Sign in to follow this  
GoSlash27

Helpful 1.0 observations

Recommended Posts

Heatshields: They don't add their mass correctly, meaning reentry pods are unstable and you have to fight to keep it pointing retrograde. This is due to a very simple thing, they're flagged as physicsless. Meaning they add their weight to the parent part, without shifting CoM.

A simple solution can be found here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117279-How-to-fix-those-hetashields%21-%28get-rid-of-command-pod-flipping-into-the-heat%21%29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope they don't change the 0 engine thrust on Eve.

I think Eve should be the "final boss" of KSP.

(Or maybe Tylo is the final boss and Eve is some kind of evil bonus thing?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre-coolers are your friend.

Pre-coolers air intakes are the simplist way to prevent a space plane form burning up. They seems to be resistant to re entry heat and will protect anything behind it (engines for example). The big disadvantage is that you cannot place wings behind it (clipping control surfaces until they barely stick out is ok) thanks to the new wing occlusion. I'm amazed that people have built SSTOs without this! (congrats!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st thing i learned, put ANYTHING u arent using for external appearance or fuselage structure inside a utility bay or cargo bay, 0 drag FTW. My newest ion SSTO to laythe and back utilizes a bay with 15 ions and liek 30 fuel tanks inside it (yes its cheaty clipping but its the only way to pull off 6K dV in space with ions). I tried this clipped inside the hull, and i couldnt reach exit velocities, now i can like get 200km AP on pure jets!

2nd thing i learned, if that you dont need to get above 70km to get to orbit even with very weak engines such as ions. I usually aim for 50-60km AP, and try to maximize my velocity before jets die out.

3rd thing i learned is that SSTOs are bloody hard to make, not only do you need to minimize drag, but you need to make them stable, flyable, and not overheat instantly!

4th thing i learned, flaps act as nice makeshift airbrakes, and dont require dedicated parts.

5th is currently being learned....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1st thing i learned, put ANYTHING u arent using for external appearance or fuselage structure inside a utility bay or cargo bay, 0 drag FTW. My newest ion SSTO to laythe and back utilizes a bay with 15 ions and liek 30 fuel tanks inside it (yes its cheaty clipping but its the only way to pull off 6K dV in space with ions). I tried this clipped inside the hull, and i couldnt reach exit velocities, now i can like get 200km AP on pure jets!

I'm confused. You're shielding the ions in the service bay to minimize drag, right? But aren't they not supposed to produce thrust while shielded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SPOILERS AHEAD

The aero spike is the only engine that has ISP deep in the planet. Therefore, it's your go to engine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SPOILERS AHEAD

The aero spike is the only engine that has ISP deep in the planet. Therefore, it's your go to engine

I suspected as much but hadn't tested it yet, thanks for the info!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm confused. You're shielding the ions in the service bay to minimize drag, right? But aren't they not supposed to produce thrust while shielded?

lets just say ions till do and always have not cared about whats behind them, they will produce thrust PERIOD, even if they are inside a ship. And yes, i basically have a single 1.25 utility bay filled with 15 ions, 3 RTGs, 2 reaction wheels, 1 probe core, 21 xenon tanks, anfd thats it!

Ive been taking advantage of part clipping for ages, im not about to let 1.0 ruin my laythe roundtrip SSTOs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aerodynamics: Airbrakes make for excellent control surfaces. Low-profile and high-efficiency, they will greatly improve SAS stability of any rocket, and will add massive amounts of control authority at virtually no extra drag cost when placed on the back of any aerodynamic craft.

screenshot286.png

Re-entry: You don't, strictly speaking, need heatshields for it. A cluster of airbrakes can slow you down so quickly that nothing has time to overheat. Make sure to watch that G-load though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
panzer1b, have you considered cutting your part count by using the new bigger inline xenon tank?

Wont fit in a 1.25m service bay

but my HK-229 is using those, with 10 of the tanks in a MK-2 bay, and liek 40 ion engines :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted, aircraft can now reach previously unheard-of speeds; I've found that what was previously a fairly reasonable supersonic research jet (with twin turbojet engines) can now easily reach hypersonic velocities, going fast enough to destroy itself from compressive heating in level flight, before even leaving sight of the runway. The previously tame stock Aeris A3 is now a high-speed deathtrap.

In fact, many of the Squad-built stock craft can no longer perform their intended functions due to the aerodynamic rejiggering: Most of them are simply too fast.

This all illustrates an important point: Since drag is no longer added by every single part, only the parts directly exposed to the airflow, many designs that were already aerodynamic are now too aerodynamic.

Most rockets don't have to deal with compressive heating on the way up because they've already left the worst of the atmosphere by the time it starts to set in.

Also, most engines seem to have a fairly absurd heat tolerance, so re-entering tail-first is still a viable option even without a heat shield, depending on the speeds involved.

Also, if you use MechJeb, it really helps to use the "limit angle of attack to 5 degrees" option in the ascent guidance (possibly changing it to something more reasonable like 10 degrees). This prevents longer rockets from tumbling when they try to turn.

Edited by zxczxczbfg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a helpful tip for re-entry: carry three 'chutes. Take a standard Mk. 1 command pod, then fit a standard Mk. 16 chute on top. THEN, fit two radial parachutes on the sides.

Set up the staging so that the top 'chute pops first, then the two radials with the next stage.

