Brainlord Mesomorph

Just giving you a hard time. No comment on the giant spaceship? (in year 3 of my career game no less) I've got an upcoming (smaller) colony flight to Duna. I'll deliberately save the game and do the burn twice. Once in map view, and once while I watch the ship in orbit. Let see what happens. B

Yes, all of those things could cause a loss of dV. But 1, my ship doesn't have those problems, CoM and CoT where perfectly centered, and 2, I din't have a LOSS of dV, if anything I had gain of dV and more importantly one that didn't appear in the nav system. I wish I had grabbed a screenshot of it but I was too busy panicking; My Ap was way above (150m/s) my desired Ap but the Navball was telling me to keep burning prograde. it made no sense. I guess I was burning the extra fuel, but the navball wasn't telling me to cut the burn. Like I said the game was choking to death, 1 second of gametime for 5 seconds of processor time, and down to like 2 fps. My best guess is that when you overload the system like I was, there is some sort of cumulative error in the nav system. It may not happen in map View at all. We should do tests. Hi slash, Good to hear from you, You're checking my math? You don't think I know how to get to Jool? B

Well, yes, yes, and yes but no. My burn was early but mostly centered on the node. It did reduce Pe, but only by like 8 km (103 to 96 km) and only temporarily, for the second half of the burn PE was rising. I did do Pe kicks, thats why it was only a 15 minute burn. And even if it did underestimate Oberth effect at first, it would have autocorrected that during the burn (it doesn't matter why velocity is changing, just that it is). But even if all those things were true it still wouldn't explain overshooting my target by 200 m/s. It was only an 1100 m/s burn, forget 100% accurate, that's off by almost 20%! Here's one thing that might explain it: its a giant kilometer long colony cruiser with over 1000 parts that's choking the game to death. I counted and I was getting 1 second of game time for every 5 seconds of realtime. So the ."15 minute" burn ended up being over an hour of processing. Perhaps with all that overhead it wasn't updating the remaining dV properly. Now that I look; all of my interplanetary ships are overshooting there targets to one extent or another. So from now on all my interplanetary burns are happening in map view!

I’ve been having trouble with my interplanetary transfers that I’d been blaming on my own sloppy piloting. But this time it wasn’t me. Honest! Flight to Jool. Got my transfer window from AlexMoon, Found the departure angle, put my ship in an elliptical orbit (9000km x 100km) w/ Pe at the departure point. Plotted a perfect departure burn; intercept just at Ap, which was just at Acending Node (actually was plotted as collision w/ Jool) Ship has a low TWR, so it’s a 15 minute burn. Can’t start 8 minutes before the node, that too early, so I go 4 minutes early, and the burn is going to run 4 minutes late. Locked to node, the burn is nominal. At T+8:15, with 40m/s to go, I switch to map view and my AP is already way past Jool! I abort the burn, and plot a correction; It’s going to take a retrograde burn of 150 m/s just to get me back to my original course. What the kerb happened? It wasn’t me! Was the plotted node off by almost 200m/s? Is that possible? Did the nav system not properly calculate Oberth effect? What gives?

Kergarin made an Eve SSTO rocket: He called it "Monolith" It uses all of its fuel landing and take three years to ISRU refuel. There's a 7km plateau that's easier to land and return from that sea level. There are videos on Youtube (Q: how do I embed you tube here?) My goal is to steal that design scale it down a bit, and pair it with an ISRU base already at the landing site and with an orbital tender that can carry it to another ISRU base on Gilly. Then I have an Eve colony with totally reusable, sustainable, regular shuttle service to orbit and then home.

On my joystick, I use the joystick for rotation and the "Top-hat" (little thumb joystick on top) for RCS translation. Trigger toggles RCS, another thumb button toggels SAS, Docking was hell until I had all that. Having a real throttle is worth the price right there. Often for non-atmosphere landings, I have my left hand on the keyboard rotation controls and my right just on the joystick throttle.

