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 31, 2012, 12:29:24 am
(http://i.imgur.com/9uoYv.gif)

That's not how fuel transfer is supposed to work! :lol:

Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on December 31, 2012, 12:50:13 am
As your empty tanks were destroyed, your ratio of fuel to capacity (which is what those bars indicate) increased.

Nothing wrong with explody-funtime, though.  ;)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 31, 2012, 01:21:25 am
Ah, I should have thought about the fuel capacity changing.

Next project:  Smash a prograde and retrograde satellite together.  ~4km/s impact velocity, ho!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 31, 2012, 04:26:12 am
Nice shot, kid, that was one in a million!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on December 31, 2012, 03:00:28 pm
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was only METERS away from my first ever orbital docking, after a couple of hours of almost perfectly matching orbits. I was recording with FRAPS so I could put it up later.

You know what key FRAPS defaults as "record"? F9
You know what key KSP defaults as "quick load"? F9
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on December 31, 2012, 04:03:46 pm
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was only METERS away from my first ever orbital docking, after a couple of hours of almost perfectly matching orbits. I was recording with FRAPS so I could put it up later.

You know what key FRAPS defaults as "record"? F9
You know what key KSP defaults as "quick load"? F9


.....FRAAAAAPS!
(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/khaaan_o_GIFSoupcom_zpsab2c29c8.gif)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 31, 2012, 05:26:53 pm
-snip-

That's not how fuel transfer is supposed to work! :lol:


never aim straight for the target at high velocity. aim a little to the side, and then slow down as you fly by, once thats done, then do a slow approach.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 31, 2012, 06:15:04 pm
It was intentional, thus the name 'Debris Maker'. :P

In other news, my aforementioned goal of colliding things at >4km/s was a success!  Gallery (http://imgur.com/a/SsUDq#0)

Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on December 31, 2012, 09:54:07 pm
/me self Gibbs' slap

I built a tug to cart down spent debris, but heck an ASAT might work better and yield more explosions.

After a few tweaks I've upped my Carabinier Drone Interplanetary Ship to version 1.8 :

(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/902110063659460490/B2A99736EAE90C43321773B7F1F084C91CF9A104/)

Once I get the hang of docking this baby will be carting Sats and Probes to the stars
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 03, 2013, 03:31:28 am
My Eve mission is slowly coming together.  I have an interplanetary oiler and an interplanetary spacebus.

I'm going to put the oiler into Eve orbit, detach the command pod, and bring the crew back on the spacebus.  Then, I'll send up a small, automated hub to dock with the oiler.  A second oiler and a small habitation module will round out the refueling station over Eve.  After that, all that will remain is to actually plan out and build the Eve landing-and-return mission.  Easy!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on January 03, 2013, 10:56:47 am
I have an interplanetary oiler and an interplanetary spacebus.

(http://i.imgur.com/tWdVk.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 04, 2013, 01:38:41 am
I have an interplanetary oiler and an interplanetary spacebus.

[image snip]

More or less.  It's a pretty simple modification of my old Minmus Hopper, which wound up going out to orbit Duna and Ike, and came back to Kerbin with fuel to spare.  This time, instead of just a three-man command pod with a parachute on the nose, it has the same command pod, with a single habitation unit below, a docking port at the top, landing legs at the bottom, and extra chutes to help ease the extra mass down, when it gets home.

Tonight, I got the Eve station hub into Kerbin orbit.  Next on the docket will be to send up a small oiler to refuel the hub's transit stage and the spacebus.  Then, I'll send up another interplanetary oiler, another spacebus, and the (yet to be designed) station power module.  Once all of those have had their fuel tanks brimmed, I think I'll be ready to launch the whole fleet off to Eve and begin actually fitting the bits of the station together.

Yeah....  Fleet operations....  This can only end poorly.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on January 04, 2013, 04:54:34 am
It was intentional, thus the name 'Debris Maker'. :P

In other news, my aforementioned goal of colliding things at >4km/s was a success!  Gallery (http://imgur.com/a/SsUDq#0)
y'know, i've tried to do this. guess what happens on my end.


they go through each other. or, more precisely, they are smack dab on for collision, but, due to speeds and insufficiently fast slowing down of physics calc, they do not connect. at least 3 times i saw it in a flash appear behind the one to be collided with and nada.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on January 04, 2013, 07:24:06 am
Yup.  Took me about ten attempts to get a collision to happen for that reason!  You can figure the odds of them colliding is roughly equal to the size of the satellites divided by the distance they travel between each frame / physics calculation.  So for example two 10m satellites with relative velocity 4500m/s and running at 30FPS, the chances of them actually hitting are only only 1 in 15. :/
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on January 04, 2013, 07:57:30 am
So an ASAT doesn't successfully destroy the target just makes more smaller pieces?  I guess I'll drop that proposal and stick with the tug.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on January 04, 2013, 08:03:51 am
I think it depends on how explosive the asat is

edit
if you hit the objects so their resulting velocity is below that required to orbit then they will fall into the nearest hard object and be destroyed anyway
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 04, 2013, 02:49:33 pm
I think it depends on how explosive the asat is

Not necessarily.  A bigger explosion just spreads the debris out more quickly than a smaller explosion.  Yes, the debris on one side of the explosion is more likely to be dropped onto a sub-orbital trajectory, and debris on the opposite side of the explosion is more likely to be kicked up to escape velocity, but the stuff to the sides of the explosion will not have their orbit significantly modified.

What you are really looking for with ASAT is a collision.  You want to jam two things together, such that the single resultant object is traveling below orbital speed.  The more debris that is shed, the more likely you are to compound your problems by not just leaving more objects in orbit, but leaving those objects on eccentric and inclined orbits, making them harder-still to retrieve.

There is an ideal ASAT that lies somewhere between SPLOSIONS-IS-FUN and a tug, but if you have to err on one side or the other, the tug makes life a lot easier in the long-run.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on January 04, 2013, 03:01:19 pm
Yeah, I was a bit sad when after designing a lovely orbital "launch missiles at things" vehicle a while back, I discovered it was only good for turning one large object into multiple smaller objects on about the same trajectory.

A tug is the way to go for clearing space debris. These days, though, I usually just try to design/time things so that debris never makes it to stable orbit.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on January 04, 2013, 03:52:09 pm
If all else fails, you can always use a Sunbeam laser or a minigun. :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on January 04, 2013, 04:51:50 pm
you should see the mess my rotating section beast made when the krackens ate it.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 04, 2013, 05:43:42 pm
These days, though, I usually just try to design/time things so that debris never makes it to stable orbit.

That's pretty much what I do, and so far I've been completely successful with that. Anything that's going to orbit has a lifter stage that almost gets it there. The upper stage then has enough fuel to do whatever it is it was sent up to do and either return home or dock with a station. Interplanetary stuff are usually self contained ships built in orbit using the same principles, so no debris is left floating around. If any interplanetary ship uses drop tanks, I tend to set a collision course with the target planet and drop them there (but this is rarely needed, I usually have enough fuel so there's little harm in just keeping the empty tanks for a bit more extra mass). I have a probe on every planet and moon (Duna and Laythe got two probes each, Duna has one additional on it's north pole and Laythe has one one on an island and an ocean probe floating near said island), a space station in orbits of all planets but Moho, one shipyard in orbit of Kerbin, one refueling station / drydock in Kerbin geo, a manned research outpost situated right beneath one of the Mun's arches, a habitat on Duna (currently manned with a 6-man crew), and an interplanetary reusable space ship (currently in orbit of Duna, having delivered the 6 man crew to the habitat base on Duna's surface). I have zero debris floating around, have never once needed to resort to use end flight to kill floating junk, and have also never needed a dedicated craft designed to deorbit junk. It's just a matter of design. I don't even actively try to design missions for zero garbage anymore - once you get used to it it's easy.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on January 04, 2013, 05:56:30 pm
I even put parachutes on my first and second-stage booster rockets, even though the game just despawns them long before they deploy. More fun to think that my design is fully reusable, even if the game doesn't care. :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 05, 2013, 05:42:06 am
Yea I've been playing with reusable designs myself. Right now most of my lifters are partially reusable - at least the upper stages are, after finishing the mission I land them back at the KSC. They're equipped with chutes, legs and small braking engines for a parachute assisted vertical landing at the KSC. Once the ship is safely down I end flight it and imagine it'll get reused :) I was toying with an idea of a completely reusable (no massive ascent stage that gets ditched)  jet / rocket engine / NERVA combo personnel shuttle, but we'll see how that goes. It'd need to be able to at least reach geostationary orbit and return home.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 05, 2013, 12:37:50 pm
The whole Eve station fleet is in orbit of Kerbin.  The second spacebus and interplanetary oiler are awaiting refueling, and then it will be time to look for a departure window.

Also, I realize that I should have put everything for this mission in a retrograde orbit of Kerbin, since the fleet will be dropping their interplanetary orbit closer to the sun, but.....oops.  The fact that I'm effectively bringing a mobile fuel depot along for this mission means that I can probably afford some inefficiency along the way.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on January 05, 2013, 04:20:54 pm
Also, I realize that I should have put everything for this mission in a retrograde orbit of Kerbin, since the fleet will be dropping their interplanetary orbit closer to the sun, but.....oops.  The fact that I'm effectively bringing a mobile fuel depot along for this mission means that I can probably afford some inefficiency along the way.

Actually, the direction you orbit Kerbin doesn't matter for where you want to go in the solar system, and it's better to do everything prograde anyway since that takes advantage of the little extra orbital velocity you get from Kerbin's rotation.  To go to the inner solar system, do your escape burn when you're in front of Kerbin's direction of motion about the sun, which for a prograde orbit is roughly when the sun is rising over the horizon.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 06, 2013, 05:38:01 am
Final refueling operations are underway, and whilst the little oilers were racing about, I took a few screenshots of the fleet:

Interplanetary Oiler #1
(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Fleet01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Fleet01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Fleet02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Fleet02.png)

Interplanetary Spacebus #1
(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Fleet03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Fleet03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Fleet04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Fleet04.png)

Eve Station Power Module
(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Fleet05.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Fleet05.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Fleet06.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Fleet06.png)

Interplanetary Spacebus #2
(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Fleet07.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Fleet07.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Fleet08.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Fleet08.png)

Interplanetary Oiler #2
(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Fleet09.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Fleet09.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Fleet10.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Fleet10.png)

Eve Station Hub
(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Fleet11.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Fleet11.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/Fleet12.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Fleet12.png)

Some design notes:

• The eagle-eyed will note that the first interplanetary oiler is lacking some struts that are present on the second.  That's because I stupidly undocked the command module and redocked it shortly after.  Problem is, undocking disconnects struts, and redocking does not reconnect them.  The command module is fairly small, so I'm not too concerned about it getting twisted off in later maneuvers, but we'll see.

• The spacebusses use an inline docking port, rather than the usual shielded, nose-mounted port, because I couldn't make the lander work without the drogue chute on the nose.  Without it, during landing tests, the radial chutes would deploy, stopping the command pod, while the habitation module would just keep on going.  The drogue chute made the whole process gentle enough to not rip the whole vehicle apart.

• Nothing too special about the power module, except that I went with quad-ion-drives for its final propulsion stage.  What else was I going to do with all of those solar arrays and 2000 units of battery capacity?  I could have actually supported more ion drives with that solar array, but only if the thing was facing directly at the sun, not to mention the structure holding the engines would have gotten prohibitively long or blocked the inner solar panels.

• On the station hub, it's difficult to see, but there is a tiny decoupler, positioned between the two ion drives, which will jettison the NERVA and fuel tank.  Ultimately, this will be necessary, because once their command pods are removed, there's nothing left to guide the oiler payloads in to dock with the hub, so the hub will have to dock with them.  Having a rocket dangling off the back would be less-than-ideal, during a sideways docking maneuver.

• I've thought about pre-assembing the station in Kerbin orbit, and sending the whole thing to Eve in one go, instead of trying to juggle a fleet of station components and return vehicles.  There's two reasons I won't go that route.  First, the docking nodes are made of jelly, and I don't trust them to hold together while such a beast of a vessel tries to maneuver.  More importantly, can you imagine trying to turn such a huge vehicle?  There's not enough RCS fuel in the world, even taking into account that I'm still playing 0.18.1, with the super-cheaty RCS.

And some preliminary notes on the flight plan:

• The outer fuel tanks of the spacebusses all have LV-909's attached.  I'll probably deactivate them all to save on fuel, relying entirely on the NERVA for maneuver burns, at least on the way out.  That probably won't be necessary, but the only transit test this thing has undergone was when a lighter version made a trip out to Duna, so I want to play it safe with these, on the trip to Eve, since everyone is relying on these craft being able to return to Kerbin.

• Some of the ships, the station hub, in particular, and the power module to a lesser degree, have very little liquid fuel for the journey.  To maximize my fuel margins, I'm planning on splitting the ejection burn for each ship up into three burns, one to get to 3,000-5,000km above Kerbin, the next to get to 20,000-30,000km above Kerbin, and the last to get out of Kerbin's SOI and set up a rough encounter with Eve.  On the final pass, all manned vessels shall deploy someone to apply their "Hermann Oberth is my copilot" bumper stickers.

• I'm not 100% sure what to do with the interplanetary oilers' command pods, prior to the crews abandoning them.  I feel like one of them has to become a Gilly lander, if only to spite that little bastard of a moon for eating my only successful interplanetary mission in 0.17.  The problem with that is that I have to have one of the spacebusses waste fuel going out to Gilly to pick up the crew out there, instead of near Eve, and the Kerbonaut(s) who land the pod will have to EVA into orbit to meet the bus.  Now, it's Gilly, so EVA-to-orbit is certainly possible, but I've certainly never done it before.

• Aside from that, the efficiency-kick should ensure that the spacebusses have plenty of fuel for a straightforward return trip (expeditions to Gilly notwithstanding), and everything else is meant to stay in orbit of Eve.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 07, 2013, 02:39:10 am
The fleet has escaped the bonds of Kerbin's gravity and is on its way to Eve.  Juggling ships was managable, though there were a couple of places where I faced some time pressure to finish one ship's maneuver, so that I could switch to another and start its maneuver, before missing its window.  Because of that time pressure, I did wind up using the LV-909's on the spacebusses.

That fuel expenditure won't be the fleet's primary problem.  I barely used up the first set of drop-tanks on the spacebusses.  The problem is that the Sepratrons on those drop-tanks were not aimed well for peeling the spent tanks away from the ship.  In fact, they tend to smash the spent tanks into the center fuel tank.....except when they're smashing the spent tanks into the NERVA.  So, now one of the vessels that needs to make the full, round-trip is stuck with engines of half the specific impulse of the main engine.

Fortunately, I didn't just mindlessly mash the time compression key, as soon as everything escaped Kerbin orbit.  I sent up a third spacebus, an in-game day after the fleet left to serve as a contingency, should the damaged one be unable to make the return voyage.  The third spacebus was quickly modified, before launch, removing the Sepratrons, and I shuffled the Sepratrons around in the staging for the spacebusses already underway, so that they will not fire.  No sense compounding the problem.

That aside, splitting the escape burn into multiple burns worked quite well.  It has helped stretch fuel supplies a little further.  My first burn shouldn't have aimed for quite so high an apoapsis, but that's a mental note for future interplanetary missions.  The unmanned vehicles have loads of fuel left, compared to what I had been expecting.

So, besides nearly crippling one of the only ways that several Kerbonauts have to get home, the mission's going quite well!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 07, 2013, 07:12:22 am
What exactly is your goal on Eve? Orbit? One-way trip? Return trip from Gilly? Or the ultimate cluster**** of a mission, manned return mission to Eve surface? :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 07, 2013, 11:23:51 pm
Ultimately, I'm going to do a manned landing-on-and-return-from Eve.  This fleet is going out, in advance of the landing mission, to set up a refueling station, which will ultimately reduce the size of the lander that will be going to Eve.  After the station, I will probably send some unmanned landers, so that I can get a feel for the mechanics of taking off from Eve.  Sooner or later, though, I will get three shmucks Kerbonauts to the surface of Eve and bring them back to Kerbin.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 08, 2013, 08:35:56 am
That's very ambitious, good luck! As for a manned return mission, just a heads-up; it's currently the toughest challenge in KSP. Eve has about 170% Kerbin-equivalent gravity, but that's the good news - the bad news is that the super-dense soup it has for atmo will produce increased drag, and a rocket that can just get to Kerbin's orbit won't make it to 20km altitude on Eve due to this. Basically, you need to safely land a rather large rocket with full tanks to have a chance of making it back to orbit. Safely landing massive stuff with chutes only so it doesn't all break apart when the main chutes deploy presents a challenge in itself. There have been proposals to use wing surfaces on the lander and utilize the thick atmo to provide lift during ascent - this would require a non-vertical ascent, more like 45 degrees or so. In theory, the lift should help reduce the amount of delta-v needed, but I haven't tried this and have no idea if it would work.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 08, 2013, 10:14:13 am
As for a manned return mission, just a heads-up; it's currently the toughest challenge in KSP.

That's why I'm doing it.  If I can land on and return from Eve, then I can pretty well land on and return from anything.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on January 08, 2013, 10:21:54 am
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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 08, 2013, 10:43:23 am
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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on January 08, 2013, 10:47:12 am
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
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on January 08, 2013, 12:07:38 pm
Anybody build an orbital elevator yet?   :lol:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: The E on January 08, 2013, 12:09:21 pm
I am not entirely certain if the physics could handle it.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on January 08, 2013, 05:19:15 pm
I'm fairly certain it would die in a fire.  Your PC, as well. :P
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on January 08, 2013, 07:05:08 pm
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."
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on January 08, 2013, 08:21:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 09, 2013, 05:05:34 am
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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on January 09, 2013, 09:48:53 am
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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 09, 2013, 09:52:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on January 09, 2013, 10:09:02 am
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?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 09, 2013, 11:29:38 am
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).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on January 09, 2013, 11:45:31 am
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."
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 09, 2013, 01:11:29 pm
Going to Eve is the easy part. Talk to me when you get back :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 09, 2013, 01:48:35 pm
[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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on January 09, 2013, 01:52:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on January 09, 2013, 02:29:45 pm
[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.

(http://i47.tinypic.com/zvj34.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 09, 2013, 02:48:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sushi on January 09, 2013, 03:23:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 09, 2013, 04:34:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on January 09, 2013, 04:45:56 pm
Quote
Unless it possesses some incredibly ultra-rare, ultra valuable unobtanium magical type material

Quote
the whole planet is made of LAVENDER, and it smells ****ing NICE.

Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 09, 2013, 04:55:15 pm
That settles it, the resources of Eve need to be harvested. After crunching a lot of numbers, the KSC fiscal department came up with a figure of 998.7 trillion kerbal credits per week for establishing a working mining colony, with possible budget overruns of some 120% in the first two months, and projected casualty rates at 99,567%. While these numbers are still within the acceptable zone, another proposal has surfaced; blowing the planet up would only cost a one-time cost of 200 trillion kerbal credits, and the exploitation of the resulting asteroid field would be much cheaper too and only result in some 72% casualty rate - which is about as safe as riding a bus on Kerbin.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 09, 2013, 06:41:54 pm
I got my Eve lander out to Munar orbit, but on the way, it developed some kind of phantom torque.  The only way to counter that was with RCS, but I hadn't anticipated needing to use it constantly, so I ran out of monopropellant.  I then tried utilizing my gimballing engines to counter the torque, while thrusting, but to gain any kind of control, I had to go right on up to full thrust.

I tried to root out the cause of the torque, but I couldn't figure it out.  The fuel load was symmetrical; there were no apparent bits missing, and I had activated engines based on symmetry and what tanks were feeding them.

Out of frustration, I dialed in full-throttle and activated all of the engines.  The phantom torque got worse, and the Mun now has a lop-sided ring.  On the slightly hilarious side, the probe core survived the thrashing, with an RCS tank, some fixed solar arrays, a big battery, and a docking port.  I may one day send out some RCS fuel to see if I can get it back to Kerbin orbit.  In the meantime, though, between this and the crap that the spacebusses' Seperatrons left behind, this mission will, at the very least, leave a legacy.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on January 09, 2013, 09:27:36 pm
Manged to put the drive section for the Grenadier Type Manned Intrastellar Vessel in orbit, took most of the fuel to get her there so I'll need to tank her up pronto.  Working on the command section right now.  Once they're both in orbit I'll need to figure out how to dock, but it will be the most impressive piece of machinery I've built so far when its done.  The 12 NERVAs give it some pretty good omph while only sipping fuel, there was only a little left in the tanks after the lift stage but the NERVAs got her into a stable orbit no sweat.  The Grenadier types and the Carabinier Drone ships will form the backbone of my Exploration Fleet

(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/921251565060750307/18AB649A7A38C5EA5C18922F4249CE3571F87162/)


...and Command Section built and orbiting:

(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/921251565061309398/EAFD32BD171EC0EDB28FAAE79544AB07D8EE1D43/)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: TwentyPercentCooler on January 09, 2013, 10:26:56 pm
Has anyone tried making land-based tanker trucks yet? I feel like being able to land a disposable, wheeled tanker and tank up a manned spacecraft on the ground might be useful for getting off of a place like Eve. That means you can use all the fuel you want getting to the ground, making larger landers a less dicey proposition since you don't have to parachute them down.

I think I'll take a stab at making something like that tomorrow.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 10, 2013, 03:21:39 am
I have another Eve lander orbiting Kerbin.  This variant has more fuel in the Eve-transit stage, more fuel in the lander stage, more RCS fuel in the lander stage, and additional SAS units on the lander.  If I can't find the cause of the phantom torque, I'll just counteract it.  On top of that, I added some girder structures to get the landing legs lower, since I couldn't test if the original design had them low enough to keep all the engines from smacking into the ground, upon landing.

All of this had the effect of increasing the ship's mass, and while some SRB's added to the lift stage helped counter the added mass, I still had to pipe fuel, not just from the lander to the lift stage, but from the transit stage, into the lift stage.  All that fuel gets the whole mess into a 72km orbit, with very little left in reserve.

And here is the lander, with transit stage attached, in its critically low orbit:

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveLander01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveLander01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveLander02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveLander02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveLander03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveLander03.png)

The three NERVAs will carry the lander out to Eve and probably handle most of the orbital maneuvers.  The six drogue chutes and twelve standard/large chutes will aid with landing.  (My pipe dream is that the chutes will do all of the work of landing, but with a full fuel load, I'm fairly certain that even Eve's atmosphere isn't thick enough for that.)  When it's go-time, the lander has twelve LV-T30's, six LV-T45's, and a single NERVA to fight against Eve's gravity.  The canards provide some extra stability/maneuverability, whist pushing through the atmosphere.  There's a huge fuel crossfeed system, so that tanks can be dropped, four at a time from the outside and two at a time from the inside, as they're spent, during the lift, until the probe core and its NERVA make it into Eve orbit, where it can refuel and schlep on home.

For future iterations, the LV-T30's may get replaced with aerospikes, if there's an efficiency problem, when lifting from Eve.  Aside from that, if this design works out, it will become the template for a manned Eve lander.  We'll find out soon-ish, since this will be skipping the Munar test landing and going straight to Eve, after refueling.  I say "soon-ish" because the added fuel capacity and dumping the Eve-transit fuel into the lift stage, means that I'm going to need to send about seven or eight refueling ships.  I'll be launching several oilers, in rapid succession to try to get that job done, before the window for Eve transit closes.

In other news, the Eve station fleet has performed some small navigation burns, still about thirty days out from their SOI-transition.  All the ships are now set up for an approach of 500-1,000km and will more finely tune their approach, ten days out from Eve.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 10, 2013, 04:47:32 am
Has anyone tried making land-based tanker trucks yet? I feel like being able to land a disposable, wheeled tanker and tank up a manned spacecraft on the ground might be useful for getting off of a place like Eve. That means you can use all the fuel you want getting to the ground, making larger landers a less dicey proposition since you don't have to parachute them down.

I think I'll take a stab at making something like that tomorrow.

That's not a very practical proposal, for the following reasons;

- there is no reason to burn fuel on Eve descent. It has very thick atmo and not utilizing chutes and legs is a sin here, it's free delta-v.
- ground based refueling is possible - tested it on the Mun - but rather fiddly even on the Mun. In an environment like Eve it would be a hair-pulling experience. But again, this isn't necessary since the thick atmo means you can parachute down a fully fueled up lander.
- Eve has a surface bug when craft load with legs a bit below the ground; there's a high chance your eve refueling truck would fall into pieces first time you tried to load it up.

Again, not burning fuel during descent isn't the issue. Having the correct thrust to weight ration with enough power and fuel to overcome the gravity and atmo drag is. That all being said, though, this is KSP, and you set your own goals - if being practical isn't one of them, that's ok too :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 13, 2013, 03:11:42 am
Regarding space program funding:  I just sent seven refueling ships into orbit over the span of ninety in-game minutes.  Clearly Kerbin lacks urban development, which means that they must have one hell of an agrarian economy to support my bull**** antics unchecked ambition scientific endeavors.

Seriously, though, I'm bound and determined to get this lander fueled and off to Eve, before the current opportunity passes.  I refuse to let SCIENCE! be hampered by silly things like phase angles!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 13, 2013, 05:41:46 am
Yea I haven't given up on Eve either. I tried to, but it bothered me. After 17 prototypes and crunching a lot of numbers, I have the selected design in Kerbin orbit. It is designed to land a single Kerbonaut on Eve, then return him to orbit in 4 stages, ditched in a concentric pattern. It's essentially a rocket powered disc-shaped platform that gets a small rocket high enough in two stages, then the small two-stage design does the rest. I've played with various other approaches, and this is the only one I came up with that I feel has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Of course, selecting the right landing site will be critical, but that's what probes are for.

Right now, I have the Discovery (my manned interplanetary ship) in orbit of Duna, with 6 Kerbonauts down on the surface doing science stuff and prospecting a site for a possible future colony. A few months will pass before Duna is in the correct position for a return - at that point the Discovery's crew will return to the ship, do a short visit to Ike as long as they're in town, and blast off for home. In the mean time, my main space station / orbital shipyard in a 300km orbit the Discovery departed from lags too badly so I've been constructing a separate space dock / refueling base in a geostationary orbit of Kerbin. This is where the Discovery will dock and refuel before taking off for Eve to support the surface mission. But first I need to finish that space dock, called "Waypoint station".
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 13, 2013, 08:22:05 pm
13,140 units of liquid fuel ready to transit to Eve, at last.  Time to set out in chase of the refueling station fleet.

[edit] After completing five passes, the unmanned Eve lander is now on an escape trajectory from Kerbin and has a very coarse encounter set up for Eve, about twenty-eight days out. [/edit]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 14, 2013, 05:22:32 am
This may be of interest to people who follow this thread: there's a game called Lunar Flight (http://www.simhq.com/_air15/air_537a.html), basically an Apollo-style lander sim, which is currently on sale at Steam so you can grab it at -66%. I haven't had time to actually play it yet, but I did grab it as 3.4€ seemed like a minimal risk.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on January 14, 2013, 02:49:56 pm
I've played it, it's quit fun. Not as absorbing as KSP though.
Also, my Eve mission in on a hiatus till I finish playing with KOSMOS parts. Putting stations together has never been so much fun.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 15, 2013, 01:07:31 am
Catching up a bit:

The Eve Lander finished refueling and began its series of burns away from Kerbin.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveLander04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveLander04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveLander05.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveLander05.png)

...and after five burns, Kerbin began to recede into the distance.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveLander06.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveLander06.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveLander07.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveLander07.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveLander08.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveLander08.png)

With several in-game weeks, before any of the Eve-targetted vessels arrive, there is plenty of time for side-projects.  Soooo....

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane01.png)

Spaceplane!

This design takes off into a sixty-degree climb, leveling off between 12,000m and 15,000m to build speed, before gradually continuing its climb to 20,000m.  At that point, the aerospike gets activated, and the craft basically flies level, while gaining altitude (at 20,000m and 1.4km/s, orbital mechanics are starting to take over).  Before 22,000m, the turbojets get deactivated and the intakes get closed.  The craft has to pull up a bit, but from here, it's a fairly traditional rocket-propelled orbital insertion.

An early launch flew into a rapid-succession Munrise sunrise, during that climb from 15,000m to 20,000m.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane05.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane05.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane06.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane06.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane07.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane07.png)

Around the time the last screenshot in that sequence was taken, it was time to flip the switch on the rocket motor, which was where I ran into a recurring problem that plagued this and previous designs.  As soon as the rocket turns on (still well before the turbojets reach their flameout threshold), it wants to go into a flat spin.  This was the launch where I figured out what was going on.  The fuel crossfeed system is horrendously confused by this design, and fuel is fed to the rocket asymetrically.  The left tank feeds fuel and oxydizer, the center tank feeds fuel (duh), and the right tank feeds just oxydizer.  I'll try fiddling with the fuel lines to see if I can prevent this malfunction in the future, but I'm worried that it's a game bug.

I haven't posted screenshots of the dramatic crash, though.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane08.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane08.png)

:pimp:

It's not my fault that gravity is so weak and pathetic.

And of course, looking at the relative position of Kerbin, the Mun, and the sun, during the launch, it's no surprise that after circularizing the plane's orbit, an eclipse was soon to follow.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane09.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane09.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane10.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane10.png)

Oh, yeah, and there's plenty of space for an oiler to connect with that inline docking port, without even having to retract the spaceplane's solar panels.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane11.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane11.png)

I think it was audacious of me to name this the "Laythe Liner," since I don't think that the aerospike is efficient enough to get to Laythe with enough fuel left over to push it back into orbit, after whatever atmospheric faffing about I should want to do with the craft.  Still, Jool is far enough out-of-phase that I could get another station-building fleet prepared to aid such a mission.  Then, I just need to see if there's enough delta-V in that ship to get into Jool or Laythe orbit.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on January 15, 2013, 07:00:10 am
i got bored playing around in space so i decided to play kerbal space truckers instead.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/kerbalspacetruckersdoevelknievel_zps6c672ccf.gif)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on January 15, 2013, 09:43:42 am
(http://imageshack.us/a/img850/7151/screenshot173m.th.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/screenshot173m.png/)
How did that get up there?

The story is actually pretty funny. It has to do with a previous iteration of my Proton launcher:
(http://imageshack.us/a/img252/8372/screenshot157z.th.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/252/screenshot157z.png/)
So, the previous Proton had a little design flaw. It's payload decoupler didn't like docking ports for some reason, and tore them off. First, I launcher a TKS using it and found that it has no docking port. Blaming my forgetfulness, I flew a few orbits, tested it's other systems and deorbited it. Later, I tried to use the same design to launch the Salyut. Then, the docking port exploded. Figuring something's wrong, I decided to deorbit the station and take a close look at the LV. Swapping out the payload decoupler did the trick. I launched a Salyut, a TKS and forgot about the issue. The Proton also gained a ring of retrorockets around the 2nd stage during the redesign, and now is an absolute wonder of an LV.

Soon after, I was browsing through the debris to check what kind of junk my missions are leaving. During that run I finally deorbited the old FGB (which was left form the previous TKS launch, turns out I wasn't quite through enough in deorbiting it) and found this little port floating around in space.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 15, 2013, 03:09:50 pm
Nuke, that's pretty cool. Wouldn't mind seeing some larger shots of that truck :)

Meanwhile, in between big interplanetary missions, some terrestrial fun; I made myself a large passenger shuttle (crew:3; passengers: 8) so I can bring down more people at once, allowing me to bring home the entire crew of the Discovery in one flight. Then I thought it would be nice if I could also bring up the entire crew in one flight. The solution: mobile ramp tower!

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Mobile%20Ramp%20Tower/screenshot349_zpsc5fea951.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Mobile%20Ramp%20Tower/screenshot350_zps6095f017.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Mobile%20Ramp%20Tower/screenshot352_zpseb3bdd40.jpg)


It's designed so it can drive around in two directions (as it's turning radius is.. large). So I have custom actions set up to toggle gears for each direction. Having them all down basically acts as a handbrake, which is nice because using the in-game brakes on this thing has a tendency to topple it over. It's nice and stable using all wheels down, though - as long as speed is below 1 m/s. It has a small docking port allowing me to replenish it's monopropellant with a tanker truck. Biggest pain was actually driving it down the ramp without it toppling over. Once that was done, the rest went surprisingly smooth.

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Mobile%20Ramp%20Tower/screenshot339_zps8cb00a49.jpg)

"Join the astronaut corps, they said. It'll be fun, they said. Your fear of heights won't be a problem inside the craft..."


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Mobile%20Ramp%20Tower/screenshot354_zps9245568b.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Mobile%20Ramp%20Tower/screenshot353_zps94824d5b.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Mobile%20Ramp%20Tower/screenshot355_zps49cf0c25.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Mobile%20Ramp%20Tower/screenshot358_zps4ce0e903.jpg)

That's one scary step for a Kerbal..


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Mobile%20Ramp%20Tower/screenshot360_zps07fc97e7.jpg)

Finally, made it over! Safety tip: there's no railings so try not to fall. Also, leaving ASAS on before going out on the ramp can have bad results; as the Kerbal walks further along the ramp, it's mass has more of an impact on the craft and ASAS starts trying to compensate, introducing shaking that will shake the unfortunate kerbonaut off the ramp. Happened to me once before I learned my lesson - somehow the kerbonaut survived the fall from this altitude. Curious, I've seen them die from lesser falls. Must be a bug.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ace on January 15, 2013, 03:30:56 pm
First attempt at Duna landing. Managed to get a perfect gravity assist that let me plop down in the northern hemisphere. I forgot to retract my solar panels... and they tore apart during re-entry.

This was then followed by making a new puller interplanetary ship and getting a successful landing on Laythe. The timing was tricky since after an aerobrake I only had 8 minutes to knock out 500m/s of speed to get into orbit and then land.

[attachment deleted by a basterd]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 20, 2013, 02:22:03 am
The Eve fleet is now about a week under way, and I'm still faffing about with spaceplanes.

First, I fixed my first spaceplane design.  Turns out, it was just the front set of fuel lines that were mucking up the crossfeed.  When I got rid of those, fuel fed symetrically, and I got it into orbit again pretty easily.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane12.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane12.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane13.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane13.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane14.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane14.png)

Once that was in orbit, it was time to engage in some bigger-is-betterism and make a SSTO plane that could have some hope of doing some interplanetary missions.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/MegaPlane01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/MegaPlane01.png)

I only launched one.  Incidentally, the beach, east of KSC is off limits.  Any pilots with questions shall be immediately sacked.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/MegaPlane02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/MegaPlane02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/MegaPlane03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/MegaPlane03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/MegaPlane04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/MegaPlane04.png)

...

Now, I've got two spaceplanes in Kerbin orbit, with no intended destination, and despite the last screenshot, the Mun is probably a bit of a stretch.  Let's gas one of them up to buy some time to think about destination.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane15.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane15.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane16.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane16.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane17.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane17.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane18.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane18.png)

Ah ha!  If something can be soft-landed, it can be soft-landed on Minmus.  It might not have an atmosphere to make use of the plane aspect of the spaceplane, but its easier on an untested landing vehicle than the Mun, and the only other option readily available is Kerbin, so off to Minmus we go!

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane19.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane19.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane20.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane20.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane21.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane21.png)

Oh, I see you lurking there, Mun, with your dastardly plans to screw up my ascent.  Piss off!

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane22.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane22.png)

Before any punches could be thrown at celestial bodies, the sunrise got me distracted.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane23.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane23.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane24.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane24.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane25.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane25.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane26.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane26.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane27.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane27.png)

After passing the Mun, it was about two days to Kerbin apoapsis, where the plane just hung in space, until Minmus caught up.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane28.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane28.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane29.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane29.png)

Incidentally, I set up a maneuver node for my capture burn, immediately after entering Minmus' SOI.  I then switched to cockpit view for a different perspective on the approaching moon and noticed that a feature that has been bemoaned as being missing isn't actually missing.  Specifically, there's a retrograde vector for maneuver nodes on the navball, but like the radar altimeter, it's only available in the cockpit view.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane30.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane30.png)

Back to business, then.  Capture and circularize!

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane31.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane31.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane32.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane32.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane33.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane33.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane34.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane34.png)

I did a couple of survey orbits, first at 40km and one at 10km, before landing.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane35.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane35.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane36.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane36.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane37.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane37.png)

Kerbin came out, on the last survey run.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane38.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane38.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane39.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane39.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane40.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane40.png)

And then it was time to land.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane41.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane41.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane42.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane42.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane43.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane43.png)

Yes, I extended the landing gear.  Hope springs eternal, after all.

Really, the plan was to kill my horizontal velocity with the aerospike and control my rate of descent with RCS.  I found quite quickly that I didn't have enough downward-facing RCS thrusters, so it became a more traditional descent to Minmus, using the rocket to manage horizontal and vertical velocity, except that I had to level the craft immediately before touchdown, so that the wheels would be what made contact with the surface.  How'd that go?

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane44.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane44.png)

Well, that's four wheels on the ground, but touchdown felt a little...

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane45.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane45.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane46.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane46.png)

...rough.

At least the aerospike is still intact, so the spaceplane can get back to Kerbin, but a powered landing there will eat up a lot more fuel, without the jets available.  So, now we wait for the refueling ship to arrive over Minmus.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/SPlane47.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/SPlane47.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on January 20, 2013, 10:24:29 pm
Nice landing! Ever think about sending that plane to Eve? Lots of atmosphere there, yeh?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 21, 2013, 06:57:20 am
Nice landing! Ever think about sending that plane to Eve? Lots of atmosphere there, yeh?

Lots of atmosphere but no oxygen, so jet engines would be only good as very expensive weights there.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on January 21, 2013, 11:47:57 am
Great...while trying to...change the orbit of my station, I ended the flight and now I'm unable to bring another one up -.-
Then I played with planes, now I have a plane somewhere in the ocean, but every attempt to build something like a ship,trimaran,whatever ends in a huge splash or just swimming circles -.-
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 21, 2013, 12:32:27 pm
Nice landing! Ever think about sending that plane to Eve? Lots of atmosphere there, yeh?

Lots of atmosphere but no oxygen, so jet engines would be only good as very expensive weights there.

It does make you wonder, though, if you can use an all-rocket spaceplane's lift surfaces to get a less fuel-demanding launch profile than a traditional vertical launch vehicle.  It's something worth exploring, though I'm going to continue to focus on just getting three guys there and back, before I start to worry about fuel economy.

Speaking of fuel, though, I made another orbital refueling craft.  It was getting somewhat tiresome sending up half-a-dozen of the old station oilers to refuel these big, interplanetary vehicles, and so I made a new oiler with double the payload.  Having two Rockomax X32 tanks hastens refueling operations dramatically, and because the lift stage for the previous oiler was pretty overpowered for that vehicle's size, it only required light modification to get this one to orbit, without having to drain the payload tanks.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on January 21, 2013, 01:57:34 pm
if you get a plane to eve its a fairly easy task to glide down. had a really nice glide slope. took forever to loose altitude. landing speed was ~30m/s, i have trucks on the mun that can do twice that. problem is you need just as much delta-v to get out as you need on kerbin it seems. you got plenty of lift, but a lot of drag too. i was using a kethane engine, i thought i woulnt need a lot of thrust to get up to altitude, but i was wrong. your better off just parachuting down a fully loaded rocket. my attempt was a total disaster.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 21, 2013, 03:21:11 pm
Yea I was considering the rocket-plane-with-plenty-of-lift approach for Eve, but decided to go with parachuting a fueled up rocket instead lander. The lander's been safely delivered into low Eve orbit by a pair of tugs. Now it'll wait there until the Discovery can deliver a single Kerbonaut that will go down to the surface and attempt to return (but it needs to finish it's current gig on Duna to do that). Like BlueFlames, I originally planned on doing a 3-man lander, but as I refined the designs I decided it's difficult enough with a one-man lander and don't really need the complication. I reckon I should be ready for the attempt at Eve manned return in a few days.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 22, 2013, 03:04:33 am
Well, the nice thing about doing unmanned landings, prior to settling on a manned lander design, is that I can figure out which approach works best, without necessitating future rescue missions.  That in mind, I'm now building an automated rocket-plane, with the intent to send it out, when a launch window to Eve opens up again.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 22, 2013, 05:30:46 am
Yep, probes are awesome. Good luck on the manned return mission though, you'll need it. I'll be doing my shot at it in a few days, we'll see if any of us manage to be successful about it. I've nicknamed my operation "Project Cluster****" - as that's pretty much what it is in all phases of the mission.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on January 23, 2013, 11:55:50 am
(http://nohiki.ic.cz/gallery/ksp/benzin.png)

Es fließt durch meine Venen
Es schläft in meinen Tränen
Es läuft mir aus den Ohren
Herz und Nieren sind Motoren

OK, so I've had enough space and the kerbal science society was yelling at me for exploring space but not the planet itself, so i launched expeditions to north and south poles. The notrth pole expedition is taking the bus^, and the south pole will take a boat, and on that note...

anyone ever built a boat that moves faster than 30 m/s?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on January 23, 2013, 03:20:17 pm
I did make this way back when C7 parts were mods and the massive landing gear was basically a skid with insane collision tolerance (the "wheel" was cosmetic only).

It achieved water surface speed of 312 metres per second before the SRB's burned out.

(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/5475/kingfisherivtopspeed.jpg) (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/4296-Ocean-Surface-Speed-Record?p=54598&viewfull=1#post54598)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on January 23, 2013, 04:22:05 pm
my attempts to balence my half meter jet engine still results in airplanes on escape trajectories. balancing air-breathers is hard.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on January 23, 2013, 07:04:03 pm
How would one even build a boat?
My attempt are using the empty structual barrels as body on which the boat floats...but it won't work though.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on January 24, 2013, 02:56:33 am
(http://nohiki.ic.cz/gallery/ksp/Boat.png)

@Crizza: I followed the same logic, except it works... sort of :D Unfortunately i deleted the save with the 30 m/s boat, and I haven't had luck replicating the feat, so the best i can show now is a 20 suffering from engine meltdown above 5/6 throttle :( I need heat dispensers. Basically all you need is for the vector of thrust to go below and in front of the center of mass, otherwise it'll just do a nosedive.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on January 24, 2013, 08:34:15 am
Caspian Sea Monster!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 24, 2013, 04:26:31 pm
The Discovery, my interplanetary exploration vessel, just returned from it's maiden voyage to Duna. The ship has a maximum crew capacity of 7 (though this is expandable via dockable modules), but has an on-board AI system that is completely capable of operating the vessel on it's own. This AI has so far proven reliable. Among other things, it likes to play chess with the crew and has a tiny bug - sometimes it gives false positives on main antenna diagnostics, then when the crew EVA's to check, it refuses to open the airlock doors to let them back in. Other than that it functions perfectly, and this small issue is expected to be resolved in the upcoming K.A.L. 9000 1.01 patch. The vessel's first mission was to deliver a 6 man science crew to Duna, and return them safely back home. Here's how it all went down, along with the obligatory bandwidth-gang-rape-array-of-images.

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot579_zpsc8945128.jpg)

The ship was constructed in my shipyard, orbiting Kerbin at a 300km altitude. It was constructed from two main segments, the engine section and the command section.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot619_zps0993678c.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot705_zps483c7df4.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot720_zpsdfdd7a18.jpg)

Once complete, the Discovery undocked on it's own and transfered itself to a 400km parking orbit, where it was refueled, crewed with a 6 man Duna team, and equipped with two landers, Odyssey-1 and Odyssey-2.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot759_zpsc7a37fba.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot794_zpsb4e8a550.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot782_zpsaf181d7d.jpg)

Once ready, with Duna in the correct position for an optimal transfer, the ship made it's Duna transfer burn. Approximately two months later, it found itself in Duna's orbit; all systems have so far performed as expected.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot809_zps3a412dd7.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot819_zps3f3264d8.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot821_zpsebe0e7c6.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot860_zpscd9e1faa.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot869_zpsbc866fb6.jpg)

With orbital insertion complete, the crew transferred to the landers, and began their descent to the previously chosen location on the surface, where a surface habitat has been delivered by an earlier, unmanned mission.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot839_zps1587e1ea.jpg)

The crew of Odyssey-1 about the board their new home for the upcoming year.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot846_zps7ae79161.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot19_zps12e00204.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot881_zps0a81c4b5.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot886_zps0e413b06.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot22_zps4619362f.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot675_zpsd878e88f.jpg)


View from the observation / command module of the Duna habitat. The crew now had a lot of time to mess around in the sand.. erm, do science. And stuff. With them safely on the surface, the Discovery went on to rendezvous and dock with the Duna Orbital, a drone carrier now designated a station.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot738_zps8894f97f.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot774_zps5f2fe2f5.jpg)

Having spent 324 days on the surface, Duna was once again close to being in optimal position for a return to Kerbin, so it was time to depart.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot805_zpsc4c469ee.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot806_zps5e230634.jpg)

Both landers docked with the Duna Orbital, to which the Discovery was also docked at the time. The station had more than enough fuel remaining to refuel both landers more than once, so one of the landers was to proceed to a short mission to Ike and return to Duna orbit to return the crew to the Discovery for Kerbin departure. After both landers returned to orbit, it would seem the crew of the Odyssey-1 won the honor of going to Ike, by being slightly more fuel efficient. The crew of Odyssey-2 would leave their lander docked to the Duna orbital and wait aboard the Discovery.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot842_zpsb8e6b654.jpg)

Odyssey-1 on a free return trajectory to Ike.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot857_zpsf718bde7.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot859_zpse0b78fb4.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot880_zpse96f237f.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot891_zps0dd40012.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot900_zps86e46f41.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot919_zps7fd231f5.jpg)

The crew of the Odyssey-1 landed safely on Ike, and spent just over a day there. Their scientific appraisal of the place was "it's awesome, low grav is fun!"


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot940_zpsb9b59526.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot955_zpsada16ca9.jpg)

"Just a bit further to the left and we're back on Duna.."


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot977_zps2b5d80ce.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1047_zps1ec754da.jpg)

Docked back at the Duna Orbital - all ready for a return trip.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1075_zps89d451a7.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1091_zpsc11d8876.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1169_zps26f65693.jpg)



Waving goodbye...


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1108_zpsb635760b.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1120_zps506aa964.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1180_zps6ae01187.jpg)

Returning home via Ike gravity assist. This was the first mission where I actually planned for and did an intentional gravity assist :)


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1240_zps97e80d08.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1233_zps5d6b63fd.jpg)

Some 54 days later, the Discovery found itself back in Kerbin orbit. The aerocapture maneuver was successful, putting it's apoapsis just above geostationary orbit altitude. I should probably mention that I haven't done this mission in one go - it's been at least some two weeks since I launched it, and I did a lot of other stuff in the mean time. One of them was constructing a new refueling orbital station in Kerbin geostationary orbit. The Discovery wasn't to return to the shipyard, but instead to this new station, called "Waypoint Station". This is basically a drydock/refueling station where the ship will be when not on a mission. Thanks to Ike gravity assist and the fact I left both landers in Duna's orbit, docked to the Duna Orbital (with chutes repacked and completely refueled, they're perfectly capable of being reused), the return cost me very little in terms of fuel.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1252_zps6677e11a.jpg)

The Discovery on approach to Waypoint station, in geostationary orbit.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1265_zpsd3ecb111.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1270_zps186fa93f.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1275_zps9ee4dd3d.jpg)

Docking large ships is all about taking it slow.. these things have a lot of inertia and it takes a while for the thrusters to do corrections. So with a bit of concentration and taking the slow and methodical approach, the docking actually isn't that hard.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1279_zps727497e4.jpg)

View of home through the Discovery's starboard window - a view this crew hasn't seen in over a year.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1288_zpsfaff2814.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1298_zpsab9b9a6e.jpg)

With the Discovery back, all that was left to do was to send a shuttle to return the crew safely home.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1302_zpse7e36ae3.jpg)

Kerbin is larger than the Mun, and the shuttle is larger than both!


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1319_zpsffb89bcb.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1336_zps98393d71.jpg)

On approach to Waypoint Station.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1344_zps5653bb29.jpg)

..and we're docked.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1357_zps86428082.jpg)

View of the docked Discovery through the station's small control tower.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1366_zps8c41ae41.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1367_zps43923bfb.jpg)

Transferring the crew to the shuttle...


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1412_zpsccdfaf47.jpg)

..and going home. Based on previous experiences, while doing a deorbit burn straight from Waypoint, setting a periapsis at some 34.6km should bring the shuttle back over the KSC.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1446_zpsb7c200ca.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1449_zps79aade34.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1458_zps90435877.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%201/screenshot1478_zps9c60d32c.jpg)

Here's a postcard shot of the 6 brave Kerbonauts that just came back. The three on the right have also been to Ike. The Discovery spent about 58% of it's fuel on this mission and has since replenished to 100% at Waypoint station, so it's ready for it's next mission.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on January 24, 2013, 07:01:16 pm
Awesome
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 25, 2013, 01:49:48 am
Alfurt Kerman is my official stunt pilot.

As I was plotting out his return from Minmus to Kerbin, in the damaged spaceplane, I saw a potential Munar encounter, which could be useful for knocking a few million meters off of his orbit's apoapsis, for just a couple dozen meters-per-second of delta-V.  The only catch was that I was feeling ambitious, and the more effect you want from a gravity assist, the lower you have to let your ship descend, into the gravity well.

Alfurt just passed within 2.5km of Munar "sea" level, traveling 1070m/s, relative to the surface.  I know others have gotten lower and gone faster, but this is the lowest I've sent a Kerbonaut, and being that he was on the night side of the Mun at the time, it was probably an extended pucker moment for Alfurt, knowing that he wouldn't be able to see how high the ridges ahead were.

Now, I just have to get him safely back to the surface of Kerbin, so that I can pin a medal to his chest, rather than to his charred remains.

[edit] Bonus!  The maneuver didn't just lower my orbit, but turned it into a retrograde orbit.  I want to approach KSC from the east, so that if I overshoot the runway, I can still set down on land, without having to come back around.  This saved me the time, trouble, and fuel of reversing my orbit. [/edit]

[edit 2] After a little aerobraking and other faffing about, the damaged spaceplane is now in a stable, circular 85km retrograde orbit, over Kerbin.  I'll land crash land it tomorrow.  Meanwhile, the Eve fleet is now eleven days out.  I'll review their trajectories and do some more tuning tomorrow as well. [/edit 2]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on January 25, 2013, 11:47:18 am
Meanwhile, the Eve fleet is now eleven days out.

??

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bA93K_0O--w/TGWVGRFDNBI/AAAAAAAAUqA/JQSKr1wtnpo/s1600/2010.08.05.20.06.27.bmp)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on January 25, 2013, 12:06:36 pm
Holy **** newman
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on January 25, 2013, 12:14:48 pm
It looks so easy when you do it :banghead:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: TwentyPercentCooler on January 25, 2013, 01:28:59 pm
I just landed a kludged-together failheap of a rover on Minmus...which I then proceeded to accidently launch into orbit by driving over a hill too fast. 10 bucks says the Kerbal driving said to his comrade, "Hold my beer and watch this," before he climbed into the rover.

I've also been trying to make a rocket boat (inspired by earlier entries in this thread) that I can send to Laythe. Attempts have so far been only moderately successful.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 25, 2013, 01:33:48 pm
Meanwhile, the Eve fleet is now eleven days out.

??

[img snip]

It has been suggested that the naming of the planet Eve was no accident, as it draws you in, with its intense gravity, and won't let you go, with its thick atmosphere.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on January 25, 2013, 03:56:31 pm
Meanwhile, the Eve fleet is now eleven days out.

??

[img snip]

It has been suggested that the naming of the planet Eve was no accident, as it draws you in, with its intense gravity, and won't let you go, with its thick atmosphere.

But it doesn't have Dickstars.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 25, 2013, 11:18:47 pm
So, the spaceplane crashed.  Turns out that with the jet engines removed, the center of mass shifts so far forward, that it just can't keep its nose up.  Between that effort and maneuvering another interplanetary oiler between bodies in the Kerbin system, the Eve fleet got close enough to Eve's SOI that I had to start juggling ships again.

So far so good, on that front too.  After their final correction burns, there was plenty of time for me to perform a capture maneuver with each of the eight vessels.  I put them all in 250km x 62,000km orbits, so that I can do plane-change maneuvers, using as little delta-V as possible.  Seven out of the eight ships made their first plane-change, with the eighth passing its apoapsis, while I was shuffling fuel around in the Eve lander, so that I wouldn't lose anything but mass, when I ditched its interplanetary stage.  The nice thing about orbiting, though, is that you can just wait until the ship comes round again to make up for a missed maneuver.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: TwentyPercentCooler on January 26, 2013, 09:59:08 am
I'm not awesome enough yet to be trying things like returning from Eve and building freakin' shipyards, so I've been messing around with trying to make weapons (without downloading specific weapon mod packs - kinda takes the fun out of it IMHO). Already have a few pretty solid cruise missiles, complete with reusable RATO launch carts and more rocket boosters for extra acceleration after target is locked and terminal course is achieved. I can get nice solid hits on whatever target I want, with a CEP of probably 10m or so. Everything is better with more rocket boosters.

Also been trying to make an ICBM (easy) with at least 6 or 8 MIRVs (not so easy). The most difficult part is that the stock parts and even the NovaPunch pack (which I did download), don't have any fins small enough for the half-meter MIRVs, so they have to be spin-stabilised, with enough delta-V to deorbit (well, technically they're suborbital to begin with, but you guys know what I mean) themselves and make minute corrections.

I'm noticing that, slowly but surely, I'm tuning down my tendency to overengineer things. KISS is a good thing.

UPDATE! Pictures.  :D

Kerbin Dynamics' newest cruise missile design. It cruises and stuff. The RATO rig is a bit different than the reusable one I'd been using. I forgot to get a picture of the half-dozen RATO rigs sitting in the grass past the end of the runway, with a few in the drink right off of the beach.
(http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s455/RainbowDashWins/Kerpocalypse/screenshot6_zps22111f24.png)

We are go for takeoff.
(http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s455/RainbowDashWins/Kerpocalypse/screenshot7_zps6f06ed19.png)

Jeb thought using a torpedo sonar as a guidance system was a good money-saving measure, but he forgot to turn his music down (was aiming for the windows - close enough).
(http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s455/RainbowDashWins/Kerpocalypse/screenshot4_zpscb225656.png)

And now, presenting the Kerbalhammer II Orbital Ballistic Missile. The Kerbals laugh at puny human treaties banning orbit-capable weapons systems.
(http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s455/RainbowDashWins/Kerpocalypse/screenshot8_zps6c80b5a1.png)

Automated message: Kerbalhammer II launch successful.
(http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s455/RainbowDashWins/Kerpocalypse/screenshot11_zpseb6ab4dd.png)

Automated message: Kerbalhammer II orbital injection burn in progress. Separation of solid booster stage confirmed. Targeting information transferred to payload systems.
(http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s455/RainbowDashWins/Kerpocalypse/screenshot12_zps6025edff.png)

Automated message: Orbital injection burn completed. Jettisoning payload for independent re-entry.
(http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s455/RainbowDashWins/Kerpocalypse/screenshot14_zpsb3127a70.png)

Automated message: Payload detached and prepared for re-entry. Targets acquired; guidance computers active. Compensating for aerial drag factor. Optimal re-entry profiles established. Commencing retrograde burn.
(http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s455/RainbowDashWins/Kerpocalypse/screenshot15_zps27d35a73.png)
(http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s455/RainbowDashWins/Kerpocalypse/screenshot16_zps0a08bb7d.png)

Automated message: MIRV detachment confirmed. Terminal velocity profiles reached. Probability of mission failure zero percent. Calculated CEP five hundred meters. Neutralization of primary target imminent.
(http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s455/RainbowDashWins/Kerpocalypse/screenshot18_zps248515e7.png)

Automated message: Destruction of primary target confirmed. Casualties high. Destruction catastrophic.
(http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s455/RainbowDashWins/Kerpocalypse/screenshot20_zps872c4e6e.png)


Okay, not particularly impressive compared to some of the feats in this thread, but I had fun with it. One particularly fun moment was when I started the de-orbit burn on my "payload." The ninth picture, the lower stage? Yeah, that piece went whizzing by at ludicrous relative speed and almost took out the payload. Embarrassing failure avoided!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on January 27, 2013, 03:18:00 am
A thirsty fleet demands a bigger fueling vehicle!

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/OilerDeux01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/OilerDeux01.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/OilerDeux02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/OilerDeux02.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/OilerDeux05.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/OilerDeux05.png)

Visibility from within the cockpit is ****.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/OilerDeux03.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/OilerDeux03.png)

One of those thirsty fleet vehicles is the interplanetary oiler, which needs to burn off its payload to make orbit, so let's gas one up!

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/OilerDeux04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/OilerDeux04.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/OilerDeux06.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/OilerDeux06.png)

Now, there was a question of landing capability.  Doing test landings, all parachutes and a full-throttle powered burn couldn't slow the thing down enough to stop the RCS tanks (because they're in an obviously vulnerable position) from exploding, upon touchdown.  Those test landings were done with full payload tanks, though, so with the payload drained, it would hopefully be safe to land.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/OilerDeux07.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/OilerDeux07.png)

This is a make-sure-you-get-it-right vehicle, since an attempt to abort will result in you having to land with full payload tanks, thereby peppering your command pod with RCS tank shrapnel.  If you get it to its destination, so that it can offload that excess fuel, then you're golden.

Now, catching up with the Eve fleet.  Formation flight!

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet13.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet13.png)

Okay, it's a loose formation....

My efforts to get the ships into similar orbits, immediately upon their encounter with Eve, were unsuccessful.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet14.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet14.png)

Well, **** it.  We've got fuel, so let's start maneuvering.  The station hub was first in the queue to capture, getting quite a view of the planet's mercury oceans, in the process.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet15.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet15.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet16.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet16.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet17.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet17.png)

Then, the backup spacebus got a close look at several lakes and impact craters.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet18.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet18.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet19.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet19.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet20.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet20.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet21.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet21.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet22.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet22.png)

Next, the first fuel ship, burning over several larger lakes/seas and craters.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet23.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet23.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet24.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet24.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet25.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet25.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet26.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet26.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet27.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet27.png)

The lander was next in the queue, and while I thought about just dropping it straight onto Eve, but ultimately elected against that course.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet28.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet28.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet29.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet29.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet30.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet30.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet31.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet31.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet32.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet32.png)

Then the station power module came up for its capture.  Those big solar arrays each normally have a power output of 14.00 around Kerbin.  Near Eve, it's thirty-four to thirty-six.  (You're actually close enough that variation in your altitude above the planet produces a measureable impact on your solar panels' energy output.)  This helps run those ion engines at full-throttle, even without full exposure of the solar panels.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet33.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet33.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet34.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet34.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet35.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet35.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet36.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet36.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet37.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet37.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet38.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet38.png)

Then the damaged spacebus.  It's still doing quite well for fuel, but I still don't want to risk sending crew back on it.  Ultimately, one dumb shmuck brave pilot will attempt to fly it back to Kerbin, while the other two crewmembers will be evacuated to the spare passenger slots on the fully functional spacebusses.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet39.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet39.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet40.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet40.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet41.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet41.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet42.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet42.png)

Almost finally, the undamaged of the original spacebusses, which got quite a view of a crater formation, including a couple of partially-flooded craters.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet43.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet43.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet44.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet44.png)

The second fuel ship lagged behind the rest of the fleet by over a day.  It got a look at the terrible orbital ribcage that I had constructed around Eve, prior to getting pulled in.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet45.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet45.png)

This ship came in on a nearly-polar orbit, and performed its capture burn over the most boring chunk of land that Eve has to offer.....except for that zit.  I may have to find out what that's all about.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet46.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet46.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet47.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet47.png)

Thus it came to pass that Eve's ribcage would have a sternum.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet48.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet48.png)

And I left off with the screenshots, shortly after the landing craft ditched its transit stage.  Now, I made an effort to ensure that the spent stage's orbit would catch Eve's upper atmosphere and eventually crash into the planet.  Then, I used the lander's NERVA to distance itself from the debris, which blew the spent stage away just hard enough to put it back into a stable orbit.

(http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet49.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet49.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/Thumbs/EveFleet50.png) (http://home.comcast.net/~blueflames/KSPShots/EveFleet50.png)

I guess you wouldn't know I'd been, if I didn't leave behind some kind of navigation hazard.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: LordMelvin on January 27, 2013, 08:48:35 am
I finally got the full version and started designing and flying rockets.

Powered flight into terrain.

Falls off the launching pad sideways and explodes.

Powered flight into terrain.

Powered flight into terrain.

Powered flight into terrain.

Mutiny  - pilot refuses flight orders until I figure out what I'm doing a bit better.

Labor negotiations proceed successfully.

Powered flight into terrain. Again.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 27, 2013, 09:33:55 am
Had an issue with my computer (fixed now) that resulted in the system BSOD-ing on me while running KSP. I lost most of my flights, including all space stations and the Discovery - luckily I kept making backups of the persistence file at regular intervals, which means nothing was actually lost, I just lost a few hours of game time but every ship is still there and running.

So, yeah. Making a backup of your persistence file from time to time is a pretty good idea if you have stuff saved that you wouldn't want to lose. While it was annoying to lose a few hours worth of gameplay, it's a mere inconvenience compared to losing everything.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on January 27, 2013, 10:15:09 pm
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EZWbF3sQQI&list=UUxzC4EngIsMrPmbm6Nxvb-A&index=6) is quite possibly the greatest thing I have ever seen in KSP.  FTL Kerbal Strut Eggs.  That's right.  You build this giant ****ing egg thing out of struts and **** and you put a Kerbal in it and it ****ing GOES.  This is the future of Kerbal Space Flight.  I dunno wtf you're all doing with rockets and engines and ****, **** that noise.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Pred the Penguin on January 27, 2013, 10:41:50 pm
Just imagine, these instead of conventional propulsion methods attached to spacecraft with little Kerbals inside pedaling away to a super efficient future! Bet the Wright Brothers never thought of this when they had their bike shop
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on January 27, 2013, 10:53:42 pm
you've inspired me to go build a kerbal trebuchet
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ace on January 29, 2013, 05:05:18 am
I decided to try my hand at some unmanned probes to scout the other moons of Jool while building some spaceships. Using a Duna assist, it'll take some nice images of the Mun, Duna, and Jool's moons before the next manned mission is sent.

Far Explorer I signs off from the Mun and begins it's year long journey.

Meanwhile the Pathfinder, the first prototype large interplanetary ship, is being tested in orbit of Minmus along with a small moon/asteroid lander. (second lander is on Minmus)

[attachment deleted by a basterd]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: TwentyPercentCooler on January 29, 2013, 05:05:30 am
Kerbal trebuchet? WAIT!

Kerbal Chunkin' contest incoming!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 29, 2013, 06:21:30 pm
Ok, this was the hardest thing I've ever done in KSP, but I did successfully put a kerbonaut on Eve surface, and then returned him back home safe and sound.

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2953_zps6c08031c.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot1095_zpsfb73030b.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot460_zpsa7e6cbd5.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot653_zps94707ef2.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot667_zps12be2a67.jpg)

First, I needed to get the selected lander design up in orbit, fuel it up, and dock two tugs to it that would deliver it to Eve orbit.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot1667_zps57563c54.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot1678_zps15b0bf0e.jpg)

Then I transferred the crew over to the shuttle using my MRT (Mobile Ramp Tower).


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot1691_zpsce06c71c.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot1795_zpsdec7e1ad.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot1899_zps8c0d9e99.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot1925_zps5a1c4665.jpg)

The shuttle then delivered the mission crew over to the Discovery, docked at Waypoint Station. With an all systems go given, the Discovery then departed Waypoint and made it's way to Eve, where it met up with the Defiant lander.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot1933_zpse9e03686.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot1935_zps530e486e.jpg)

Then it transferred some of it's fuel reserves over to the lander's two tugs, so they can deorbit it. Nielbin then EVA'd over to the lander.

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot1964_zpse7d3a3e8.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2111_zps8c8013ef.jpg)

Tugs doing a deorbit burn. They were ditched afterwards.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2436_zps9982073c.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2439_zps22a001c5.jpg)

...and we're down. It needed a few dabs of the throttle prior to full chute deployments (drogue at 2500m, mains at 500m) to prevent it from falling apart.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2448_zps8357674d.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2458_zps109afa98.jpg)

The easy part.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2463_zps147259e3.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2464_zpsc592de11.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2467_zpsc42ba47f.jpg)

Time for the hard part...


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2473_zps2ea24258.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2487_zpsae99c7b7.jpg)

As long as this thing keeps going up without tipping over, I'll be happy.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2503_zps66ca4ff6.jpg)

Stage 1 ditched.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2518_zpsf34d8806.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2526_zpscef810ef.jpg)

Stage 2 ditched, still going up. That's about all you can ask for when going back from Eve. It's very simple: up is good, down is certain death.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2532_zps8184490d.jpg)

Moment of truth: if the last stage doesn't have enough fuel to finish orbital insertion, it's all over for Nielbin.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2536_zps4f777608.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2541_zpsa29e66a7.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2546_zps46a4b5f5.jpg)

And back in a 300km orbit! That's a relief..


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2603_zps498a66ac.jpg)

Discovery arriving to pick Nielbin back up.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2616_zpsbf2d0ffe.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2626_zps0d300b0c.jpg)

Might as well pay Gilly a visit as long as we're here. Not like we're coming back after "Project Cluster****", as the Eve landing project was affectionately nicknamed, was over.. Probes, yes, manned visits, no thanks. Once was hard enough.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2636_zps9fe2b56a.jpg)

Orbiting Gilly at the incredible speed of 14.9 m/s...


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2638_zps97f7d91b.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2655_zps0918f320.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2657_zps82841137.jpg)

No need for landers here.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2686_zps43e29704.jpg)

Rendezvous back with the Discovery. Joncan's suit RCS tank is at about 40% at this point.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2707_zps0e5f5f98.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2742_zpsfd714e6e.jpg)

Time to burn for home.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2753_zpsdc0519e2.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2796_zpsbb349b99.jpg)

After aerobraking at Kerbin, the Discovery safely docked back at Waypoint Station.


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2813_zps5419cbdf.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2834_zps478b65fb.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2860_zpsbed43aad.jpg)

The shuttle returned to pick the crew up..


(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2889_zpsb6f3e775.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2911_zps1d1faea9.jpg)

(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/newman1702/KSP/Discovery%20mission%202%20-%20Eve%20manned%20return/screenshot2925_zpsd60213b5.jpg)

..and then returned them safely inside visual range of the KSC.


tl;dr version: sent a Kerbonaut to Eve and returned him safely home! Yay! That's one itch scratched :)






Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on January 29, 2013, 06:30:15 pm
Great job. I've redesigned my SSTO, then left it laying about as I assembled the MIR. It's almost complete, I'm only waiting for Tiberdyne shuttle to be updated (since I gave up on attaching the Docking Compartment with the current one, it's too unbalanced).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: deathfun on January 29, 2013, 08:15:56 pm
Damn, KSP has really changed since last I checked it out
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on January 29, 2013, 08:29:15 pm
Amazing job, newman.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on January 29, 2013, 09:08:53 pm
i hope you tossed that on the ksp forums, newman :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on January 30, 2013, 12:37:33 am
:applause.gif:

That is simply awesome, newman.  One hell of a cluster**** mission!
Do you have an estimate for how much delta-v it cost to get from Eve surface to orbit?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on January 30, 2013, 04:53:42 am
i hope you tossed that on the ksp forums, newman :D

Yep. (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/40611-Manned-return-mission-to-Eve-surface-%28image-heavy!%29)

Do you have an estimate for how much delta-v it cost to get from Eve surface to orbit?

Well, I don't use mechjeb, but I do like to see some numbers when building ships so I sometimes use Kerbal engineer redux mod for that. Only mod I use, it doesn't add parts to the final craft so they're still usable when the versions advance. Anyway, if my memory serves me correctly, the first three stages combined had some 6884 m/s of delta-v. That last tiny stage may not look like much, but it had over 2200 m/s of delta-v. That tiny, light LV-909 engine has to be the most underestimated piece of hardware in KSP. I needed an engine for the final stage good enough for orbital insertion. The reason I went with the good old fashioned 909 instead of the nuclear one is simple; LV-N's are very long and heavy, which would have added too many complications to the lander. First of all, lugging a heavy LV-N through thick Eve atmo is not my idea of fun. Secondly, the lander was structurally sensitive enough as it is without adding to the height.

Basically, 909's are awesome. I landed probes pretty much everywhere using it (except for Moho, that particular probe used RCS only because I thought overheating on Moho was still an issue in 0.18.2 - as it turned out, it's superheated atmo is now gone so it's possible to land normally without exploding engines). I even landed one on Tylo using a single 909 - granted, that landing was very hard and the engine burned on max during the entire descent, but it got the probe down in one piece.

Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MarkN on February 01, 2013, 02:04:54 pm
I have been trying to build non-spaceplane SSTOs

My fist attempt made it to orbit (but no further)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img221/8389/screenshot3mq.png)

The main problem was the the craft carried 4 jest fuel tanks and used only 1, so the second attempt replaced two of the jet fuel tanks with an additional rocket fuel tank, and made it to orbit with fuel to spare
(http://imageshack.us/a/img716/5479/screenshot4tb.png)

I am having a huge amount of trouble trying to dock large craft (like the tugs that Newman's Eve lander used to get to Eve). Has anyone got any advice?


Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on February 01, 2013, 02:39:52 pm
I have been trying to build non-spaceplane SSTOs
So standard rocket-style ssto's? Whats the landing plan btw? nvm, just seen the decoupler and the parachute :p
Quote
I am having a huge amount of trouble trying to dock large craft (like the tugs that Newman's Eve lander used to get to Eve). Has anyone got any advice?
RCS, some plugin like either mechjeb or romfarer's lazors and have the red lasers put on it. it helps a lot with keeping direction when you are doing the final maneuvers. and isnt as iffy as ASAS.

if you consider such things cheating, i have no further thing to say other than "glhf"
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on February 01, 2013, 04:29:32 pm
I am having a huge amount of trouble trying to dock large craft (like the tugs that Newman's Eve lander used to get to Eve). Has anyone got any advice?

Actually, those tugs aren't even close to the largest stuff I dock to one another, and are fairly easy to dock. Without getting into discussions on whether mods are cheating or not (which basically depends on the mod, anyway), I will say that I don't use any mods in my craft designs and also don't use mechjeb, and I dock them just fine. While that laser mod might help, if you're having trouble docking mid-sized ships that suggests you're doing something wrong. While a mod might help you get around the things you're doing wrong, addressing those issues is always the better approach whether you end up using mods or not.

So let's get down to business. There are two major things that are important with docking; craft design and RCS maneuvering.

1) Craft design: half of your successful docking maneuver is done before you ever leave the ground, in the VAB (or SPH, depending on the craft). Efficient RCS setup is the key to controlling your ship efficiently once in orbit; those tugs of mine had a large monopropellant tank each, but that wasn't because they needed that much to dock to the Defiant (Eve lander) - 750 monopropellant is easily enough to handle a dozen dockings. It was rather because the Defiant was a pretty special case that needed to be able to keep it's nose straight up during the first few seconds of launch from Eve surface; in case it landed on a slope it needed lots of powerful RCS thrusters to quickly set it straight. This also meant that the Defiant was a fuel guzzler when it came to RCS fuel, hence the large tanks.

The tugs themselves were easy as dirt to dock. Neither of them used quad thrusters, and I would suggest not using them on craft that don't absolutely need quads for some reason - and those you'll just dock around in orbit don't. Use linear thrusters instead, and try to position them at equal distances from the center of mass. So basically, 4x symmetry side linear ports near the top and bottom on each side of the center of mass; these will provide sideways thrust. You'll also need to be able to thrust forwards and backwards, so put another 4 backwards oriented ones in the back, and 4 forward oriented ones in the nose. Give them a large RCS tank and with a little practice you can dock anything many times on a single large tank. Or save some weight and give them smaller tanks if you feel you won't need that much and are confident of your abilities. Either way, efficient RCS setup wins half the battle before it begins.

While on the subject, I'd also like to address the myth that RCS + ASAS is a bad combination. Indeed it can be, either on rather large ships, or on ships with a badly designed RCS setup. See, well placed RCS thrusters won't create much torque when you just want your ship to go sideways; if they do, ASAS will try to compensate by periodically firing thrusters on the other side to countermand the rotation produced by the pair you activated. Introduce some wobble and shaking of the ship and you got ASAS spraying your RCS fuel all over the place. But the solution to this problem isn't always to not use ASAS, but rather to make the ship not wobble / turn when you activate side thrusters. Design your RCS system well, and ASAS-induced RCS mess will be kept to a manageable minimum at worst, or won't be present at all at best.

2) RCS maneuvering.

This won't be that much of a problem if you've designed your RCS system properly. Remember to use the navball's information to your advantage. You have speed relative to target and vector relative to target, those two tools give you a lot to work with already, allowing you to kill relative velocity to your target by finding the retrogade icon on the navball (while in "target" mode), and burning prograde in it's direction. Melt your speed difference to your target to 0.0 and you'll seem to stop (again, relative to target) - it's a good idea to do this some 100m or so away from your target. Then take a moment to plan the final docking approach - select the docking port on your target you want to dock with, right click it and set it as target. This can be helpful with your navball, as your target indicators now point to that docking port and not the target's command module. Now take your time, and slowly position yourself so your nose is oriented and lined up to that docking port. Slow and steady wins the race here - go too fast and you'll spend up twice as much time lining up as you would have if you were patient. Use different camera views to line up your craft as best you can. Once done, lock your orientation with ASAS, give yourself a bit of forward motion towards the target (0.1 or 0.2 m/s is fine at this point) - this is just so your prograde vector appears in front of you. Now you can use the side thrusters to line up your nose with the pink target indicator on the navball (the pink target with a circle). If you have your nose, the pink target, and the yellow prograde icon all at the same place on the navball, it means your nose is heading straight for the docking port. This is good, assuming the docking port is actually in your nose - if not, adapt the method to the side of the craft the docking port is at :)

Whew, a lot of text. Hope that helped some.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MarkN on February 01, 2013, 04:59:26 pm
No decoupler on the SSTO, the component below the capsule is the ASAS. the parachute is a drogue to make it easier to stay pointing up in the early stages of deceleration. The ship lands on it's tail using it's jet engines. I have been trying to make larger SSTOs (mainly to have some fuel in orbit to allow for docking), but the SAS stops being able to cope with the aerodynamic forces on the vehicle as it accelerates crabwise (pointing around 35 degrees from horizontal, but traveling only 10 degrees from horizontal). I think the ideal SSTO would be nearly symmetric vertically, so that the air resistance below the centre of mass equalled the air resistance above it, but have not managed to get a design like that to work.

Looking at my design, the problem is likely to mostly be RCS positioning. I was using a lot of monopropellant for simple changes of orientation, and almost any manoeuvre was leading to the rocket rolling 
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on February 03, 2013, 03:48:00 am
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot78_zps55e62ef9.jpg)

been working on my parts back. it now has about 32 parts. im going to try to release it in a few days.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on February 04, 2013, 05:31:36 am
After de-orbiting a lander pod that had been floating about for a while, I realized that even if I manage to land or splashdown really close to the KSC, there's no way for the Kerbals to actually get back to the center besides walking/swimming. So I spent a few days building a truck and a few boats.
The truck was easy and boring, but the boat went through many different versions before I found a design that floated and stayed intact and stable at high speeds (because going anywhere slow is not the Kerbal way!).

Behold! The Kerbal Aquatic Retrieval Transport (KART):
(http://imageshack.us/a/img252/4646/screenshot8z.png)

It seats a single pilot, has room for three more Kerbals in the hitchhiker pod, and most importantly, has a cruising speed of about 160m/s on calm seas, or 173m/s if you push the throttle as far as it goes. And of course plenty of fuel for long-distance travel, and many trips.

And then, just for kicks, I made a speedboat, designed only for speed:
(http://imageshack.us/a/img13/1245/screenshot10ga.png)

Strangely, it only gets up to about 180m/s. Additional designing will certainly yield better results. I may have to resort to aerospike rockets.

The boat in between these two is a refueling boat with a docking arm at just about the perfect height to match up with the water-truck's rear refueling port. Strangely, when I tried to dock on the high seas, and again on dry land, the two wouldn't dock. Is that something that can only happen in space?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on February 04, 2013, 08:14:51 am
The boat in between these two is a refueling boat with a docking arm at just about the perfect height to match up with the water-truck's rear refueling port. Strangely, when I tried to dock on the high seas, and again on dry land, the two wouldn't dock. Is that something that can only happen in space?

No, I managed to dock stuff on surfaces of planets, though admittedly only on dry land. It should work when afloat too, are you sure you're using compatible docking ports? A small docking port can only dock to another small docking port, for example..
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on February 04, 2013, 11:07:31 am
No, I managed to dock stuff on surfaces of planets, though admittedly only on dry land. It should work when afloat too, are you sure you're using compatible docking ports? A small docking port can only dock to another small docking port, for example..
The first test was regular size clamp to a jr on the sea, but the second test was jr to jr on land. I'll give it another shot, thanks.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on February 04, 2013, 05:47:24 pm
I've done jr to jr on land and it worked just fine on my end.. In fact, that's how I refuel my mobile ramp tower so I can move it around.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on February 04, 2013, 06:03:08 pm
Hmmm, OK. Just how close do you have to hit a docking clamp? I was dead-on laterally, but maybe 1/3 of a clamp-o-tron jr higher than the target and all I could do was push the other ship. And is there any special way to dock, or just to mash one clamp into the other?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ace on February 05, 2013, 12:18:05 am
I tweaked the nine nuclear engine design to be a bit more fuel and tonnage efficient and decided to do landings on the two major objects in the system I haven't been to yet:
Dres and Eelo!

Next is a manned mission to the inner most planet (only did an orbiter, no touch down yet), and then the rover invasion...

[attachment deleted by a basterd]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on February 05, 2013, 05:01:48 am
i just released my mod. part count is up to 32 download here (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0xTBHKy0hAAc3l4QW1kbHI3YkE/edit?usp=sharing). will put this on the space port as soon as i figure out how.

http://kerbalspaceport.com/half-meter-parts-and-other-useless-crap-r3/

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot80_zps725f6ea6.jpg)
going to jool, be back in a few years.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ace on February 09, 2013, 05:05:46 pm
Although my nuclear puller design has been pretty good for sending single landers throughout the system, I decided to try to finalize some real spaceship construction.

The Discovery II.

Currently docked with 8 probes, and it can fit 4 landing craft and 1 resupply vessel.

Only non-stock parts are the central centrifuge.



[attachment deleted by a basterd]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Enzo03 on February 10, 2013, 10:35:56 am
Guess what game made it into PC Gamer's Sim-plicity feature this week? (http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/02/10/sim-plicity-i-am-a-rocket-scientist/)
Quote
Having retired from world-saving heroics, Christopher Livingston is living the simple life in video games by playing a series of down-to-earth simulations, though this week is less down-to-earth and more up-to-space as he attempts to create his own space program and learns that what goes up, might not come down. Ever.
:lol:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BlueFlames on February 11, 2013, 03:29:56 am
I started using the Kethane mod on a new save.  I surveyed Kerbin, the Mun, and Minmus, before plopping a drilling platform down on a deposit on Minmus.

What's missing is the refinery.  The idea is that the drilling platform can return to orbit, where it will meet up with the refinery and offload its moon flatulence Kethane to be converted into whatever passing vessels may require.

Sadly, I seem to have made my refinery, not out of empty tanks and Kethane converters, but out of singularities.  The space-tug with which I've been moving everything between low-Kerbin orbit out to the moons is completely incapable of moving the refinery.  Docked to the empty refinery, the tug burned about a quarter of its fuel for a total delta-V of 0.0m/s.  Yeah....  I'm hoping that all I need is a bigger, thrustier (teehee!) space-tug
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on February 11, 2013, 06:11:17 am
you didnt use the tiny gravity engines that kethane has, did you?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on February 11, 2013, 07:41:42 am
i find it was just easier to put a kethane converter and drill on every single landing capable ship that i built. you can pretty much planet hop through the system without additional fuel from kerbin. just save eve for last.

one thing i dont get was how it was possible to produce monopropellant (real world analog: hydrazine n2h4), oxidizer (lox/h2o2), liquid fuel (lh2/karosene), and xenon (do i need to say it), out of kethane (real world analog, ch ****ing 4). is this thing a damn fusion reactor with no net energy gain? is the periodic table not universal?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on February 11, 2013, 01:20:55 pm
one thing i dont get was how it was possible to produce monopropellant (real world analog: hydrazine n2h4), oxidizer (lox/h2o2), liquid fuel (lh2/karosene), and xenon (do i need to say it), out of kethane (real world analog, ch ****ing 4). is this thing a damn fusion reactor with no net energy gain? is the periodic table not universal?

Good questions, though I doubt the makers of the kethane mod bothered with them too much. Hopefully the official features doing the same thing will be better thought out.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ace on February 17, 2013, 12:35:56 am
After getting the Discovery II all prepped I decided to build an automated rover that could dock with it and be deployed onto planets along with landers and its current probes.

It was easier to outright send the test rover to Duna than to bother with docking it first, so here's the first Rover!

The next step is the robotic invasion of just about every planetary body using the Discovery class ships, followed by building stations around each body.

Edit- My first Eve rover attempt successfully landed on dry land... and then flipped over after I put the parking breaks on when it was rolling down a hill.

RIP Eve Rover 1.

[attachment deleted by a basterd]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ace on February 17, 2013, 07:49:34 pm
Operation Eve rover is now a success.

That's after the first landing where the rover flipped on its back after rolling down a crater and the second landing where the atmospheric drag brought its landing trajectory into the ocean instead of the coast.

The only hitch with this mission was that the solar panels blew off when they were deployed after landing, but it has a backup RTG for power.

[attachment deleted by a basterd]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on February 18, 2013, 11:57:09 am
Eve surface can be pretty glitchy. Stuff that seems ok on landing will sometimes lurch into the air / tip over / fall part on load. Deployable solar panels are particularly susceptible. The only way to put a probe there you can safely reload is to do a floating one and deploy it in one of the oceans.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on February 18, 2013, 12:34:23 pm
I stopped messing with interplanetary stuff for a while and focused on historical missions and modding:
(http://imageshack.us/a/img7/605/screenshot420.th.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/screenshot420.png/)
The N1 in all it's glory...
(http://imageshack.us/a/img109/8541/screenshot421.th.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/109/screenshot421.png/)
And the payload.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on March 19, 2013, 07:04:12 pm
Built a new orbital station for 0.19.

(http://i.imgur.com/LFd91Az.jpg)

Thanks to the awesome power of the Tesseract Blue LEDs ****ing magic, it can go just about anywhere, at a snails pace anyway. ;)

(http://i.imgur.com/6as8AEa.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: FlamingCobra on March 20, 2013, 11:19:10 pm
there's no way you made that without mechjeb
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on March 21, 2013, 01:19:43 am
I've never used mechjeb. :V
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on March 22, 2013, 06:07:51 pm
these days mechjeb screws up more launches than it saves.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on March 23, 2013, 12:44:24 am
KERBAL MISSION UPDATE

One of our engineers insisted that our station had a lot of dead weight which was robbing some of its delta-v potential.  Since sending up a team of Kerbonauts to remove unneeded bits and bring them home would make a lot of sense, we instead shoved the whole multi-billion dollar structure into Kerbin's atmosphere and built a new one from scratch.  Not content to only reduce the dry mass, we also added bunch of extra engines and fuel. 
The result:  Delta-v budget from LKO jumped from 7.2 to over 10.7 km/s.  Our top scientist characterized this improvement as "totally sweet I guess."

After a careful selection process, we have crewed the new station with our best and brightest:
Maclo, pilot and all-around badass.  Selected for surviving the catastrophic explosive disintegration of a rocket in an earlier mission.
Feremy, commander.  His actions saved the command capsule from destruction during the aforementioned event.
and Bartemy, mission specialist.  He discovered the cause of that mission's failure -- Maclo's enthusiasm for !!MAXIMUM THRUST!! while still low in the atmosphere had lead to forces in excess of the rocket's structural limits.

Here we see our brave crew docked with the ass end of the station.  Hope you're comfortable, guys, 'cause you're gonna be there for a while.
(http://i.imgur.com/cnADbsZ.jpg)

Maclo turns on the engines and is immediately disappointed by the lack of WHOOSH.  Instead a soft hum fills the air as the engines glow with a strange blue aura.  The station accelerates imperceptibly.  The crew seem to be confused by this technology, which is okay because quite frankly nobody in mission control understands how it works either.
(http://i.imgur.com/rhc2YvY.jpg)

Whelp, so long, boys.  You're not going to be going anywhere fast, but you'll go somewhere for sure.

:SEVERAL MONTHS LATER:

Holy **** guys, we're at another planet.  Wat do?
(http://i.imgur.com/XuPmRXz.jpg)

These engines are super efficient, but mission control still likes to save delta-v.  (Money and lives on the other hand are immaterial.)  So we shall aerobrake.  Bartemy, being the thinker, decides he should retract the solar panels first.

Down we go, and the sun sets beyond a strange purple horizon.  Hopefully, this will not be the last sunset they ever see.
(http://i.imgur.com/elNrV46.png)

****, the purple is getting inside.  Maclo succumbs to it immediately and starts laughing hysterically.  Feremy gets a contact high.  Bartemy dares to be drug-free and looks the other way.
(http://i.imgur.com/wLaYQJL.png)

Hot plasma envelops the ship.  Bartemy and Feremy become nervous.  Maclo is too busy having a Stanley Kubrick 2001 visual experience (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imbxqv_5TJU).
(http://i.imgur.com/cJa9mpI.png)

Good thing we put the command module in the back...
(http://i.imgur.com/oqBOPas.png)

Aerobrake complete and orbit achieved!  Their next stop:  Gilly, so that Mission Control may finally find out what the hell a Gilly is.
(http://i.imgur.com/O02B7ue.png)

This is your Kerbal mission coverage team, signing off.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Mongoose on March 23, 2013, 01:17:37 am
In case anyone hadn't heard, KSP was one of several games added to Steam's new Early Access program, which allows people to buy titles that are available to the public while still undergoing active development.  I've been meaning to try this out for a while, and now that it's on the service, I might finally get around to doing so.  Of course they've come up with a suitably-Kerbin trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yXud6tjWSc0), too. :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on March 23, 2013, 09:16:29 am
there's no way you made that without mechjeb

Way. Some of us did some pretty damn complex stuff without ever having the thing installed :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on March 23, 2013, 09:27:59 am
i only really use it to move assets into space while im watching tv. it frees up time that i need to yell at the voices in my head, which my ksp has been seriously cutting into as of late.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on March 23, 2013, 10:00:54 am
MechJeb elitists are probably the most annoying element of this game's community.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: TwentyPercentCooler on March 23, 2013, 05:04:11 pm
MechJeb elitists are probably the most annoying element of this game's community.

Yeah, it's almost like real astronauts don't have these fancy, newfangled things called computers to help them with calculations and to autopilot when the time is appropriate! Don't those computer things take up a whole room or something? BAH!

Edit: just to clarify, I'm agreeing with you.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on March 23, 2013, 06:04:44 pm
I literally do not give a **** as to how anyone else likes to play a game, and I do not understand why other people apparently do.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on March 23, 2013, 07:39:29 pm
I literally do not give a **** as to how anyone else likes to play a game, and I do not understand why other people apparently do.

I believe it relates to "ugg, me better than you"
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: FlamingCobra on March 23, 2013, 08:38:21 pm
I'm guessing you built it piece by piece instead of launching it all at once?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on March 24, 2013, 12:37:30 am
I'm guessing you built it piece by piece instead of launching it all at once?

No, I did it all at once.  I don't think it's that difficult to do for something of this size (it's mostly solar arrays, anyway.)  Anything much bigger would be pretty hairy to launch though.

This the later version of the station, which I sent to Eve, but it's basically the exact same thing as the original, which I still have in a high orbit around Kerbin.

(http://i.imgur.com/99UbOjJ.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/DqlkvYg.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/q9HPM3w.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/AAW8BMf.png)

The orange tanks get it well above the atmosphere, then the last liquid tanks bring it almost into orbit.  In fact they would put it in orbit if I allowed it.  Instead I put it in a very elliptical trajectory with periapsis just below the surface -- that way I can ditch the tanks without cluttering the orbital space, then use the xenon/RCS to bring periapsis above the atmosphere.  Finally a little liquid-powered tugship docks with it, shoves it into the final circular orbit, and tops off the xenon tanks.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: newman on March 29, 2013, 08:09:54 am
MechJeb elitists are probably the most annoying element of this game's community.

No, people who keep suggesting the same things over and over in the development board take that title :)

Also, if that was a jab at me, Mamba's comment suggested there are some things in the game you can't do without mechjeb, which is patently wrong; I've launched some pretty big monstrosities, and done manned return missions to pretty much everywhere including Eve without using mechjeb. That's not "uhh me better than you" - that's just a simple statement that you can do it with vanilla.

Should you do it with or without mechjeb? Up to you, who cares? It's how you play a computer game, not exactly life changing stuff - so if someone gets his feathers ruffled by that it's just a sign that someone has some growing up to do. The reason I never bothered with mechjeb is that I started with KSP fairly early (since before we had the Mun) and version after version I kind of stopped bothering with mods that'd need to get updated before you can use them with the new releases, and the vanilla game got a lot of new parts and features so my need of additional mods diminished. Once I figured out mechjeb even existed I could already do pretty much anything with vanilla so I haven't bothered. As someone who's spent some serious time with this game I can say you can, if you so choose, do pretty much anything without mods, without getting into "should you" or "shouldn't you". If someone's fragile ego translates that as "that guy is an annoying elitist", well tough **** :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on March 29, 2013, 12:49:45 pm
^ Well said. 

Nobody that I have seen here has suggested that there is a right way or a wrong way to play, or that people who play vanilla are somehow superior to those who use a flight-assisting tool.  Whether or not you should use one is a matter of personal preference and it is extremely silly for anyone to to get huffy about it.  (This reminds me of a similar and very dumb argument a while back on the minecraft thread regarding creative vs survival play-styles.)

As for myself I just never even got around to trying mechjeb.  There was never a scenario where I thought it was necessary to use, and honestly I just prefer doing everything myself, anyway.  (I am tempted to use it to do those long-ass ion-drive burns automatically, but eh.  I can just point the ship in the right direction, activate S.A.S if I have it, estimate the time it takes to do the burn, then open throttle and enjoy a beer.  If the ship is balanced well, there's no problem.)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on March 29, 2013, 04:14:24 pm
I only used MechJeb occasionally, mostly on craft which literally couldn't fly without it (early versions of BobCat's Buran come to mind). Even then, I only let it do ascent and menial things such as orientation. I have poor experiences with letting it do more complex things, so I do everything important manually. Data displays are nice though.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on March 30, 2013, 09:16:17 am
i work with either lazors or mechjeb, depending if i'm working on spaceplanes or rockets.

also, i'll be dropping this here and laugh with glee :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1s67QxUaIM
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on March 30, 2013, 09:33:09 am
While I do use MechJeb from time to time (and even then, mostly for data and simple things), Lazors are too much for me. I only use the docking cam and robotic arms from the set. IMHO, Lazor system is a magical autopilot which is only one step below using Hyperedit to just put a ship right into orbit, plus a set of other, physics-defying features.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 30, 2013, 09:51:04 am
only one step below

Everyone who ever used god mode was GAMING WRONG and SHOULD BE PUNISHED.

Kind of like everyone whoever played and enjoyed Rifts on the tabletop was having BADWRONGFUN.

Seriously people, in a single-player there is no cheating unless you deny using something to achieve the desired result.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on March 30, 2013, 10:16:19 am
and there we go straight down into elitism. "magical autopilot" yadda yadda. for those of us who cant fly for **** its a godsend. i prefer building wacky contraptions and seeing how/where will they fall apart first and not having to wrestle with the stocks control scheme and doing the WSADQE dance constantly helps. otherwise i'd have given up on this game ages ago.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on March 30, 2013, 10:44:10 am
Kind of like everyone whoever played and enjoyed Rifts on the tabletop was having BADWRONGFUN.

Do you...even Rift, bro?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 30, 2013, 10:48:24 am
Do you...even Rift, bro?

Only with pencil and paper. GLITTERBOYS FOREVER
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MarkN on March 30, 2013, 03:09:49 pm
MechJeb is not just an autopilot. In fact the autolaunch system is very poor (the MechJeb SASS is poor at controlling large rockets).
My main use of it is as a HUD. While there are other HUD systems around that do not include the other features, there are two very important statistics that they do not seem to provide:
1) point of closest approach. This is not necessarily the intercept point seen in the map mode, but an actual point of closest approach eaven if you are not intersecting the orbit. Importantly, for the late stages of rendezvous, MechJeb shows this more accurately the the 0.1km scale used in map mode
2) the reentry simulator. this will predict the re-entry path of a spacecraft, giving it's final orbit for a aerobrake maneouvre or how close to a target landing site it will be. Of course you can use the landing autopilot, but if you try to use that with a craft that has parachutes it will undershoot by several kilometres.

There are two other features that are in MEchJeb that should be in stock, just in a less automated way (The Lazor system get both of these right, and as Romfarer, who developed the lazor system, is now a developer, these are likely to be possible with stock in future)

1) deorbit burn for a specific location on an airless world. This is easy enough if you already have something there so if, for example I want to land at a Kethane deposit (or an arch that someone has told be the coordinates of), I cannot tell where that it using stock currently. With Mechjeb you have to use the autoland system with it's particular weaknesses. With the Lazor system you can place a marker in map mode, and try to aim for that.
2) alignment of docking ports. MechJebs SASS sets the angle to exactly aligned, but has a weakness of forcing a particular rotation. The Lazor system has both a SAS option to align parallel which allows for rotation, and also has the docking camera which allows for this type of docking to be carried out manually.

On the other hand I like the idea of an automatic control for launch, as launches of identical craft get boring after a while. After all you have to remember that this is the Kerbal Space Program, not the Kerbal Launch Program.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on March 30, 2013, 07:18:01 pm
Autolaunch system is indeed nice, and Lazor system has a few useful options, but stuff like antigravity, remote resource transfer, teleportation or greatly unbalanced SAS systems is a bit too much.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on April 01, 2013, 01:02:23 pm
Oh my ****ing god... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNuapHF8LTA)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on April 02, 2013, 01:51:27 am
Oh my ****ing god... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNuapHF8LTA)

That was incredible...

And in other news: I keep forgetting to put batteries and panels on my ships, so they get stuck dead in orbit, or if I do remember panels, dead when behind Kerbin.

But, I finally have a decent number of support vessels built and deployed: Land, sea, and space Kerbal rescue busses, an orbiting fueling hub, and a purpose-build space trash/derelict collector.
I have plans already for a surface-to-orbit shuttle so my bus doesn't have to land every time, and a generic refueling tanker.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: adratgg on April 02, 2013, 08:22:44 am
I'm guessing you built it piece by piece instead of launching it all at once?

No, I did it all at once.  I don't think it's that difficult to do for something of this size (it's mostly solar arrays, anyway.)  Anything much bigger would be pretty hairy to launch though.

This the later version of the station, which I sent to Eve, but it's basically the exact same thing as the original, which I still have in a high orbit around Kerbin.

(http://i.imgur.com/99UbOjJ.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/DqlkvYg.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/q9HPM3w.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/AAW8BMf.png)

The orange tanks get it well above the atmosphere, then the last liquid tanks bring it almost into orbit.  In fact they would put it in orbit if I allowed it.  Instead I put it in a very elliptical trajectory with periapsis just below the surface -- that way I can ditch the tanks without cluttering the orbital space, then use the xenon/RCS to bring periapsis above the atmosphere.  Finally a little liquid-powered tugship docks with it, shoves it into the final circular orbit, and tops off the xenon tanks.

....You might wanna put some nose cones on those rockets. give that nose a cone. noses love cones.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on April 02, 2013, 03:20:01 pm
Nosecones are worse than useless in their present state. All they do is increase your rocket's mass and drag.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on April 02, 2013, 03:48:51 pm
Unless you install the Ferram Aerospace Research mod.

Which is awesome...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on April 02, 2013, 05:14:35 pm
You can also edit them so their drag value is negative, but that is almost certainly going to result in some insane corner case where sticking a load of them onto a command pod results in a re-enactment of the first episode of Farscape.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on April 03, 2013, 02:55:01 am
You can also edit them so their drag value is negative, but that is almost certainly going to result in some insane corner case where sticking a load of them onto a command pod results in a re-enactment of the first episode of Farscape.
if this forum had a like button, i would be bashing it so hard right now.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on April 08, 2013, 09:58:40 am
After several days of construction and testing, the Tentative Name is finally assembled in LKO, waiting to be crewed and to begin its mission to Jool: (http://ompldr.org/vaTEzMQ/screenshot40.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on April 08, 2013, 12:43:00 pm
that design gives me some ideas.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on April 08, 2013, 04:15:42 pm
Cool design. :)
And so many docking ports!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on April 08, 2013, 05:04:57 pm
One problem: the length, mass and part count all add up to something that can only be controlled in slideshow mode. Fortunately MechJeb seems to be able to handle it fairly well, although the length of it and the flexibility of all those ad-hoc dockpoints makes for a fairly hair-raising sway during burns.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: FlamingCobra on April 10, 2013, 10:00:43 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/4NCbjWH.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nohiki on April 11, 2013, 03:20:10 am
Does the reentry heat do anything but flames? I just slammed a ship on the atmosphere at 15 km/s and nothing happened to it :(
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on April 11, 2013, 04:44:23 am
In stock game, no, they don't do anything apart from being pretty lights.

However, with the Deadly Re-entry mod...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on April 11, 2013, 11:39:30 pm
Whelp!  I have built a rover and successfully landed it on Duna, skycrane style!  :D

The launch vehicle, with a totally inconspicuous rover perched on top.
(http://i.imgur.com/r36jOZI.jpg)

(I put nosecones on it just for you, adratgg)   :p

Closeup of the rover with its half-ass-designed protective shroud.  Lousy for government work, but good enough to be Kerbal!
(http://i.imgur.com/FoMZZuY.jpg)

Coming in over Duna.  I didn't go straight to landing, but rather aerocaptured first so I could select a nice day-side landing site on the following orbit.
(http://i.imgur.com/b6u22lt.png)

Landing site selected.  Ditching the main engine before atmospheric entry.
(http://i.imgur.com/4MN6LQx.png)

Most of the way down, now!  Ejecting the shroud.
(http://i.imgur.com/fZ5nNc4.jpg)

Deploying parachute.
(http://i.imgur.com/WjTCz0e.jpg)

What follows next are several moments of terror, but unlike the Curiosity lander, this descent is not automatic...  As it required my full attention, I have no screenshots of this process.

At an altitude of a little over a kilometer, the entry vehicle is still moving at about 200 meters per second at a very shallow angle.  The parachute, now mostly useless, is ejected.  The skycrane engines activate and slow the craft down to a hover just meters above the ground, then separates.  The rover plops down, while the skycrane shoots off into the distance.  It flew so far I didn't even see where it crashed. :(

A long journey, with long periods of boredom punctuated by short periods of sheer terror, is finally complete.
(http://i.imgur.com/Oz3cY7f.png)

Oh hey, there's the parachute.
(http://i.imgur.com/Mg90Zgm.png)

Meanwhile, on Gilly:
(http://i.imgur.com/CS5P1IN.gif)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on April 15, 2013, 09:29:53 am
(http://ompldr.org/vaTNyOQ/screenshot75.png)

Well, after realising the Tentative Name was much too short on fuel for its original mission brief I managed to rearrange enough fuel and modules to send Jeb and Luden on a one-way trip to Vall and Tylo and send everyone else packing. I hope they can amuse themselves while I think about sending a rescue mission.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on April 15, 2013, 10:42:44 am
What is this, some sort of super secret offworld Kerbal mind transference device!?  What are you doing to those poor guys!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on April 15, 2013, 10:48:50 am
The lights are there because during field testing on Kerbin the little buggers kept sliding up the ladders and falling off, so I had to keep them in place somehow. They can't really illuminate much, the rover needs loads of sunlight to operate.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on April 15, 2013, 12:20:51 pm
(http://ompldr.org/vaTN2ZQ/screenshot76.png)

PICTURED: COMPLETE BULL****
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on April 15, 2013, 10:57:02 pm
Gotta live KSP physics. :P
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on April 15, 2013, 11:59:24 pm
Code: [Select]
if(!thing.Exploded)
 thing:explode();
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BengalTiger on April 25, 2013, 07:34:07 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inkkLAfFIbY
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Pred the Penguin on April 25, 2013, 07:59:43 am
I believe this has already been posted in this thread, but still damn cool.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on April 25, 2013, 08:05:53 am
Heh units and general feel of the vid reminds me of Total Annihilation.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: BengalTiger on April 25, 2013, 08:29:37 am
I believe this has already been posted in this thread, but still damn cool.
The post count in this thread is too damn high...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on April 25, 2013, 11:16:04 am
I believe this has already been posted in this thread, but still damn cool.
The post count in this thread is too damn high...

dont look at whiylf
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on April 25, 2013, 11:28:45 am
I believe this has already been posted in this thread, but still damn cool.

I like the responses: Kerbal Starfighter.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Enzo03 on April 26, 2013, 06:49:11 pm
Screenies of a couple of shuttles at varying degrees of development at varying degrees of graphical quality:
(http://i.imgur.com/jOJq0VS.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/cTeWu8W.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/1CzDk3F.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/8MP6jek.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/tqUZR3E.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/uihYSKb.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/B5AXLv2.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/tnaFa22.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/nxQixHN.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/EJU7dIY.png)






And:
(http://i.imgur.com/r3ZHBQd.png)
Imgur apparently turned some of my images into jpg.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ace on April 27, 2013, 02:46:28 pm
My asparagus super-heavy super lifter.

[attachment deleted by ninja]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ace on April 27, 2013, 02:50:43 pm
The asparagus super heavy super lifter(tm) gets a ship to escape velocity before even having to use the main nuclear engines.

Here is it after starting an aerobrake maneuver for rover deployment on Eve.

[attachment deleted by ninja]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Enzo03 on April 28, 2013, 04:01:41 pm
I need to do asparagus staging on a lifter I've made.  So far it's just all-engines-balls-to-the-wall-but-use-your-own-tank.  It also tends to blow up spectacularly.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on April 28, 2013, 04:10:57 pm
I've recently tried building spaceplanes. Do you have any advice on how not to make them yaw and fall off the runway before takeoff? I've been having that problem since making planes became possible.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on April 28, 2013, 07:41:38 pm
move rudder for great straightness
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on April 29, 2013, 02:33:18 am
I've recently tried building spaceplanes. Do you have any advice on how not to make them yaw and fall off the runway before takeoff? I've been having that problem since making planes became possible.
4 wheels help with that and twitch adjustments also help.

also, your takeoff speed should be between 65-110 m/s
if you arent taking off in that bracket, something is off, either not enough lift, you being too conservative with take-offs or an iffy design.

also, i'd like to point out that romfarer's lazor system is a beautiful complement for plane control. you can have autopilot of sorts, but i prefer using just its "dampen input" option sometimes as well. basically, just uncheck the boxes near roll, pitch, yaw, leave dampen input on and enjoy the smoothness of the flight.

also, if you think its cheating, well, you know where you can stuff that sentiment and we shall not discuss it any further.


also, as a side-note, i'm talking about just general kerbin-bound spaceplanes, havent managed to get one to orbit yet, due to lack of interest, to make it a proper SPACEplane :p
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on April 29, 2013, 04:41:41 am
also, if you think its cheating, well, you know where you can stuff that sentiment and we shall not discuss it any further.
Regardless of what I think of the lazors, I can't really use them. I'm using FAR and I don't think those two are really compatible. Fortunately, FAR has it's own input dampening functions.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on April 29, 2013, 01:55:54 pm
i dont see why they should conflict. (unless you try to use them at the same time, but meh)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on April 29, 2013, 02:06:49 pm
Another reason: Lazors is, frankly, a bloated mess. I mean really, a single mod which combines about 5 completely disparate sets of functions, all implemented in a way that doesn't make the slightest effort to integrate them with the game's universe?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on April 29, 2013, 02:57:04 pm
i dont care much, i use the plane function and the blue lazors for the locations/navigation.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on April 29, 2013, 03:31:34 pm
i dont see why they should conflict. (unless you try to use them at the same time, but meh)
MechJeb had problems with FAR due to altered flight physics. In FAR, control surfaces take a short while to move, for which most autopilots don't account for. It's own damping features should be fine though.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ace on April 29, 2013, 09:40:41 pm
I need to do asparagus staging on a lifter I've made.  So far it's just all-engines-balls-to-the-wall-but-use-your-own-tank.  It also tends to blow up spectacularly.

When people talk about how efficient it is... it's an understatement. With that super lifter setup I've gotten entire large space stations into orbit with one go and still had three full 3m tanks to spare.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on April 30, 2013, 08:14:43 am
How do I do fuel transfers?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on April 30, 2013, 10:51:16 am
ALT+Right click (or left, can't remember) on two tanks you want to transfer between.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on April 30, 2013, 12:39:18 pm
right shift+right click on linux
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Enzo03 on April 30, 2013, 12:52:53 pm
I've recently tried building spaceplanes. Do you have any advice on how not to make them yaw and fall off the runway before takeoff? I've been having that problem since making planes became possible.
Although 4 wheels was mentioned previously, my second shuttle design, which doubles as a plane, uses only three wheels.  I also stuck on an avionics package on it.  What I do is I turn the avionics package on before takeoff and simply hold S and it takes off perfectly.  It tends to take off best from 70ms~110ms from my experience.  Too fast and it has the exact problem that you have, where it veers off to the side and crashes spectacularly.

However, there are other designs I've made which do the same thing (crash) before reaching a good takeoff speed.  I think this often happened when I didn't have some sort of vertical stabilizer.

By the way, the only mods I use are things such as the should-be-a-feature Subassembly Saver/Loader Plugin (http://kerbalspaceport.com/subassembly-saver-loader/) and the Kerbal LifeFeed Passive Multiplayer Plugin (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24926-0-19-Kerbal-LiveFeed-Passive-Multiplayer-Plugin-Client-Server-v0-6-1?highlight=Multiplayer), which don't affect actual simulation.  Though I've been thinking of getting Mechjeb to observe and learn how to rendezvous.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ace on May 22, 2013, 10:41:41 pm
Well v0.20 just came out.

Needless to say, someone violated the Prime Directive, and Benedict Cumberbatch isn't the only person who can crash a spaceship into a planet!

[attachment deleted by ninja]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ace on May 28, 2013, 12:03:37 am
So the Greatest. Thing. Ever. has just been released for KSP, the Orion nuclear pulse propulsion drive.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/28428-Orion-aka-Ol-Boom-boom

This follows Freeman Dyson's rough specs. A single Orion stage can get into orbit with most of its playload intact (450/600 nuclear bombs) while lifting a comfy counter-rotating space-station sized ship with a lander and 12 docked rover probes.

It's also fitted with 24 NERVA engines for fine movement and they can take over as main engines.

[attachment deleted by ninja]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on May 28, 2013, 12:30:00 am
Well that just takes all the fun out of it, doesn't it?

Seriously though,  :jaw:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ace on May 28, 2013, 03:27:50 am
I adjusted the design to put four of the heavy landers on the spine under the solar array leaving the forward docking point free. It's actually even more stable now since the center of mass is more distributed. It also totals 350 tons.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on May 30, 2013, 03:38:22 pm
updated my ksp mod

http://kerbalspaceport.com/half-meter-parts-and-other-useless-crap-r4-2/
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Turey on July 12, 2013, 07:30:39 pm
Well, after 319 days, not counting build time in LKO, my refueling station is finally at home above Laythe.
(http://i40.tinypic.com/ixwj8x.png)
114 tons at this point, currently at 5361/8640 Liquid Fuel, and 638/2670 Mono Propellant. Should be able to fuel my Laythe explorations for a long time. It started the journey with four fuel pods instead of the three you see on there now, but I dropped the last one halfway through my interplanetary transfer burn for better dV.
(http://i43.tinypic.com/51vbc6.png)
Docked up with my interplanetary TIE Fighter-esque three-Kerbal shuttle. Next is to bring over a planetary lander and some ground facilities.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: carbine7 on July 14, 2013, 07:29:18 pm
Well ain't that the mother of all fuel tankers? Consider me impressed.

