1101

Members
  • Content count

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

187 Excellent

1 Follower

About 1101

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer
  1. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    Wouldn't it be rather a worst case scenario, given higher local g(and so more thrust needed) and the presence of atmosphere narrowing the plume, amongst other issues?
  2. Cheated an Albatross (The big, slow, high altitude style stock plane) into Orbit. Went as well as you might expect on the way down: Not pictured: The results of the flare maneuver near the runway - the wings folded together, broke apart and a highly amusing set of explosions were generated.
  3. Intermediate difficulty - no Engines, Parachutes or Wings: Bricky McBrickface, massing 0.505 tons: Launched into approximately 90x100km orbit, deorbit stage removes about 80m/s. Re-entry fire really doesn't happen much: Rotate from retrograde to prograde for 'landing': And tip back over once landed: 2.6km from KSC - in grounds, or within sight? It's on the flat bit.... Assuming in sight, 2 points, minus 3 x 3.5 (.35 tons of not brick), -8.5 points/10. (Or -5.5/10 if this is in grounds)
  4. Any idea exactly how much gravity? Does it need 1g, or would it work at less?
  5. I feel like having a submarine, which needs to have a density roughly that of Water, and the Tsiolkovsky equation just wouldn't mix, for a manned vehicle.
  6. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    The fact these all happened after succeeding at their actual missions really helps that enjoyment, too.
  7. KSP Challenge: Eve Speed Challenge!

    It doesn't have to mean that. Whilst KSP doesn't have a fantastic amount of realism, most fuel tanks and other objects can be assumed to have a similar density. This means that as far as dV goes, a visual 'guesstimate' will give you an idea of the mass ratio for your rocket, and if it's good enough. As long as each stage's fuel is a good deal bigger than it's payload + engine, visually, then you should have a good mass ratio for purposes of this challenge. It is slightly harder getting a good liftoff TWR, as you have to add more propellant and engines to do so. Mammoth Engines are handy as they don't lose much thrust at sea level. Vessel Mass * 10 should be less than Number of Mammoths * 4000. Vectors surface attach, so add them and give an extra 1000 thrust per vector, should give a good idea. You could add SRBs, but they have a lot lower TWR (2.46) for themselves. Vectors have about 10 times as much TWR. The craft I used had a ludicrously high TWR (~2) in the end, so this is probably overkill as a way of planning.
  8. KSP Challenge: Eve Speed Challenge!

    The trick I used is, use a transfer window planner online, eg: http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ And get an idea for how an ejection burn should go. The most useful burns will be below (shorter) than the graph shows, but it'll give you an idea. Once you've done that, play around with maneuver nodes until you get a transfer time you like. According to dV maps for the stock system, a Kerbin surface -> Eve Elliptical Orbit -> Kerbin should take about 6km/s of dV. Less if you aerobrake at both Eve and Kerbin. You can probably get that much dV off of the start of career Launch pad. The craft I used had about 30km/s, about 16 - 17 of which was Ions. Beyond that, get to Eve, and unlike my previous try, capture. That gets you a 'free' turn around to point back at Kerbin and plan a new burn back. Then burn for as long as your rocket and sanity last....... On an similar note: Same rocket as before, but it worked well enough. Worked well, and used all the chemical rockets and half of the NERVA dV. One overly long capture burn: But nothing like the burn here, shown about 80% done. Took an hour, with 4 ion engines..... And Kerbin gave, shall we say, a warm welcome: I don't know if I've had Jeb look that scared before..... Anyway, I believe the time to record was start - Eve SoI - Kerbin SoI: 75 days, 3 hours 13 minutes.
  9. KSP Challenge: Eve Speed Challenge!

    Mods I forgot how much I'd miss: KER, Trajectories, KJR, any mod that edits Nodes.... Oh Well! Upper Xenon stages, as it turned out (added KER to work out dV after doing this), had about 17km/s in them - which I didn't use, nor overly knew about. Given I used the other 10-12km/s, you could probably do this in under 150 days, maybe.... I got 228 days, 50 minutes. Not the launch, I was too busy being surprised it worked on the first try. (Given I now know how much dV was in the Xenon, could have made this a LOT smaller): Various issues that didn't quite explode things meant I didn't screenshot the launch, or Eve injection burn, but here is the result: 71 days later: Plotting Kerbin return burn. Could have been faster, bigger, less like hohmann... Close enough: As can be seen, this route could be a lot straighter, as if gravity wasn't there, you know... 5500m/s at Kerbin SOI? Not good, setting up a capture burn: Adjusted when it looked likely to survive the aerobraking. Ion stage was still attached at entry interface: Xenon, when exposed to a 5km/s draft, turns out to be surprisingly hypergolic. Ablator, less so. And, landed
  10. What did you do in KSP today?

    A perfectly nominal re-entry procedure:
  11. Stealthy orbital insertion?

    I'm not going to claim to be an expert, but if you have sufficient life support and time isn't too much of an issue, then you could drop off the lander/rock a lot further out. If your lander can be captured or slingshotted by a moon toward the needed atmospheric trajectory, the last impulse you need give it could be weeks before it gets close to the target. You would need a lot of processor power to calculate the trajectory, and well mapped out gravity well, but it could work, I think. Alternatively, if the enemy planet knows it is being watched, pretend it's a failure. Have a small lander system (like MOOSE) in among a much bigger decoy craft that disassembles during the entry sequence. Then, your manned bit looks just like a bit of debris and no one is any the wiser.
  12. One thing I've seen as a reason not to use NTRs is potential public issues with putting nuclear reactors at risk of launch failure. How much worse for the environment than Hypergolics (already present in many, if not all, rockets), would it be? How would the effects differ between say, a launch off the Cape and debris falling into the sea, as opposed to Baikonur?
  13. What is rocket exhaust formed of?

    Still, a consideration in Hard Scifi for deflection from shooting, and also as an emergency backup if for some reason, you have no propellant but can still shoot.
  14. What is rocket exhaust formed of?

    Not sure about the exact composition of the plume for Hydrolox, but 'Ignition!' lists basically any combination of Hydrogen and Oxygen you like for the combustion chamber. Presumably once it's cooled down a bit in the plume, you'll just get the normal stuff, but:
  15. What if, there already was a lot of air on the inside of the hollow shell, and our atmosphere (atmotorus?) was just the upper layer of it? Then at least we wouldn't suffocate. Admittedly then the interior wouldn't be overly breathable from overpressure and prone to ignition from huge amounts of oxygen, but we wouldn't suffocate, right?