Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

298 Excellent

About Signo

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

2,601 profile views
  1. A long time ago I submitted a 0.90 Lf + ion SSTO. Today I am proud to submit an Ionic Symphonic Supersonic SSTO. Useful? Not at all. Kerbalish? Your choice. Expensive, useless... Funny to pilot? Oh, yes. Maybe something to build on? May be. It does not matter. It is "kerbal". You do not want to know "how". You know how. Cheers guys.
  2. 1) I like to start "low", from 15k to 20k meters. 2-3-4) My fav is the vector, it is easier to obtain a good twr with a good form factor for a lander; I usually try to sap all the horizontal speed as fast as possible - since I am starting low then I am left with an affordable amount of altitude to go. *) My Tylo landers are usually made with a lot of staging and asparagus tanks - it does not seem to me this is your case
  3. You may find hints in this old old old piece of Kerbal history. If I recall correctly, a Jool slingshot was key to achieve the trick with a reasonable craft.
  4. In my experience the answer Is "no". I had the same (or very similar) issue with a mk3 craft with a couple of side mk2 vertical "gondolas" and the only way I found to minimize the roll was to add a tail fin mig-23/27 style as an extra yaw control. This however gave me landing issues (the lower fin was doomed to crash at any landing). I posted a question around here about the issue a few years ago and the only interesting consideration I can remember was about "torsion of wings due to overpower", so maybe "moar struts/autostruts" could help. Good luck, I read the challenge topic, It seems fun.
  5. The stock Rockets are flawed by design. However the Kerbal X usually works pretty well. Are you implying that you set your SAS on "prograde" instead of "stability assist"?
  6. So you are suggesting there is the need to find some kind of "balance"?
  7. If you have a bare Mk1 tank yes. If you have a stack of tanks with all the tricks we mentioned above the stack will carry a lot more of fuel with a negligible increase in drag.
  8. So a stack of 7 Mk1 tanks has got the same drag of, lemme guess, a pair of wings?
  9. Wings, even if they provide lift as a counterbalance, are among the most draggy parts you can carry. You really need to find your own balance on that.
  10. Flying my "experiments" I noticed that drag is just a "state of mind" if you fly "lightly" You can really find it only if you go deep in your "inner self".
  11. I tried empirically with the old "many of the same" method when refining my own LF only SSTOs and I simply noticed that the overall drag coefficent during flight and the d/v I had left in LKO was better with the "opinions" I stated above, even if by a small margin. Roll of self explicative pics follows.
  12. "Opinions" follow: 1) less dead weight with ncs + 0.625 cone + precooler 2) that Is my style choice, works pretty well. 3) It is subtle: when you feel you need a little bit more air intake when flying away from prograde the shock cone will do. The precoolers are good for a less acrobatic flight. *) End cones on rapiers or any rocket engine you may have are really important. **) Control surfaces are draggy. Canards are very draggy.
  13. It Is a staging sequence where your next stage is lit up before your previous one flaming out. An IRL example Is the soviet N1 Moon rocket.
  • Create New...