• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4337 Excellent

About Rune

  • Rank
    Flight Director

Recent Profile Visitors

5597 profile views
  1. Depends entirely on your payload size. If you are pushing an O'Neill style habitat, 20kms wide is just about good enough to cover both cylinders with some margin for the low-grav farms around them. But yeah, structurally speaking it would probably be more efficient to use a Medusa-like tractor system, especially at those sizes. Of course the sail (much better to think of it that way) would be just as thick as it is required, plus margin (and could be a good radiation/debris shield during flight). Daedalus assumes colonies mining fusion fuel by the million metric tons, from the atmosphere of Jupiter. I think I can assume free solar orbit construction form asteroid material, conveniently manufactured into aerospace-grade parts, to build such interstellar behemoths. Rune. Fission fuel would be probably cheaper to manufacture on Earth, but a starship that has to brake at the other end should be able to manufacture its own bombs, 'cause half-life.
  2. It's not really that necessary (heating from LKO is not that big of a deal), but it looks really cool. It looks even better with a ring of aerospikes! Now, does anyone know of a way of changing the fairing's texture to something a bit less... crappy? It would be really cool if there was a mod to do so through tweakables... Rune. If googled for it, but all I find are dead ones, or procedural fairings.
  3. A personal thread where everything gets archived is a great way of not forgetting about your own crafts. Other than that, the likes come with time, and the good layout, with time spent editing. Rune. I encourage it, because it's nice to go back to it for the memories.
  4. Hi there! I think this goes here: 40mT of payload @100km circular, throwing nothing away. Well, actually the heatshield when you come back to land, but that's because I didn't like how the landing gear had to extend trough it in the 20mT version. This is supposed to be the launcher for a short-of-realistic RP'd architecture! That means no reaction wheels to magic things into behaving, no non-storable fuels being, well, stored, and everything is modular and a tidy 10mT in weight, so you can mix and match payloads to missions, yet still don't have to launch the same rocket a gazillon times per mission. You can see some examples of those payloads in both payload bays, I think they are turning out cute. Rune. I have channeled mi inner Bono here, I think.
  5. The Isp of an Orion is a tricky thing to work out. For starters, the only designs seriously studied were the tinier ones possible, and thus atrociously inefficient. But in a few speculative papers (like this one), Dyson outlined the true limits of the tech when you have the right size. Of course, by "right size", he meant enough to use efficient thermonuclear (1MT/mT) pulse units, and a big spherical plate (and I mean big, like 20 kms wide, radiation cooled, and made of solid copper). In any case, cruise speeds of 1-10% of c are often considered plausible for nuclear pulse propulsion. That is more than comparable with theoretical fusion engines, which is not surprising, since those big "pulse units" are thermonuclear bombs deriving their energy mostly from fusion. And as plus, the payload can be city-sized. Rune. Which has always made me wonder, why study fusion-powered starships and their heat issues, if we already know the shortcut to ignore waste heat and have stupendous efficiency with fusion-like Isp.
  6. Fairings have internal nodes since... ¿1.2? Nothing stops you from attaching stuff to one of those nodes (say, a shielded docking port), then building the fairing so it attaches to that part, and you are left with a nice 'shielded' conical space to put unaerodynamic stuff into. You can always get rid of the fugly, humongous fairing base by ofsetting it inside another part. Rune. Great to build Mk3 spaceplane noses that are not like every other Mk3 spaceplane.
  7. I kind of get the service bay, but I usually just use a fairing ever since we got the fancy internal nodes. If only those nodes were made 0.625m wide (even better, in a tweakable way), this part would become kind of irrelevant. Have the art repurposed as texture options for the fairing/internal structure instead! Rune. Is it too much to ask for a way to stop the fairings expanding in the VAB, while we are at it?
  8. Well, I have a few things that I just can't improve. The last one is my Orca: Try as I might, it just does everything I ask of it, better than stuff designed specifically for it. Built to ferry up and down base modules to Duna, it turns out that it is also an amazing SSTO in Kerbin, and a very heavy-duty lander for airless moons. Basically, it can handle everything except Tylo and Eve. It is a tough, big, VTOL and sea-capable, extremely maneuverable with RCS on, and although it eats fuel like a hog, it has the endurance to return to a base to refuel from the land (that it probably set it up itself). My best jack of all trades, by far, and it was built in 1.1. But really, in SSTOs, the king of endurance is my Claymore: With small variations, I still use it, and it is basically a post-porkjet conversion (and considerable enlargement) of my Broadsword. And that one is really old. It may not look like it, but the weight distribution and design principles are the same. Maybe you can see the lines if you squint? And although the porkjet pass and, especially, the end of the souposphere brought many changes and a serious increase in payload, my big