Jump to content

[Collection] Silisko Industries - BACE 0.3(1) released! [April 28]


NovaSilisko

Recommended Posts

a satellite that is a cube. Right now satellites do not function in any way. they are just payloads for missions. Once we have persistence, they could become objects to visit in orbit.

Exactly. The entire purpose of this is to flood kerbin\'s (and anything else\'s) orbit with tiny little bullets of science equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. It seems it\'s not possible to make viable rockets with fully realistic values :x

You either have to have an unrealistic efficiency, or an unrealistic density fuel.

maybe it has something to do with the whole kerbin is tiny thing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest GroundHOG-2010

No. The Titan II was 3m. 1.5m might be good for KSP, but I don\'t know if it\'s worth invalidating everything else just to stay with realistic values.

1.75???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. It seems it\'s not possible to make viable rockets with fully realistic values :x

You either have to have an unrealistic efficiency, or an unrealistic density fuel.

I\'m hestitant to make that claim. RP-1/LOX runs around 650kg/m^3 for fuel and 3 kg/m^3 of tankage. On that basis you could get around 0.5tne of fuel per 1m diametre tank per metre of length (plus effectively negligable tank weight). RP-1/LOX Isp is around 263 s at sea level (i.e, Ev of ~2.6km/s). Knowing that you can scale your thrust with whatever your mass flow rate is. Real life rocket values should generally give you what KSP would treat as enormous TWRs from the engines. The Atlas, f\'rex, got 300kN from its sustainer engine and 1.2MN from the boosters.

If you\'re scaling your payload to appropriate weights then a realistic approach should give you ridiculous oodles of thrust and dV to play with. On my Saturn work I had to double/triple the fuel consumption levels in order to make \'em fit Kerbal scales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I\'m hestitant to make that claim. RP-1/LOX runs around 650kg/m^3 for fuel and 3 kg/m^3 of tankage. On that basis you could get around 0.5tne of fuel per 1m diametre tank per metre of length (plus effectively negligable tank weight). RP-1/LOX Isp is around 263 s at sea level (i.e, Ev of ~2.6km/s). Knowing that you can scale your thrust with whatever your mass flow rate is. Real life rocket values should generally give you what KSP would treat as enormous TWRs from the engines. The Atlas, f\'rex, got 300kN from its sustainer engine and 1.2MN from the boosters.

If you\'re scaling your payload to appropriate weights then a realistic approach should give you ridiculous oodles of thrust and dV to play with. On my Saturn work I had to double/triple the fuel consumption levels in order to make \'em fit Kerbal scales.

I\'m assuming a monopropellant with the density of water and an Isp of ~350s for the main engine, 450 for the upper-stage engine.

Of course, if I kept the 1m tanks, and added 1.5m and 2m tanks...

Also, if I multiply the amount of fuel (and the weight) of the tanks by 1.5, I think I should be able to get good results.

For the new balancing, there\'s going to be a cost of 1 dollar (or whatever the currency is) per kg of fuel. Maybe in the future, fuel costs could fluctuate with the kerbal economy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I\'m assuming a monopropellant with the density of water and an Isp of ~350s for the main engine, 450 for the upper-stage engine.

Of course, if I kept the 1m tanks, and added 1.5m and 2m tanks...

Also, if I multiply the amount of fuel (and the weight) of the tanks by 1.5, I think I should be able to get good results.

For the new balancing, there\'s going to be a cost of 1 dollar (or whatever the currency is) per kg of fuel. Maybe in the future, fuel costs could fluctuate with the kerbal economy...

Those Isps and densities are pretty high. You\'re going to be lofting an awful lot of payload for a rocket of a given size. =/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those Isps and densities are pretty high. You\'re going to be lofting an awful lot of payload for a rocket of a given size. =/

Well, it wasn\'t working with lower values. I\'ll tweak it based on this increased density, now.

Edit: Got the benchmark payload to an 88 km circular orbit using just about all my fuel. Now to see how it scales... Hopefully good. For a basic crew vehicle with a few Kerbonauts, science equipment, and a LES, this should work great. If it needs larger payloads? Attach some SRBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it wasn\'t working with lower values. I\'ll tweak it based on this increased density, now.

Edit: Got the benchmark payload to an 88 km circular orbit using just about all my fuel. Now to see how it scales... Hopefully good. For a basic crew vehicle with a few Kerbonauts, science equipment, and a LES, this should work great. If it needs larger payloads? Attach some SRBs.

What\'s your benchmark payload? The Mercury Atlases could put just over a tonne into LEO, but they were 3m rockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What\'s your benchmark payload? The Mercury Atlases could put just over a tonne into LEO, but they were 3m rockets.

CM, decoupler, SM, parachute, 4 RCS blocks. Total mass 1.5 units.

Note that this vehicle is an equivalent of the Falcon 9. For lower capability vehicles, I\'m going to make smaller fuel tanks (like the Fregat stage)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hrm. Toss me your numbers in a PM and I\'ll look \'em over on the weekend, if you want; I\'m no modeller, but I\'m reasonably good at math. :P

All right.

Just tested a falcon-heavy sort of setup, and was able to get a fully fueled second stage into orbit with the same payload. This upper stage was able to perform TMI using only half of its fuel...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...