Volchinko Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 So, about overheating hull during flight...How do i super/hypersonic now? I need to be able to go fast (duh!) to survey Kerbin, but i can't, since if i go above 20km, where friction is low and heating is minor, my engine chokes, and if i go lower than 20km, i quickly gain enough heat to boil the pilot in burning jet fuel with molten steel beams.As for re-entry, maybe it would be possible to add ablator resource to spaceplanes parts? Because they do have that black tiles on the bottom, like shuttle does. I have no idea how thermal shields work in this game though, but something tells me it has something to do with ablator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanderfound Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 So, about overheating hull during flight...How do i super/hypersonic now? I need to be able to go fast (duh!) to survey Kerbin, but i can't, since if i go above 20km, where friction is low and heating is minor, my engine chokes, and if i go lower than 20km, i quickly gain enough heat to boil the pilot in burning jet fuel with molten steel beams.With enough intake, your jets should be good to 25,000m. That 20-25km window is where you do your fast flying.If it was FAR, I'd also say that you want to do it as a series of suborbital hops (Silbervogel style), but I'm not sure how well that'll work in stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MainSailor Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 So, about overheating hull during flight...How do i super/hypersonic now? I need to be able to go fast (duh!) to survey Kerbin, but i can't, since if i go above 20km, where friction is low and heating is minor, my engine chokes, and if i go lower than 20km, i quickly gain enough heat to boil the pilot in burning jet fuel with molten steel beams.As for re-entry, maybe it would be possible to add ablator resource to spaceplanes parts? Because they do have that black tiles on the bottom, like shuttle does. I have no idea how thermal shields work in this game though, but something tells me it has something to do with ablator.It's been my experience that heating from atmospheric friction peaked around 15k then dissipated not long after that. By 20k you should have more than enough convection to cool off. I had Rapiers burning past 38k (see the album posted above) although admittedly, this was on the verge of air-hogging.Alternatively, you should already be seeing near maximum ISP for your NERVA's by 30k. You might still build an all-LFO aircraft that was light enough and get significant range from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodion_herrera Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Ok I did this test right after patching to v1.0.1, and yes, it's a little easier now. Notice zero heat buildup upon reaching orbit. Using the same launch/flight profile (that I've used over 20 times), with v1.0.1 I even have more than enough fuel left for orbital ops. Nice patch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodion_herrera Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Cockpit parts are now are more heat-tolerant. Also, those terrible tail connector that were so prone to overheating have been fixed (note tail connector near the engines in the rear)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Payload Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Not sure why you think it is easier now. Likely because you were over powered before 1.0.1. They basically halved the jet engine thrust again and significantly increased the drag. It is once again pointless to put wings on a space craft unless you just like the looks of them. I was actually enjoying my 1.0 space planes. Now they have no reason to exist. Might as well just build vertical launch and landing SSTOs with no wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radam Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Guess which plane has lower drag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Payload Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Guess which plane has lower drag:Don't tell me it's the top one . I just lost an RTG that was inside a cargo bay to heat. GG. So, either the bay is not shielding anymore or the bay was so hot it was killing an RTG through conduction. Which is also stupid. I really want to play this game now. Not play test it. I've been testing it for years already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regex Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Not sure why you think it is easier now. Likely because you were over powered before 1.0.1. They basically halved the jet engine thrust again and significantly increased the drag. It is once again pointless to put wings on a space craft unless you just like the looks of them. I was actually enjoying my 1.0 space planes. Now they have no reason to exist. Might as well just build vertical launch and landing SSTOs with no wings.I took out the plane I built last night in 1.0 and tried to bring it to orbit, made it just fine. Of course, I used a bit more fuel than I wanted to but that's because I noticed the increased drag near mach 1 a bit late and then failed to punch through the transonic barrier and build up enough speed past it the first time. No biggie, made it on the second with enough delta-V to deorbit and possibly do a rendezvous under 100km orbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertsconley Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 I will post a picture tonight but I stumbled into a viable rocket SSTO well viable in that I can one Kerbin up and return him from orbit.You need the following parts.1x Command Pod Mk11x MK 16 Parachute2x Mk2-R Radial-Mount Parachute1x Rockomax Brand Adapter1x Rockomax X200-32 Fuel Tank4x Mk-55 "Thud" Liquid Fuel Engine arranged radially around the bottom of the X200-32 tank.With this I had excellent stability on ascent and was able to make a 80 to 90 km orbit with enough fuel for a deorbit burn. There is something about the Thuds that makes them an excellent engine for this.The most practical use is as a core stage. I space boosters between the Thud and/or built on top of the Rockomax adapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radam Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 I can only get mk2 spaceplane into orbit. And it has very small wings.Don't tell me it's the top one . I just lost an RTG that was inside a cargo bay to heat. GG. So, either the bay is not shielding anymore or the bay was so hot it was killing an RTG through conduction. Which is also stupid. I really want to play this game now. Not play test it. I've been testing it for years already.Yes its the first one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Payload Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 I took out the plane I built last night in 1.0 and tried to bring it to orbit, made it just fine. Of