tewpie

Members
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About tewpie

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Drake Mk2 (.craft) Payload Fraction: 165.80 / 286.43 = 57.88% External payload design. I spent quite some time trying to get a balanced CoM for both takeoff and landing, and then finally realized it's actually more efficient to just use parachutes and have a perfect CoM balance for take off.
  2. There's a bug in KER where the actual fairing walls are not counted towards mass. So your payload fraction is less than 56.44 because you're using the runway KER mass as total mass which is also lower than what it should be. The mass in SPH should be accurate.
  3. Scarab Mk6c (.craft) Payload Fraction: 153/271.03 = 56.45% Pretty much the same as before, without any engine clipping, size 2 tri-adapters for even lower drag, and tweaked flight profile. Will probably have to switch to external payloads for the next one.
  4. Awesome job @Nefrums, that's a creative entry . Now that I'm kind of off my Fallout binge I'm back to playing KSP. Just dug up an optimized revision of my previous design that I never published, so stay tuned .
  5. [quote name='Slugy']The clipping of most of the Rapiers into LF tanks seemed dodgy (it is very back heavy even with all the forward clipping) - time for a rule update?[/QUOTE] There's other ways to maintain CoM balance without that sort of clipping, but they will make the plane uglier. I'm fine either way. Edit: Just tried it, removing all clipping results in better handling and performance during takeoff (resulting in a slightly better payload fraction). The tradeoff is the plane is significantly more unstable during the landing phase, making autopilot landings a must, whereas currently, you can land it completely by hand. If I'm not mistaken this is the exact same problem experienced by HOTOL (Skylon's predecessor) in the 1980s, due to the rear engine layout.
  6. [quote name='Slugy']The automated flight is very cool too, but it would be nice if it was flyable by human hands.[/QUOTE] If by "human hands" you mean hands assisted with SAS and "hands on" autopilot ala smart a.s.s., then it is very possible to fly this plane, even achieve orbit with the same payload fraction if you time everything right. If you mean naked controls, then no, probably not, but then neither are a lot of other entries and also real world spacecraft ;)
  7. [quote name='Johould']Is an "SSTO" allowed to use launch clamps? This came up while trying to stabilize Mikki's Monster - If it's only needed to survive the initial physics jerk, a clamp is cleaner than more landing gear.[/QUOTE] I think so, the only requirement is that all parts be recovered, and clamps are automatically recovered.
  8. Turns out automated landings are a LOT harder to program for than automated takeoffs. I present Scarab mk6 (.craft): Takeoff Mass: 274.17t Payload Mass: 153.00t Payload Fraction: 55.80% Some highlights: - Single LV-N and 11x RAPIERs. - Uses only 2 shock cone intakes, they are a bit OP. - Uses the new mk3 engine mounting plate and tri-adapters for significant drag reduction (see the triforce in the back?). - (Unclipped) Rapierspikes for further drag reduction. Restricted gimbals to avoid damage. - Minor clipping and offsetting for wet/dry CoM balance. - Uses shielded docking port and cargo bay doors as pseudo airbrakes during landing. - Flight is almost completely automated via kOS. Only manual portion is jettisoning the cargo (and only because I needed time to take screenshots).
  9. Heating is not applied evenly throughout the craft, the forward most component bears the brunt of it. Using a heatshield as the nose will help a great deal. You can also increase drag on your craft and add engines to compensate, but that costs weight (if you use wings to add drag, that offsets the weight penalty a little).
  10. [quote name='Tourist']I've had no problem with any of my existing spaceplanes, either going up, or coming back. My ascent profile has changed bit, in that going for 1600 m/s before switching to rocket engines now appears suicidal. But I've had no problem getting to orbit, with enough juice to complete the mission by going to rockets at 1400 and pitching up a bit. [/QUOTE] You can still go that fast (and even faster) on air breathing rapiers. I hear heatshields are now more aerodynamic than before *hint hint* :wink:
  11. [quote name='Nefrums']I tried to make a new entry in 1.0.5 and I can tell you that Mk1 cockpit is out. It now overheats at ~1.3km/s at 20km... ;.;[/QUOTE] I found that since 1.0.5 cockpits are especially sensitive to high aoa drag heating. For example at mach 5 25km the mk3 cockpit will explode when aoa is above 3 degrees. You have to change pitch very gradually to avoid this.
  12. [quote name='Val']New entry without Rapier-spikes and including recovery...[/QUOTE] Nice, I knew it wasn't a big deal :) Sneak peek at my entry: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/mY4II1u.png?1[/IMG] Takes full advantage of the enormous increase in shock cone intake effectiveness, and the new engine mounting plate. Overall fraction should be higher than what's possible in 1.0.4, at least for single stage :wink:. It has rapierspikes mounted currently but I'll remove them if rules get changed. I would say keep rapierspikes but don't allow the nosecones to be offset. The simple rule would be, no offsetting of components directly mounted aft of an engine, period. Not allowing offsets to avoid exhaust, except in the case of rapierspikes, is just a weird special exception.
  13. [quote name='Val']I've added my recovery to the imgur album in my entry post. A video (~10 min) of the recovery is uploading and will be ready in an hour. [HR][/HR]KSP aerodynamics treats it the same, whether you offset the engines on top of each other or offset the rear engine to the side. No it does not. [TABLE="width: 640"] [TR] [TD][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-t3k1dFo3w[/URL][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][URL]http://i.imgur.com/T9KJJCQ.png[/URL][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/QUOTE] They do explode if you use gimballing on your engines, which you do on the mk8 but probably not in your test video (I can't tell). They don't explode on your mk8 because you clipped the nosecones into the gimballed engines. In any case, I don't care one way or the other, as long as it's made clear rapierspikes with [B]CLIPPED [/B]nosecones are fine (or not).
  14. [quote name='Right']I don't believe he did. He attached the "Small Nose Cone" on the back, no clipping or rotating.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure a non-clipped small nose cone in the back will explode from exhaust. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Red Iron Crown']Would it be clearer if I phrased the rule as "No use of the offset tool to create new stacks of axially attached parts"?[/QUOTE] Are you saying anything laterally offset attached axially is a new stack? What about offsetting engines for CoM thrust balance? This is overly broad I think.