StarDestroyer.Net BBS

 Post subject: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 12:22am 

The Mighty Kerbalistani Space program has finally succeeded in landing a man on the Mün!



Yes, 0.16 has added EVAs to the mix. The little guys even have their own jet packs (although in the above Comrade Hudlin is jumping!).

Now, there is an autopilot pack called MechJeb that I use, but only because I have a really hard time timing circularizations and injections. It's between the capsule and the 'chute.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 02:14am 

Truly, the sacrifice of countless Kerbalistanis has not gone in vain! Whoever said trial and error doesn't work in aerospace?

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 02:24am 

Are there permanent/saved objects in space yet? I'd want to build persistant space infrastructure.

Then blow it up with badly executed launches. Whee.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 02:26am 

There are, actually, but no docking yet

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 03:41am 

Damn, I thought this was a thread about Prometheus the movie.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 05:23am 

I heard that the persistent infrastructure people had got erased by the latest update. Probably because they had to change all the modules to enable EVAs.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 05:30am 

they also resized all the parts because physics were getting wonky with teeeny Kerbals.

This means I will have to redo all my glourious inventions, such as the



Glourious People's Republic of North Kerbalistan Zig/Zil Combination Munar Probeski!

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 05:32am 

This is a worthy spacetankski. I like that a lot.

...How did you balance it on a rocket?

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 05:36am 

The two fuel tanks on the front and back are integral features of the design

Plus I slapped RCS wherever possible to hold the rocket upright with brute force.

It still gets unbalanced when trying to land on the Mun. Needs adjustment. Also more volunteers to put behind the wheel.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 06:41am 

Has anyone had success with a Single Stage To Orbit spaceplane yet?

I had one that was fairly epic in size, but it kept snapping into pieces on the tarmac no matter how many reinforcing struts I added or more landing gear to create less stress in the fuselage.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 08:24am 

I've gotten planes off the runway, but they don't make it far.

Now, here are some of my achievements:

Behold! The mighty Sky Center! (Skylab was already taken, so in true Kerbal spirit, we took the next best thing)



Jeb, our faithful World Hero, going EVA during the Mun landing:



Bill tries to bring him back in, just in time to actually land:



They didn't count on hills, so here they are posing in front of the debris of their trusty R-I:



Full shot:



Fear not, Raycott Kerman has been sent on a rescue mission!



Raycott Kerman, Lesser Hero:



Bill Kerman, hiker:



(They have to walk ~10km to the other lander)

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 08:35am 

I do in fact possess a streamlined and most efficient design which is capable of (one way) cross-continental flights, and water landings and takeoff (once).



It is most efficient and has no superfluous features whatsoever! Da! Almost a 10% mission success rate!

The key to having a flyable plane, I find, is simple: angle of attack. Angle the wings slightly upwards, and for the love of Jeb DO NOT EVER TURN OFF THE AUTOPILOT

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 08:43am 

The problem I keep having is that if I try to turn, it rolls out of control 99 out of 100 times. And the 1 that actually turned correctly broke up on landing.

And is that a mod part I see? For shame. Also, intakes are ATM just decorative, at least if I recall correctly.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 08:50am 

You have to use precise controls (caps lock) and again NEVER EVER turn off advanced SAS.It dampens the maneuvers.

And yeah, that's a rotor from an aerospace pack.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 10:45am 

I've gotten one plane that was actually stable, but it requires a lot of fiddling to get planes stable in maneuvers. The only one that worked well was a huge disappointment because I like playing around to get things perfect. The only problem is the rudders deciding they need to get involved in rolls, which adds a lot of unwanted yaw. I've mostly been trying to crack Mach 2.5 or so with turbojets and awaiting intakes so I can make a play at building a kerbal SR-71 equivalent. The problem is mostly that going to orbit means aero spikes and they drink fuel and ruin the center of gravity so the plane needs to be built around one. I think the most effective way might be to use turbojets to their ceiling and then turning on the aerospike.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 10:51am 

I haven't played with spaceplanes as such, but droptanks are a possibility, and I actually did use them on the JebBoat to extend range when the capsule landed a bit far away.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 11:00am 

I was kind of figuring on the turbojets being jettisonable, maybe the wings too...

I'll put a parachute on them so they're reusable or something. That's like single stage to orbit, right?

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 11:05am 

With the right amount of creative accounting, sure!

I mean, parts would fall off anyways, right? So what's the difference?

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 02:00pm 

Yeah, I discovered the precise controls after I gave up on planes, lol. I also figured that some designs probably require a locked trim to keep them stable, at least on the pitch. I've read on the forums about the chase camera, and it's apparently very useful. Haven't tried, though.

In fact, most of my hangar creations are jet cars.

Oh, and since someone mentioned the aerospike, it's the greatest rocket motor in the game, at least for first stages. It's extremely efficient and has a nice high thrust, too.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 02:28pm 

I just built designs with good natural stability and high rotational inertia. That seemed to work well, except for in the yaw direction. Haven't been able to raise the stability in the yaw direction much with the restrictions imposed by landing gear since I don't have wings and the like providing any damping. Maybe a big tail fin would help. Or three, excuse me while I build a Hawkeye's tail assembly in KSP.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-24 02:57pm 

Despite my love of just throwing stuff together, I have manged to at the very least, get a flyable aircraft. Eventually. As is traditional, it achieves flight using nothing more than RAW POWER.


I'm just installing the v16 update now, we'll see if I can make anything more stable. or even... get to the Mun.

Also built this. Looks nice, needs more POWER. Or possibly wings.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-25 05:52am 

So I installed .16, and it turns out they limited time acceleration in atmosphere to x1.

Yaaaaaay, I guess? The Kerbals are cute when they run around though.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-25 02:34pm 

Demonstrating the spirit of adventure we know the Kerbals for I decided to try the least efficient exploration of the north pole ever. Saving money on Toyotas, dog sleds and any of that, we instead used a colossal rocket to loft Bob Kerman into orbit! After orbiting for a bit, we dropped him onto the polar ice caps.







Now just to walk him back to base. Fuck.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-25 03:03pm 

Time Accel in Atmos did weird things to structural integrity checks. I always had rockets break apart hideously at any accel.

 Post subject: Re: Kerbal Space Program, Revisited.

Posted: 2012-07-25 04:44pm 

Which is obviously na issue when you're forced to watch fifteen minutes of the capsule deorbiting!