I've seen a video of gamepad VAB work, it looked ridiculously complex. maybe flying would be ok like that, maybe. Give me a mouse a keyboard AND a my Logitech Extreme 3d Pro

Never occurred to me to put a needle and a gauge on it an make a meter. I just put a bunch of stuff in a row on one long pipe and compare them to each other. As soon as it does the physics drop, you can which ones are strong and which are noodley. But i really figured this was something where we could pull real numbers out of the game engine. BTW: last time I did this Structural Tubes were stronger than girder segments and I -beams, now the girders are (rightly) the strongest. so we do need to update this. EDIT: wait the meter is unnecessary, ( IRL: it would needed, but in KSP no) the camera is locked to horizontal. You just need to measure the ANGLE (not a length) and the pointer isn't needed b/c the sides of the tank and the I-Beam (and pointer) are parallel. You just need to compare the IBeam to horizontal

Sometimes when I need to figure out which of two parts will be more structurally sound, I'll build a test rig w/ the competing parts attached to weights, and see which one bends more. In these experiments i found out that batteries are about the weakest things there are (odd b/c most of the bttys I've seen are pretty solid). Anyway, is there a better way to do this? Should I make a lengthy study of this and publish the results? Has someone already gone an pulled all this out of the game engine and put it in a spreadsheet? (i hope)

Well I don't care about anyone else, I'm calling that "Size 1 and a half."

I don't know about internally but we used to call those size 0,1,2, and 3 so you're saying they've added "Size 1 and a half", and 4.

I always like new stock parts. is this the addition of sizes 4 and 5??

To paraphrase Dr. Who: No, My Kerbal rockets look very Ariane.

Almost everything I do is designed for reuse. I specialize in nuclear landers that double as interplanetary tugs. dV to land and take off from the Mun will burn a lot of fuel. Minmus is a better choice for fueling up interplanetary missions. The plane change to Minmus is what 20 or 30 m/s? aerobraking in to orbit from other planets is difficult. (aerobraking to reentry is far more reliable.) I usually use thrusters to park reusable ships in orbit. then send up planes to bring down Kerbals. BTW :permanent orbital fuel stations waste a lot of fuel. Once they're empty getting that giant tanker to maneuver up to it and dock with it will burn a quarter of the fuel you're trying to deliver. I send up single-use fuel tankers with extra docking ports. they serve as stations, but when they are empty I deorbit them.

is that enough air? Those things look like they have about 1/8th of the air intakes they need. Have we changed air-breathing rules in 1.3? Are those RAPIERS burning LOX the whole time? I thought you need 1 intake for each RAPIER or jet engine.

I am aware that sometimes it looks like a comical attempt to end a war. Not just a bomb, a bomb that's bigger than either plane. But form follows function. The payload needs to be bomb shaped, actually bombs are that shape, because it works,. That was one of things I had to figure out. In the beginning I kept trying football shaped payloads, rocket shaped, payloads, etc. Bomb shaped payloads work.

Yes, you can carry anything to orbit on SSTO spaceplanes, just use 2 SSTO spaceplanes: I give you... THE SPACEPLANE SANDWICH! Here two "C1000B"s carry a very large fuselage component of an interplanetary ship to orbit. As you see the payload can be bigger than the planes,. The nosecone and tailcone are tossed at 60 KM A very light but cumbersome rover and antenna payload (in fairing) and 2 V801Bs Just put one docking port right above the bottom plane's CoM and bottom of the top planes CoM. Carry the (ANY!) payload pod by its CoM. The design of that tailcone is important: it has to be long, and have vertical fins BUT NOT horizontal fins. (that would change the CoL) There used to be a lot of problems w/ fuel flow and root-part. But all that's been fixed by 1.3 Now this just works. I do it all the time.

Yes you can lift almost anything to orbit on SSTO spaceplanes. The trick is to use two SSTO spaceplanes. Hi guys, its me Brainlord Mesomorph, I've been gone for a while (2 yrs?) but I'm back. I'm the inventor of the Dual Spaceplane Heavy Lifter (DSHL) aka "the spaceplane sandwich". Take your biggest SSTO spaceplane, swap out any cargo or passenger capacity with more fuel, and strap two of them above and below any (aerodynamic) payload. Line up everything by CoM. (CoL, CoT, and CoD line up by themselves) the whole thing become one big biplane. and SSTO hypersonic biplanes work (in KSP at least). As long as either plane has enough thrust and fuel to lift half of the mass and /or drag of the payload, the two them can lift the whole thing into orbit. I'll go dig up some screenshots and post them later

thx, 4 interlinked threads, its practically a website.

