• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

165 Excellent

About zolotiyeruki

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. Liquid Fuel SSTOs

    I don't think the game allows you to run engines while kerbals are on ladders.
  2. Nukes to Orbit

    IIRC, unless Squad have changed the aero model, wings don't generate parasitic drag, only induced drag. You *do* get a significant boost when jettisoning the wings, but at least in my experience, that's due more to the loss of mass than the loss of drag. Is there documentation somewhere of the 2/3/5 degree AoA rule for wings?
  3. Nukes to Orbit

    No worries--I kinda did the same with the Circumnavigation Challenge (14x around kerbin on air-breathing engines without refuelling!).
  4. Yup. I've used RAPIERs, nukes, and all sorts of normal chemical rockets, from aerospikes to Vectors
  5. Nukes to Orbit

    Dangit Laie, and here I was so excited about my 22 ton craft!
  6. Nukes to Orbit

    Yeah, just like the Circumnavigation challenge, reducing dead weight is key.
  7. Nukes to Orbit

    Here's successful attempt #1. 38.3 tons https://imgur.com/a/tgnqo What happened to imgur albums this time?
  8. You make it look so easy! Not even KER or Pilot Assistant.
  9. One question for clarity: Does the lander need to go with the Shuttle to Eve, or can it be left in orbit with the outpost?
  10. Sorry about that--it should be fixed now!
  11. I'm happy to share. Here are the things I did differently from you, from what I can see: Lift: All horizontal lifting surfaces have a 2-3 degree tilt upward, compared to the fuselage. Any lifting surfaces that aren't providing lift are dead weight. Weight: mercilessly minimized. That meant a single smallest-possible control surface for pitch control, and a second for yaw control and stability. I actually forgot to empty the capsule of monopropellant (75kg worth! argh!), but that's another step. The lightest crew capsule that would fit in a 1.25m form factor. A single RAPIER only. Only wet wings (free extra fuel capacity means less weight in eventually-empty fuel tanks). The smallest landing gear that would hold up. No extra batteries or anything else. I don't remember how I maintained roll control, to be honest--that was a long time ago. Drag: Only 1.25m parts allowed. Mk2 parts are very pretty, but also very draggy. The 2-3% tilt on the wings meant that once I was at altitude, I could point the nose prograde (or, if using Pilot Assistant, set it for 0 pitch), and the parasitic drag was minimized. Because of the way KSP drag model works, drag is significantly reduced when parts shield each other from the atmosphere. Having an intimate understanding of the KSP drag model was a big factor. Did you know that wings in KSP don't have parasitic drag (or at least, they didn't back when I did the 14x flight)? Balance: I made sure that the CoL and CoM were lined up at takeoff, and that the CoM would not shift during flight. Or alternatively, arrange so that once you're past the initial ascent, your CoM lined up very closely with your CoL, and then stays there. Deflecting control surfaces add drag. Also, finely-tuned balance reduces the need for larger control surfaces, so there's a weight savings there, too. Altitude: higher altitude means less air density, which means less drag. It also means you're getting a bit closer to orbital velocity. That means your craft requires less lift, which means less induced drag. Number 1) above will help with that. Also, because of the lower air density, fuel burn drops. Speed: higher speed means more lift and more altitude. Also, you're getting closer to orbital speeds (see #5). Also, the RAPIER's thrust drops pretty quickly once you get over 1,600m/s, so higher speeds will net you a significant fuel economy improvement. So, in short, low drag and low weight lead to high speed and high altitude. High speed and high altitude lead to crazy low fuel consumption. Also, the last time around, I typically cut off the engine while over the desert on the continent to the west of KSC. There's enough altitude and speed that I could coast something like 75 degrees worth of longitude without burning a drop of fuel.
  12. One time around is about ((600+25)km * 2 * pi = ) 3925km. You can't trust the distance in the F3 menu, as it appears to include the rotation of Kerbin. At 1600m/s, that's a bit over 40 minutes per circle. Your flight was about 270 minutes, which means you made it around 6 times. So your answer is correct, but your math needs some work Congratulations!
  13. Ha, bring it on! That's pretty smokin' fast there. You've officially moved up a few places on the leaderboard! Yup, 1.3.1 is just fine. It's actually a teeny bit harder, because reentry heating is a bit tougher now. It's harder to maintain 1,600m/s for multiple circles without overheating.
  14. Perfect! You've been added to the leaderboard! Take your badge and wear it with pride!
  15. That is indeed a very attractive craft! Under an hour earns you a place on the Velocity leaderboard as well! Is that a radiator panel I spy behind the cockpit? With 40% remaining fuel after one circuit, it's very possible that you could make it around a second time. I haven't played around a lot with Whiplashes, but when I did my really-long-distance runs, I found that getting up to cruise altitude and speed consumed 300 units of fuel in my 19-ton craft, but once I got there, the craft consumed <150 LF per circumnavigation. Of course, this was using a single RAPIER at 25km altitude and 1600m/s, but I think the principles still apply. Unfortunately, you'll need to abide by the rules in your submission--a screenshot at the beginning, one on the far side of the planet, and one at the end are required in order for the run to count.