Jump to content

zolotiyeruki

Members
  • Content Count

    663
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

441 Excellent

About zolotiyeruki

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Cool, cool! Er.....I mean.....nicely done! And without Rapiers, no less!
  2. Does attaching wings to objects inside the fairing mess with the aero or thermal? I seem to remember there being some odd behavior about that.
  3. jinnantonix now leads both of the competitive leaderboards. Y'all aren't going to let that stand, are you? jinnantonix, can you share how you attached your wings? It looks like you have your whole fuselage in a fairing, which would preclude attaching wings in that way.
  4. Wow, that landing had me holding my breath a bit--you nearly stuffed the nose into the dirt. What a ride! I think you could take a few more seconds' credit, since you actually got to 0 m/s.
  5. Grrr, I've been working/tweaking/optimizing my own entry for the Voyager division, and I have a design that I think will take the cake. But the capsule keeps overheating after two and a half hours of Mach 5+ cruising
  6. On the topic of P2P Starship delivering rapid cargo, what if they stuck the cargo in its own re-entry vehicle, and lofted it on a ballistic trajectory with SS? Then SS releases the cargo, and (now unladen) burns to put itself onto a one-around orbit. The cargo reenters to its destination, and SS lands back where it started.
  7. Sounds like the Waddington effect to me. The guy's story is pretty interesting--he and his team looked at how the British were waging war, and pointed out seemingly simple (and sometimes counterintuitive) things that made a big difference. One of their findings was that bombers had the greatest amount of unplanned maintenance (i.e. things broke) right after their 50-hour overhaul, and had fewer and fewer problems the longer they went from the 50-hour maintenance. And they told the RAF that the 50-hour maintenance period was too short and caused more problems than it solved. In esse
  8. Alright, I have a question about the appearance of the rocket exhaust, and could use some education: 1) At launch, what is the composition of all those billowing clouds? Is the rocket kicking up that much dust from around the launch pad? Or is it imperfectly-burned LF/Ox? Or is it a whole lotta condensed water vapor from the exhaust? A combination of the three? Something else? 2) At low altitudes, the exhaust is a bright yellow flame, and then around Max-Q it's more of a transparent orange, and then at MECO, it's almost invisible. Why is that? Is it because the exhaust expands m
  9. Yeah, the test craft was about 11 tons and 1 rapier. You'd be dealing with a lot more lift-induced drag with that much mass.
  10. An addendum to the shock cone intake on the rear of the fuselage: I took that slapped-together craft, and tweaked a few things--replaced the probe core with a faired Mk1 capsule, and set the wing incidence to 3 degrees instead of 5. And then I tested it with and without the nose cone on the tail, at two different speeds, 1,650m/s and 1,715m/s, in level flight. For a given speed, both versions of the plane flew within about 100m of the same altitude (slighly lower for the version with the SCI due to the added weight). I ignored max temperature and used infinite fuel and electricity to get
  11. I can confirm the above--I just did a simple test, and that is 100% true. As for the silliness of banning nose cones on the back of rapiers, in the same simple test, I took a craft and tested it with and without the shock cone intake on the back of the engine. The difference was about 2.2% total drag. Granted, this was a thrown-together design with the wings at a 5 degree angle of incidence, so the wing parasitic drag is higher than you'd use for competition.
  12. Well, you could do the math. Let's say you've got a 50cm vertical jump on earth (because that makes the math easy). 0.5 = 1/2*9.8*t^2, and your fall time is about 1/3 second, and your vertical speed is 1/3*9.8 ~= 3.3m/s. On the moon, with roughly 1.6m/s^2 gravity, your fall time would be about 2 seconds, so you'd make it 1/2*1.6*2^2 ~= 3.2 m off the floor. That's a standing jump, upwards. If you launched at a 45 degree angle, your initial vertical velocity would be .707*3.3 = 2.3m/s, which works out to a fall time of about 1.5 seconds. If we neglect air resistance, you'd fly 1.5s * 2
×
×
  • Create New...