Brainlord Aerospace Announces Success of Heavy Lifter Spaceplane Concept 82 ton payloads in fairings now possible, plans for 160 within six months “My friends, today marks the beginning of a new era in Kerbal spaceplane development. Until today, spaceplanes were mainly used to transport fuel and Kerbals. The 32 ton Big Orange Tank was about the largest thing anyone could get into space on a SSTO Spaceplane, maybe two. But that day has passed. “At Brainlord Aerospace we are now routinely lifting 40 ton, 60 ton, even 82 ton spacecraft in fairings to orbit with 100% reusable, horizontal take-off, SSTO spaceplanes, and we have plans to double that capacity shortly. We are delighted to be able to bring this ground-breaking technology to all of Kerbalkind. I give you the Dual Spaceplane Heavy Lifter, the DSHL, or as we like to call it, The Spaceplane Sandwich!” Note: for the purpose of this article “spaceplane” refers to a 100% reusable, horizontal take-off, SSTO spaceplane. Yes, there are other kinds. OK, you’ve heard it before; “You just can’t carry spacecraft to orbit on spaceplanes. Even if you can get them to fit in the cargo bay, you can’t line up the CoM, CoL and CoT. And even if you do that in the Hangar, by the time you burn half the fuel on the way up the CoM had moved.” All of which is true if you use a spaceplane. But not if you use two. By putting a payload in a fairing and putting that between two spaceplanes, you can place any payload wherever it needs to be for its CoM to be above the CoL of the bottom plane. Then when you add the identical top plane, The CoT and CoL both line up to the CoM automatically. Since both planes burn their own fuel on the way up , the CoT, CoL ,CoM stay lined up throughout the flight. Further, because each plane is only lifting half the weight, you now have twice the payload capacity of a single plane. The Idea is simple, but the implantation in KSP is not and technically doesn’t fit into any one KSP forum, so I’ve had to make several threads for this: You can do this with any spaceplane, but by default the SPH wants to put the top plane on upside down or sideways, so I have this tutorial: The Dual Spaceplane Heavy Lifter : How to make a Spaceplane Sandwich. Second, the shape and balance of the payload fairing is critical. So I have this tutorial: The Dual Spaceplane Heavy Lifter Part 2: Payloads: Putting the meat on a Spaceplane Sandwich. And The Dual Spaceplane Heavy Lifter Part 3 deals with orbital insertions and what to do with debris. Also I’ve posted two one technology demonstrator craft in the Spacecraft Exchange: the YB101 “SSTO Flying Wing” Sandwich (40 ton capacity) and the B3F “ExoLifter” Sandwich (82 ton capacity). The B3F has problems with reentry, so I’m not posting it yet. And lastly, I’d like to have a general discussion of the idea, here in General Discussions. I’ll start: I’ve been working on this since .023 after I first did the K-prize. I finally figured the last bits (and Squad fixed a fuel flow issue) a few months ago, so now this works. It is, in theory, the most economical way to launch ships to LKO. That said, my first attempt to prove how economical it is almost totally bankrupted my career game! I decided last week to send my next ship up on planes instead of a rocket. The two planes cost half a million funds. Between that and the ship, it’s all the money I have. (But that’s OK, because I’ll get the half million back, right?) Only after I get the whole package into orbit, do I realize that I hadn’t tested reentry on these particular planes since new thermo, and they do not want to come down! After several tries, I get one to splash down successfully. (I actually sent a boat out to get it and tow it back to the runway.) The other is still up there. I’m on record in another thread about SSTO rockets, pointing out that between the higher cost and reduced payload capacity of an SSTO rocket (vs. a multistage disposable rocket) if you factor in losing one out of six of them (to bad reentry, etc) then all the profits of the other five disappear. Well, Heavy Lifter SSTO planes have that same problem IN SPADES! Losing just one of these planes could cost you a career game. (Fortunately there is F9) Physics is a harsh mistress. Every time I think I making a profit in one place, I realize I’m costing myself almost the same amount (or more) somewhere else. So, just admitting that. But when it works, it works well. Now I don’t consider myself to be a spaceplane guy. Some of you (ok, most of you) have much bigger and better planes than I do. But however large your biggest plane is, this method will double its capacity! And with fairings! I expect you guys to make some truly massive sandwich lifters now, and, I hope, you find cheaper ways to build them than I have. Have fun!

This one of several posts I have about the idea of a “spaceplane sandwich.” If you haven’t, please read the General Discussion post first. This vehicle is presented as a “proof-of-concept” or a technology demonstrator only . I am not claiming it’s the best spaceship ever, or anything like that. (That said the YB101, as a single plane, is by far the wickedest spaceplane I, personally, have ever built. She climbs at a 50 degree angle and accelerates like a rocket; Mach 1 at 3km, Mach 2 at 6. I actually have to nose down into a gravity turn.) As a Spaceplane Sandwich it will lift 40 tons to LKO. Granted that, alone, is nothing to write home about, but 40 tons in any size of fairing is. And the technology is very scalable. Any two spaceplanes can do this with any size of payload. DOWNLOAD HERE Typical Accent Profile (as a Sandwich Lifter): Takeoff and climb to 7km, level off as needed to breach Mach 1, resume climb as follows; attain 500m/s at 10km, 750m/s at 15km, try for 1000m/s at 20km (if not that’s OK, do not nose down), switch to LOX between 20 and 23km, Jets will flame out around 25km, cut the burn when Ap reaches 69km. During coast phase: plot orbital insertion maneuver(s), shed aero debris. I like to do what I call a “Two-Step Orbital Insertion;” First a burn just before Ap, to push Ap forward about 45 to 90 degrees around the planet and upward to about 72-74km (the Pe will be about 50km). Then a second burn at that Ap to round the orbit. If the payload has engines, you can separate the payload before the second burn and it can reach orbit by itself, with even less debris. Action Groups: 1. Toggle Jets 2. Toggle RAPIERS 3. RAPIERS Switch mode (switch to LOX at 23 km) … (reserved for spacecraft) 0. Airbrakes and fin deployment toggle;(Deploy before reentry begins, retract for areo flight)

