Mk.3 Nosecones, what's the latest hotness?

[Raideur Ng]

With 1.2, drag is (even more) king and nosecones dictate that to a large degree. Since the Mk.3 Cockpit is the best command pod for reaction wheels, crew capacity, etc, I try to use it as often as possible. Thus:

What nosecone is the least draggy while still being somewhat sane, functional, possibly even nice-looking?

This is the best I could come up with: 1.25m Fairing clipped slightly into the Mk.3 pod. 2600 Max Temp (seems to be the highest of anything besides the pod itself)

 

[Jarin]

I'm still flying with the shielded docking port, but I don't know how badly that's costing me now. My old cargo SSTO designs still work though.

[AeroGav]

Have you tried putting a shielded docking port on a mk1 lander can on top of a flea booster, launching it, and then comparing max height with a nose cone? The results werent pretty i seem to remember.  

I usually go with 

IMHO it's the only one that really looks like it belongs on the mk3 cockpit.  It has 2400k rating which is enough i think, if you're blowing that up other parts of the ship must be at risk, and at the end of the day it's only a cheap nosecone, easily replaced.    I usually put a heat shield between it and the cockpit so if it does pop there's something behind to offer a little protection to the stuff behind, tweaked down to a small amount of ablator.  But i've never actually needed it.

In terms of drag i think it's the worst 1.25m cone but the difference is small,  it's worth the  penalty for look

best drag but only 2000k rating, i have melted a few.

 

Edited November 10, 2016 by AeroGav

[Foxster]

The circular intake remains king for low drag and mass. 

[bewing]

When it comes to drag, the MK3 parts stink. If you are building for low drag, then the first time you select an MK3 part, you have already shot yourself in the foot -- it is basically schizophrenic.

So, as far as I'm concerned, MK3 should be built for high heat tolerance. And for that, you can't beat the new mini science container. 2900K. Giving it a blunt nose increases the heat resistance even further. The fact that it is a .625m part may help with the drag thing. So, for a horrible mashup to reduce drag, I'd probably do something like: the MK3 cockpit, an NCS adapter, the mini-science container, and  the little nosecone. I'm not sure what the drag on that would be. For a super-heat resistant version, I'd drop the little nosecone. So the adapter gets you a little more fuel and the science contaner is somewhat useful.

Alternately, I love me my Klaws. They make great heat-resistant nosecones, they are reasonably non-draggy when disarmed, and they have surprisingly good heat resistance during any practical reentry. Also, of course, having a Klaw on your nose is quite useful for grabbing stuff and docking with things that have no docking ports.

Edited November 11, 2016 by bewing

[Starhawk]

Because KSP models a detached shockwave effect, a somewhat blunt nose can be effective for heat mitigation.

Something such as the Advanced Nose Cone (first pic in @AeroGav's post, above) or even the Shielded Docking Port can work very well.

The thing about drag is that it fits into the 'square' part of the square-cube law.
For small spaceplanes such as a Mk 1 Inline Cockpit, a couple of wings and control surfaces, and a boatload of fuel drag matters a lot.
For most Mk3 spaceplanes I've encountered drag is much less of a significant factor.  You can get away with a lot more as you ramp up the size.

It does sometimes seem, however, that the engineering problems you encounter as you get bigger are in the 'cube' part of the square-cube law. 
 

Happy landings!

[AeroGav]

28 minutes ago, Starhawk said:

Because KSP models a detached shockwave effect, a somewhat blunt nose can be effective for heat mitigation.

Something such as the Advanced Nose Cone (first pic in @AeroGav's post, above) or even the Shielded Docking Port can work very well.

The thing about drag is that it fits into the 'square' part of the square-cube law.
For small spaceplanes such as a Mk 1 Inline Cockpit, a couple of wings and control surfaces, and a boatload of fuel drag matters a lot.
For most Mk3 spaceplanes I've encountered drag is much less of a significant factor.  You can get away with a lot more as you ramp up the size.

It does sometimes seem, however, that the engineering problems you encounter as you get bigger are in the 'cube' part of the square-cube law. 
 

