KerikBalm

Members
  • Content count

    4,269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,865 Excellent

3 Followers

About KerikBalm

  • Rank
    Capsule Communicator

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. KerikBalm

    What did you do in KSP today?

    Yea, and the falcons do too, not chutes. But in ksp, without automated control, it doesn't work so well. Also the relative masses and such don't favor it in ksp. The bfr should out perform a skylon (payload fraction, cost) no? Well in ksp, even at 3x, the ssto spaceplane still massively outclasses the staged design. Likewise, enough wings for a horizontal landing are low enough mass that they are more efficient than propulsive landing
  2. KerikBalm

    What did you do in KSP today?

    Well, today In career mode, 3x Kerbin (1.5x terrain height, 1.25x atmo height, sqrt(3) x rotation period) I used my new recoverable BFR to launch a 51.5 ton payload into orbit. All stock parts, landed the first stage just 3.4 km from kerbin. This payload came out to 4,400 funds per ton to orbit. And more pics of how the mission proceeded, including the first stage recovery with no recovery mods The first stage won't recover for better than 97.9% without very lucky piloting, or a special script, the 2nd stage recovers at 100%, but its about 1/10th the cost, so.... whoopedy do (its mainly winged because getting >95% recovery with non-winged craft from orbit takes a lot of practice/quick loading). The net cost of launch was 226,802. I looked again at my super heavy airbreathing SSTO... cost of launch with a full fuel load (assuming all expended) and an 8,500 fund fairing was 73,117 funds... I forget exactly how much payload it can take with that fuel load (many flights I used payload fuel as well), but I seem to recall it was at least 120, and maybe 150-160 tons (depending on payload shape, and piloting). So my BFR chucks payload into orbit for around 4,000-4,500 funds per ton, up to about 55 tons I have a smaller "Falcon-H" for up to 25 ton payloads with a similar payload fraction and cost Then I have my heavy SSTO, getting payloads to orbit at around 525-610 funds... 100% recovery (no maintenance fees), and powerful airbreathers really skew things towards SSTOs, even in 3x KSP. I've tried using winged flyback boosters, so far nothing competitive under these conditions
  3. KerikBalm

    What gameplay rules do you impose on yourself?

    3x rescale of the system in general (my system has my own custom changes after that), stock size is too small. No abuse of part clipping (I'll allow minor part clipping to get around certain limitations due to limited choices on part sizes)... lets say no more than 10% clipped by volume. Life support is a must No ISRU on "achievement" destinations, such as Moho... ISRU can make operations at hard to reach places trivial, and take the suspense out of carefully planning maneuvers at those destinantions No exploits like ladder drives No mechjeb... just 'cause - although I did see some post about a script for returning flyback boosters to the pad which interests me, as my flyback boosters just get to the vicinity of KSC/97.9% recovery No OP mod parts... in general I try to play with 100% stock parts except for life support parts.... I do use some mod parts - my own electric fan models, and from time to time I'll use the atomic age lantr- but generally these are for "fun" craft, and not the mission craft... certainly not for rockets/planes to get stuff to LKO or to transfer to another destination.... but for hopping around and exploring a destination where there's a stock base with ISRU production... fine http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#lantr No long duration missions with a crew of less than 3, must have at least 1 male and 1 female. No interplanetary voyages with a crew of less than 6, 50:50 genders
  4. KerikBalm

    Does anyone ever put fuel in the wings?

    Why wouldn't you use the capacity if it is there? The only time I don't use them is when I'm making a duna spaceplane that has no LV-Ns, but if there were some Oxidizer only tanks, I would use the wing fuel. As it is to add oxidizer storage you also ass proportional LF storage, so I empty the wings and "lock" the tank so that the LF fuel display will accurately reflect my total fuel available
  5. KerikBalm

    What did you do in KSP today?

    I would be willing to count something like a hitchhiker can as payload mass. The largest stock SRBs are 2600, including fuel, do you have a stock way to recover them?
  6. KerikBalm

    What did you do in KSP today?

    So excluding KR&D and part recovery mods, its about 33k per ton? So my rocket (not airbreathing) rocket launches are on 3x kerbin (not 3.2x), 1.25x atmosphere, 1.5x terrain... I think this should be fairly comparable to 3x Gael (do you have the atmosphere scaled up 3x as well? IMO it shouldn't be because stock kerbin's atmosphere is proportionately way too high for a 1/10th earth analogue) Going Space X falcon style didn't seem worth it in stock KSP, but it represented a large improvement over SSTOs in my 3x settings Here's an example mission: After that example there, I made another rocket inspired by the planned BFR, where the upper stage was winged and could land back at the runway for 100% recovery (I'm pretty good at adjusting AoA during reentry so no quickloading is needed). I'm still getting the hang of the return burn, and still optimizing the ascent profile on it, but in a successful test I got 51 tons to orbit, had a successful retroburn (in fact I retroburned a bit too much) and recovery of the orbiter on the runway... done in my sandbox save, so I don't have records of the net cost, but I expect it to be even better. Orbiter, pushing 51 tons or full ore tanks to orbit: Once orbit was attained, or the Ap is far enough away that I have time to switch back to the booster and follow it to the ground, I do... it comes in fast, at high Gs, but not hot: (When the lower stage has about 1,300 m/s left, and the Ap is over 100km, I cut engines, decouple, and light the 2nd stage engines, and keep burning until the booster is 45 seconds from its apoapsis, I then switch to it, point it retrograde, switch the navball to surface velocity, and then reverse my surface velocity + 10-20 m/s... but I sometimes can't do that, I found burning 10-20 degrees up but not quite getting as much surface velocity in the direction of the KSC can be more dV efficient, but less precise)... then switch to the orbiter and complete orbit or push the AP several minutes out, then switch back to the booster and land it I'm pretty sure that would be 97.9% recovery The orbiter... gets very hot during reenetry and in this case, I nearly overshot, but it flies well enough to make the landing from here: That target on the ground 7.6 km away... that's the first stage landed back at KSC So... its 3x, not 3.2, and I don't know what you've done with your atmosphere... but my craft are all stock (even though the planet is not), and get well under 5k per ton (and even less than that with airbreathers), not enhanced with KR&D, and get payloads into low orbit with orbital velocities of around 4,000-4,100 m/s (lower values for higher orbits, obviously). If you're getting costs in the 30k's, then I'd suggest moving up to the Mammoth and Rhino, and consolidate small payloads into fewer large launches (the payload fairing nodes are great for taking multiple smaller payloads)
  7. KerikBalm

    What did you do in KSP today?

    1) No offense, but that is a pretty high cost per ton, even on 3.2x games (I play 3x, so the difference in dV should be about sqrt(3.2/3)= 1.33% Airbreathing SSTOs still work at those scales, and 2 stage flyback boosters work too. Have you compared that to the cost of your expendable launchers? 2) The real life SSMEs had a +/- 10.5 degree gimbal range, it seems reasonable to me and not OP'd (one can make shuttle designs without all that gimbal, as you notice as well). This was back before some stat changes to the rhino in 1x, and before the vector was introduced: The Vector's gimbal range doesn't make it OP'd in my mind... thats the point of the engine, that's its niche. An engine being best at something doesn't neccessarily make it OP'd
  8. KerikBalm

    What did you do in KSP today?

    #1) what is the cost per ton (of payload) without the stage recovery mod? #2) Do you consider the mammoth cheaty? If not, what is OP about the vector? Its vectoring range, or its thrust relative to its diameter? #3) How do you make that craft schematic?
  9. KerikBalm

    May have found Eve Easter Egg.

    If you point out a feature and there isn't a rapid consensus that its an easter egg... then its likely not an easter egg. Easter eggs should be something that when you find them you recognize them as something special. This looks like random junk to me with a vague resemblance to letters.
  10. KerikBalm

    Should I make a SSTO to have payloads, or rockets?

    A rocket can be an SSTO. So is the question rockets or a spaceplane? or Staged vs single stage? or Recoverable vs expendable? Most recently I've been playing with recoverable staged rockets, and getting about 2x the payload fraction compared to SSTO rockets (playing on a scaled up game where SSTO rockets get like a 2% payload fraction). If you want a high payload fraction, spaceplanes can't be beat in stock KSP
  11. KerikBalm

    What did you do in KSP today?

    Had another go at making 2 stage recoverable rockets, this time more inspired by the BFR than the falcon heavy. The first stage gets at 97.9-98% recovery if the fly back burn is done well (in theory one could get 100%, but I can't manually pilot it that well to have it be reliable) The 2nd stage is winged, 100% recovery is fairly easy manually. I got a 51 ton payload to a 150 km orbit on 3x kerbin (1.25 atmo, 1.5 terrain height), with a 1234.88 ton launcher, so I got over a 4.1 % payload fraction... which is pretty good for a recoverable system on 3x kerbin without airbreathers/nukes
  12. KerikBalm

    What did you do in KSP today?

    Mostly you mean... it looks like your engines fell off
  13. ah, airbrakes, that's a great idea, I had done some stuff with the adjustable slider of the mk3 cargo ramp, but airbrakesare a much smaller and low mass soultion +1 for that idea
  14. KerikBalm

    What did you do in KSP today?

    Career mode, 3x SMA's and body radius, 1.25x atmosphere heights (some custom), 1.5x terrain heights, some custom planets and changes (mun to where minmus was, minmus to an orbit similar to dres') My interplanetary vessel (with a working stock centrifuge) arrive at Mun for refueling: here it is during the capture burn My duna spaceplane had also captured, and the Mun surface base's tanker went up to fuel it up, the docking looked awkward, but it worked: A greenhouse and water drill module (and a submarine, but that's not for the mun surface base) also arrived at Mun The mun surface base with the tanker gone and no greenhouse module: So the mun dropship went up into orbit again: It commenced loading the module, and taking it down to the surface: the assembled surface base: and then linked to the dropship to refuel the dropship: The fuel tanker still needs to come back, and I still havent picked up the science rovers (actually meant to significant distances, not just to link up to form bases) from the old base location... its in the dark now, it may be halfa Munth before I get them. There's also a 1 kerbal science lander 600 meters away
  15. KerikBalm

    Help for building a airplane

    Well, yea, you can supercruise with the panther around 600 m/s, but I'd think its easier for a newbie to just use the AB and carry more fuel. Also the afterburner is surprisingly economical as well. While it uses about 2x as much fuel to make the same amount of thrust, if you can get your drag losses per km down to half as much, it cancels out. In stock KSP the panther can get you high and fast enough that your drag savings will start to be significant (the whiplash is even better and more economical for very long distance travel, of course. The fuel consumption at high speed an altitude will drop precipitously as well as the engine's thrust drops. In the end you want to look at what speed you can sustain, divided by your fuel consumption, and the two modes can get very similar numbers, and both modes can be used for designs that can get plenty of range. The afterburning mode takes less player time, so I'd still say to go with that.