The Dual Spaceplane Heavy Lifter Part 1: How to make a Spaceplane Sandwich. This one of several posts I have about the idea of a “Spaceplane Sandwich.” If you haven’t, please read the General Discussion thread first. Good candidates for a Spaceplane Sandwich are any SSTO planes with extra thrust, extra lift, extra fuel and some space on the top of the fuselage for the payload. (i.e. no vertical stabilizers in the way) It does not need any cargo capacity of its own. One simple way to make one is to take your largest cargo plane, remove the cargo capacity (payload bays, passenger cabins, fuel tanks etc), move the vertical stabilizers out to sides (somehow) and add really heavy landing gear (it will be carrying more than twice its weight). Once you have selected your plane, you’re ready to make the sandwich. (I’m using the YB101 that I built for the DSHL project, you can get it here.) By default the SPH wants to put the top plane on upside down or sideways. So you have to go through these steps to build a top plane to go with your existing bottom plane (takes about 3 minutes) . 1. First make whatever part that contains the CoM the Root Part. In this case it’s a Mk2 long LFO tank. (from this point on I’ll be calling that the “bottom CoM part”) 2. Add a Decoupler over the CoM. 3. Add a Demo payload to the Decoupler at the CoM, in this case we’ll use a 40 ton fuel tank. (it’s good to use a fuel tank as a demo payload to figure out the maximum lifting capacity of the sandwich, later you’ll replace it with a real payload.) 4. Add another Decoupler over the new CoM. 5. Now go to the parts sidebar, and get fresh copy of whatever your bottom CoM part is. In this case it’s a Mk2 long LFO tank. It will usually attach sideways. That’s fine. 6. Use the Rotate and Offset tools to rotate the part right side up and center it over the decoupler. Now look from the side and move it forward or rearward so it is directly above the bottom CoM part. 7. Use Alt-Click to take a copy of the forward fuselage from the bottom CoM part and attach it to the top CoM Part. 8. Repeat with rear fuselage. 9. And the wings. (Note: if the wings of your plane are not attached directly to the CoM part, you may want to rethink that.) 10. Add any other parts from the bottom CoM part that are needed (RCS, chutes, etc) 11. Finish out the demo payload with nosecones, tailcones and fins. (For more on payloads see: The Dual Spaceplane Heavy Lifter Part 2: Payloads: Putting the meat on a Spaceplane Sandwich.) 12. Retract the gear on the top plane. 13. Moar Struts (actually just these struts) Running struts from around the landing gear of the top plane to above the landing gear of the bottom plane seems to distribute the weight nicely. If you run struts from top to bottom, they will re-attach when you change payloads.(Struts are usually not necessary on the payload if it properly packed.) 14. And now you have a Spaceplane Sandwich. Don’t be surprised if the first time you put it on the runway if falls backwards, you may need to go back to the SPH and use the offset tool to move the payload (and/or the top plane) forwards or rearward. I don’t know anything about the physics of hypersonic biplanes, but I do tend to end up with the top plane a little forward of the bottom plane. The result is sometimes a little silly looking. (This is KSP.) It looks basically like two planes carrying a bomb bigger than either of them. (To me it looks like a last-ditch attempt to win a war in a cartoon.) But it looks a lot less silly when you release the payload in orbit. The Dual Spaceplane Heavy Lifter Part 2: Payloads: Putting the meat on a Spaceplane Sandwich. This part took me a while. For the longest time I could get fuel tanks to orbit on a Sandwich Lifter, but I couldn’t reliably do it with spacecraft of similar mass. The problem was drag. If your payload has too much drag you will burn too much fuel on the way up and not make orbit, and even if you have a reasonable amount drag but it’s in the wrong place the vehicle still will become highly unstable at transonic speeds and may just tumble out of control. The problem was that I was designing the fairing the way I did for a rocket; primarily minimizing mass (which means hugging the payload shape tightly) and secondarily minimizing drag (which meant adding some slanty areas). That was wrong. First, l learned what “Center of Drag” was. It goes along with CoM, CoL, and CoT but is not shown in the VAB/SPH. If the CoD is forward of the CoM, the vehicle will tend to flip around. If you have ever put too wide a fairing on the nose of a rocket, you know all about that. Think of a dart; heavy, pointy nose in front, thick body a little bit forward of the middle, and light draggy fins in back. You do also want to minimize mass, of course, but that’s secondary. These parameters lead to one simple shape; the fairing forms a gentle slope from the nosecone out to widest point (the CoM should be just at or slightly forward of the widest point) and then another, slightly longer, gentle slope from the widest point to the tail, and fins on the tail. Putting the fins at 45 degree angles keeps them out of the jet wash. You’ll recognize this shape. It’s the shape of a bomb. Form follows function; bombs are designed to be carried on high-speed aircraft. It just works. Making the payload consistently bomb-shaped is what makes the entire Spaceplane Sandwich concept work. There are a few other considerations, order of assembly, getting the girder segments to poke through the fairing, etc. So I’ve made the following step by step. Interestingly, as I went through the process to get the screenshots for this tutorial, I made a mistake. The payload doesn’t get to orbit at first. I had to go back and fix it. I thought about redoing the screenshots over. But I realized it made for an excellent “teachable moment.” Can you catch where I go wrong? This is the Icarus, a hybrid interplanetary tug/lander I just loaded with a bunch of fuel. Because the ship started in the VAB we’ll start there. We’ll move to the SPH shortly. 