Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'partially reusable'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP2 Dev Updates
    • KSP2 Discussion
    • KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission Ideas
    • The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
    • Mission Reports
    • KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
    • KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
    • KSP2 Mod Discussions
    • KSP2 Mod Releases
    • KSP2 Mod Development
  • Kerbal Space Program 1
    • KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
    • KSP1 Discussion
    • KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
    • KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP1 Mission Reports
    • KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
    • KSP1 Mods
    • KSP1 Expansions
  • Community
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
    • KSP Fan Works
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Categories

  • Developer Articles

Categories

  • KSP2 Release Notes

Categories

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


About me


Location


Interests

Found 4 results

  1. Craft files: Aurora Winged Booster (SPH) Block I Hurricane Solo Block I MLLV Hurricane Duo Block I HLLV Hurricane Trio Block I SHLLV Block II Hurricane Duo Block II HLLV Block III Hurricane Duo Block III HLLV Hurricane Trio Block III SHLLV Background: Those of you who tried to reproduce the Space Shuttle in KSP knows the number one problem is asymmetric thrust. There I was wrestling with the same problem when I had the brilliant idea of "why not just use more of them?" A pair of shuttles sandwiching an ET between them, now there's some symmetric thrust. But then I thought about this idea some more, why a shuttle in the first place? Well by attaching your expensive engines to a winged... thing you get to recover and reuse those engines. But the "thing" part doesn't actually have to mean "aircraft shaped fancy payload fairing". Seen as my double shuttle idea calls for the "shuttle" part reaching the orbit together with the ET I may as well put the payload on top, then move majority of the fuel tanks to the "shuttle" part. Then I recall I saw something similar once, and then sure enough after some research I realised I came upon the same idea as Energia II (Uragan): | Or at least, the winged booster part of the idea. Hurricane Launch Vehicle Family Block II parachute ET recovery assumes average recovery rate of 80% of the value of the ET, otherwise all recovery are assuming 100% recovery value as they are flyback. Awww yes the convenience and familiarity of vertical rocket launch with the low cost/ton of SSTO spaceplanes. Normal vertically launched rockets, even partially reusable ones specially designed to offer low cost to orbit can barely break the √1000 per ton barrier, so under √600 per ton in a rocket is amazing. The Hurricane launchers achieve this by using the reusable Aurora Winged Booster (more on this later), throwing way only the cheap, engine-less External Tank. As these launchers are all based on the same propulsion unit they fly just about the same way (they're basically the same rocket, just on different scales), let's have a look at the typical mission profile: Aurora Winged Booster The basic propulsion unit for the Hurricane Launch Vehicle family is the Aurora Winged Booster separately developed in the SPH. The extremely low cost per ton achieved is done via recovering the Auroras which represent a significant proportion of the launch vehicle, including all of its engines. Let's have a look at a typical flyback process: The craft file for Aurora Winged Booster is intended for SPH. Note that it's partially fuelled as this is the test fuel load for horizontal take off to orbit and deorbit mission. For use as actual booster I recommend filling all bipropellant fuel tanks and then retract the landing gears before you save the subassembly. Speaking of subassembly, here's a how to: Of course just because I used the Aurora to create the Hurricane launch vehicle family doesn't mean they are limited to this, they are useful for all sorts of payloads that can support radial boosters such as this interplanetary ship:
  2. So a while ago I created the Nova II Ultra Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle. But there was always a bit of nagging thought in my mind that it was a compromised solution. The main reason why the original Nova II had a reusable upper stage was that at the time I didn't think it was possible to recover the entire core stage of the asparagus. The reusable upper stage solved the problem of cost, but also introduced a structural weakness with its thin probe core / reaction wheel section that weakened the rocket and was only partially fixed by strut spam. Then, while working on my fully reusable launch vehicle I came upon a way to recover large rocket stages horizontally: Of course this is a relative small stage, a Nova II core will be more than 3 times as heavy as this, but nevertheless it showed the way forward. Nova IIB Ultra Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Craft file: http://kerbalx.com/Temstar/Nova-IIB-UHLLV (Craft file contains proofing payload) Specifications: dry weight: 156 tons wet weight: 866 tons cost: √304,039 (including fairing) part count: 163 payload: 230 tons to 75km x 75km orbit payload fraction: 20.58% core stage value (without fuel): √110,299 Cost per ton to LKO: without recovery: √1320 95% average recovery rate: √865 90% average recovery rate: √889 Nova II's original cost per ton was calculated incorrectly because the RHEUS value was double counted, cost per ton to orbit with 95% recover for Nova II should be √1080 per ton. Comparing the two vehicle the Nova IIB has cheaper per ton to orbit, slightly higher payload to orbit, lower part count and greater structural strength by getting rid of the upper stage weak spot. When not using a fairing the Nova IIB can launch a 240+ ton payload, the same payload cannot be launched at all on the Nova II because it will snap the upper stage at its structural weak point. So it's cheaper, stronger, more powerful and less complex. Typical mission profile: Enjoy
  3. Having designed a low cost per ton launch vehicle for the Light Lift category and another one for Ultra Heavy Lift, it's now time to fill the big gap in the middle. Being in the middle can be a bit tricky though - they're too big for monolithic SSTO flyback booster and too small for highly optimised asparagus giants. Some new thinking is needed here. Of course to make the upper stage reusable is easy - Nova II already demonstrated this feasibility with its Reusable High Energy Upper Stage. The problem is the larger lower stage - they get left behind in the atmosphere and their tend to cost a bomb due to their sheer size. Getting rid of them by making a single stage to orbit rocket also becomes increasingly difficult once your payload get bigger. Now SRBs are cheap, and if you look at the list of launchers in real life that use them: space shuttle, Ariane 5, Atlas V, Delta IV, etc etc I'm by no means the first person to think of them as a way to reduce the 1st stage price. But if you have played with SRB first stages in early career you would know that they are quite fiddly beasts - you either get too low TWR on lift off, or too high TWR on stage burn out or rocket losing control as SRBs have no gimbling and fins lose control authority. Then it occurred to me: why not just use MOAR BOOSTERS on a bigger rocket? Having a big payload on top means TWR swing won't be too crazy and the all solid stage will burn out while still in lower atmosphere, where fins still work. Thus I present you: Honest Jeb Medium Lift Launch Vehicle Craft file: http://kerbalx.com/Temstar/Honest-Jeb-MLLV (Craft file contains proofing payload) Specifications: dry weight: 59 tons wet weight: 268 tons cost: √88,646 part count: 99 payload: 45.5 tons to 75km x 75km orbit payload fraction: 14.51% Cost per ton to LKO: without eRHEUS recovery: √1948 95% average eRHEUS recovery rate: √770 90% average eRHEUS recovery rate: √832 From this you can tell how cheap the first stage is, considering it contributes 1/3 of the delta-V from the bottom. I must say too, that bottom stage coupled with that upper stage and lofting that payload really makes a nice looking rocket. Typical mission profile
  4. Edit: an updated version of this launcher, the Nova IIB UHLLV has been released. This version is now considered obsolete. Tired of launch vehicles that barely register as a blip next to the monster rockets built by aliens from the Sol system? No longer! Presenting: Nova II Ultra Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Craft file: http://www./download/92j7fo82d2ecfj1/Nova_2_UHLLV.craft (Craft file contains proofing payload) Specifications: dry weight: 181 tons wet weight: 849 tons cost: √234,004 part count: 181 payload: 229 tons to 75km x 75km orbit payload fraction: 21.25% Cost per ton to LKO: without RHEUS recovery: √1022 80% average RHEUS recovery rate: √824 50% average RHEUS recovery rate: √898 Features of Nova II: usability focused design targeting a balance between payload fraction, cost per ton to orbit and part count asparagus staging with fine tuned stage separation and TWR reusable upper stage for precision orbit insertion, space loitering capability, clean space act compliance and reduced launch cost Typical mission profile
×
×
  • Create New...