RCgothic

Members
  • Content Count

    386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RCgothic

  1. Well done! I knew all Sepratrons was the way to go. How many did you use, and how did you for them all inside that structural fuselage?
  2. I couldn't beat ElMenduko, but you guys have the right of it. I managed a new personal best: [URL=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/rcgothic/media/2015-11-17_00001_zpsqcskhr0w.jpg.html][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/rcgothic/2015-11-17_00001_zpsqcskhr0w.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [B]1092.4m/s [/B] The Vector does all right on starting TWR. It plus a full tank for the runway is 6.25t and gives you 1000kN thrust. 6.25t gets you 90 Sepratrons though. That's 1250kN of thrust ASL. Which considering you need to bring along extra support for them and they cause additional drag is not much difference. Until you burn through all that fuel. The Vector dry still weighs 4.25t. The Sepratrons weigh just 0.9t. Dump the Vector, it's not contributing. I couldn't make a craft with 90 functioning Sepratrons on it. I couldn't keep it stable, undetonated, and pointing in the right direction. But I bet whoever does manage it will get a new high score.
  3. I have one more idea. I'll try it this evening if the headache goes away.
  4. I managed to squeeze an extra 1m/s out of it by adding a ridiculous quantity of engines. (>100 sepratrons?) , but I think this is the best I can do: [URL="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/rcgothic/media/2015-11-16_00022_zpsv4ynrsch.jpg.html"][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/rcgothic/2015-11-16_00022_zpsv4ynrsch.jpg[/IMG][/URL] 1010.1m/s
  5. I think this was an even better run, but the screenshot wasn't perfectly timed: [URL=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/rcgothic/media/2015-11-16_00017_zpsy1qaxcso.jpg.html][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/rcgothic/2015-11-16_00017_zpsy1qaxcso.jpg[/IMG][/URL] 1009.1 m/s
  6. I started from well after the start of the runway though if we're being that picky.
  7. Smashed it. 1010.5 m/s [URL="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/rcgothic/media/2015-11-16_00004_zpskcsmgbwz.jpg.html"][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/rcgothic/2015-11-16_00004_zpskcsmgbwz.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/rcgothic/media/2015-11-16_00003_zpsrdw98ebt.jpg.html"][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/rcgothic/2015-11-16_00003_zpsrdw98ebt.jpg[/IMG][/URL] That's a crash into the final light, so it's exactly at the end of the runway.
  8. I managed to get this 1111.3t beast in the air: However I don't think there's any chance I'll be landing it:
  9. Redone! This time with a 'Perfect' as opposed to merely 'Good' landing. On the runway: Ascending rapidly: Angled down for acceleration: Rocket mode activated: Orbit achieved: In orbit: Re-entry (note I spent basically a day in orbit so as to have optimum sun position on approach to KSC): Like Sean I overshot: But that just meant I got to touch down into the sunset: Complete!
  10. First entry of 1.0.5! I've gatecrashed previously using FAR, but I thought I'd use the opportunity of a clean install with the new patch to do things properly. On the runway: Orbit achieved: Preparing for re-entry: Getting hot: Safe return!: For certain definitions of safe. Unfortunately didn't quite stick the landing and hit quicksave instead of screenshot, but that's just a case of re-doing the mission later. I assure you nothing had blown up by the time wheels hit tarmac. My landings still leave a little to be desired.
  11. Uh, what? I think you have some misconceptions. It's technically true that you get lighter as you ascend, but not as much as you think. The acceleration due to gravity at LEO is 7.8m/s2, 80% of that at sea level. TWR increases during a flight primarily because you burn fuel and get lighter, not because you're getting higher! Secondly, TWR is useful as a measure of how much acceleration your ship can pull normalised to multiples of kerbin's (or other reference body's) gravity (at sea level). It doesn't change with altitude. On Kerbin it's basically synonomous with TMR. It's specified as weight rather than mass because weight is easy to measure (IRL) and gives you an instant indication of whether you'll be able to take off from whatever body you're on. Weight becomes totally irrelevant once you stop burning with a radial component. It's all about mass.
  12. If you're using FAR it confers active disadvantage. Both the greater diameter and the cross sectional area changes add additional drag, in addition to a greater skin drag from additional rocket length. Nobody likes the fairing.
  13. Simplified explanation to aid understanding. I offered three different solutions in ascending order of difficulty and reduced fuel consumption. As always, use of manoeuvre nodes does help a lot.
  14. Burning normal/anti-normal doesn't change apoapsis. However, it DOES change which direction normal/anti-normal is in. If you don't rotate your vessel as you burn you will no longer be burning in a purely normal/anti-normal direction and so will be burning a little bit pro/retrograde, which will change your orbital velocity and therefore altitude of periapsis/apoapsis. Choose one of three solutions: -Accept the change in orbital velocity and compensate with a later burn to adjust apoapsis/periapsis. (Easy) -Rotate your vessel as you burn to stay pointing normal/antinormal. You can dynamically compensate for any small error by deliberately burning off-normal yourself. (Moderate) -Guess which angle will be normal at the midpoint of the burn and burn in that direction. Any pro/retrograde vector added in the first part of the burn will be compensated by the second half. (Hard) Hope that helps.
  15. Alright, time to bust these gates wide open! Any consensus over whether using FAR is easier or harder than stock these days? Take off: Orbit: That's about 400dv remaining. Re-entry: Overshot a bit: Sightseeing: Coming in for landing: Touch down! Not so useful payload: One bored scientist. Several hundred unused units of fuel. Now to upgrade to something actually useful.
  16. Burn at apoapsis to adjust periapsis. Burn at periapsis to adjust apoapsis.
  17. It's not difficult to give a small probe an insane amount of dv. What's the payload?
  18. I did, but I used them for braking on the runway once I was down.
  19. I just successfully completed my first SSTO spaceplane mission and only used stock parts. But I suspect I don't qualify for the K-prize because I have FAR installed?
  20. I'm only going on my recent experience in building my first SSTO spaceplane. At 20km and 1200m/s I started to lose control, with the craft wanting to go into a flat spin and then backflip. It was solved by the addition of forward canards (pitch) and a much larger tailfin positioned further back (Yaw). If that's not your issue, then where are you struggling? Not enough dv? - - - Updated - - - I'm only going on my recent experience in building my first SSTO spaceplane. At 20km and 1200m/s I started to lose control, with the craft wanting to go into a flat spin and then backflip. It was solved by the addition of forward canards (pitch) and a much larger tailfin positioned further back (Yaw). Note: small active fins can work well until the air gets thin. but larger fixed fins will still work. If that's not your issue, then where are you struggling? Not enough dv?
  21. A tip is to have both vessels facing Normal/Anti-Normal. That prevents rotation as the craft orbit. Also I don't think re-docking the same vessel undocked counts. I discovered that by trying to dock to a probe launched on the same lifter.
  22. Successful landing! Returned a payload of one passenger and 270 units LF and 300 units Oxidiser. And I flew to orbit with my gear down. Airbrakes on re-entry made all the difference!