the little dot on the top next to the 'crew' tab - click it. Will make anything you place be 2/3/4/5/6-way symmetrical.
Also, pressing 'T' keeps the SAS on, no need to hold down 'F'. Also, to lock the stages so you don't accidentally hit space and jettison/fire the current stage on accident, press alt-L
I achieved orbit for the first time at 50km. Once I saw the launch pad after orbiting once, I used the remaining fuel to run a de-orbit burn. Apparently the Kerbanauts survived just fine.
So... with the sunday punch mod, I was pleased to see more coupler styles. so I built a rocket with as many stages as possible. Made it to 8 before I started hitting the launch pad!
So... with the sunday punch mod, I was pleased to see more coupler styles. so I built a rocket with as many stages as possible. Made it to 8 before I started hitting the launch pad!
Last I tried, I got to about 2600 km @ 9000 + m/s when my fuel ran out. This model will go farther/faster... if I can get the stage transitions to keep from blowing up.
keep in mind you can drag items up/down in the firing order. Like I made my 2-tank liquid engines and my boosters both fire in stage 3 - the attachment points for the boosters are in stage 2, and the coupler between the capsule and the liquids are stage 1. (parachute is stage 0)
What this does is fire all engines on liftoff, and ejects the boosters when they're done while the liquids continue to boost.
btw - liquid engines are more powerful than solids, and have a better thrust/weight ratio.
You should be able to make orbit with this - just make the bottom liquid and both solid boosters launch on liftoff, and lay the rocket over at 30,000 feet
Re-entry? You might need another liquid tank for the top stage.
(make a /screenshots directory in the KSP folder - F1 will take screenshots.)
edit: adding a third tank to the bottom stage did nothing, all it does is waste a tank's worth of fuel to get it off the pad. If you want to do re-entry, do 3 tanks on the bottom stage, but go with 3 boosters.
btw - liquid engines are more powerful than solids, and have a better thrust/weight ratio.
Maybe in the game, but not in the real world. Solids are far more powerful, less weight, less size = far less drag. They also have fewer possible failures because of fewer parts. The only down sides are no off switch and no variable thrust.
0
KwitkoSheriff of Banning (Retired)By the thing near the stuffIcrontian
edited July 2011
I would trust a guy whose screen name is Missleman.
Maybe in the game, but not in the real world. Solids are far more powerful, less weight, less size = far less drag. They also have fewer possible failures because of fewer parts. The only down sides are no off switch and no variable thrust.
Yeah I did test just this kind of thing for 30 years. A bit rusty now, but this game brings the mindset back. It is a fairly accurate setup of the basic issues in a VERY simplistic way. It is quite fun although somewhat easy
There's a few things wrong, but yeah, it's pretty fun.
Known issues:
solid boosters don't give enough thrust for their weight
game (game engine) crashes when you get too far away
some of the add-ons are unrealistic. For example, nose cones are cosmetic only, and the giant fuel ball has 5x the fuel if a normal liquid tank, but has the same weight when full. (cheater fuel)
There's a few fixes on the way, and add-ons, like support struts so rocket stacks don't splay out like a banana.
Maybe in the game, but not in the real world. Solids are far more powerful, less weight, less size = far less drag. They also have fewer possible failures because of fewer parts. The only down sides are no off switch and no variable thrust.
This statement is somewhat misleading as the various technologies lend themselves to different applications. It's relatively simple to design, build, and operate solid-propellant motors vs. liquid-propellant engines but the efficiency of solid-propellant motors is roughly half that of the liquid-propellant engines. That is, for equivalent thrust per mass unit of propellant, a properly-designed liquid-propellant engine yields almost double the delta-V of the solid-propellant motor. Electric engines like ion thrusters and Hall effect thrusters are a few orders of magnitude even more efficient.
