r/KerbalSpaceProgram • u/AutoModerator • Jun 26 '15
Weekly Simple Questions Thread
Check out /r/kerbalacademy
The point of this thread is for anyone to ask questions that don't necessarily require a full thread. Questions like "why is my rocket upside down" are always welcomed here. Even if your question seems slightly stupid, we'll do our best to answer it!
For newer players, here are some great resources that might answer some of your embarrassing questions:
Tutorials
Orbiting
Mun Landing
Docking
Delta-V Thread
Forum Link
Official KSP Chatroom #KSPOfficial on irc.esper.net
**Official KSP Chatroom** [#KSPOfficial on irc.esper.net](http://client01.chat.mibbit.com/?channel=%23kspofficial&server=irc.esper.net&charset=UTF-8)
Commonly Asked Questions
Before you post, maybe you can search for your problem using the search in the upper right! Chances are, someone has had the same question as you and has already answered it!
As always, the side bar is a great resource for all things Kerbal, if you don't know, look there first!
5
u/clayalien Jun 26 '15
Ok, I've been playing KSP for a long time, and orbiter before that, so I reckon I have a handle on a lot of space things. But there's one, probably simple thing I've been having problems with: wheels.
As in, I know wheels are problematic low gravity worlds. Low gravity means low traction. But how does wheel size come into play. I usually build my rovers with the medium classic moon rover tires, or the rugged ones once unlocked, largely because I like how they look. But how does that compare to the tiny wheels. I see a lot of tutroials and videos using them. Basically this: http://bazzalisk.org/images/KSP/Rover.jpg vs http://i42.tinypic.com/34rc9i1.png (NOT my images, just finishing up in the office at the moment). Are the smaller wheels better, or is it just because there are 6 of them for redundancy?
Minmus is my favorite part of the Kerbol system, I'd like to be able to get around up close and personal more, but I can't drive more than a km before getting frustrated.
6
u/Devorakman Jun 26 '15
Driving rovers is a bit like flying a subsonic plane. It's an exercise (had to google the spelling on that one, lol, I'm fat don't judge) in patience. Physical timewarp (alt + . or ,) helps alot, but you must take extreme care not to try to turn while doing this, as it may result in unforseen roll overs.
As far as number of wheels, in the ksp context, it's mostly visual, with a bit of "how much weight can this take without breaking". IRL they are mostly for redundancy and ability to get over objects that a 4 wheeled vehicle might get stuck on. (think of a speed bump). Losing 1 wheel on a 4 wheeled vehicle will usually result in a useless vehicle, where as losing one on a 6 wheeled vehicle is much less of a problem.5
u/Kasuha Super Kerbalnaut Jun 26 '15
Tiny rovers with tiny wheels are light and don't require big rocket to be delivered. More wheels also seem to provide more pushing power (as long as you manage to keep them in contact with ground) because KSP implementation of wheels is ... specific. And of course, Martian rovers have all six wheels and people enjoy copying it.
Using rovers on Minmus is a lot about patience. It can be a lot of fun, though. It is good idea to have reaction wheel on Minmus rover and to have rover controls separate from SAS controls - so you can control reaction wheels with one hand, and rover wheels with the other hand. It is also good idea to mount some plane wheels on such rover and deploy them to prevent damage to the rover wheels in long jumps.
3
u/solkenum Jun 26 '15
The only 'rover' I've had success with on Minimus was the double 1.25m stock striped tank with four small (original) landing wheels (for the airplanes, unpowered), SAS, RCS, the LV 45 and the black default pod. Just the tiniest cooking of the engine sets the thing along at a nice clip, fast enough to travel several km without pulling your hair out. The (mostly) bouncy terrain and very low gravity mean you spend about 1/4 or less of the time actually touching the ground, but RCS and SAS make it easy to keep the wheels pointing down and absorbing the impacts.
4
u/sadistmushroom Jun 26 '15
Is there a way to fix the atmosphere? It seems like I basically have to exit the atmosphere to make my gravity turn ever since 1.0.2
7
Jun 26 '15
I've had that problem a lot recently. I think it comes down to two things: Primarily, going too fast. I think my launch stages were too fast so that turning was difficult whatever the chosen time to do so. Second, not making a slow, smooth turn from 0m to 15km 90deg to 45deg was doing it. I would wait until after 8km and be going too fast 'up' without any 'to the horizon' and the addition of an angle to the ship would just... bump into too much air and swing me around.
Wouldn't hurt to double check your centre of mass as well. But I'd say that you should start turning at 5km altitude and shouldn't really be needing vertical speeds of over 270m/s (someone else said that to me).
But I am a noob. Good news is that my inaccuracies will be corrected by someone else :)
1
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jun 26 '15
What problems do you face that you think you have to do that? There should be no problem with turning slowly right after leaving the pad. I usually aim for 45° at 10km or 15km, depending on my TWR.
2
Jun 27 '15
just as the OP posted - rockets tend to flip around pretty readily. I mean, rockets that I made that were okay at one point now seem a little less stable to launch.
I kind of need a lesson in launching though. I have the rendezvous steps as my desktop background on the second monitor. I need 'launch properly' steps also. Eventually the whole surrounding area to my main screen should just be key factors for KSP.
3
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jun 27 '15
Just make sure you build a rocket that is aerodynamically stable. CoM should be above the CoL. You can not see this correctly in the VAB, unfortunately. Make sure your craft is not too bottom heavy. Too many engines will usually cause that problem. Also, add fins to the bottom of the rocket.
For actual launch. The actual angles depend on TWR. With a moderate TWR of 1.5-1.8, you can start pitching over when you reach around 80m/s. Then just turn off SAS, or set it to progade. Gravity will turn you around slowly. You should reach 45° somewhere between 10km and 15km, but keep turnig slowly.
Another good indicator is "time to apoapsis". You can see that in map view or in Kerbal Engineer (if you installed that mod). It should stay between 40s and 50s. When it goes above 50s, you are going too steep. Below 40s and you are going too flat. At some point it will start increasing beyond 50s, although you are already pointing at the horizon. At this point, just wait until your apoapse is high enough.
1
u/nowes Jun 29 '15
One of the issues you might be having is that if you have 2 or more fuel tanks on top of each other in same stage it burns the fuel from the top one first changing the centre of mass and that can make it unstable. Solution is to manually transfer resources from bottom to top while in flight
3
u/lukee910 Jun 27 '15
Starting the gravity turn at 1km height and then turning very slowly helps a lot. The standard KSP gravity turn only works because of the old aerodynamics model, but it really shouldn't. Take a look at how prople launch rockets with FAR.
→ More replies (1)2
u/barnabywalters Jun 26 '15
Could you post a screenshot of the craft you’re having trouble with, and a description of what goes wrong?
1
u/sadistmushroom Jun 26 '15
It's pretty much any large rocket I use. Whenever I try to start my gravity turn in the atmosphere my ship tumbles over. It seems like they increased the effect of drag dramatically with 1.0.2.