course, I used a bit more fuel than I wanted to but that's because I noticed the increased drag near mach 1 a bit late and then failed to punch through the transonic barrier and build up enough speed past it the first time. No biggie, made it on the second with enough delta-V to deorbit and possibly do a rendezvous under 100km orbit.Great, that means you had too much engine to begin with. The plane I made yesterday can longer even get on step. So no matter that I should have a 2:1 TWR. The engine never gets there. No now I need 4:1 just to have 1.5:1 at take off. By the time I hit 10k, my plane is cooking itself at half throttle. Again, why would you not just make an SSTO with no wings? It weighs less and it's less draggy and also less dependent on flight profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regex Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Great, that means you had too much engine to begin with.No, my TWR was about 1.1 with two RAPIERs.By the time I hit 10k, my plane is cooking itself at half throttle.You don't need that much TWR, or even that much speed. You should ignite your rockets somewhere around 24km up at about 1km/s. At least, that's the profile that works for me. The biggest hurdle is getting the plane through the transonic barrier, either by using more engines or by building up speed by diving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radam Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) 1.01 aero has 33% more drag and 31% more lift... Edited May 1, 2015 by Radam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regex Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 1.01 aero has 33% more drag and 31% less lift...And? You can clearly still get into orbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radam Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 And? You can clearly still get into orbit.Not with mk3 as of yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regex Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Not with mk3 as of yet.You can't? Have you tried? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radam Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 You can't? Have you tried?Ofc, with the same weight and amount of engines as before. So more boosters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 I took my 1.0 spaceplane and tried to fly it the same way in 1.0.1...no dice. In 1.0 I could do a constant climb at 33° and change the RAPIERs over to closed-cycle when they flagged. In 1.0., on that flight profile the plane wasn't even breaking Mach 1.So, in 1.0.1 I had to climb at about 40° to get up to around 14 km...At 15 km I pitched to level flight, blew through the sound barrier, then started to gain speed. Once things started heating up (but it wasn't very hot) I pulled up to slowly gain altitude while piling on more speed than I had gotten in 1.0. The air-breathing RAPIERs started to wane near 24 km, and I switched over to closed cycle.Got into an 82 x 86 km obit. KER wasn't working to show me my delta-V remaining.Retro burn was west of the Big Crater, dropping the periapsis to around 38 km. Came in nose-pitched-up at 30°...no exciting flames or heating (I had put all the remaining fuel in the rearmost tank before entry). I was coming in north of KSC, so once the plane got to thicker air, I flew south to line up for landing.The landing was fine, and speedbrakes on top helped the spaceplane stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodion_herrera Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Not sure why you think it is easier now. Likely because you were over powered before 1.0.1. They basically halved the jet engine thrust again and significantly increased the drag. It is once again pointless to put wings on a space craft unless you just like the looks of them. I was actually enjoying my 1.0 space planes. Now they have no reason to exist. Might as well just build vertical launch and landing SSTOs with no wings.For one thing, I used to play Orbiter (and I still play it from time to time) before I discovered KSP in 2013. And with Orbiter, the original pre-1.0 flight ascent profile was totally different when you were ascending from a simulated earth atmosphere. Sure enough, I did eventually learn how to reach LKO, but sometimes I kept reverting back to what I know about ascents in Orbiter. But now that the ascent profile in 1.x mimics that of the Orbiter ascent profile for spaceplanes to LEO. I find it easier now, esp. when switching between programs, because they are both kind of similar now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketPilot573 Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Welp, since the atmosphere keep changing I might as well just abandon Kerbin. I will launch as much reusable stuff as possible once and for all, and set up a huge mining base on minmus. So long, KSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtherDragon Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Here are some snaps of the two different SSTO designs I mentioned earlier - both in orbit:Both are meant to dock at a space station to take on fuel. I imagine keeping the Space Station fueled is up to a standard heavy rocket with an orbital tug attached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levelord Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Welp, since the atmosphere keep changing I might as well just abandon Kerbin. I will launch as much reusable stuff as possible once and for all, and set up a huge mining base on minmus. So long, KSC.I agree. I have no problems learning and adapting to new aero changes, it just takes a lot of my energy. But the aero keeps drastically changing and altering how SSTOs reach orbit. I just want a damn aero model where I can sit down and slowly learn to master instead of scrapping everything back to the drawing board every few days. I'm more annoyed with fanboys who like to jump ship and praise the new 1.02 aero when the main problem is that the laws of goddamn physics keeps changing every week and I can't play my damn game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak8 Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 I think the plane now are more heat-tolerant. Before the new 1.0.2, this SSTO cannot re-entry from 130 km orbit due to the overheated nose, but now it can.Also, the two RAPIERs are asymmetrical flameouts sometime. Two Ramjets will not have this problem.Javascript is disabled. View full album Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regex Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 I'm more annoyed with fanboys who like to jump ship and praise the new 1.02 aero when the main problem is that the laws of goddamn physics keeps changing every week and I can't play my damn game. Oh man, tell me about it, I've been dealing with the fanboys forever. It's like every version of the game has them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts