Author Topic: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks" (Read 397534 times)

Herra Tohtori · **Reply #320 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.

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?!"

BlueFlames · **Reply #321 on:** December 07, 2011, 08:31:46 pm

Success!

...

Almost....

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! I got back off the moon! I almost flung myself into deep space again, but I had enough fuel in reserve to correct! I even got to say a tearful goodbye to the lunar lander and survey a spot for a summer home in the Kerbiet Union. And the final mission summary, for anybody interested.

[/edit]

Nuke · **Reply #322 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.

Sushi · **Reply #323 on:** December 21, 2011, 06:05:14 pm

Quote from: 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.

Yep, those changes have made it MUCH easier to manage large rockets.

Nuke · **Reply #324 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).

FlamingCobra · **Reply #325 on:** December 22, 2011, 11:25:44 am

I'm about to try this out now. It sounds awesome.

watsisname · **Reply #326 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

Nuke · **Reply #327 on:** December 29, 2011, 04:54:57 pm

you kinda have to account for all the mountains along your trajectory

Bob-san · **Reply #328 on:** December 31, 2011, 12:46:32 am

Quote from: Nuke on December 29, 2011, 04:54:57 pm

you kinda have to account for all the mountains along your trajectory

Good ****ing luck! What'd be more impressive, however, is if you were in a polar orbit.

watsisname · **Reply #329 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.

We have achieved a low circular orbit! Here we go for TLI burn

Transfer Orbit:

The transfer went extremely well -- periapsis of only 211km above the trailing side of the Mun.

A minor correction to our trajectory and we're set to pass right over the landing site.

Making our descent. The tension is high, but the pilots are grinning with anticipation!

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?

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!

YEAH! LAUNCHING FROM THE MUN LIKE A BOSS!

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.

And indeed it works. Amazingly the periapsis is within the atmosphere. We can use aerobraking!

Whoops! We bounced out of the atmosphere! Guess the aerobrake altitude was too high.

Third pass, and another bounce! Jeb has to go to the bathroom now...

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.

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!

Nuke · **Reply #330 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.

watsisname · **Reply #331 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.

Sushi · **Reply #332 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.

watsisname · **Reply #333 on:** January 01, 2012, 01:30:24 pm

That sounds like a CHALLENGE!

* watsisname 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!

Nuke · **Reply #334 on:** January 02, 2012, 03:54:56 am

screw the gs they would have melted first. they really need to implement friction heating.

Gortef · **Reply #335 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.

LordMelvin · **Reply #336 on:** January 02, 2012, 11:22:15 am

Quote from: 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.

<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.>

Thaeris · **Reply #337 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?

headdie · **Reply #338 on:** January 02, 2012, 06:49:46 pm

Quote from: 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?

It would explain much

LordMelvin · **Reply #339 on:** January 03, 2012, 01:08:31 am

Quote from: 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?

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?

News:

Author Topic: Kerbal Space Program or "Rocket science is harder than it looks" (Read 397534 times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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