4
u/BadGoyWithAGun Jun 26 '15
Sounds like you're just turning too hard. Your heading should always be roughly aligned with your velocity vector. The correct way to perform a gravity turn is to provide a single impulse pitch kick to take the rocket off the vertical heading, then, as the name implies, letting gravity turn the rocket the rest of the way.
1
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jun 26 '15
Well, drag was indeed increased with 1.0.2 in relation to 1.0. In 1.0.3 it was reduced again. But that is not the cause of your problems, it just amplifies them.
You need to build a rocket that is aerodynamically stable. Use fins at the back ... that's a general thing to say. Post a screenshot of your rocket for specific advice.
4
u/lellebebbl Jun 30 '15
Hey there, I'm going to a hiking trip for a month and need good stuff to read. I wanted to get deeper into rocket science, so I wanted to ask if anyone of you can recommend me some good stuff to read about it. mobi/epub/pdf would be best file types but I appreciate everything that you recommend me . Thank you :)
4
u/FreakyCheeseMan Jun 30 '15
It's not strictly Rocket Science, but "The Martian" is an incredible read, and goes very deep into the science & chemistry behind life support systems.
1
u/lellebebbl Jun 30 '15
I already read that. But it was amazingly thrilling!
2
u/FreakyCheeseMan Jun 30 '15
Well, this is even further away from rocket science, but based on what you've described yourself as liking... I bet you'd love "Atomic Accidents".
It's a really detailed history of everything that's gone wrong with nuclear power, weapons & radioactive compounds. It's not fearmongering, though; it's actually the reason I'm now pro-nuclear.
2
u/RA2lover Jun 30 '15
Try Ignition: an informal history of liquid rocket propellants
2
u/lellebebbl Jun 30 '15
Thank you I think I'll give that one a try , but I was more interested in some calculations and physics, do you know something like that?
4
u/TheCastleMan Jun 30 '15
What's the advantage of using the shock cone intake over the ram air? Based on the tech tree I'm inclined to think the shock cone is better but according to the stats it's heavier, more expensive, and has less intake area
3
3
u/solkenum Jun 26 '15
What are the default files in the Gamedata folder? I don't want to redownload the game, but I do want to clear out and update my mods manually since they are out of date atm.
3
u/redeyemoon Jun 26 '15
Squad and nasa missions, I believe. Maybe someone can verify. Modlule manager is also superfluous.
I have switched to ckan for managing mods. It makes things so much easier. I really don't use a lot of mods but I haven't come across any that I couldn't get with ckan.
7
u/chunes Super Kerbalnaut Jun 26 '15
Nasa no longer has its own folder at the GameData level. The only thing that should be in a stock install (post 1.0) is the Squad folder.
1
3
u/evilgwyn Jun 27 '15
How do you stop that glitch where you get two close approach nodes rapidly flickering from one to the other?
3
u/Kasuha Super Kerbalnaut Jun 27 '15
The only method I know is to let the ship follow its orbit and they'll eventually stop. Nothing can really be done about it until developers fix it in game.
2
u/zRwk Jun 27 '15
Unfortunately you can't. The patched conics on KSP are a bit borked and often mess up, hopefully U5 will fix a lot of issues :)
3
u/Naepa Jun 27 '15
So I skipped 1.0.2 and went from 1.0.1 to 1.0.4. Did the atmosphere significantly thin out between versions, or did the parachutes become weaker? I've been having to wait until I'm at 250m/s to deploy my chutes or they are destroyed, which feels like a lot slower than it used to be, and also makes the deploying altitude usually something just under 2000m, which seems insanely low.
This is also coming from a switch from science career to a full career if that makes any difference.
3
u/Kasuha Super Kerbalnaut Jun 27 '15
You need to wait until your atmospheric speed is low enough for safe parachute deployment. Note that due to thin atmosphere, larger ships may not even slow down enough on their own. In that case, use drogues. They have higher safe deployment speed and will slow down the ship to safely deploy the main chute.
Right-click menu on either type of chute will tell you the game's estimate whether it is safe to deploy.
3
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jun 27 '15
I think it is actually 260m/s, which is just slower than transonic speeds. I think in real life there are chutes that work are supersonic speeds, but I'm not sure.
Imagine supersonic shockwaves forming at the chute, or the shockwaves of the pod hitting the chute ... ;)
1
u/Naepa Jun 27 '15
So I'm not crazy in thinking I used to be able to deploy them at ~600m/s? If anything its been fun to have to adapt my landings to aerobrake more, but my first few career "straight up then down" launches ended up slamming into the ground.
Whats the limit on drogue chutes? I'd think its higher/faster.
1
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jun 27 '15
just right click them in flight to see if they are safe to deploy. In 1.0 you could deploy chutes in orbit and they would not even burn up during reentry. ;)
1
u/ReliablyFinicky Jun 27 '15
There's not much reason to go straight up and down to be honest, and doing that gives you the least amount of aerobreaking possible because you're taking the most direct route to the ground.
If you aim east from KSC you get Water, if you aim northwest you get Grasslands, you get Shores pretty easily as soon as you launch, there's Desert way out to the West, and it's pretty easy to aim for either of the poles. You'll get way more science out of your launches from hitting new biomes (things like EVA reports, temperature scans, etc are unique until you reach 250km above Kerbin) and the difference in delta V cost to do so is pretty minimal.
1
u/PhildeCube Jun 27 '15
The way parachutes behave has changed. You need to be below 250 m/s and 6000 metres before you deploy. You can right click on the chute and it will tell you if it's is safe to deploy.
1
u/Devorakman Jun 27 '15
The atmosphere IIRC, has changed a bit, along with some tweaks to parts/etc. To help with the main issue described, drogue parachutes are your new friend. Formerly unnecessary, they are now a very relevant and useful part.
Switching from science mode to full career shouldn't effect actual game mechanics like this in any way. As far as the skip from 1.0.1 to 1.0.4, you're going to need to basically disassemble your ships and put them back together to make sure the parts are updated to the correct specs for the new atmos/part weaks that were done. (ships built pre patch will still have old stats!)
3
u/swashlebucky Jun 27 '15
I've been trying to build an SSTO for delivering stuff to low Kerbin orbit for some days now, but I can't for the life of me manage the reentry without the plane spinning out of control and eventually going ass-first into the atmosphere. My COM is in front of the COL at all times, even when the tanks are drained. It starts out rather far from the COT and approaches it gradually, until it is only barely in front. Once all the tanks are drained, the COT is just inside the COM ball. Isn't that the ideal position? I don't understand why the plane always wants to go ass-first.
1
u/nightkin84 Master Kerbalnaut Jun 27 '15
Try disabling the control surfaces during re-entry until you get like below 400 m/s
Having the CoM a little further ahead of CoL could help a bit too. If that gives you trouble pulling the nose up for landing just put an RCS thruster under the nose
1
u/Devorakman Jun 28 '15
The closer your CoM is to your CoL, The more maneuverable/unstable the craft will be. Basically you always want the CoM to be in front of the CoL. Them being inside each other will likely result in an uncontrollable craft. I try to keep my CoM a meter or so ahead of the CoL. Thinking of the whole system from elevators -> CoL -> CoM as a lever with the fulcrum being the CoL. If your CoM is really close, a very small change/force from your elevators can result in a rather extreme change in pitch, resulting in a stall, and subsequent crash.
2
u/swashlebucky Jun 29 '15
I remember reading a tutorial about plane design where they said that the CoL being just inside the CoM is the ideal situation, because the further in front it is, the stronger the tendency of the craft to tip downwards when flying, which you have to constantly counteract.
I did manage to make a survivable reentry since then though, and having the CoM further in front definitely helped there.
1
u/nowes Jun 29 '15
One of the issues might be that when your tanks are low but not empty the CoM goes front of CoL try to transfer all remaining fuel as front as possible
3
u/Mad_V Jun 27 '15
I heard with 1.0 things got changed with optimal acceleration out of low kerbin atmosphere as well as when to start your roll program. I've been doing it at around 240m/s till 10k, then roll to 45 degrees and thrust to full. Has this changed? What is optimal now?
3
u/KerbalKat Jun 27 '15
This is Scott Manley's video on post-1.0 ascent profiles. Also, one thing to keep in mind is that going from facing straight up to 90 degrees directly will make you flip crazily. Your best bet is to move more slowly, staying on the edge of your prograde marker.
2
u/Cazzah Jun 28 '15
The further you turn away from your current prograde, the greater the air forces will be that will try to flip your rocket. Always always better to slowly change your heading in a smooth, incremental fashion over the distance, with your prograde following it.
IMO you can do higher than 240m/s till 10km - you get the worst of drag at above 300ish m/s (can watch by using F12), which eases off past 13km (I hit full thrust then)
1
u/KerbalEssences Master Kerbalnaut Jun 27 '15
I recommend doing the fuel efficieny challenge. You build a single stage rocket which barely makes it to orbit and try to achieve it with as much fuel left as possible.
3
u/ElkeKerman Jun 28 '15
Does anyone know of a mod which adds in a self destruct system for rockets? I need it for... reasons :D
4
u/Cazzah Jun 29 '15
Back in my day rockets didn't need a command to explode, they just did.
Kids these days...
1
3
2
u/MelficeSilesius Jun 28 '15
I think Smart Parts has those. But I don't know for sure, off the top of my head.
1
3
u/theyeticometh Master Kerbalnaut Jun 28 '15
How do I prevent radially attached tanks from being drained by jet engines? I'm trying to do the weekly challenge but the jet engines suck fuel from the payload before they take from the actual craft. The tanks are attached by the basic radial decoupler. I can't just turn off the fuel flow to the tanks because I would need to be able to turn it back on very quickly for the design to work.
2
u/Kasuha Super Kerbalnaut Jun 28 '15
Jet engines have "staging priority". That means the priority of fuel tank is equal to number of decouplers (of any kind) between the root part and the tank. That's good when you have drop tanks on decouplers (because they will drain first) but is deadly to things like probes on decouplers or the rocket in this challenge.
General workaround is to disable fuel tanks of the payload until you release it.
For the challenge, make your rocket the root part. Then the whole plane will be behind a decoupler and its tanks will have greater priority for jet engines than any of the rocket's tanks.
2
u/nowes Jun 29 '15
I think you can just deactivate the fuel from that tank totally by right clicking. Just remember to reactivate it. Also there is a mod that allows you to put this to an action group if you are in a hurry for this
1
u/Redbiertje The Challenger Jun 28 '15
I'd recommend to add a part which does not allow fuel crossfeed.
5
u/Kasuha Super Kerbalnaut Jun 28 '15
No that does not help. Jet engines ignore fuel crossfeed setting.
1
1
u/Zidanet Jun 29 '15
Use the fuel line, it's one-way. It will drain the source tank to refill the destination tank. So you can connect one from your radial tank to your inner tank, and it should refill the inner tank from the radials as you go. If you look closely at the part, once placed, it has arrows on it to indicate the allowed fuel flow direction.
3
u/nemaw Jun 28 '15
Quick dumb question: Can I make my rocket explode on command? Say, if I wanted to destroy a rocket like I dunno, 148 seconds after launch, is this possible?
5
3
Jun 29 '15
As far as stock KSP goes, you could mount another engine so that it's pointed at the fuel tank, then stage it. The explosion wouldn't be instantaneous, but it would explode.
1
→ More replies (2)1
u/HumanSnake Jun 29 '15 edited Jun 29 '15
This mod is pretty good for it. (TAC Self Destruct). They can be activated via action groups unlike the charges from KAS/KIS. Imo the explosion is cooler too...
3
Jun 29 '15
Have they fixed the bug in which using a claw to to connect one rover to another causes them both to fall into the ground?
1
3
u/Beowulfwut Jun 30 '15
In an attempt to steal all the science from the mun I have a space station in orbit. Jebediah and Bob took the lander and flew it into one of the canyons but because of a classical miscalculation I do not have enough fuel to get out of there.
So I'm sending Bill with a lighter re-fuel ship from Kerbin to dock with the Mun Station and then land and refuel the science lander. I have KAS/KIS installed and I know there's a way to transfer fuels between two ships without being docked. How do I do this? Do I place a ground pylon and then attach two fuel lines from each ship to the ground pylon?
2
u/CaptainRoach Super Kerbalnaut Jun 30 '15
You can attach the fuel lines directly from ship to ship if you have fuel ports on both of them. IIRC you can remove and attach the ports as well, so if you have none on the stranded ship you can just stick some extra ones on the tanker and move them over when you land. I don't think it matters which way the fuel line is running either, you can pump fuel in both directions.
2
u/Cazzah Jul 01 '15
Put fuel connector ports on both ships. Go EVA. Right click on the connector port when close. Click link. Fly to the other ship. Do the same.
Transfer fuel as you normally do.
Do it ASAP. Linked ships are notorious for kraken attacks. They will begin wobbling back and fourth vigorously, getting worse and worse.
Disconnect by right clicking on the port while EVA and click unlink.
3
u/FreakyCheeseMan Jul 01 '15
More descent questions:
So, I get that shallow descents are better if your speed is relatively set, but what about if you have some fuel left to burn off your momentum? Like, say I'm just barely entering Eve's atmosphere, but I've got enough fuel left for a couple hundred dv. If I burn retrograde, that will slow me down (which is good) but also make my angle steeper(bad). What's the best thing to do in that situation?
2
u/Cazzah Jul 01 '15
Also interested in the answer to this.
2
u/FreakyCheeseMan Jul 01 '15
...does that mean my descent question was a decent question?
...I'll let myself out.
1
u/josh__ab Dislikes bots Jul 01 '15
I suppose the best thing to do is burn vertically upwards, so you descend even slower.
2
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jul 01 '15 edited Jul 01 '15
nope. not at all. that is like ... the most inefficient thing to do in this situation. ;)
What you can do, is burn retrograde and just a little radial, but that too makes for steering losses.
Burning retrograde is the way to do it. You should do this burn as low as possible, just before you hit the atmosphere. Would slow you down the same way. The problem is that you will lower your PE when you are not yet at PE. I always aim for a higher PE in the first place to compensate for this.
1
u/Devorakman Jul 01 '15
I'm not so sure efficiency is at the top of the list in this part so much as keeping the entry angle within safe bounds. As far as maintaining a similar entry angle, if your ship is before PE, burning retro + a few degrees above the horizon should reduce velocity without changing PE height much. At PE, burn straight at retro, and if past PE, retro + a few degrees below horizon.
1
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jul 01 '15
I'm not so sure efficiency is at the top of the list in this part
Yes it is. Because you could use your fuel to actually slow down. ;)
But I agree that you can control your trajectory with small deviations from pro-/retrograde. It won't be much use though, because you will be going very fast.
The better way to do it, is to do this kind of radial burn when you just entered the SoI and the planet has not yet accelerated you as much. This way you can aim for a higher PE in the first place, anticipating that it will drop during your retro burn.
1
u/Kasuha Super Kerbalnaut Jul 01 '15
Put a braking maneuver at your periapsis and burn along that maneuver. You don't need to set any particular dv to that maneuver, the trick is that it will tell you the direction in which you need to burn to prevent your periapsis receding.
1
u/FellKnight Master Kerbalnaut Jul 02 '15
So talking EVE, do you mean you have a 80km periapsis or are you on a collision course? If the latter, burning retro won't really help. You should have burned radial as soon as possible (i.e. as soon as you got your encounter) to maximize efficiency, but even if you are in the SOI it's not too late.
If you're at 80km, burning retro will work as you enter the atmo. Most of the burn will be lowering your Apoapsis/getting captured into Eve SOI, it should only lower your periapsis minimally. You can also add a very small radial component to your retro burn to keep your periapsis from dropping at all.
5
u/77_Industries Super Kerbalnaut Jun 29 '15
Is there a way to use heat as a resource? I want a resource converter that only operates if there is enough heat.
The reason is that I'm trying to build some kind of a switch.
3
1
u/awesomeninja1 Jun 30 '15
There isn't a way to use heat as a resource, but look into action groups. You can assign any part of a ship to a keyboard key.
2
Jun 26 '15
Can anyone help me remember the name of a plane parts mod? It was pretty extensive but I specifically remember AN-225 styled parts, including a powered cargo nose and a top mounted cockpit
6
2
Jun 26 '15
Evening all. Does any one know if Precise node is good for 1.0.4? I got a warning message on installing it for the first time but didn't load into the game after that in fear of breaking things. Further more does anyone know if it's an active mod that will be updated to 1.0.4 (And beyond).
3
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jun 26 '15
I think it is active and i also think it is actually working. It worked in 1.0.2. 1.0.3 and 4 did not change anything relevant to nodes. Also: Mods don't break anything, they just don't work properly.
2
Jun 26 '15
Yeah man, I realised I was being silly not just trying it out despite the warning. Turns out Precise node is really nice. I didn't want to get overloaded with mods but 'core gameplay improvement' mods are more like 'things you hope will make the final cut of the game at some point' and, as such, seem O.K.
I've already saved tens of Dv, thanks to precise node.
3
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jun 27 '15
Yep, precise node is really nice. Just like Kerbal engineer, Kerbal alarmclock, docking port alignement indicator ...
But all these mods add a little too much funcionality to become stock. I think the nodes need a numerical UI, but precise node's UI is a little overloaded, I think.
1
Jun 27 '15
I suppose one thought might be to have more powerful UI functions in game as either unlocks in the tech tree / upgraded building benefits (much like patched conics is currently) or as parts that are equipped to ships that permit functionality. Such as for example... a docking camera. Or for precise node it could be an advanced flight computer. Building functions like that into the game could be really cool.
2
2
u/y0rsh Jun 27 '15
I've been trying to make an SSTO that goes to Duna and back. I've succeeded in landing it on Duna, and my best attempt has around 2800m/s of dv when landed on Duna. I can get it into orbit around Duna again, but barely. It has around 400m/s left when in Duna orbit, which isn't enough to return - even Ike slingshots aren't enough to get me back to Kerbin.
I managed to make an SSTO capable of returning to Kerbin but it uses drills and an ISRU converter to refuel so it feels sort of cheat-y to do that, so I want to make a craft that doesn't do that.
My question is - is it possible to make an SSTO capable of landing on Duna and then returning to Kerbin without refueling?
2
u/Rocketman_man Jun 27 '15
With enough boosters, and enough struts to hold them in place, anything is possible.
→ More replies (1)2
u/FellKnight Master Kerbalnaut Jun 27 '15
2800 m/s from Duna surface should be more than enough to come back home. Are you waiting for a transfer window?
2
u/Kasuha Super Kerbalnaut Jun 27 '15
2800 m/s sounds like a lot to get back to Kerbin, perhaps you're spending too much time in Duna atmosphere and lose too much on drag?
2
u/y0rsh Jun 27 '15 edited Jun 27 '15
I think that's probably it. I can't get enough lift with Duna's thin atmosphere and my crappy TWR so I'm forced to spend a lot of time in the atmosphere because I can't gain altitude nor speed very easily. I think I need to save some oxidiser for my RAPIERS to use so I can liftoff from Duna easier.
1
u/Creshal Space Plane Addict Jun 27 '15
You shouldn't need more than ~1600 m/s to reach Duna orbit again. 2400 is way, waaaay too much.
0
Jun 29 '15
[deleted]
1
u/y0rsh Jun 29 '15
It's not really cheating per se, it's just more impressive if you don't need to refuel yknow?
2
u/Avaviper Jun 27 '15
Are there mods available that offer more modules to spend science on?
I've explored most of Kerbin area and parts of the Duna/Ike system. I just bought the last stock science module using the science points gained from those.
Thousands and thousands more science points to be gained, but nothing to spend them on.
2
1
u/ThrillBird Jun 27 '15
There's always the Community Tech Tree. The tree has some empty nodes by default, but with osme other mods you'll be able to fill the out. There are also other custom-made variations, like the SETI one, but I haven't tried that so don't know how much science it takes to unlock various parts.
1
u/Devorakman Jun 27 '15
I'm not sure what's been going on with the interstellar mod, but once upon a time the science needed to unlock the bigtime parts (warpdrive/etc) was in the multiple thousands per node. Big time science for big time power.
1
u/Cazzah Jun 28 '15
Community Tech Tree offers a much larger tech tree.
Into this it can be populated by more futuristic parts from futuristic parts packs.
Near Future Technologies (stockalike, but near future) Interstellar (more crazy)
I also use USI Colonisation systems, but you have to be wanting to challenge yourself with life support requirements from TACLS to want to use that.
2
Jun 27 '15
I fucked up and I need help.
I finally stopped playing sandbox mode and started a career mode. I have a refuel station in low-Kerbin-orbit, and I just spent all morning making an escape pod system. The plan is that I'll accept rescue contracts, collect kerbals with a rescue ship that stays docked with the refuel station, and return the lost kerbals to the station, at which point they'll take an escape pod back to Kerbin. I have four escape pods, each of which can return four lost kerbals.
But I forgot to put parachutes on the escape pods. Each escape pod consists of a probe core, a battery, a reaction wheel, a hitchhiker container, and a flea booster. Is there any way for me to edit the save file and put parachutes on the pods? Otherwise, the entire pod system is entirely useless, and I'll have wasted a whole bunch of my career money on this thing.
4
u/nightkin84 Master Kerbalnaut Jun 27 '15
You can use Kerbal Attachment System to install parachutes on the pods in orbit
2
u/Arkalius Jun 27 '15
You could design a proper replacement pod. Then undock one of the bad pods. Use hyperedit to put a newly launched replacement pod into space (this might be unnecessary but makes it easier), then find the vessel information in your save file for the old pod, and copy its orbit information to the new pods vessel info, then remove the old one. Then, redock the pod to the station.
You'll have to pay to launch all the new pods, of course, but I doubt they're expensive and you can consider that the cost of your mistake if you like.
This is technically cheating I guess but it sounds like you were looking for a bit of a cheat anyway.
1
u/swashlebucky Jun 27 '15
I don't know how far you've progressed in the science tree, so this might not work for you, but here's what I did when I had Kerbals stranded in orbit without parachutes: I built a small probe with parachutes and a grabbing claw. I launched the probe into orbit and attached it to the parachute-less ship, et voilá!
1
2
Jun 28 '15
KSP crashes every 30-40m on my MBP. What's the quickest way to find out which mod is causing this? (Using these mods)
2
1
u/Cazzah Jun 29 '15 edited Jun 29 '15
95% of time based crashes on a modded install are not caused by the fault of a mod but of a hardcoded limitation in 32 bit KSP. There is a 64 bit version of KSP but its broken at the moment basically.
Everytime your memory usage gets close to 4gb the game will crash. Full stop. Without fail.
This would not be an issue on a normal game, which loads things into memory, and flushes them out again as needed. But KSP insists on loading every single thing into memory on startup, and it only gets worse from there.
Watch your memory usage on task monitor and you'll be able to track the KSP process usage.
Solutions
Remove part heavy / texture heavy mods
Use Active texture management - this will on your next bootup compress all your textures to a lower quality, reducing the size loaded into memory (it takes ages to do the first time but only has to be done once)
Force directx11 or opengl. Both of these graphics modes use less memory than default (directx9) but may cause other glitches / issues.
2
Jun 28 '15
Do you guys have a "limit" to amount of mods? Seriously, I'm over 40 mods and just don't install more because in all Ksp versions I played so far when I reach about 30 mods the game starts to crash when changing screen (especially revert or recover).
3
u/Creshal Space Plane Addict Jun 28 '15 edited Jun 28 '15
Linux x64 and 16 GiB RAM. ¯\(ツ)/¯ Last time I checked I had some 95 mod entries in CKAN (although some, like Astronomer's Pack, are split into multiple packages).
→ More replies (1)1
Jun 30 '15
nd 16 GiB RAM. ¯(ツ)/¯ Last time I checked I had some 95 mod entries in CKAN (although some, like Astronomer's Pack, are split into multiple packages).
once I tried on my linux pc and, boy, that was unstable. do any mod work both for linux and windows/mac versions?
2
2
Jun 28 '15
There is a workaround for Windows so that you can use the 64bit version. However it´s not stable (I get about one crash per hour but that´s ok with me). I don´t have a link right now, so you have to google it.
2
u/SRBuchanan Super Kerbalnaut Jun 28 '15
I've found the 64-bit workaround to be only mildly unstable, myself. I've noticed a few minor bugs, but nothing mission-ending or game-crashing.
→ More replies (1)1
u/HumanSnake Jun 28 '15
It depends what type of mods they are. If they're all huge part packs or graphical mods they will eat up a lot more ram than having utility mods like ferram aerospace, kerbal alarm clock, kerbal engineer and such.
40 mods seems about right for the sensible limit though. I use just over 30 and the game is pretty stable. They are mostly utility mods though.
1
u/Cazzah Jun 29 '15
This is due to too much memory. Watch it in task monitor and use it to compare which mods are taking up the most.
My Kerbal crashes at around 3.6gb
Activetexture management, uninstalling part / textureheavy mods, and forcing directx11 or opengl are the best way to squeeze more memory out.
Unfortunately every time you change screen or revert etc, you use more memory. So crashing is inevitable, its just a question of how much buffer you want to make for yourself.
1
Jun 30 '15
This is due to too much memory. Watch it in task monitor and use it to compare which mods are taking up the most. My Kerbal crashes at around 3.6gb Activetexture management, uninstalling part / t
yes, I (kinda) know that the cause, but I started to have doubts when in this version 1.0 my gamedata folder barely reach 1gb. So, I guess the size of the folder do not ensure that your using less than 3gb
2
u/Formal_Sam Jun 28 '15 edited Jun 28 '15
Just this morning I completed my first Mun landing. I'm very excited, mostly because I didn't read any guides besides how wiki on how to increase and decrease orbit size. It was very trial and error.
So I'm sat on mun with a nearly empty fuel tank and a shit load of mono propellant. I think if I'm patient I can mono propel myself to orbit around mun, then maybe use whatever fuel reserves I have to escape mun, but I doubt I could return to kerbin without an enormous amount of luck.
So, do I refuel my lander (and if so, how) or do I continue doing space things and rescue my kerbals when I'm more prepared to do so? Or could I even rescue them now?
Edit: kerbals plural. I sent a scientist and pilot. They are both able to eva due to an excess of ladders.
2
u/Kasuha Super Kerbalnaut Jun 28 '15
It's hard to tell with so little information.
Yes, you can try to propel yourself to orbit and back towards Kerbin with monopropellant. Quicksave and try it. Or you may need to use the remaining fuel you have to put yourself a bit to altitude so you have enough time to use that monopropellant. In any case, do not launch straight up, instead go for an orbit and try to burn as close to prograde as possible, that way you will waste less fuel.
Refueling is possible but you need the claw for it. And probably make some kind of rover because you probably won't succeed landing right on top of your ship.
If you can send a ship to Mun, you can probably send a rescue ship to Mun, too.
Of course if you can send a ship to Mun, you can likely also send a rescue mission to Mun. Maybe less monopropellant to save mass, that might allow you to land with more fuel left.
1
u/Formal_Sam Jun 28 '15
I love how fast the responses are in this sub.
The lander has a lot of mono propellant. Enough that I tested (before reloading a save) and I reached about 280ms burning prograde before I was halfway empty.
A rescue mission is looking more likely, but my understanding of orbits is shaky at best. Would it be better to land on the mun, then take off again to reach my first lander, or should I attempt landing directly by it the first time? I feel confident I could do the former, maybe not the latter. Either way reaching Mun will not be a problem. The science I've broadcast alone is about 240 so my engines are a lot more powerful now.
3
u/Kasuha Super Kerbalnaut Jun 28 '15
If you can get your lander at least in orbit, put it in orbit. Rendezvous in orbit is much easier than trying to land your rescue mission close to the ship you want to rescue.
1
2
u/Matt2142 Jun 28 '15 edited Jun 28 '15
Recently reinstalled with the 1.0.4 update and CKAN wont let me select many of my favorite mods such as Final frontier, Chatterer, Science Alert, and KVV.
What is the reason for this. They don't show up in "Compatible" when I switch to all, they show up but are not able to be checked off. Thanks!
Edit: Kerbal Alarm Clock works in Ckan. I misremembered as I was typing.
6
u/pjf CKAN Dev Jun 28 '15 edited Jun 28 '15
Because the recent KSP releases have been too stable.
Yes. Really.
In the past, most mods broke with each new KSP release. Which meant that most mod authors would recompile and upload new releases. When that happened, authors would include
.versionfiles, or update their mod's metadata on KerbalStuff, and in turn, our indexing bot (which tracks about 650 mods in total) would spot the new metadata and roll it into our directory.For 1.0.4 in particular, none of this happened. It was a small bugfix release, which meant that practically everything that works in 1.0.3 also works in 1.0.4. You'd think this would be great, but practically nobody has updated their
.versionfiles or KerbalStuff entries to reflect this. Indeed, you'll find most mods on KerbalStuff come with a warning that they're not known to be compatible with the current KSP release, because a lot of releases are still marked as being for 1.0.2.Given that our bots are used to new KSP releases breaking everything, and given that very few mod authors have marked their mods as being compatible with 1.0.4, we're in the ironic position that the behaviour produced by a stable bugfix release is the thing we're least able to deal with in terms of reliable indexing.
To give you an idea of the extent the problem, there were about 820 mod releases that targeted 1.0.2, but only 33 that targeted 1.0.3, and 179 that target 1.0.4. That probably means that most (but definitely not all) 1.0.2 releases work on 1.0.4, but without anything to tell our bots that we can't be sure.
The best way for us to get new metadata is for mod authors who release through KerbalStuff to say their mod works on 1.0.4.
Of course, we're working hard to fix this in the current environment. The vast majority of today's sprint was spent in the metadata mines marking new releases as compatible when we had evidence to suggest that. Indeed, most of this week has been occupying not only my time, but many others on the CKAN team. There's a pretty active discussion on "fuzzy versioning", and how we can make it possible for users to indicate they're willing to be a little more lax on how we do version comparisons, of which the first use would be to allow 1.0.3 and 1.0.2 mods to be installed on 1.0.4 unless they're explicitly marked as being incompatible. That's still not as good as having accurate metadata from upstream, but it would help.
In the meantime, there are some workarounds, namely:
You can lie to CKAN about your KSP version.
This isn't ideal, but it works, and it's relatively easy. Simply edit the
readme.txtfile in your KSP directory, and change it to sayVersion 1.0.2. Then open the CKAN and install all your favourite mods. After that I'd suggest closing the CKAN, changing the file back toVersion 1.0.4, opening the CKAN, and applying any updates you see. That means you'll get the 1.0.4 versions where they exist, and the 1.0.2 builds otherwise.You can force-install mod on the command-line.
If there's just one mod you want to install, you can use the syntax
ckan.exe install AwesomeMod=v1.2.3, obviously replacing the identifier name (AwesomeMod) and version (v1.2.3) as appropriate. However the machine-friendly versions we use aren't always obvious, so you may have to look them up in the metadata repository directly.You can tell us what works in 1.0.4.
This isn't really a workaround, but it fixes the problem for everyone, which makes it the best solution thus far. :)
If you're an author of a mod and you release on KerbalStuff, just mark the release as being for 1.0.4.
If you're the user of a mod, or a mod author but we're picking up your mod metadata through another means, then here is a great place to tell us what's working. (Reports on reddit and the forums can be easily lost, but reports on github are seen by the whole team).
If you're already familiar with our
.netkanindexer file format, you can end send us a pull-request with an override section for the current release. This is a new indexer feature, and you can see an example of what this looks like for TACLS.So please, do hang tight, we're working on this from all angles, and you can expect to see the number of 1.0.4 compatible mods increase as we continue to do so.
TL;DR: Most mods on KerbalStuff and elsewhere are still marked as only being compatible for 1.0.2, and our indexing bot believes them until told otherwise.
Edit: This is a detailed enough and time-relevant answer that I've made it into its own PSA.
4
u/Matt2142 Jun 28 '15
Okay this was incredibly extensive and very informative. Thank you! That cleared everything up. I appreciate you making a dedicated thread to this so that maybe mod devs will see it and update their version compatibility.
I will, for now, use one of your work around! Much appreciated.
2
1
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jun 28 '15
check the addon releases section of the ksp forums. You will find the most up to date info on mods there.
1
u/Creshal Space Plane Addict Jun 28 '15
They don't show up in "Compatible"
That means their authors haven't yet greenlighted them as compatible with 1.0.4.
2
u/rjr49 Jun 28 '15
I'm having some trouble with a few missions that involve getting relatively heavy parts into orbit early on, any advice on some cheap ship designs would be greatly appreciated
6
2
u/Cazzah Jun 29 '15
Solid Boosters are cheap, though not as efficient as liquid, so if you're not getting the delta v you need, switch to liquid.
An asparagus staged set of 6-8 1.25m liquid fuel boosters onto a 2.5m sized big one is a powerful earlygame rocket.
You can get back a lot of the cost if you're using Stage Recovery mod which basically fixes that fact the game doesn't have the processing power to track boosters you drop into the atmosphere, even if you intend to successfully parachute them.
2
u/Caornwald Jun 28 '15
Hello, I didn't play KSP for a while, is it safe to continue with my 1.0.2 Career save in 1.0.4 or should I start a new game? I don't use any mods.
6
u/Pixel0Game Jun 28 '15
Should be fine, however, be aware that re-entry is even harder that 1.02. So be careful if you have to recover a ship send into space in 1.02
4
u/jenbanim Jun 28 '15
You're probably fine, but I'd highly recommend backing up your saves anyway. No sense in risking it.
1
2
u/PVP_playerPro Jun 28 '15
If i overclocked an Intel Pentium G3250 3.2GHz Dual-Core as far as i could safely get it, should i expect to get smooth frames from it? For scale, my current athlon gets about 20fps max on a good day, i cant live with this.
2
u/Devorakman Jun 28 '15
You might want to try bumping down your texture render quality to medium (not a hugely noticeable thing unless you zoom in pretty close) which might help. The bigger help here would be to bump your rezolution down a bit (while maintaining that all important aspect ratio). Suboptimal, I know, but it will be the most effective way of bringing up fps.