The trouble is, each of these engine types have their own quirks and are only practical to build within certain ranges of thrust and operating conditions. Solid-propellant motors can not be throttled on command but can be designed with a particular thrust vs. time curve built-in. They also don't scale very well beyond a certain point as motor performance is coupled with the quantity and arrangement of propellant. Liquid-propellant combustion motors don't scale down or up past a certain point due to mechanical complexity but because propellant storage is not coupled to engine performance a great deal of flexibility is permitted. Electric engines are large and heavy compared to their thrust and can only fire in a vacuum but can burn continuously for years on a modest quantity of propellant.
That's the word from your friendly neighborhood aerospace engineer.
0
colapart legend, part devil... all manBalls deepIcrontian
edited July 2011
So last night I decided to see what all the hubub was about. I ended up staying up till 2:30a.m. making increasingly dangerous and unstable rockets FOR SCIENCE! I was regretting it at 5:00 a.m. when I had to get up for work though. Great find XD
Comments
Also, pressing 'T' keeps the SAS on, no need to hold down 'F'. Also, to lock the stages so you don't accidentally hit space and jettison/fire the current stage on accident, press alt-L
That just means you need to build it bigger.
Did you make it to Alpha Centauri on that thing?
Made orbit-
Apogee: 103099 @ ??
Perigee: 96380 @ 2257.5 m/s
I came up just short of the launch site in the sea to the east. The launch site just went out of site at about 1000m over sea level.
Last I tried, I got to about 2600 km @ 9000 + m/s when my fuel ran out. This model will go farther/faster... if I can get the stage transitions to keep from blowing up.
What this does is fire all engines on liftoff, and ejects the boosters when they're done while the liquids continue to boost.
btw - liquid engines are more powerful than solids, and have a better thrust/weight ratio.
Re-entry? You might need another liquid tank for the top stage.
(make a /screenshots directory in the KSP folder - F1 will take screenshots.)
edit: adding a third tank to the bottom stage did nothing, all it does is waste a tank's worth of fuel to get it off the pad. If you want to do re-entry, do 3 tanks on the bottom stage, but go with 3 boosters.
Right now I'm trying to make an extra-solar system model.
I propose a new challenge:
BOMBING RUN
Travel to 50km+, land (have your exhaust hit the ground), achieve safe distance of 20km from landing site
edit: landing definition added
Made a ship go 12.45 km/s...
I looked up the escape velocity for the solar system: 42.1 km/s @ earth, 7.7 km/s at Neptune.
So... depends on where you're at. Getting to 42.1 km/s will be challenging.
Also, is there a way to automatically aim your spaceship straight up with a control module or something?
What did it look like before it was a fireball?
press 'T' to hold the SAS on. holf F for manual control. More SAS units = more stability (and more weight).
Prag - the infamous 'space trees' crash! That happens to everyone that reaches a specific distance. The physics engine can't handle it.
Maybe in the game, but not in the real world. Solids are far more powerful, less weight, less size = far less drag. They also have fewer possible failures because of fewer parts. The only down sides are no off switch and no variable thrust.
lol, yes, I'm talking about the game.
Made a new speed record! 14,729.1 m/s with the sunday punch mod
Definitely a long flight to do it, I think I'll try and find a way to make thrust rather than a long flight next.
Thanks for giving me yet another way to spend my evenings icrontic.
Known issues:
There's a few fixes on the way, and add-ons, like support struts so rocket stacks don't splay out like a banana.
The trouble is, each of these engine types have their own quirks and are only practical to build within certain ranges of thrust and operating conditions. Solid-propellant motors can not be throttled on command but can be designed with a particular thrust vs. time curve built-in. They also don't scale very well beyond a certain point as motor performance is coupled with the quantity and arrangement of propellant. Liquid-propellant combustion motors don't scale down or up past a certain point due to mechanical complexity but because propellant storage is not coupled to engine performance a great deal of flexibility is permitted. Electric engines are large and heavy compared to their thrust and can only fire in a vacuum but can burn continuously for years on a modest quantity of propellant.
That's the word from your friendly neighborhood aerospace engineer.