Pop the first 'chute just after you start losing velocity to air drag. This will almost instantly drop your airspeed out of the burn zone, so to speak. No ablator required. Depending on your luck, the parachute may or may not burn up. Regardless of if it does, you can pop the other two 'chutes pretty much whenever you normally do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a helpful tip for re-entry: carry three 'chutes. Take a standard Mk. 1 command pod, then fit a standard Mk. 16 chute on top. THEN, fit two radial parachutes on the sides.

Set up the staging so that the top 'chute pops first, then the two radials with the next stage.

Pop the first 'chute just after you start losing velocity to air drag. This will almost instantly drop your airspeed out of the burn zone, so to speak. No ablator required. Depending on your luck, the parachute may or may not burn up. Regardless of if it does, you can pop the other two 'chutes pretty much whenever you normally do.

That doesnt work at all, the chutes just vaporize instantly (actually i have yet to manage to reenter properly when coming in at 6km/s). Guess aerobraking is dead under default heating, since its impossible to slow down by much if anything using the technique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have reconfirmed the heat radiator design works in space. The control ( on the top of the image) exploded when the nuke used up about 100 units of fuel, so about 1/4 into the burn. Cause of explosion - main fuel tank melted, clocking at 2000 Kelvin. Than I performed a test with my yesterdays most successful design - square wing sections. The radiator was so effective, it managed to cool the whole craft for nearly the full duration of the burn ( 360 units of fuel, 2+ min.) The fuel tank was getting pretty hot (1800 K) but held until the end. Unfortunately, I was so excited that I wasn't keeping an eye on the engine itself, which promptly exploded about 8 seconds before finishing the full tank of fuel. :( Keep in mid that this was an extreme stress test, as the mass of the ship is very minimal, so the heat piles up very quickly. The issue is less severe with bigger ships that have more heat sink capability.

And yes, they do glow in the dark ! :)

Nerva_space_zpskg2e2p7x.jpg~original

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Physics/Aerodynamics/Engines

ISP of the aerospike at 160 m above sea level on Eve is 270.7. It produced 106 kN when fired at that elevation.

I expect that this is the best case, where the Terrier which I tested earlier might well be the worst case.

Happy landings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have reconfirmed the heat radiator design works in space. The control ( on the top of the image) exploded when the nuke used up about 100 units of fuel, so about 1/4 into the burn. Cause of explosion - main fuel tank melted, clocking at 2000 Kelvin. Than I performed a test with my yesterdays most successful design - square wing sections. The radiator was so effective, it managed to cool the whole craft for nearly the full duration of the burn ( 360 units of fuel, 2+ min.) The fuel tank was getting pretty hot (1800 K) but held until the end. Unfortunately, I was so excited that I wasn't keeping an eye on the engine itself, which promptly exploded about 8 seconds before finishing the full tank of fuel. :( Keep in mid that this was an extreme stress test, as the mass of the ship is very minimal, so the heat piles up very quickly. The issue is less severe with bigger ships that have more heat sink capability.

And yes, they do glow in the dark ! :)

http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/b514/yes753cac/Nerva_space_zpskg2e2p7x.jpg~original

Does this mean I can use wings for a radiator on drills and converters too? :D:D:D:D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this mean I can use wings for a radiator on drills and converters too? :D:D:D:D:D:D

I see no reason why it shouldn't work. In fact I used the nuke only as easy setup test. My aim was to develop and effective cooling system for drilling platforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My key observation is that re-entry is a bit tougher, a usually successful design (i used to use FAR) flipped around and burned up the capsule on re-entry (Sorry val, at least you death was spectacular!)

That's a bug, though. You can find a temporary fix in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117279-How-to-fix-those-hetashields%21-%28get-rid-of-command-pod-flipping-into-the-heat%21%29/page2

Worked just fine, my capsules no longer flip over!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Physics/Aerodynamics/Engines

ISP of the aerospike at 160 m above sea level on Eve is 270.7. It produced 106 kN when fired at that elevation.

I expect that this is the best case, where the Terrier which I tested earlier might well be the worst case.

Happy landings!

Starhawk,

That exceeds my prediction for the aerospike on Eve at sea level. My math said it would generate 230s and 107 kN.

Could you do me a favor and check out the Mammoth? My math predicts 186s and 2,210 kN.

If it beats my estimate like the Aerospike did, then it can (at least in theory) generate more total stage DV than the aerospike.

Thanks,

-Slashy

edit...

Physics:

Based on the change in DV requirements for Kerbin LKO, I expect Eve to require 7,300 m/sec from sea level.

Edited by GoSlash27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone been to Eve and sampled the ambient surface temperature? I had a hunch that with the new heat system, Eve would be very hot. Can anyone confirm this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starhawk,

That exceeds my prediction for the aerospike on Eve at sea level. My math said it would generate 230s and 107 kN.

Could you do me a favor and check out the Mammoth? My math predicts 186s and 2,210 kN.

If it beats my estimate like the Aerospike did, then it can (at least in theory) generate more total stage DV than the aerospike.

Thanks,

-Slashy

edit...

Physics:

Based on the change in DV requirements for Kerbin LKO, I expect Eve to require 7,300 m/sec from sea level.

OK. It may take a bit. Slightly different requirements to get a Mammoth there. :)

Also, for an additional data point, at 3000 m the aerospike's ISP was 240 s.

Happy landings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK. It may take a bit. Slightly different requirements to get a Mammoth there. :)

Also, for an additional data point, at 3000 m the aerospike's ISP was 240 s.

Happy landings!

wow ISP curves are all over the place huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this