workhorse SSTO still traces its lineage to this beautiful bird that I used for the first reusability challenge, in those days before recovery was a thing that you could choose. I don't even remember the version, and I must have flown both like a gazillion times. I run a mostly reusable space program since I built them, basically. But really, if I really really go for the spirit of this thread, I have to go with two little gems, which I think have always been rather underappreciated: subassemblies. Note these two pictures: The second one was uploaded to imgur three months ago. The first one, two years ago. And the only thing that has changed there is that the Drive Pods now have a radiator shroud (because heat became a thing in the meantime), and I took out the RCS... because the other subassembly, the Klaw pod, was just so good (it is the thing that is holding the asteroid in the last pic, incidentally, and it is exactly the same design nowadays). I haven't changed them, I don't expect to, and frankly, I don't want to. They are just that awesome, and have seen me through a lot. Edit: now that I see the pics full size, look at the kerbal moving around the orange tank with a EMU-type thing in the background of the Broadsword pic: I still have that same 10-part subassembly in some of my stations!! I think that must take the crown for longest-living thing in my space program. Here's another shot of it: Rune. So yeah, I guess you could say I'm "a bit" conservative.
  9. With a Terrier for an upper stage, I'd move more fuel to it, moving the mass ratio closer to the ideal e. That would give you more dV at the cost of less TWR (when you no longer need it), boosting the core to lower velocity and saving the energy for the upper stage. That little engine sure packs a punch. You'd get more total dV, and who knows, maybe that means you can drop the first onion stage, dramatically lowering total liftoff mass, and most importantly, drag (by about 30%). BTW, can't that fairing have a smaller, flush cross-section? For other drastic weight reductions, you could fit a whole other stage inside the fairing: Chair, tiny fuel tank, ant engine. More dV that you'll know what to do with, tough control becomes complicated. That way you can certainly drop two spikes, since final mass on orbit is truly ridiculous(-ly small). Rune. The eficientest stage always has the golden mas ratio.
  10. Gotta wait for me mods (especially now that I have a graphics card from this decade), but everything smells pretty good from here. Caught a couple of bugs I was interested in, got a couple of mods I use stockified (give me KAC and KER, polish the graphics, and I'll stop using mods! ), general polish... Good update, maybe a tad light in content, but that's because I cared little for the localization personally. All in all, good job guys! Rune. Now get cracking on Making History!
  11. Dude, you tamed Eve. And you did it using Rhinos! Mad math skillz there, many kudos deserved! Rune. Not seeing nukes in there was the most disconcerting thing of it all.
  12. Hi! Well, RCS blocks do have a few things to keep in mind. First, they are physicsless parts, IIRC, which means that, on their own, they generate no drag. Or rather, they don't generate drag on themselves, but they do add to the drag (and weight and so on) of the part they are attached to. Which means, you could probably exploit that, place them on a shielded part inside a cargo bay, move them outside with gizmos, and unless I'm mistaken you would have drag-less RCS ports. Not that I actually do such things, but it's the way I think that would work. Now, what I do, that's different. First, I eat the drag as a small inefficiency, just like I sometimes place parts for aesthetic purposes only. Once you design an ultra-efficient prototype, you can tape more stuff on to it, to make it also practical. And of course, I never use the four-way RCS block on spaceplanes. Temp. rating is a measly 1500°, and it looks very wonky in any case (IMO, YMMV, and all that). Instead, linear RCS ports can be hidden quite flush, and both them and the uber-powerful (and expensive!) Vernors have temp. ratings of about 2000°, which is much more reasonable to handle your typical reentry. Besides, you can try some weird ways of getting six-degree control authority that way, and some of those can actually tailor your RCS subsystem to you plane's actual moments of inertia on each axis (a long plane has big moment of inertia in the yaw axis, but a small one in roll). A few more parts than the 4x RCS blocks radially spaces 45° that we always use, but a nice change sometimes! Rune. Experimentation is encouraged.
  13. His won't be the only requirements met, good idea all around! Rune. Ain't feedback cool?
  14. If that does what I think it does... dude. That's complicated. How many independent craft while on operation? Rune. Totally useless, but in a very spectacular way.
  15. A lot of people bring this up when I talk about the RAPIER being the only sensible solution for SSTO... and it's completely irrelevant. We are talking about Single Stage To Orbit. Not Tylo, not Layhte, not Minmus, and not Duna. Obviously the RAPIER is not the best engine for in-space travel. The nukes are. So count your nuke as part of the payload fraction of your mostly-rapier-powered plane-thing, and you have yourself the longest-range single stages in the game (I am intentionally ignoring ions, because that is not the point I'm making). And if we are talking about SSTAnywhere and Vectors... well, I have this. No intakes. Rune. And I have an even better one without wings. But that's untested.