something

Members
  • Content count

    433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

328 Excellent

1 Follower

About something

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

2109 profile views
  1. KSP Stock Engines

    It basically says, the RAPIER is an efficient jet engine with a much too high TWR...also the RV-105 RCS block is horrible... Yes, sure you can have that....here we go. Don't use Ions. They have a high cost to thrust (CTR) ratio. The Ion engine gives you 4200s for 3 funds/Newton. The Rapier gives you 305s for just 0.03 funds per Newton. Also, SRBs are cheap in terms of CTR. All plots - including zooms into the LF area - can be found here: https://postimg.org/gallery/2jtaoyvl2/
  2. KSP Stock Engines

    Rocket design needs to take into account two stages of usage: Launch to orbit and travel in vacuum. During your interplanetary travels, you want to have a high Isp with low engine mass to increase your dV. During launch to orbit, you can sacrifice a some m/s of dV as you can stage away the unused mass during ascent, but you want to have high thrust with low engine weight to get of the pad. The mammoth weighs 15t and gives you 4MN of thrust, the Isp is 315s. That's roughly 266 N/kg and 21 s/t. The Reliant comes at 192 N/kg and 248s/t. The Terrier gets 240N/kg and 690s/t. So comparing those three engines, the Mammoth would be a good lifter to orbit but a horrible engine in vacuum. The Terrier is nice for travel in space, however. When doing spaceplanes, you can't just throw stuff away as you like, so you need engine combinations that work well. That's one of the reasons for the popularity of the RAPIER since it is basically two engines combined to one part, meaning you save some engine weight.
  3. KSP Stock Engines

    For some reason, I felt like plotting the Thrust of KSP engines vs their specific impuls. It is basically a table of "How efficient is the boom you selected?" Nothing surprising, but I figured, somebody might be interested in it, nonetheless... Except for Jet engines all values are vacuum data. Jet engines feature highest thrust possible. RAPIER and Panther come with one entry for each mode. Pay attention for the double logarithmic scale, though. The plot can be split in four regions. In the top left you do have the Liquid and Solid fuel engines. They come with various amounts of thrust at Impulses up to 340s. In the bottom left, you have the RCS thrusters - low thrust and low impulse. The top right, that's the Jet engines - unfortunately you cannot use them in vacuum. In the bottom right you do have the Ion engine. I am not really sure weather it is a Jet engine without thrust or an efficient RCS thruster. Reading stories of hour long injection burn times, I come to believe it was intended as an RCS thruster... And a zoom into the liquid fuel engines in the top left corner. The conclusion you ask? I guess, I should implement price and weight in a future plot. But unless I figure how to present 5-dimensional data in a meaningful way, I am kind of stuck, I guess...
  4. I think filled Ore tanks have a higher density than water...
  5. For some reason, jet engines and air intakes seem to work perfectly below see level....
  6. KSP Weekly: Trekking the Stars

    Wait, now that you mentioned it, I bet somebody is already working on that one... Yeah, I know but it isn't stock, though. That means @SQUAD's Kerbals won't join the Federation, while everybody's Kerbals who already developed that drive might join sooner or later...
  7. KSP Lacks Lead, Senior and Junior Developers

    The number of job openings and the time they're advertised tells you something about a company. Many openings per employee usually points to high fluctuation in the company. People aren't happy with something or do have limited contracts. Long periods of advertising means, they don't employ the people they are looking for, because they don't employ anybody at the moment but do not want to appear that way, or maybe they don't offer enough, or they could simply be looking for someone who doesn't exist. In this case, however, I think it is more of a 'we have all we need but maybe an amazing employee contacts us, so we should have some openings available'...
  8. KSP Weekly: Trekking the Stars

    Kerbin joining the Federation? You guys are aware they won't contact primitive civilisations that didn't develop warp drives yet?
  9. In true pursuit of scientific knowledge I added a probe core to a stack of decouplers just in order to see what would happen if you staged it...
  10. If you are in an orbit and want to change your inclination, you have to kill part of your orbital velocity and add velocity in another direction in order to remain at the same Ap/Pe. Say you are in LKO (equatorial) with an orbital velocity of 2200m/s and you want to get in a polar orbit of 2200m/s. You need to completely kill your equatorial component (2200m/s) and add 2200m/s in your polar component if velocity. So, if you do this as two separate burns, you need 4400m/s of dV. If you do just one burn, you get along with 3112m/s of dV (use the Pythagorean relation: sqrt (2200**2 + 2200**2)=3112). You could as well burn prograde, so your Ap reaches the edge of the Kerbin SOI. That's about 1000m/s dV. Then at Ap your velocity will be close to zero with reference to Kerbin. If you do your inclination change there it will be extremely cheap. Let's say 200m/s or less, depending in your actual velocity. Once you are back at Pe you do another 1000m/s circularization burn. You are done with 2200m/s - merely your initial orbital velocity. If you have different celestial bodies around, you could as well use their assistance to change your inclination. It might be even cheaper than the SOI method, depending on your approach and your target orbit. Especially in the joovian system, there are plenty of bodies to assist. That's what @natsirt721 meant with Ulysseus. Instead of killing Earth's orbital velocity and accelerating again into a polar solar orbit, they decided it was cheaper to aim for the Jovian south pole, complete half an orbit around Jupiter and then getting the inclination change for the cost of a Jupiter transfer... Moral/TLDR: Your Inclination change costs really depend on your strategy. As shown above, savings of a factor of two are easily possible.
  11. Scatternet Constellation - awesome. But in practice, the foldable dishes have the same rating, are lighter and combinable. You only need one of the heavy dishes for relay reasons per satellite...so that mission might have brought way more probes...
  12. I thought so as well. At least you can deactivate the CommNet settings etc. But I tend to remember you could change the percentages as well, can't check it now, though.
  13. The fact that you can open it proves you do exert a force on it. If you do apply a force it is changing state of motion. Hence, Newtonian mechanics are not disproven.
  14. Well, I don't see any new physical law here. It's Newtonian mechanics: A body remains in its state of motion unless a force acts on the body. Certainly, you need to apply a force to open the bay doors as otherwise you couldn't open them. Discovering that Newtonian mechanics apply, should be enough for a paper in a journal. 'Newtonian Mechanics Valid on Kerbin'
  15. Global warming is real guys

    That's a mod, I think. Probably caused by KerbalTsunami or RealistiKWeather.