Jestersage

Members
  • Content Count

    975
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

278 Excellent

2 Followers

About Jestersage

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

3,475 profile views
  1. All I can say is ??? -- as in, I am confused. Did you modified KVV, or...
  2. So how did you do your plan B? Did you actually use GIMP/PS to carefully cut out your ships? (I know it's possible, but real tedious)
  3. But you are talking about mk1 (1.25m parts) instead of the mk3 parts... Anyway, I will look at IronMaiden's design. Will probably keep the 6 NERV design, but modify the wings, which i actually have it in pipeline already with multiple possiblity, because it's not a craft for "I can reach the orbit", but "it can do useful work". So my end goal is to match even closer to the M19, that is: Low part count at 80~100k, 28 degree, can lift 40t and at least 4 Kerbals, excluding components that may be added. at above mission parameter, with possibility of lower payload mass, have about total 500 m/s for transfer to spacestation (~300 m/s on average) no oxidizer tank if possible (I actually made a version using LFO-tank and vernor, which gives better in orbit performance) Easy to fly (ascent) Easy to maneuvur in orbit - hence, 0.4 TRW (originally 0.6 TRW)
  4. Thank you. I will load it in KSP later. (I was experimenting on the wing angle, but did it in a way that actually slowed it down) While I can understand most of the changes, what I am curious is about the removal of aerodynamic cones and quad adapter (namely the cones), as those are added on the research from AeroGav and fourfa, where they put it at the end to reduce drag. So why is removing okay in this case? Yes. In fact, the beta version, with 4 NERVs, are identical: a quad adaptor onto the center 2.5m for the nervs, then top 1.25 node have the whiplash, the side nodes having the pre-coolers and rapiers. The Current version (due to nonoptimization, and a preference for 0.4 TRW once in orbit) used 6 NERV while the 4 NERVs and Whiplash are mounted the same: the two side nodes have the 2 NERVs, and then the rapiers are attached to the nodes and offset as needed. Also, I thought Mk2 have event greater drag then Mk3?
  5. Not the actual tail cone (which is long and big), but the short version (that's the advanced nosed cone). As you can guess, I am still trying to optimize my LF-only SSTO. The main reason is that I really dislike using fairing as permanent part, but I would like a forward facing nosecone that can stand up to heat. At mach 5, the nosecone is at 1800 deg
  6. After enough testing that I managed to repeat, my first functional SSTO, Currently named "ascensor", is available: https://kerbalx.com/Jestersage/Ascensor-Liquid-Fuel-Only-SSTO Yup, pure liquid fuel construction. Special thanks to the builders who researched and share drag findings, including but not limited to AeroGav, fourfa, bewing, and probably a few others I missed. I have a feeling I may change the name and reassign "Ascensor" to something else. It's either that, or this polish Vodka talking...
  7. Also, as a few of my own threads atested, the rooting of parts affect drag calculation; namely, do not use PL Bay as root.
  8. In order to optimize my SSTO, I am reading up on the KSP drag-cone research put forth by fourfa, aerogav, and others: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/183551-rapier-engine-drag-in-161-with-tailcone-attachments/ https://kerbalx.com/fourfa/Rapier-tailcone-test https://kerbalx.com/fourfa/Rapier-tailcone-test-2 https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/155779-best-hyper-sonic-nose-cone/ https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalAcademy/comments/5eh8yh/the_least_draggy_nose_cone_and_ideal_shell_shapes/ The thing is, many of these info are 2~3 years old, so many versions ago. So my question is: Are there advantage of using advanced nose cone over aerodynamic cone, as tests seems inconclusive about the drag reduction (especially based on those done by fourfa) No one have done an NCS+small nose cone. How is the drag-stat for combination of such cone? When is the shock-intake small drag outweight (no pun intended) its high mass for SSTO?
  9. If it's on KerbalX, would you please give us your craft page's URL? (It's case sensitive). Unfortunately we are aware of malicious downvoting, but ironically are restricted to more famous builders.
  10. Most of my craft are not really creative. My earliest ones are literally pinyin of the english name -- sound good and creative only if you are not Lehu is Anglization of 猎户(Lièhù).... aka Orion The Herguer lander is Anglization of 河鼓二(Hé gǔ èr), or Altair LyncBon comes from "Liánbāng".... or Federation Fogin is the cantonese pronounciation of 火箭 (rocket)
  11. The actual issue is: "if the bay is the root instead of the cockpit, except load from editor, it will be unshielded" (aka, if revert to launch is used). Hence @Streetwind got the point. However, it can be solved by making the cockpit root. So it's a bug. What more do I need to input to submit it (and how?)
  12. Both yes and no. I actually did 4 test, 2 of them open then close, 2 did not. Sometimes the drag are there, sometimes are no drag. I will double check that, but I recall it's suppose to be the cockpit that is root.
  13. Removed all the mods so only Squad and SquadExpansion is in GameData. Sometimes with drag: Sometimes no drag: Current exposed nodes within the Mk3 bay:
  14. 1.8.1. Below is one of the occasion where the drag shows: While this time it's fine:
  15. From time to time, I found the payload within the Mk3 tank generate drag (using AeroGUI). Is that a bug with my design, or a bug of the game? If it;'s the bug of the game, any mod that can patch it?