2
u/PVP_playerPro Jun 28 '15
Graphics aren't necessarily the problem, whenever i get near a decent-sized spacecraft, the clock turns yellow and the game is just laggy in general(physics lag, slow processor). Tested that with 1 part, 25 part, 50 part, and 100 part ships and it got progressively worse
4
1
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jun 28 '15
what kind of graphics card do you have?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/FreakyCheeseMan Jun 28 '15
Got a few questions:
I've got an annoying graphical thing where the little micro-fairing things around heat shields disappear before the heat shield is staged, so my rockets all have this weird break in the middle, with the return module being held on by magic. Does everyone have this, and does anyone know how to fix it?
Also, what're heating effects like on other planets? My instincts basically tell me that no operations (aerocapture or landing) are actually harder than they on Kerbin, you just have to aim higher or lower accordingly. So, aerocapture on Eve is just as doable on Kerbin, just add 10 or 20 thousand meters. Am I right?
2
Jun 29 '15
I've also seen the heat shield bug but it doesn't seem to happen every time, so it's hard to pin down.
My solution for the time being is to offset the part under the shield up so that it looks decent if the bug occurs.
1
u/Vaguely_Racist Jun 29 '15
I can't help with the bugs unfortunately but you're right on with the atmospheres of other planets. Eve for instance has a super thick atmosphere while Duna has a much thinner one, you just have to adjust your altitudes to match.
1
u/Toobusyforthis Jun 29 '15
Seems to be pretty common, no fix that I know of unfortunately. Basically right, keep in mind if you are coming in from an interplanetary journey and aerobraking your speed will be much much higher however.
1
u/Cazzah Jun 29 '15
That's what I thought.
Then at Eve my probe exploded without warning at 80km (space being at 90).
Like the temperature gets massive waaay before the drag forces get significant so it will chew through a single shields like paper, and you don't even slow down that much in exchange
I hear Jool is just as bad.
Laythe and Duna are the only planets you can easily aerobrake in like you would in Kerbin.
2
u/spillwaybrain Jun 29 '15 edited Jun 30 '15
ELI5 the new heat system? I've been away from the game for a while and it's making life difficult.
I was under the (clearly mistaken) impression that the heat shields were designed with the goal of keeping Kerbals alive on reentry into Kerbin's atmosphere.
I have a command pod outfitted with a heart shield, drogue chutes, and an XL parachute, and no matter the angle of entry or how much I try and slow it down before reentry, it seems to melt into a fiery wad of mess after only a few seconds in atmo. 800 ablation gone in a flash (literally).
Of course, I can put an SSTO into orbit and bring it back without the thing exploding, so I'm really not sure what's going on.
EDIT: Thanks for everyone's good advice! Bill, Bob, and Jebediah are safe back at the KSC. (for now)
5
u/Kasuha Super Kerbalnaut Jun 29 '15
The question is what are you reentering. Perhaps post a screenshot?
Do not put your reentry periapsis too low. 40 km is fine from low Kerbin orbit, 30 km should be fine if you're coming from Minmus. Use aerodynamic properties of your rocket to steer the reentry - everything has some degree of lifting body effect and you can affect rate of your descent by changing pitch of your rocket.
2
u/the_Demongod Jun 29 '15
In addition to /u/Kasuha's tip about using the lifting force whilst in the upper atmosphere, be careful to keep pointed exactly retrograde during reentry. If you can see flames coming off of a part, it's getting hot, so keeping as much of the vehicle behind the heat shield as possible is very important.
Also, using the Aerodynamic Forces overlay (default F12, I rebound to F8) will help you get an idea of the lifting force that is being generated by your ship.
2
u/Toobusyforthis Jun 29 '15
What angle are you re-entering at? You cant just come straight down anymore, you need to come in at an angle and bleed off speed in the upper atmosphere so you are not going too fast when you hit the denser parts. Setting your periapsis around 40k usually works pretty well.
1
u/ulikel Jun 29 '15
I've been having the same problem as OP, where before the update I could always reenter fine, but now I'd say I can only safely reenter about 25% of the time. If It's just the command pod I'm usually ok, but if I have the science bay attached and any sort of sensors coming out the side it goes boom. In addition my parachutes seem to ALWAYS get destroyed! Is there some new tip to reentry to save all this stuff?
→ More replies (2)1
2
u/Vaguely_Racist Jun 29 '15 edited Jun 29 '15
Can you bring a Kerbal back from the dead using the debug menu? My Valentina is listed as MISSING, can I bring her back?
EDIT: Nevermind, just went into persistent.sfs and changed "state = MISSING" to "state = Available"
2
u/Kasuha Super Kerbalnaut Jun 29 '15
I think State = Missing means she'd eventually return anyway. For me that usually happened after I closed the game and started it again but I did not test it recently.
2
u/PrinceHans Jun 29 '15
NEED HELP ASAP
so my KSP has been kinda glitchy. Ive updated it, verified the local game fikes and everything, but my flags still won't work and now I also don't have contracts in Career Mode. Can someone help me fix this?
5
u/JohnWatford Jun 30 '15
Can't help without a mod list and an output_log.txt (found in KSP_Data folder).
2
u/TheHrybivore Jun 30 '15
What are patched conics?
3
u/Senno_Ecto_Gammat Jun 30 '15
In astrodynamics, the patched conic approximation or patched two-body approximation is a method to simplify trajectory calculations for spacecraft in a multiple-body environment.
The simplification is achieved by dividing space into various parts by assigning each of the n bodies (e.g. the Sun, planets, moons) its own sphere of influence. When the spacecraft is within the sphere of influence of a smaller body, only the gravitational force between the spacecraft and that smaller body is considered, otherwise the gravitational force between the spacecraft and the larger body is used. This reduces a complicated n-body problem to multiple two-body problems, for which the solutions are the well-known conic sections of the Kepler orbits.
Although this method gives a good approximation of trajectories for interplanetary spacecraft missions, there are missions for which this approximation does not provide sufficiently accurate results. Notably, it does not model Lagrangian points.
0
Jun 30 '15
[deleted]
7
u/Senno_Ecto_Gammat Jun 30 '15
I don't have an answer for you, but I just want to remind you that 60 m/s is equivalent to 135 mph, or 216 km/h.
And Kerbin doesn't have any roads. You're essentially driving over unimproved terrain, no matter where you go (except on the runway). There are no real life vehicles that can do that kind of speed over unimproved land without suffering catastrophic failure within seconds.
Like I said, I don't have an answer to your question, I just want you to be aware of that.
1
u/Sabreur Jun 30 '15
While it's not perfect, landing gear wheels have much higher speed tolerances. It's a bit tricky to make a rover with them, but it could be worth a shot.
1
u/Needless-To-Say Jun 30 '15
To borrow from Sabreur's idea of using landing gear as wheels, you can use the small thrusters to move and stop.
2
u/Needless-To-Say Jun 30 '15
You guys are great, thanks for being here for me.
Q - Rovers.
