Nich

Members
  • Content Count

    1,216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nich

  1. Best tip I have heard with Gilly is you don't land on it you dock with it. Really changes your mind set
  2. In my experience you want just enough engine to get 100-120 m/s by the end of the runway and just enough wing that you don't crash into the sea with 3 degrees pitch and you will probably make it to space. Although I should try a 150 m/s version with less wing some day.
  3. @Geschosskopf 1 TWR seems really high for a plane based SSTO. Most people recommend 1 rapier per 15 tons but I think >50% requires more like 40-50 tons per rapier.
  4. To be fair they are one of the most expensive nodes in the tech tree to unlock. So I cant argue against making them a disgustingly OP engine. Could always counter balance by adding a ton or 2
  5. @Fearless Son True but do you even get over mach 2.5 at 45 degrees. Feel like that would give you a really high AP.
  6. For this type of assent wouldn't panthers be better
  7. @KerikBalm I didn't do many pure rapier designs to be honest. Most of my stuff was meant for Minimus refueling so it had a nuke stage. Lite nuke (or nuke cluster) at 20km around 1600 m/s. Flame out at 24 km around 1800 m/s and switch to LFO mode to raise orbit to a 70x30km orbit and burn the nuke to finish with a 75x75 orbit. I always had melting problems with the rapiers if I was too low and thrust problems if I got too high. I used a shock spike in front (antenna) and reversed shock cones clipped into the rapier. With the low enough drag I never had an issue breaking the sound barrier at sea level but getting off the runway was difficult. I felt like 1650 is just the point stuff started melting at 22km. But like I said it has been multiple versions since I have made SSTO's 1.3 or 1.4 I am guessing
  8. I have noticed everyone tends to land 2x as fast as they should be. You should be pitched up to 5-10 degrees when your wheels make contact. Learning to land on an uphill is quite challenging but it can greatly reduce your stopping distance. But yes if I am making a SSTO plane I generally plan for at least 4 hours to put it together. My hardest part tends to be reentry getting a case of the flippies, then lawn dart, then flippies as I make adjustments.
  9. Panthers and whiplashes are not even close to being in the same ball park. It has been a while since I have made a space plane but I remember them having a top speed in the 1200 range at 17ish km. I typically hit 1800 at 22ish km with air breathing with the rapiers. This means you have basically doubled your dv needed to reach orbit. I do kind of feel Rapiers with reverse nose cone clipped in are OP. They really should just remove the tail node. I would agree that this engine is clearly based off the saber engine and should have really good vacuum isp but how would you balance it? In RO you have to use hydrogen which would double or triple your tank mass and you need 6000 dv out of the LOX stage. Do you nerf all air breathing by making the speed of sound 70 m/s thus giving the rapier a top air breathing speed of 420 m/s and a ceiling of 8km?
  10. Hold ALT while doing wasd will make a permanent adjustment. So just hold ALT-S until canards look level. If you have rear pitching surfaces you may not want to do all the way to level. Forgot how to clear it.
  11. I see repeats now and then but for the most part I am still entertained after 5 years.
  12. In past versions of KSP ore tanks had a better mass ratio then the LFO tanks. Not sure if it is still true these days.
  13. Personally I like mag lev launchers. One mag lev launches straight up. A second mag lev in orbit accelerates/decelerates depending on perspective into orbit. The second mag lev then reboosts its orbit using ion or other exotic high efficiency thrusters preferably nuclear powered or ground based laser powered. As part of a collage project I did the calculations for a carbon nanotube static space elevator with no margin would require 2 ropes weighting a total of 638 kt and would only be able to lift 50 kg into geostationary orbit. It had a max width of 62 cm
  14. Forgot to mention leaving the SOI. I once managed a 167 degree inclination change around the Mun with 12 Dv but that was a very special case. If you are boosting your AP to change inclination you generally want to do some of the change while boosting and unboosting (if airless body) as well but the savings are small (5% at most). The only way I have found for a minimum Dv is numerically solving.
  15. Mun is a waste of time. I just complete the contract to open Minimus contracts. Been a while since I have played hard stock but my contracts are generally Launch a craft Suborbital Orbit (polar orbit for science) Unlock terrier Mun flyby and polar orbit (you have to go back to KSC while on flyby to pick up orbit contract) Upgrade tracking and mission planning Rondavou Docking Rescue contracts x5 Mun landing (1 way probe) Minims Flyby and orbit (same as before) Unlock Spark and upgrade vab for parts Scientist minimus hopper with, SAS probe core science jr and bio and all other science normally get 7000-9000 science but those might be on normal numbers. Unlock station parts and upgrade pad
  16. @RocketSquid Career teaches you how to be efficient. Although on normal the difference between a minimalist design and a slapped together design is 100000% profit margin vs 90000% profit margin. Hardly worth the effort currently. I have argued that hard needs upgrade cost turned way down with contracts paying much less so that a well designed rocket makes 10-15% profit and something that is slapped together loses money or just breaks even. I have always found rescue contracts and station contracts are my bread and butter. Kerbin orbit station, Mun orbit station, Minimus Orbit station with a couple rescue contracts and I am sitting at a million funds and can do just about anything I want.
  17. I have a BS in aerospace engineering and I am still learning after playing 4-5ish years. Still have not recovered rocks from eve or even been to the Joul system. I really have to stop optimizing and restarting every time a new version comes out. Oh and then there is realism overhaul/RP-1
  18. I would have to go with about a 6-7/10. I feel the creators did a really good job getting the game playable. Imagine trying to play without SAS, manover nodes, nav ball, prograde vector, op reaction wheels or center snap nodes. The last couple updates have been amazing for stock play ability but they may have actually increased the learning curve slightly. I have not played the tutorials in forever but I dont remember a tutorial for reading the nav ball or a tutorial for working the manover nodes. They could even add a separate tutorial for advance manover node techniques for getting past the limitations of the current system.
  19. There are lots of problems. First is the L4 and L5 points have inverse gravity. The gravity gets stronger the further from the center you are. This might be doable but would require a custom physics engine most likely. The L1, L2 and L3 points would require something like a pringle gravity field. I am guessing the main problem with Principia is multiple crafts in orbit the game crawls to a standstill. You could do a reduced SOI where anything in a rather low orbit around a body gets 2 body and after say GEOish altitude the game switches to N body.
  20. @Opus_723 I have not played with Kentipia (i believe) but it should have all the Lagrange points as they are not really a thing they are just the result of taking account of all the gravity's at once. @Richy teh space man That was the exact article I was thinking of. This got me thinking what would a transfer to the moon look like if you locked the reference frame to the earth and the moon. I am thinking something like this. After thinking about it probably more like this Wish I remembered my frame reference math from physics
  21. A couple years ago I read about "space lanes" or "space highways" where you basically use n body physics to transfer from body to body. I think it was something about using the L1 lagrange point you could transfer and capture at the moon for less dv then the transfer burn required by 2 body physics. The disadvantages were they they were very slow (7-12 day transfer to the moon I think). In the example I saw they transferred into a high moon orbit because that is very expensive from a 2 body perspective for less total dv then a minimum homan transfer to low PE (3142ish). However depending how you hit the L1 point I dont see why transfer to a low PE would be possible and I think you would have less hyperbolic velocity. However the dv savings are small, like 10-15 on transfer and 30-40 on capture from LEO to LLO. Has anyone heard of these before and know the proper name? I wanted to do some research on how these could be used for transfer to mars.
  22. I have been thinking of adding canards at the front but rotating them down 15 degrees to give more control authority when I enter at 35 degrees pitch. Would want to trim them level or even a bit nose up before takeoff.
  23. I thought this used to work with rockets. Pretty sure I have had to thrust prograde to slowdown on multiple AERO entry vehicles. Flight control surfaces have never been able to handle flying backwards as they would constantly correct in the wrong direction.
  24. If you watch much RP-1/RP-0 on youtube you will see everyone loves making LES. So out of solidarity I have continued to waste mass on them in my rockets. Well yesterday I had a main engine cut out 128 seconds into flight. It was supposed to be a 140s stage. I had designed the the craft with 10,200 dv plus 800 dv for on orbit manouvors. So I figured I could abort to orbit riding the verners until it was safe to stage. After about 15 seconds the verners exciede their control authority and the rocket pitches up to 25 degrees and FAR starts to rip apart the vehicle. You know how joints start to shimmy. I panic and try to remember how to abort. By the time I find the backspace key main tank had just exploded and just after I pulled way second stage blew up. Honestly it was the most exciting thing to happen to me in a long time. Kerbal survived but decided to take a 9 month vacation even though I had another rocket on standby to complete the contract. Everyone else is training for the Mercury program so it looks like I will complete this contract just a month before the dead line but I can't take anymore contracts for 9 months until this is off my back log. (I messed up and took 6 interplanetary contracts that will not complete for almost 8 months for the shortest to Mercury.)
  25. I have built some nice rockets in the 40-60t range. I made a cheap tank 2 type RD 107 at 68t that launches 1.68t LEO cheaper on the 150t pad cheaper then my balloon/balloon 60t version on the 60t pad. Now I am really struggling to find a good use for these engines on the 150t pad. I cant not seem to make a good 2 RD-107, 1 RD-108 version of a launcher. I keep making a first stage that only has 2m20s so the RD108 feels like a waste. If I under fuel the RD-107s I lose Dv because their TWR is so much better then the RD108s. It feels like these engines really don't work well until you need 15+ tons to LEO on a 2.5 stage 400t monster. My 1.5 stage 320t monster can really only put 4-5t into LEO. I love these engines but I feel like the RP-1 designers put the pad limits at really uncomfortable spots for them. I would have preferred a 70-80t pad 2 for high orbit contracts, uncrewed flybuys, crewed moon orbit (with some care), 1 and 2 man orbiters, skip pad 3 and go straight to pad 4 at 400-420t for uncrewed moon/mars/venus landings, small stations, possibly maned moon orbit