Gaming The Kerbal Space Program - Version 1.2.x

[sorindafabico]

Returning from the Mun, right before the entry interface, I noticed my ship (a MK-1 Lander Can) was lacking a stage separator - my intention was re-enter with the lander + a heat shield.

I was preparing for Jeb's funeral, but the entire stack (lander, tank, engine, legs) managed to re-enter Kerbin's atmosphere and splashed down safely. The heat shield was between the lander and the tank.

According to temperature gauge icons, my ship nearly exploded. Jeb would be dead now if my re-entry angle was steeper, but I think that the heat model could be perfected to avoid the possibility of a lander reentering nude from the Mun.

---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 PM ----------

PS: since the last patch (1.0.2), the game always crashes when I click to recover vessel right after splashdown.

 

[N_Molson]

...but I think that the heat model could be perfected to avoid the possibility of a lander reentering nude from the Mun.

- Currently the temp threshold for the lander Mk1 can (and the big one too I think) is 2000°, which is IMHO far too much. This might be OK for capsules, but not for LM-like things. The real LM cabin walls were hardly thicker than several aluminium foils layered. While KSP is not reality, something around 1000° would do the trick I think (it is even written in the part description that no atmospheric reentry should be tried with it).

- Another thing is that since v1.0.1 the ablator "resource" consumption is drastically lower during heat exposure. The v1.0 consumption rate was much more balanced, heatshields are over-efficient now.

Other than that, lots of fun ! I like the new parachutes deployment model. I lost a few Kerbal before setting more conservative altitude deployment figures

 

[sorindafabico]

Currently the temp threshold for the lander Mk1 can (and the big one too I think) is 2000°, which is IMHO far too much. This might be OK for capsules, but not for LM-like things.

Not only the lander part itself, but the other parts (tank, legs, engine), too. Anyway, this saved Jeb's life

 

[N_Molson]

Yeah, actually 2000°C seems to be the "default" value for most parts. That should not be too hard to tweak

KerLab I deployment :

Notice that the solar panels didn't suffer at all from being exposed during the ascent :hmm:

 

[Evil_Onyx]

I have a Question, Do you think a engine part that has an isp of 10000 ,trust of 128 and a mass of 4t is cheaty when it costs 2,000,000?
which can quite easily bankrupt you if you don't recover it from the runway or pad.

My test craft is a SSTO with 2 of them that costs 68,000 before the engines.

Yes I know the lights are the wrong side.

 

[N_Molson]

Do you think a engine part that has an isp of 10000 ,trust of 128 and a mass of 4t is cheaty

I'd say yes. But I've never been an SSTO-spaceplane enthusiast, I prefer the "old-fashioned" quad-NTR + jumbo orange tank EOR (well KOR) thing. Though I'm far from being there in my career game (saving 1,000,000 to upgrade the R&D facility, hard mode)

 

[Cairan]

If it costs 2 000 000, I wouldn't call it any more cheaty than say, the XR-2 ... Especially if you are playing in career with a hard game setting!

Considering that KSP is anything but accurate in terms of aerodynamics, physics (density of the planets and size of the Kerbol system, anyone?), I'd give you a pass on this

 

[kamaz]

A few more screenshots, including one with the date and time of when this occurred, are in this gallery.

I see your space agency is named KASA. In Polish, kasa = money. :lol:

 

[Linguofreak]

The new aerodynamics stuff does improve planes, but it makes building and launching a stack rocket nightmarishly (although, distressingly, probably somewhat realistically) difficult. Its difficult to build a stage that won't spontaneously skew itself 90 degrees to the wind. Even then, the stage ends up being *too* stable if the nose is within a degree or two of the velocity vector, so that you can't fly a pitch program slowly, and will *still* turn itself 90 degrees to the wind if you pitch too quickly. Even if you manage to keep the stack under control, you either suffer from ruinous drag losses if you try to do a pitch program, or never get the horizontal velocity to enter orbit if you don't.

 

[N_Molson]

The new aerodynamics stuff does improve planes, but it makes building and launching a stack rocket nightmarishly (although, distressingly, probably somewhat realistically) difficult. Its difficult to build a stage that won't spontaneously skew itself 90 degrees to the wind. Even then, the stage ends up being *too* stable if the nose is within a degree or two of the velocity vector, so that you can't fly a pitch program slowly, and will *still* turn itself 90 degrees to the wind if you pitch too quickly. Even if you manage to keep the stack under control, you either suffer from ruinous drag losses if you try to do a pitch program, or never get the horizontal velocity to enter orbit if you don't.

That's more difficult, but as you say much more realistic and not that hard. There are a few things that are now essential :

- Engine gimbal is necessary to keep things under control. Seriously, rockets controlled by CMGs ? That wasn't credible. So, as an example, use the LTV-45 instead of the LTV-30. You lose 15kN of thrust in vacuum, but that's not a big deal. LTV-30s can still be great as LRBs. Almost all the other main rocket engines in the game are gimbal-capable, and the gimbal ranges have been increased. There is even a "gimbal limit" option.