I was going to get started on a major colonization project around Bop, but since saves will be broken with the update I don't see much point right now.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 29, 2013, 08:07:00 am
heres my joolship:

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot2_zpsa5b1c608.png) (http://s213.photobucket.com/user/Emperor_of_Nihil/media/screenshot2_zpsa5b1c608.png.html)

z spin for gravities

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot6_zpsac893934.png) (http://s213.photobucket.com/user/Emperor_of_Nihil/media/screenshot6_zpsac893934.png.html)

****ton of fuel. 4 man lander/rover on the front of the thing. ship weighs in at 693 tonnes. 918 parts, all stock, lags the game a lot. launched in 7 sections (3 fuel, 1 drive, 1 rcs, 1 habitat ring, and the lander) going to lathe, be back soon. oh and jeb is the captain.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 29, 2013, 08:38:10 am
Get this stuff on YouTube already!!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 29, 2013, 09:06:22 am
kerbals stick to the inner ring but they cant stand up and walk around. im also not certain my lander will be lathe friendly, as it only has 1 nuke engine. i also think i neglected to put any kind of power source on the ship. the lander had a couple small panels on it but thats all. the ship has way way too much rcs fuel. im trying to come up with a completely modular system, with the same spacing. so its just launch -> connect -> go. it kinda works so far, but i have had some problems with the build order. im starting to wish id put the ring in back so i could jettison empty fuel sections, but i derped in that reguard. its also going to take some complex fuel management because i think i put one of the fuel pods in backwards and its causing fuel to loop back over to one of the engine clusters. i wonder if i can join ring sections and build kerbylon 5, but the lag would be horrible. this new version makes these laggy ships much more tolerable though.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on July 29, 2013, 11:24:53 am
1 Nerva probably doesn't have the TWR to lift itself of Laythe, although you can generally land there with any reasonably tough lander and some sacrificial lithobraking.

Also 0.21.1 is possibly the best update since 0.17.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: carbine7 on July 29, 2013, 09:42:24 pm
Very Sword-of-the-Stars-like design there Nuke, awesome. Reminds me, I can get to my previously mentioned project now.... :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 30, 2013, 02:55:33 am
definitely going to be building a better designed mk2 version. il probibly keep the fuel segment, redo the propulsion segment, ditch the rcs segment and improve the ring segment, and build a better lander, and then build it engine -> ring -> fuel so i can jettison fuel segments as needed. gonna take what i have out and see what it can do, and that will give me a better idea of what needs to be done.

e:
needless to say it broke up shortly after reaching kerbin escape velocity. first the engines broke off. ripped all four quad couplers right off. right on the one module i didnt need, the rcs pod. i decided early on i would jettison it with the first fuel pod, but it didnt even make it that far. sent jeb out to disconnect the broken rcs segment from the engines so i could attempt a re-docking with the engine cluster. failing that i figured id have to toss the fuel too. in an attempt to save fuel jeb started transfering fuel from the pod to the engines, unfortunately the engine was on and the thing commenced to spinning and promptly disintegrated into a cloud of debris. fortunately i still had the lander engine. unfortunately when i tried to return to kerbin orbit i ran into said debris, and it somehow managed to disconnect my rover from the ship in a way that was not subject to the possibility of repair. but the lander was still intact so jeb and 4 of the 9 crew decided to detour for minmus instead, and are now doing donuts in the rover. the remaining 5 kerbonauts are stuck on whats left of the ring, they may not have propulsion, or electricity, but they have gravity (and plenty of fuel).

one thing i noticed is that i need to put on a pod core or a seat so i can control bits as they fall off, to prevent making things worse. i also redesigned the ring, adding more hitchiker modules, and also merging it with the engine cluster. unfortunately i was too pissed off to hit f1 a bunch of times, hopefully i can post pics of the rescue mission.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 31, 2013, 03:38:19 am
new version puts everything that is a ship on the ring segment. so you only need to add fuel pods and possibly extra rcs tanks if desired. more space for kerbals, and i threw in some cockpits so i didnt have to clime ladders to get to the command pod at the hub. i wanted to use the cupolas but couldn't get it to work right, and they are also really heavy. im convinced the ring by itself can make it to duna or eve, and i figure each fuel pod you add extends you out to the next orbit.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot7_zps2d820be3.png) (http://s213.photobucket.com/user/Emperor_of_Nihil/media/screenshot7_zps2d820be3.png.html)
here i am siphoning fuel off of the damaged fuel pods. i didnt use it all, and since i ejected my forward rcs pods i decided i didnt want to take it with me.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot10_zps638119b0.png) (http://s213.photobucket.com/user/Emperor_of_Nihil/media/screenshot10_zps638119b0.png.html)
i used a lot of rcs fuel to manuver the ship, since the new version has fewer gyros. i may rectify that eventually, but for now i can just refuel from the old ring.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot11_zps30c651fd.png) (http://s213.photobucket.com/user/Emperor_of_Nihil/media/screenshot11_zps30c651fd.png.html)
it was also loaded with fuel and a lot of rcs tankage. 4 tanks turned out to be enough if you are not doing a lot of docking, i only used about a third of it. but i decided i wanted to minimize my refueling process at kerbin
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot12_zpsa53e84ac.png) (http://s213.photobucket.com/user/Emperor_of_Nihil/media/screenshot12_zpsa53e84ac.png.html)
nother shot of the ring-ring docking. i figure the rest of this may be useful on future missions so i just leave it foating somewhere between duna and kerbin. i return the crew to kerbin space where i will pick up jeb from minmus, refuel, equip, and try again. seems it all comes down to the large docking ports being a load of suck. with shoddy tensile strength. they dont seem to like to multidock like the smaller ports do. i seriously considering using smaler ones, the would at least be somewhat easier to align.

all in all the new version worked a lot better. fixed the power issues with rtgs, i can just leave the lights on now. i put seats and solar panels on the fuel pods to make them controllable if bad things happen. im considering swapping the shileded side ports with non shielded ones, and then equip manuvering pods to them to minimize stress on the joints. i need to add more gyros though, the ship has no turning power.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: crizza on July 31, 2013, 08:42:47 am
I don't even pretend to know how you all build these impressive rockets, mine are all Saturn V things^^
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 31, 2013, 06:16:10 pm
well this is what the ring looks like on the pad.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot17_zps46210990.png) (http://s213.photobucket.com/user/Emperor_of_Nihil/media/screenshot17_zps46210990.png.html)
takes 12 large tanks and 8 mainsails to just get it part of the way to orbit. at about 2000m i also light the 12 nervas, where their isp > 400. just before the tanks run out i jettison them and they shoot off the ship because they have more twr than the nervas. i then turn under it to avoid collision. the nervas are still somewhat slow so i need to aim for a high appogee and then spend a long time burning the nervas at 45 degrees just to buy me time to complete the orbit. the ring tanks are almost completely drained in orbit, which is why i need to dock up at least one fuel pod if i want to go interplanetary.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: carbine7 on July 31, 2013, 09:09:04 pm
Yes, launching large scale constructions, whether they be stations or deep space vessels, is something of an art. By art, I mean something more along the lines of "finally discovering how to shove a whale into space and just barely make orbit". Coincidentally may or may not have anything to do with the axiom of "Add More Boosters!"
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on July 31, 2013, 11:49:27 pm
i only ever use srbs if i have a slow initial climb. i then use them as a means to add acceleration while i wait for the tanks to drain enough to be somewhat more effective. though sometimes i will add lf tanks to the tops of the boosters for a little bit extra fuel capacity.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on August 22, 2013, 07:26:41 am
Manouver nodes mastery +1 exp.


(http://ribbons.cgagnier.ca/image.php?ribbon=11064) (http://"http://ribbons.cgagnier.ca/redir.php")
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: pecenipicek on August 22, 2013, 02:38:17 pm
Manouver nodes mastery +1 exp.


(http://ribbons.cgagnier.ca/image.php?ribbon=11064) (http://"http://ribbons.cgagnier.ca/redir.php")
could you please not use those atrocities? there's enough e-peen competitions everywhere around already.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on August 23, 2013, 03:43:12 am
I earned it :p

Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on October 20, 2013, 04:41:47 am
I made a trip to the Mun with 0.22 Sandbox, using the rendezvous mission profile for the first time. All my previous missions to Mun had been direct ascent profiles, with no separate lander and orbiter vehicles.

Pictured below is the lander design I used, sitting on the surface of Mun with a proud Kerbal being photographed by the other crewman.

(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/9333/hqzt.png)


Incidentally I performed my first docking in space during this mission as well.

Aside from the several unplanned flips during which the pointy end of my rocket pointed towards ground and the end where fire comes out pointed to the sky, and I thought we wouldn't go to space today, everything went well. The following doesn't count:

-Landed with hardly any fuel to spare, and with way over-spec horizontal velocity, skipped a few times and skid to a halt

-had a mishap during stay on surface where accidentally docking mode engaged and, having mapped throttle to a different axis than normally, the engine ignited, skipping the lander up and when I landed it, it fell over to side - but I managed to right it with RCS and nothing was broken

-ascent module of the lander had disconnected fuel lines (missing symmetry) and I only noticed this when engines cut out in sub-orbital trajectory over Mun and I had to manually transfer fuel from one tank to another so that the engine could feed from it

-planning for the rendezvous with the command module, the MechJeb was no help since it apparently thought that I should orbit prograde when in fact the command module was orbiting retrograde due to the way I arrived to Mun (I accidentally the most perfect free return trajectory ever)


...But other than that everything went just as planned! Except the landing to Kerbin, which fell quite a bit short of MechJeb's prediction after jettisoning the service module... which means I need to install some sort of RCS for the command module so I can control my descent AFTER detaching the command module.


Here is a picture from the rendezvous with the Munar Excursion Module and separation from Stage III of my launch vehicle:

(http://imageshack.us/a/img545/47/mjje.png)

...And here is a picture of said launch vehicle during its development:

(http://imageshack.us/a/img855/458/b3bf.png)

Space was not gotten to that day.


Oh by the way I made/re-made a cloudy Kerbin texture, in which the clouds have shadows if they are north or south of the equator (at equator, the sun shines from straight up at noon so I couldn't make shadows for them, and I didn't want to make sideways shadows when the light comes in odd angle - but at polar regions, it works out quite well):

(http://imageshack.us/a/img202/51/xd93.png)

The ship in this picture is one of my early unmanned Science Probes that I was using to harvest science in the campaign mode.


I planned to transfer the video from Twitch to Youtube, but turns out Twitch no longer automatically archives streams and the video is now lost to the bit space. But I hope to do more stuff with this launch vehicle, command module and lander.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: ShivanSpS on October 26, 2013, 04:05:32 pm
Good enoght? lol

(http://i.imgur.com/8syvhi0.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Mongoose on October 26, 2013, 04:21:14 pm
Any landing you walk away from. :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on October 26, 2013, 04:44:01 pm
just roll it up a hill and launch off the side.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: ShivanSpS on October 26, 2013, 09:27:21 pm

lol at least it ended on foot this time :P
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on October 27, 2013, 07:31:17 am
*Chhhzzzz* Eh, roger, we have a good approa-- *SPROIIING* *tumble* oh god oh geez oh crap oh god
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: ShivanSpS on October 27, 2013, 10:57:05 am
it was the legs, i changed them for bigger ones and it can land now, i also created a slightly bigger version that if done right, it can launch back to space and return to Kerbin, i tested it with the mun and i maded back with 0.8/245 of fuel lol
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: ShivanSpS on October 27, 2013, 09:47:37 pm
"put 4 wheels and its now a rover" lol
(http://i.imgur.com/2fnIlxK.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on October 29, 2013, 05:53:41 am
BEST MOD (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55657-0-22-Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement-v1-0-Properly-Rigid-Part-Connections)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Aardwolf on October 29, 2013, 02:17:33 pm
...And here is a picture of said launch vehicle during its development:

(http://imageshack.us/a/img855/458/b3bf.png)

Space was not gotten to that day.

Reminds me of Ridgedog's "The Wiggler" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsSlKsU7p6Q)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shivan Hunter on October 31, 2013, 06:22:21 pm
Mün landings fake! Pwoof...prof..proof! (http://i.imgur.com/looRY5v.gif)

it was a soundstage on Duna (http://xkcd.com/202/)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on November 02, 2013, 08:19:48 pm
(http://imageshack.us/a/img6/44/sroz.png)

Currently just a very high performance aircraft with jet engines only. I'll need to see if I can add suitable rockets and rocket fuel to make the engines into hybrids; to be honest, this should probably be played with some special fuel that imitates Tylium and gives the ship suitable fuel reserves to get into orbit and then some. But currently, I'm happy that it flies quite well. At high altitude there are some thrust imbalance problems - thrust vector is above centre of gravity at the moment, so that's a small issue.

moar pics below:

http://imgur.com/a/hl7Yb (http://imgur.com/a/hl7Yb)

Mod dependencies:

FAR, B9, Procedural Wings, Stretchy Tanks, Infernal Robotics (although I could make a version that doesn't use the robotics mod, it's just one part...)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on November 03, 2013, 07:40:09 am
I'm not quite sure how this thing can possibly fly, but it does.

(http://i.imgur.com/3vjsjs2h.png) (http://imgur.com/a/GFrgj)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on November 03, 2013, 07:46:12 am
And with FAR! :) That's something. It seems that the old "if it looks good, it'll fly good" adage holds true for KSP. And Steve-O's ships are very good looking. :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Ace on November 05, 2013, 02:54:08 am

Currently just a very high performance aircraft with jet engines only. I'll need to see if I can add suitable rockets and rocket fuel to make the engines into hybrids; to be honest, this should probably be played with some special fuel that imitates Tylium and gives the ship suitable fuel reserves to get into orbit and then some. But currently, I'm happy that it flies quite well. At high altitude there are some thrust imbalance problems - thrust vector is above centre of gravity at the moment, so that's a small issue.



moar pics below:

http://imgur.com/a/hl7Yb (http://imgur.com/a/hl7Yb)

Mod dependencies:

FAR, B9, Procedural Wings, Stretchy Tanks, Infernal Robotics (although I could make a version that doesn't use the robotics mod, it's just one part...)

I'm really surprised that a Viper would fly and be somewhat stable.

It'd be fun to have a wing of those docked to an Orion battleship...

(http://i.imgur.com/gymYyN8.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/AP9RPi2.png)

Speaking of which, the above is Mr. Gamebreaker- fitted with an Orion engine and two Albucierre drives for relativistic travel (not doing FTL with this, the kraken eats you).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: ShivanSpS on November 05, 2013, 10:26:46 am

finally :P
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on November 05, 2013, 12:10:20 pm
Has anyone else used the spaceplane hangar as a substitute for wind tunnel?

(http://imageshack.us/a/img856/3668/ruz.gif)

It's not perfect but it gives some idea of how the relative positions of CoG and CoP change with angle of attack. For example on this image you can notice there is a stable region within a limited angle of attack, but as the angle of attack gets higher either on positive or negative direction, the plane becomes unstable.

The FAR mod offers some actual tools to analyze the behaviour of the plane, but you need to actually understand what you're looking at. This, on the other hand, is a pretty easily understandable visualization on your aircraft's expected behaviour at different angles of attack. It probably isn't entirely reliable and shouldn't be used as a substitute for flight testing - but it might give you an idea of what to expect.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shivan Hunter on November 09, 2013, 03:30:23 pm
well, **** (http://i.imgur.com/qzreIp8.png) (linked this in #bp while hlp was down)

happy ending: was able to right myself using RCS, had JUST enough fuel to get to my command module in munar orbit, and made it back to Kerbin orbit. Still need to rendezvous and dock with the kerbonational space station.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Patriot on November 09, 2013, 03:33:31 pm
Do you guys recommend any mods? I recently started fooling around with this again and was wondering :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on November 09, 2013, 03:53:09 pm
Do you guys recommend any mods? I recently started fooling around with this again and was wondering :)

BEST MOD (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55657-0-22-Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement-v1-0-Properly-Rigid-Part-Connections)

Other than that, I don't know mods.

Last night, I put a satellite into kerbosynchronous orbit, but ran out of fuel while returning my crew module. Than I ran out of RCS fuel trying to de-orbit.

Sent up a rescue capsule. Ran out of fuel during the orbit matching phase. Matched orbit using RCS alone, rescued stranded kerbonaut, de-orbited using RCS alone. (Foolishly) Jettisoned RCS fuel tank when periapsis was only 65k but apoapsis was still 250k. Spent a few hours aerobraking before orbit decayed enough to actually pull the capsule back to Kerbin.

Tired Kerbals received cake on the plane trip back to the space center.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shivan Hunter on November 09, 2013, 03:54:20 pm
I'm using Universe Replacer for graphics, but I'm waiting until I'm sufficiently bored with stock parts to add a bunch of new ones. Also from what I've heard, Deadly Reentry (heat actually damages parts) is good but hard.

[edit] I made a flag http://i.imgur.com/Aj0Afz5.png
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MarkN on November 10, 2013, 03:59:29 am
Some mods that I would recommend are:
Stretchy tanks (StretchySRB v5, has the latest version with additional testures): allows you to make fuel tanks of just the right size
modular fuel system: allows you to launch tanks with mixed fuels (standard fuels and monopropellant in the same tank, for instance). Has an extension that allows the use of additional fuel mixtures (LH2/LOX for high efficiency but huge tanks, for instance)
procedural fairings: builds fairings around your payload, making your rocket look great If you use these and stretchy tanks, look for Nathan Kell's procedural fairing textures, which include fairing textures that match)
B9: shuttle parts, including large wings and cargo bays big enough to take 2.5m payloads.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on November 10, 2013, 07:38:18 pm
I second those, you could throw in Procedural Wings, too. And for fans of historic missions, there's also BobCat's Soviet Pack, which I'm helping develop. :) Also, for real hardcore players, there's Real Solar System mod, which attempts to make KSP into essentially Orbiter with better graphics, ship construction and prettier map view. Thought rocket science on Kerbin was hard? Try doing it on Earth. :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shivan Hunter on November 11, 2013, 12:58:43 am
Does anyone here have experience with looking through the game data using Unity Assets Explorer? I've been trying to find the tiled ground textures so I could add more pixels to them, but firstly there's no consistent naming/packaging scheme, and secondly, UAE has issues exporting tex files to DDS. Some are fine, but some have errors like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/j3y5rfK.png)

(this wouldn't even open in GIMP: unexpected EOF).

If the issue is the tex->dds conversion, what other programs can convert/open tex files? If the issue is the extraction from .assets files, how can I extract them without errors?

[EDIT] looks like the issues only ever happen after about 342KB of file... so 512x512 images are fine but everything larger has those artifacts or doesn't open.

[EDIT THE SECOND] Oddly enough, the Unity editor can open these DDS files without issue. Why are xnview and GIMP choking on them? Is there another program that can read them (I don't see how to save an image from the Unity editor, since it just uses a copy in its own folder)?