Happy landings!

Yeah i watched this the other day 

Wings angled ? No.

Cones on the back of the Rapiers ? No

2.5m node on back of the engine mount status? Left open

Probe core, RCS tanks, thruster blocks , fuel cell, tank for fuel cell - attached radially.  Yet it blasts to orbit regardless.   I think so long as you can get through sound barrier (and this is a small ship i suppose, for  3 engines)  you then have such a ridiculous amount of power you can laugh at such things

Edited November 11, 2016 by AeroGav

[Starhawk]

2 minutes ago, AeroGav said:

so long as you can get through sound barrier (and this is a small ship i suppose, for  3 engines)  you then have such a ridiculous amount of power you can laugh at such things

^ Exactly this.

Happy landings!

[TheDestroyer111]

1 hour ago, Starhawk said:

Because KSP models a detached shockwave effect, a somewhat blunt nose can be effective for heat mitigation.

What are you even talking about? KSP has no freaking idea about any such things like "shockwave" without FAR AND some-fancy-reentry-mod-which-idk-what-its-called-cuz-afaik-deadly-reentry-is-not-such-an-accurate-simulation. Blunt noses are useful for reentry ONLY because they have more drag than pointy ones, and occasionally have high heat temp value and/or some ablator in them.

[Starhawk]

42 minutes ago, TheDestroyer111 said:

What are you even talking about? KSP has no freaking idea about any such things like "shockwave" without FAR AND some-fancy-reentry-mod-which-idk-what-its-called-cuz-afaik-deadly-reentry-is-not-such-an-accurate-simulation

I believe that is incorrect.

Happy landings!

[Raideur Ng]

Good grief, that was one of the ugliest SSTO profiles I've ever seen. but yes, when your payload is only 6 tons, you can get away with shenanigans.

I guess we've reached the point of asking if detached shockwave is more useful than drag reduction at lower altitudes. Most SSTO's dont have the luxury of 0.8+ TWRs so brute-forcing it into orbit is not an option.

 

Thoughts?

 

Edit: Watching that video, one thing I haven't quite pinned down is the shearing left and right during a pitch up. I would assume it's due to lack of control surfaces forward of the wing and the fact the tail is a V and not a T or conventional. Another mystery of KSP flight...

Edited November 12, 2016 by Raideur Ng

[foamyesque]

On 2016-11-10 at 5:22 PM, bewing said:

When it comes to drag, the MK3 parts stink. If you are building for low drag, then the first time you select an MK3 part, you have already shot yourself in the foot -- it is basically schizophrenic.

I don't think this is true? I know it isn't for the wider-diameter rocket parts, anyway, and I also know it isn't true for RL planes and rockets, where the bigger you go the less impact drag has on you.

[AeroGav]

On 11/11/2016 at 3:17 PM, Starhawk said:

Because KSP models a detached shockwave effect, a somewhat blunt nose can be effective for heat mitigation.

Something such as the Advanced Nose Cone (first pic in @AeroGav's post, above) or even the Shielded Docking Port can work very well.

The thing about drag is that it fits into the 'square' part of the square-cube law.
For small spaceplanes such as a Mk 1 Inline Cockpit, a couple of wings and control surfaces, and a boatload of fuel drag matters a lot.
For most Mk3 spaceplanes I've encountered drag is much less of a significant factor.  You can get away with a lot more as you ramp up the size.

It does sometimes seem, however, that the engineering problems you encounter as you get bigger are in the 'cube' part of the square-cube law. 
 

Happy landings!

OK,  today I was modding someone else's mk3 on KerbalX,  when this happened -

Lift:Drag ratio of > 4.3 when supersonic !  That's a new record.

Some of my skinny mk1's with zero radial parts have managed 3.6 or so.     What's with these fat mk3 planes going all Gimli Glider on us?

Strangely, it was only managing 5 or 6 when subsonic, where my other designs would have been doing at least 8:1 at the same speed & altitude and cam give well over 10 to 1 if you fly slow enough.