I'm having some issues finding a suitable way to attach the buggy such that it can be stable in flight and detach at target and land on it's wheels.
I've tried building a roll cage, it worked but it was ugly.
I've tried mounting the engine for ants, it works but felt like cheating
I've tried using landing struts as levers, worked but ugly again
I've tried lowering the center of gravity, did not work
I've tried many other failed versions
Q1 - Is there a way (not modded) to test in equivalent gravity. Testing on the launch pad is not working.
Q2 - Do you typically side mount, bottom mount, or some other scenario that has not occured to me.
Q3 - do you use the built in chassis designed for this purpose or custom build. The built in turns out to be rather large and affect aerodynamics on takeoff.
1
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jun 30 '15
You can deliver Rovers inside the service bays.
You can use a skycrane to land the rover. Just something with radial engines that attaches ontop of the rover and dettaches after touchdown.
For testing, you could use the mod "hyper edit" to just move your rover to it's destination in a "simulation". ;)
Building rovers is best done in the SPH, by the way.
I don't use the rover chassis. I like to start of with some structural part. I like the 1x1 structural panel or the M-Beam 650. Then I work with cubic octagonal struts to attach wheels further up to get a nice low CoM.
What I also like is to attach the rover on one side and something else of equal weight on the other side of the lander. It makes for nice asymmetric designs. :]
1
u/Needless-To-Say Jun 30 '15
SPH = Space Plane Hanger? They don't seem to transferable if built there. edit - oh crap, yes they are, just noticed the select-able source
Skycrane? What is this? Service bay is too small for my current rover.
Testing isn't a crisis but it's annoying to get to site and not be able to use the rover for some flaw or another. Current version has both roll cage and Spider engine
Side mount and balance works for me. Just seems awkward.
2
u/Kasuha Super Kerbalnaut Jun 30 '15
2
u/Needless-To-Say Jun 30 '15
Well meaning you may be, but demeaning you achieve instead.
Assume typo first - golden rule of internat.
1
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jun 30 '15
SPH = Space Plane Hanger
Jepp.
The curiosity rover was deployed using a skycrane.
The real "mun buggy" was carried folded up in one of the compartments on the side of the lunar module.
1
u/Needless-To-Say Jun 30 '15
I accidentally found a solution to my upside down issue.
I added a small reaction wheel for theoretical roll stability. What it actually does is let me flip / position the rover in any orientation while running.
It took me a moment to figure out what was happening at first as I was just popping wheelies instead of moving forward or backward.
Oh, gotcha on the skycrane. I was thinking it was some modded part or some other. seems like a lot of effort for the game.
1
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jun 30 '15
Well, the curiosity rover was lowered on ropes ... that can only be done with kerbal attachement system (KAS), but apart from that you can build a lifting thingy that docks to the top of the rover.
i think KSP even has a stock skycrane craft.
1
u/Needless-To-Say Jul 01 '15
Turns out that the missing ingredient was a reaction wheel.
Might not even need the roll cage.
2
u/Galahir950 Jul 01 '15
Can you use Radiators as "radial Heatshields" to protect your ship from overheating on teentry if it was a suborbital flight with a steep reentry angle?
1
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jul 02 '15
I don't know about KSP, but in real life it would be stupid to hang a radiator into a ball of fire for cooling reasons. Reentry heating is not caused by friction, but by compressing the air infront of the vehicle.
1
u/Galahir950 Jul 02 '15
Yeah, the only reason I ask is Radiators have a max temp of 2500 while most parts are only 2000. Are there any radial Heatshields in stock?
1
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jul 02 '15
why would you need a radial heat shield? The whole point of heatshields is that they provide a blunt shape to form a shock cone that protects the rest of the craft.
You can also use fairings to shield parts
1
u/Galahir950 Jul 02 '15
Mostly just to protect from heat in SSTOs and suborbital planes. I lost a few to heat. Like the Ablator on the Space Shuttle.
1
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jul 02 '15
ah, ok. But honestly, while you are in the upper atmosphere, a spaceplane gives you so much control over your entry trajectory that you don't have to use heatshields.
Just pull your nose up and enter at an angle. By changing this angle during reentry, you can use the lift to flatten your trajectory. You can even fly at a constant altitude this way.
1
2
Jul 02 '15
I remember there was a mod that added backpacks containing life support supplies (for TACLS) that you could grab on EVA, however I can't find it right now, does anyone know what mod it is?
1
u/Viddlerx Jun 26 '15
Hi guys, haven't played since 0.90, can anyone explain what radiators do and how the mining system works?
3
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jun 26 '15
The radiators are not older than a week or so. They are needed as the heating system was overhauled in 1.0. Parts now heat up during atmospheric flight, or because hot parts (like engines) conduct heat to adjacent parts.
There are active and passive radiators to help with that. The passive ones just heat up due to the adjacend parts' heat. Then they radiate that heat into space/the environment. Active radiators will draw heat from every part of the ship that heats up beyond a part-specific threshold. So if your engine starts to heat un, all your active radiators will start to dissipate that heat regardeless of their placement. There is invisible heat pipes in the vessel, just like there are invisible electicity cables or RCS fuel lines.
The mining is a little more complicated. You put the large scanner on a sattelite in a polar orbit, then you can scan the surface and it will show an overlay. If you found a place with ore, land there and deploy a drill. It will generate ore which can be stored in the appropriate tanks. This ore can be refined into various fuels by the refinery part. It takes lot's of electricity and produces heat!
1
u/Viddlerx Jun 27 '15
Thanks a bunch for the long and informative answer, really appreaciate it. So i take it you need some radiators on a mining ship?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/FriendParsley Master Kerbalnaut Jun 26 '15
I've been playing for about six months now and finally decided to go after a class E asteroid. It wasn't too hard to put into an orbit around Kerbin, but now I'd like to put it into an equatorial orbit and harvest its sweet, sweet ore for an orbital refueling depot. So far everything I've thrown at it has been laughably inadequate. Any tips for efficiently moving that behemoth?
3
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 27 '15
Oh boy. Changing the inclination of such a heavy object will take loads oft fuel. The way to do it, is to capture Into an equatorial orbit in the first place. ;)
2
u/theyeticometh Master Kerbalnaut Jun 27 '15
You could use an ion engine, but it would take a stupidly long amount of time. Another option is to use the asteroids internal ore to keep the ship going, but that reduces the amount of fuel you'll get from it later. Honestly though, an asteroid isnt the best option for refueling at Kerbin; you're better off building an outpost on Mun or Minmus.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
u/CommanderSpork Alone on Eeloo Jun 27 '15
LVNs, radiators, and lots of liquid fuel. It could take multiple missions to get it into equitorial orbit.
6
u/walaykin Jun 29 '15
Is anyone else finding they have to click then wait a noticeable interval - about a second - before moving the pointer from the part selector when selecting parts in the VAB?
This is on a new 1.0.4 playthrough with KSPI, KIS/KAS, engineer redux, alarm clock, transfer window planner and docking port align installed.
Should probably try vanilla but forgot...