[EDIT THE THIRD] nvm Compressionator can do it
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: MatthTheGeek on November 11, 2013, 01:52:28 am
Have you tried using nvdxt to convert them to something else ? You usually can't go wrong with nvdxt.

ninja'd
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shivan Hunter on November 11, 2013, 03:19:31 am
Well, I successfully replaced one using a custom Universe Replacer cfg file, but it swaps in the wrong one. The rocky texture on the mun is now a KSP logo, rather than the test texture I put in the cfg. **** it I'm going to bed
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Husker on November 17, 2013, 04:51:01 pm
Currently I'm running the demo, any tips for me to make a Munar lander that will return to Kerbin?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on November 17, 2013, 05:12:56 pm
Look on Scott Manleys YouTube channel. I think he's called astronogamer... He is.a KSP god. Lots of beginner guides etc.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Husker on November 17, 2013, 09:29:12 pm
Yeah, I've been watching as many videos of his I can find. But the demo seems to hate most of us. I can get to the mun but I would be unable to return so far. Or I can build a larger rocket, but be nearly unable to launch it. Orbit however, I can sell tickets based on how often I make it there.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: ShivanSpS on December 02, 2013, 05:52:50 pm
let me check what the demo has.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on December 02, 2013, 07:20:33 pm
There's the 'Toyota Corolla' lander:(http://imgur.com/h9rLPKB.jpg)

I couldn't find a design for an ascent stage but if you can get that into Munar orbit you should be fine.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Shivan Hunter on December 02, 2013, 09:00:16 pm
I assembled a thing in orbit and landed it on the mun

(http://i.imgur.com/PbaOO5J.jpg)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Husker on December 02, 2013, 11:38:10 pm
There's the 'Toyota Corolla' lander:(http://imgur.com/h9rLPKB.jpg)

I couldn't find a design for an ascent stage but if you can get that into Munar orbit you should be fine.
That's...actually the lander I've been trying to get to the mun. My problem is being unable to get the thing near the mun. I got a modified version there, but on landing approach, well, spaceship + ground - fuel = well I crashed at about 40 m/s.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: ShivanSpS on December 08, 2013, 08:40:42 pm
The concept its the same on the full version, launcher to get to orbit and 1800m/s before separating, a second stage engines to do the orbit transfer and absorb the brutal part of desaceleration when at 50000km from the Mun, them 180 liquid fuel for landing and you will need another 180 liquid fuel for launching, you can do that by either using a single 360 fuel tank or two 180 with 2 engines using 2 stages, one for landing another for launching. Landing and launching must be done with the 50P engine. And there can be no errors.

The full version allow this to be done in a much better way, because there are best suited fuel tanks for the task, and other engines.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 08, 2013, 09:01:24 pm
I'm still lolorbital because I'm not using MechJeb I'm terrible at math and seat-of-the-pantsing.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: ShivanSpS on December 08, 2013, 09:15:41 pm
This ship can get to the Mun and back on the demo.

(http://i.imgur.com/GCLtNZr.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/Dujc4bz.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/GnRc8kG.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/Dh3aIMw.png)

[attachment deleted by an evil time traveler]
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: StarSlayer on December 09, 2013, 10:47:41 am
(http://imageshack.us/a/img6/44/sroz.png)

Heh that actually looks pretty similar to the MK VI design I made back in the BTRL days.  :D
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on December 15, 2013, 12:21:56 am
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/12/12/kerbal-space-program-committed-to-multiplayer-career-and-sandbox-modes/

welp
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on December 15, 2013, 01:36:13 am
Exactly my feelings about the matter. What's with all the multiplayer these days? Honestly, I couldn't care less for that particular feature. It's already holding up some nice features in FSO (gun bank expansion, for instance), it'll probably do the same for KSP. There's a lot of backlash on the forums, though, so maybe they'll give it priority it deserves (i.e. rock bottom of the feature list).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on December 15, 2013, 04:20:55 am
Well, I'm not really surprised or disappointed. It's something I always thought SHOULD be in the game, as long as it doesn't negatively affect single player experience.

As long as they still add all the stuff for single player that they would have anyway - I don't mind longer development, or multiplayer being developed first and single player features afterwards. I have all the time in the world.

It does offer certain unique possibilities, though.

It would be great to be able to play with some friends in the same game, and a spectator mode would be absolute gold for live streaming for example.

Also, multiplayer makes it possible to do things like... say, keep a camera crew (another user) on ground at Kerbal Space Center, recording a launch to make even more awesome films. It will be possible to do fly-by camera angles, with chase planes.

As far as I understand, the multiplayer mod already makes these things possible, but I haven't had time to play KSP, much less make videos of it recently...
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 15, 2013, 06:36:15 pm
we need our own kmp server
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 15, 2013, 07:50:21 pm
What's with all the multiplayer these days?

...I could say so much here, but instead I'll merely point out that humans are explicitly social animals and this is a very dumb question in light of that.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Cobra on December 15, 2013, 08:00:10 pm
I can't seem to get my rockets very far until they explode in hilarious fashions. :(
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on December 16, 2013, 02:31:33 am
Add more stages, add more rockets, add more fuel!!
(parachute optional)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 16, 2013, 09:49:32 am
ive been banging my head on the desk trying to get my eve extraplanetary launchpads to not destroy the ships i build on them with their shoddy collision detection. the models in that mod are horrible. then theres also the issue of things i build falling through the ground. i mean i lost an entire vtol because it got eaten by the ground.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on December 16, 2013, 03:45:41 pm
0.23 is out tomorrow. Maybe that'll help.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Cobra on December 16, 2013, 04:42:55 pm
Add more stages, add more rockets, add more fuel!!
(parachute optional)

I must be retarded on creating stages, then, because I've had a few rockets have boosters fire, disengage, then converge on the top. >_>
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 16, 2013, 05:51:40 pm
0.23 is out tomorrow. Maybe that'll help.

doubtful, i will probibly need to wait a month for all the mods to be updated.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on December 16, 2013, 08:56:03 pm
I must be retarded on creating stages, then, because I've had a few rockets have boosters fire, disengage, then converge on the top. >_>

Ah, that means that your radial decouplers aren't strong enough for the job and/or your rocket is too heavy. Add struts connecting the boosters to the rocket body.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 17, 2013, 06:45:01 pm
space tape is your friend
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on December 20, 2013, 05:13:03 pm
0.23 is out tomorrow. Maybe that'll help.

doubtful, i will probibly need to wait a month for all the mods to be updated.

Sabre/Rapier engine will keep me busy for a month brah.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 20, 2013, 09:13:46 pm
i can get more payload with my kiloton booster designs. for those situations where you need to sink a nail, but only have a nuclear warhead.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on December 21, 2013, 02:43:41 am
I only play......vanilla :0
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 21, 2013, 04:05:50 am
i have made vanilla kiloton boosters. you could get around 150 metric tons to orbit with that (15% is the sweet spot for payload fraction). thats like an entire jool mission with landers and rovers.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 21, 2013, 04:10:37 pm
I just saw Jeb panic for the first time.

Amazingly, he survived.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 21, 2013, 05:39:23 pm
"Hmmm, the rocket isn't launching.  I'm pushing the big red launch button, why isn't it working?  If it's not going to launch I will not be going to space today..."  *panics*
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 21, 2013, 06:23:05 pm
"Hmmm, the rocket isn't launching.  I'm pushing the big red launch button, why isn't it working?  If it's not going to launch I will not be going to space today..."  *panics*

Actually...

This is what the landing looked like when it was done. (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=206350788)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: headdie on December 22, 2013, 06:29:34 am
"Hmmm, the rocket isn't launching.  I'm pushing the big red launch button, why isn't it working?  If it's not going to launch I will not be going to space today..."  *panics*

how heavy is your rocket, also if you are using liquid fuel whats your throttle setting?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 22, 2013, 06:54:00 pm
you probibly forgot to put your launch clamps in the first stage.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: watsisname on December 23, 2013, 07:18:23 pm
Pimpin'

(http://i.imgur.com/L8ixsxI.gif)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on December 23, 2013, 07:50:26 pm
rule 34 attacks again.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Mikes on January 07, 2014, 02:21:44 pm
So I tried KSP ...

Built a nice big rocket with solid boosters a command module and a parachute so it could land.


Launch was glorious ...

Solid boosters ignite
Parachute deploys
Hilarity ensues


I guess I have to somehow assign the actions to a certain order so the parachute does not deploy uppon hitting the launch button?:P

Feeling like a very big noob now :) lol.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on January 07, 2014, 04:08:50 pm
just tweak your staging.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on January 08, 2014, 03:37:30 am
Do ALL the training scenarios and you'll be very well grounded in the finer rudiments of KSP.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sololop on March 09, 2014, 06:17:58 pm
Bumpin' for Justice.

Newer to KSP. I can get to the Mun and Minimus no problem, but I'm finding it very difficult to get to another planet. Should I escape Kerbins gravity, begin orbiting the sun, and do a maneuver from there, or should I be going from Kerbin and getting an encounter right away with another planet, like when I go to the Mun?

It seems to burn out of Kerbin to get to the Mun or Minimus is OK, but burning to get a hold of another planet is way, way longer than I can handle. I wouldn't have enough fuel. I just can't seem to figure out when and where to get to another planets orbit?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on March 09, 2014, 06:55:01 pm
You should start all your escape burns from LKO (Low Kerbin Orbit).

If you want to go further from the Sun, start your burn so that your exit trajectory is prograde respective to Kerbin (burn on the dark side of Kerbin); if you want to go deeper into solar system, make sure your exit trajectory is retrograde (burn on the sun side).

Make your Hohmann transfer calculations for the delta-V you need for your mission, design your ship accordingly with some margins for errors and corrections,.. and use the in-game patched conics system to determine your trajectory. If you just do an escape burn and then start looking at where you should be going, you're not going to have a good time. You'll spend massively more fuel than you should.


Also, mods or no mods? Probes or manned missions? What kind of propulsion systems do you use?
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sololop on March 09, 2014, 07:38:25 pm
Hmm, okay. I don't use mods, right now. All Vanilla, and I'm in Career mode so I don't yet have everything unlocked. I'm hoping for manned missions, because getting ground samples yields gargantuan amounts of science, but I'd settle for a probe mission first just to get the hang of going to other planets.

I usually burn with an orbit around 200,000M. I prefer liquid engines, seem to have most bang for buck. Nuclear seems promising, but doesn't seem to have very much thrust. I find SRB's to be only useful when hauling oneself off of the launchpad. My go-to engine right now once I've achieved orbit is a large Rockomax tank with a Skipper engine. I find if I add more fuel, or more engines, it's either too heavy, or consumes fuel too fast? I find the Mainsail engines (Strongest engine I have access to) seems to make my ship come apart once I cross over around 100,000M unless I'm really careful with the throttle, even with massive amounts of reinforcement have been installed.

I'm not sure exactly how to calculate out the Hohmann transfer calculations... which is likely hindering my progress. I've read a good option is to haul up fuel and use multiple ships, and dock in orbit, to ensure enough fuel for the journey, but I haven't yet made a successful orbital intercept.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on March 09, 2014, 08:28:59 pm
You don't need to calculate anything for a Hohmann transfer - just learn to use the maneuver nodes. The only really tricky bit (and the only bit the game doesn't give you enough info to find out on your own without mods) is knowing when you have an easy transfer window that'll only cost a little delta-V.

Nuclear rockets are the key to interplanetary cruises. They have excellent specific impulse, so they will get you more punch out of a given volume of fuel than pretty much anything else. They're not fast but they are efficient.

Due to the Oberth Effect you should be making all your interplanetary insertion burns from a low Kerbin orbit, somewhere around ~80 kilometers. Don't waste fuel getting up to 200, just makes your burn less efficient.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sololop on March 09, 2014, 10:15:41 pm
Alright, so I modified my ship to an unmanned probe ship, (Reduced weight) reconstructed the final stage with some Nuclear engines, and some other tweaking. I think it was a bit overboard at 111M tall, and 12 stages in total. A behemoth, really. But Lo and Behold, I dragged 'er up to 80,000 as you guys suggested, and did some fancy maneuvering, now I am en route to Eve. As long as I don't mess up the retrograde burn to get into orbit, I should be fine. Thanks for the suggestions guys, it's definitely not the simplest flight sim ever!
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on March 09, 2014, 10:23:53 pm
Everything becomes second nature. And I hope you meant 80,000 meters, not kilometers.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sololop on March 09, 2014, 11:05:29 pm
Lol yes, metres, not kilometers. That would be extravagant.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on March 10, 2014, 06:05:48 am
You don't need to calculate anything for a Hohmann transfer - just learn to use the maneuver nodes. The only really tricky bit (and the only bit the game doesn't give you enough info to find out on your own without mods) is knowing when you have an easy transfer window that'll only cost a little delta-V.


But he needs to know (at least approximately) the total delta-V he needs for the mission, which means either finding it out by trial and error, or doing a few calculations to find out the required values, which should be the starting point for the craft design. In other words, "How much delta-V do I need for this or that stage of my mission?"

Launch is one thing, and possibly one of the greatest sources of error because sometimes, uh, launches can consume a lot more delta-V than you actually planned. So if you're doing a manned missions, you could try assembling your ship at Low Kerbin Orbit - not only will it be easier to calculate what you actually need from the craft, you can practice rendezvous!

Once you are on LKO just need to have your transit stage, habitat module, possibly separate lander and ascent modules, and return stage. In many cases, transit and return stages are the same on interplanetary voyages, but often you'll find yourself very far from home with a very small spaceship left, just like with the actual Apollo missions. When I (re)constructed my Saturn-Apollo proxy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cqXAj0VJ6w), I always wonder how the hell the small command module can have enough juice to get home from the Mun, but such are Newton's laws of motion and gravity. Interplanetary travel is slightly more challenging though.

In fact, I've never sent a kerbal further than Minmus, though I've sent unmanned probes quite far.

Nuclear rockets are very, very helpful. Chemical engines should in fact only be used for ascent and descent.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on March 10, 2014, 10:52:50 am
I've never sent a kerbal farther than minmus either.....



Deliberately    :(
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on March 10, 2014, 01:15:09 pm
I've sent them further once or twice, but it was on Yogui's Icarus, a bit overpowered vessel, as far as they go. I've sent an unmanned probe to solar escape velocity, though. :)
Also, for those of you not afraid of mods, I've released an early beta version of the reworked Component Space Shuttle. Just in case you wondered what was keeping me off FS for a good part of last year. :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: General Battuta on March 10, 2014, 10:38:15 pm
I have done all-stock crewed return missions to every body in the system except Eve (and that only because I was too lazy to fix a dumb mistake after I landed) and a few of the lesser moons of Jool. It's not overwhelmingly tough once you get efficient rocket design down.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Scourge of Ages on March 10, 2014, 11:40:31 pm
It's not overwhelmingly tough once you get efficient rocket design down.

I am literally the best at efficient rocket design:

(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/795188902586674797/D6E2F372FF5C038653B629C7712264D8CDED2522/1024x576.resizedimage)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sololop on March 11, 2014, 08:49:21 am
Only 92m? Pff, when I get home, I can show off my 118m behemoth. ...lol
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Phantom Hoover on March 11, 2014, 09:37:05 am
The joke is more that there are loads of largely useless SRBs on that thing.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Herra Tohtori on March 11, 2014, 02:01:19 pm
The newest trend in efficient rocket design: Asparagus SRB stacks.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sololop on March 11, 2014, 02:11:52 pm
What's interesting is that I find the Rockomax Mainsail engine the best lifter, but it often completely rips apart my rockets unless I add a dozen or more structural rods, while I find adding like 10 Rockomax SRBS is fine? It's funny really.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on March 11, 2014, 03:54:30 pm
throttle down so the g meter stays in the green.

also screw efficiency, these are kerbals! i redneck everything, in that everything is a gas guzzling monstrosity.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Sololop on March 11, 2014, 04:44:15 pm
Okay, so it's only 117m, and a tiny bit of that is from the Clamps, but hey. It's currently the largest rocket I've constructed, and so far has taken me to Eve.

(http://i.imgur.com/8LFTnMt.png)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Colonol Dekker on March 12, 2014, 04:32:00 pm
Nine ion engines......on my probe.


Too slow :(
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on April 01, 2014, 04:38:26 pm
asteroid redirect mission is out, barring some horrible april fools joke.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on April 01, 2014, 05:00:37 pm
Downloaded it, it's for real, or at least it seems so. :)
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on April 01, 2014, 09:42:01 pm
decided that kerbin needed more muns.

(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/screenshot0_zps8ec80210.jpg) (http://s213.photobucket.com/user/Emperor_of_Nihil/media/screenshot0_zps8ec80210.jpg.html)

made it on fumes thanks to a 9 year approach 3 gravity assists from mun, and an aerobreaking maneuver. wanted a more circular orbit, but ran out of gas (pe is ~400k ap is ~800k).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Dragon on April 02, 2014, 02:05:15 pm
Did you manage to get your CH controllers to work in KSP? For me, they're all bricked upon starting up the game (it seems to intercept them before CM does it's job, depriving them of drivers).
Belay that, the problem was a bit more intricate, and linked to my finally upgrading to 7 from Vista (realized that my Uni not only provides the latest Windows 8.1, but 7 as well, and that I can install 7 like a service pack for Vista that it is :) ).
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Blue Lion on April 03, 2014, 08:31:06 am
The game is 40% off on Steam until the 8th. Now may be a good time to grab the game if you haven't already.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on April 03, 2014, 10:59:35 am
Did you manage to get your CH controllers to work in KSP? For me, they're all bricked upon starting up the game (it seems to intercept them before CM does it's job, depriving them of drivers).
Belay that, the problem was a bit more intricate, and linked to my finally upgrading to 7 from Vista (realized that my Uni not only provides the latest Windows 8.1, but 7 as well, and that I can install 7 like a service pack for Vista that it is :) ).

they work but i really dont use them for anything but aircraft. orbiter was the same way, once out of the atmosphere i just used the keyboard. its because spacecraft are usually sluggish to rotate on rcs power, so its easier just to use keys, using timed burns. count off the spin up and then count off the same amount to spin down. i still like to keep the throttle on though. its useful especially for munar landings.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: FireSpawn on April 08, 2014, 10:15:48 am
I bnow own KSP. Yet another game to force my addiction to mods on...  :sigh:
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Mongoose on May 09, 2014, 08:14:01 pm
I've finally given in and purchased this.  Jeb help me.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: Nuke on May 09, 2014, 08:50:39 pm
I bnow own KSP. Yet another game to force my addiction to mods on...  :sigh:

ksp steals another modder.
should do a freespace inspired parts pack.
Title: Re: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks"
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 09, 2014, 11:43:04 pm