Wanderfound

Members
  • Content count

    4829
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1174 Excellent

About Wanderfound

  • Rank
    Mach 6 is my launchpad.
  1. In very early versions of KSP, yes, but that hasn't been the case for a few years now. No matter how many intakes you have, turbojets will die around 26km and RAPIERs around 30km. So long as you have enough intake to keep it at 100% air supply at that altitude, you have enough; any more is a waste. For a two-jet ship, one good intake is all you need.
  2. That's a good revision, but it's still massively oversupplied with intakes. One ramscoop will feed two jets, one intercooler will feed three. There's enough there for fourteen engines. Swapping out some intakes for tankage and nosecones would reduce drag and improve its range substantially. It also wants a Mk2->1.25m adaptor on the back of the central fuselage.
  3. You'll need to limit fuel types. A RAPIER on LF maxes out at 1,755m/s or so, but if you then flick them into closed-cycle oxidising mode you can continue to accelerate until you burn up or run out of fuel. There have been plenty of jet speed challenges before, and they all inevitably end up around 1,755. It could be interesting to see what folks can achieve in closed-cycle mode... You need to keep heating on to make it interesting, though. Otherwise it's just a ΔV contest. What do you mean by "mesosphere", BTW? Better to give the altitude limit in metres.
  4. High speed atmospheric flight in KSP is primarily about drag reduction (minimise radially-attached junk, use wing incidence to minimise fuselage drag, neither too little nor too much wing) and heat resistance (a fuel tank between the nose and the cockpit helps a lot with this). A demonstrator that can hold 1,600m/s+ long enough to circumnavigate Kerbin:
  5. Yes, downsize the ISRU. Also add nukes, maximise your LF tankage and minimise drag. Add a bit of wing incidence to minimise fuselage drag, use the fuel-holding Big-S wings. Something like this: https://kerbalx.com/Wanderfound/Kerbodyne-Aqua About 4,000m/s dV fully fuelled. Note the fuel proportions: just enough oxidiser to lift an apoapsis, LF and the nukes for the rest. The seaplane ability and docking port are optional. When building these, you need to take care that the drills are properly shielded by the cargo bay. Right-click the drills and check their shielded state (activate aero data in the cheat menu) to be sure. There's a bug that sometimes causes the game to treat objects as unshielded even when they appear to be contained by the bay.
  6. Seconding everyone else: too big, too heavy, overcomplicated. Nukes are massive overkill for a short hop to the Mun. Once you're in orbit, the only engines you'd see on a sensibly sized Munlander would typically be Terriers or Sparks. A smaller demonstrator, built to have enough dV to hop between a few biomes while on the Mun: That's still a bit on the beefy and over-expensive side by my standards. These days, I'd be more likely to do the lander like this: Landing on Moho in that pic, but a similar concept is fine for the Mun and Minmus. The narrower form factor of the 0.625m radial tanks makes it much easier to fit inside a cargo bay or under a fairing, removing the need to streamline the whole ship.
  7. My standard career progression is: 1) Launchpad science to get decouplers. 2) Suborbital SRB mission straight up. 3) Upgrade facilities to gain EVA capability, followed by an orbital mission to farm EVA reports. 4) A single-biome Munlanding just to get the Exploration Contract done. 5) A biome-hopping Minmus mission. One or two of those and you've got nukes and RAPIERs unlocked; once I do that, I can SSTO to pretty much anywhere. Just send 'em off as and when the transfer windows arrive. I don't normally bother with spaceplanes until I've got the RAPIERs, and once I've got them I don't usually bother with rockets unless I'm in a hurry.
  8. https://kerbalx.com/Wanderfound/Kerbodyne-Aqua
  9. https://kerbalx.com/Wanderfound/Kerbodyne-Aqua
  10. Minimise number of engines, minimise number of intakes, minimise drag, eliminate any unnecessary mass. Replace the cockpit with a proper Mk3 one; your current setup looks aerodynamic, but isn't. For intakes, one shock cone can feed three RAPIERs or Whiplashes. Anything surface-mounted that can be moved into a cargo bay should be. Cap any open node with a nosecone, and minimise the total number of stacks. Wings should have enough lift and incidence to allow a decent climb rate with the nose on the horizon at 10,000m/1,000m/s. Ditch any excess mass. No more battery than necessary, no more solar than necessary, no more monoprop than necessary. You want enough jet thrust to reach takeoff speed and crack transonic, but no more. Balance your fuel load right. If it's a non-nuclear ship, you want enough extra LF to cover the jet ascent, but no more. If it's a nuke ship, you want enough oxidiser to lift the apoapsis, but no more. As a demonstration: 6,500m/s, ISRU equipped, four crew and a full science kit, seaplane. It ain't the size of the plane, it what you do with it. Streamline and optimise and you'll get much more performance.
  11. Only if they're bugging out and the game is treating them as unshielded. This bug isn't as common as it used to be, and you can test for it by looking at the aero data in flight and seeing if it's shielded. Placing things carefully inside the bay will avoid the problem altogether. I usually set an action group to trigger all experiments, and you can carry a science pod if collecting the data is too much hassle. With foils or a planing hull, water takeoffs are no more difficult than land. But you want almost as much tail clearance as you'd need on land; small ships can get away with just the lift of hull-mounted foils, bigger things appreciate some lowered floats to mount the foils on. Think of it like large and small landing gear. You need the ability to rotate for takeoff without dragging your tail through the water too much.
  12. If you had the tech available (RAPIERs, nukes, ISRU): Can cruise on the water at 100m/s or so, and with ISRU available you can take as many suborbital hops as you like. You could do something similar in a lower-tech Mk2 form, but for that you'd want to leave the nukes and most of the LF in orbit, connecting via a nose or tail mounted shielded docking port on the spaceplane. If you base your seaplane floats on Mk1 LF tanks, you can carry a lot of fuel for your nuke. Remember that you'll be landing with tanks half empty; it doesn't matter if you're a bit overloaded for water landings while fully gassed up.
  13. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/p5kdc1ylnp8sx2n/Kerbotruck Tourer.craft?dl=0
  14. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/p5kdc1ylnp8sx2n/Kerbotruck Tourer.craft?dl=0