- Fins, even the basic ones, help a lot to keep the rocket in the airflow. At 25 KR$ each, they're a bargain, and do not create that much drag. Steerable ones tend to be much more expensive, but they give you an excellent control.

- Pitch control during the ascent and a well-executed gravity turn are the keys of a successful launch. The rockets, if correctly equipped with fairings and nosecones, gets through the air much more efficiently than before. They just heat a bit. Personally, I now begin the pitch much earlier : 80° at 8,000 meters, 70° at 14,000, 60° at 20,000, 50° or less at 30,000. And once there the air isn't thick enough to be a source of troubles.

- Keep the stack into the airstream with a +-10° AoA limit. Outside of this enveloppe you suffer drag losses and can experience the dreaded "flipovers" (which torn real rockets apart when it happens, and it does, see that nasty Proton-M failure that happened the other Summer). That's true only under 30,000 meters, after that you're free, depending the type of orbit you're aiming at.

Things are pretty nasty at the beginning of the carreer mode, as you only have the no-gimballed engines. But they recently added the small'n'cheap fins, which balance things a bit, and you don't have to reach the Mun with that kind of low-tech. Then the engines and fins get better and better in terms of control.

Oh, and "wobble" still kills, that too.

 

[Unstung]

I was running out of easy science points on Minmus and the Mun so I sent two probes to Duna.

The first is a rover that targeted the lowlands (I promise it's in there) called Valley Mariner (because Mars).

The second is a compact polar orbiter called Ares (because Mars again).

The orbiter had enough fuel to transfer into a polar orbit around Ike to collect all the science before returning to Duna.

After the science mission was finished, the core stage was crashed into a location with a nice view of Ike.

Speaking of the aerodynamics, I found that adding entire wings with elevons to my rockets really helps me control the launch.

 

[Unstung]

The rover:

I think I'm doing it wrong.

I found the time consuming way that there's no science to be gained by rendezvousing with an asteroid, wasting my first ever visit to such an object. Apparently, I have to send some Kerbals to the asteroid to gain some science points. I should research the grapple too.

 

[N_Molson]

I found the time consuming way that there's no science to be gained by rendezvousing with an asteroid, wasting my first ever visit to such an object. Apparently, I have to send some Kerbals to the asteroid to gain some science points. I should research the grapple too.

Currently, Asteroids are more-or-less defined in the equivalent of Orbiter's "VESSEL" class. So they behave in a very different way compared to planetary bodies. It seems that's the price to pay for having them spawning in vast number, having random trajectories and the possiblity to be grappled. Actually, some NEO-missions addons in Orbiter used a similar approach.

I'm sure that Harv' & Co. will find a way to add some science script for them, as yes, it definitively seems you should be rewarded for such a feat.

 

[boogabooga]

It's not exactly a ringing endorsement of NASA's asteroid redirect mission- which supposedly collaborated somehow on the project- that going to an asteroid in KSP returns no actual scientific value. :rofl:

Perhaps it should be included as a contract- for example if one of the spawned asteroids is on a collision course with Kerbin you get a BIG payoff to go and deflect it.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

The rover:

I think I'm doing it wrong.

I found the time consuming way that there's no science to be gained by rendezvousing with an asteroid, wasting my first ever visit to such an object. Apparently, I have to send some Kerbals to the asteroid to gain some science points. I should research the grapple too.

Use the DMagic Science pack. A lot of the science instruments from the pack will provide you with science from a wide rage of locations, including asteroids. And there is an asteroid-specific instrument... but you need to have two of them on opposite sides of the rock for it to work.

 

[boogabooga]

Good tip on the DMagic Science pack. Makes the science a LOT more interesting. Finally, science makes more sense than "Mystery Goo (TM)". Perhaps worth starting a career. Also, the Universal storage thing is cool too.

And on a side note I continue to maintain that my biggest problem with KSP is that I have too strong of a sense of what spacecraft are "supposed" to look like...

 

[Fabri91]

First SSTO, the blandly named Surveyor SSTO, which is derived (more or less) from the craft that took part in this mission:

 

[boogabooga]

What was the ratio of liquid fuel nodes vs. liquid fuel + ox nodes in that one above?

Did you reduce the amount of liquid fuel from default?

I find my space planes run out of oxidizer before fuel.

 

[C3PO]

I had a feeling there was something missing here.

And then it hit me:

 

[Fabri91]

What was the ratio of liquid fuel nodes vs. liquid fuel + ox nodes in that one above?

Did you reduce the amount of liquid fuel from default?

I find my space planes run out of oxidizer before fuel.

Fuselage was made of fuel+oxy tanks, with extra liquid fuel in the pre-coolers and the wings. I have not yet reduced the amount of liquid fuel, so I made orbit starting with full tanks, but I suppose that at least 300 units of liquid fuel could be removed and still maintain some useful range after re-entry for use in airbreathing mode. (2*40 in the pre-coolers, 2*300 in the wings). Will have to test.