1. First we find the CoM and mount decouplers on what will be the top and bottom of the payload. 2. We add a spacer, here I’m using an empty fuel tank, on the will become the rear of the payload. 3. Mount a fairing to that, and build the fairing in the bomb shape we discussed earlier. Note: “clamshell” fairings seem to get all explodey with girders sticking through them; “potato chip” fairings appear to be safer. 4. (optional) Temporarily remove the spacer. The fairing will move with it and stay intact. (This is just to see better, I can never work with all those fairing its flying around.) 5. Attach long girder segments to the decouplers. 6. Run struts from the girder segments to the payload, supporting it evenly. 7. Reattach the spacer/fairing assembly. Hopefully the girder segments will be long enough to poke through the fairing, if not add more. 8. Attach a tailcone and fins. 9. Use the reroot tool to make the bottom (ventral) girder segment the root part. 10. Save the ship. 11. Go to the SPH, load your Spaceplane Sandwich. 12. Remove the top plane WITH its decoupler. (It may flip sideways, that’s fine.) 13. Remove and delete the demo payload. 14. Click the Open button and Merge with the craft file you saved in step 10. 15. Mount the payload on the bottom plane. Note:I have had a problem w/ the Long Girder Segment not wanting to attach to the decoupler properly. The green ball attachment point appears on the wrong end of the girder (the end already attached to the payload) ,then it wants to attach there, with the girder segment clipping through the plane. If that happens, putting a small girder segment on the decoupler first puts a green ball there. Then the payload will attach correctly. 16. Mount the top plane on the payload. (Struts should reconnect by themselves.) Note: At this point you have just combined three very complex vehicles, usually with conflicting forms of symmetry. Depending on partcount, computer memory and/or whatever KSP bugs exist, we appear to be pushing the limits of the SPH at this point. This is when symmetry goes wonky, struts and fuel lines may get disconnected. Adding more symmetrical parts is iffy at best. None of this, however, has anything to do with this tutorial. All I can tell you is to watch out for that kind of thing. I’ll say again: Don’t be surprised if the first time you put it on the runway if falls backwards, you may need to go back to the SPH and use the offset tool to move the payload (by the bottom plane’s decoupler) and/or the top plane, forwards or rearward. I don’t know anything about the physics of hypersonic biplanes, but I do tend to end up with the top plane a little forward of the bottom plane. Now, as I said in the beginning; that did not get into orbit. Can you tell me why not? The shape. The back half of the fairing isn’t long enough. Back to the SPH where I replaced that short spacer with two size one hollow tubes. Then I rebuilt the fairing, this time making it a mid-fairing and adding an actual nosecone. That one went into orbit nicely. One last note: If your payload is atmospherically streamlined, you might not need a fairing, (i.e. a sleek Mk2 ship or a fuel tank that just requires nose and tail cones). But the fins do not appear to be optional. Just a girder with four fins will do. But you will need some fins back there. The Dual Spaceplane Heavy Lifter Part 3: Orbit: Properly serving a Spaceplane Sandwich. (OK, enough sandwich puns I've been told they're metaphors) This one of several posts I have about the idea of a “spaceplane sandwich.” This article is about packing the payload in a fairing. If you haven’t, please read the General Discussion post first. So you’ve got your Spaceplane Sandwich and you’re about to make orbit. There are still a couple of things to consider. 1. What about Debris? Once you clear 55km, and before the orbital insertion burn, you can jettison nosecones, tailcones, and the fairing. Note: “clamshell” fairings seem to get all explodey with girders sticking through them; “potato chip” fairings appear to be safer. But that still leaves the girders and decouplers holding the planes to the payload. Do you want the planes to carry the payload (and that debris) all the way to orbit? I like to aim for an Ap of 72 km and a Pe of about 52 km. Just a little short of orbit. Then I separate everything. The payload and one plane make a short burn at Ap to orbit. Then I fly the other plane home, and all the debris deorbits with it. 2. Are you really making orbit? Normally when you design a spaceplane or rocket, once you make orbit, you can usually make orbit again, the same way, every time. That’s not true with a Spaceplane Sandwich. Every time you fly it, you have a different payload; different weight, different shape and size of fairing. In short it’s a different plane every time. And if you’re like me, you’re probably pushing max payload capacity (and drag). So you might not quite be making orbit every time. Fortunately, the Spaceplane Sandwich concept gives you a lot of options here. Does the payload have engines? After jettisoning the fairing it might help carry everything up. “Borrowing” fuel from the payload is another option. Or you could go back to the SPH and add fuel to the payload for the purpose of transferring it to the planes on the way up. (Did you use empty fuel tanks as a fairing spacer?) My point here is that even though the planes should be able to carry the payload (fairing, girders, and all) to orbit. It doesn’t have to. And debris-wise you probably don’t want to. So, that’s putting Spaceplane Sandwich in Orbit, Comments about the Spaceplane Sandwich concept in general, belong in the General Discussion thread.

Exactly just like mine. But sometimes my definition of emergency is: I'm 50 m over the runway and its dinnertime.