GoSlash27

Right, No Sir. They've always been there. They don't have any effect on how I estimate drag, so I ignore them. Best, -Slashy NathanKell, Ah. Yes it does. Thanks! -Slashy

The way I read this complaint is "KSP updates should be so minor that they are fully reverse compatible with software Squad has no control over". I have no idea how anybody would be able to do this. All I can suggest is A) Play 1.04 with mods until the mods are updated for 1.05 Play 1.05 stock or C) Go do something else until the mods for 1.05 are ready. Best, -Slashy /this is one of the reasons why I don't do mods

Streetwind, Yeah, you're right. The Whiplash has been pushed from TL7 to TL8 and the Panther is now introduced at TL6. The good news is the Panther still works for spaceplanes. The bad news is you're stuck with fairly crappy intake options. The plain old nacelle should be the best option for feeding the Panther. You'll need more LF&O to deal with the lower switchover speed/ altitude, but it's still workable. On the bright side, you will get the best intakes when you finally pick up the Whiplash. Best, -Slashy

KerikBalm, I hadn't tried to put one together. It'd need a pretty high proportion of LF&O to work. Is there a reason you're using 3 Junos? I'd think you could get better performance using just one. Best, -Slashy

Streetwind, According to my tech tree .cfg for 1.05, hypersonic flight is a tech level 7 node, which means that the Whiplash hasn't moved. Did that change with the silent update? Best, -Slashy

StainX, The Whiplash was always tech level 7. The Panther hasn't replaced the Whiplash by any stretch, it just allowed a viable spaceplane to happen 1 generation earlier. Best, -Slashy

aluc24, It is as goomblah says; the Panther won't get you any more than 800- 900 m/sec before it craps out. The rest is done on LF&O. The Whiplash and RAPIER are clearly preferable engines, but they're not available at tech level 6. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - Kuzzter, I rode the Panther in military thrust up to about 290 m/sec, then engaged the afterburner up to about 850 m/sec. After that, I engaged the Terriers and manually transferred the fuel outboard. The whole profile was executed at about 10° pitch. Best, -Slashy

A-Name, All that info is in the PartDatabase.Cfg file. Each part has a "drag cube" in there that defines its cross section area, drag coefficient, and side flow drag for every axis. For example: This would be interpreted as Shock cone intake Area /Cd /laminar drag X+0.7486105,0.6887614,0.7221569, X-0.7486105,0.6887677,0.7221569, Y+1.213026,0.3,1.183155, Y-1.213026,1,0.100694, Z+0.7486105,0.6903304,0.7221569, Z-0.7486105,0.6871722,0.7221569, Occlusion centers x/y/z 0,-0.08307549,0, Occlusion range x/y/z 1.25,1.083849,1.25 When the intake is aligned into the airflow we look at the Y+ values. Y+1.213026,0.3,1.183155, 1.213 is exactly the frontal area of Mk1 parts so the stuff behind it will be nicely occluded and 0.3 is an excellent drag coefficient. We don't worry about the laminar drag numbers above Mach 1, since their effect is so minor. But they are a bigger deal at subsonic speeds. As good as the shock cone is, there are other parts that exhibit even lower drag at supersonic speeds. The tailcone A is the best by a wide margin, but it's increased laminar drag makes it draggier at subsonic speeds and it's mass is a penalty for closed cycle ops. HTHs, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - g00bd0g, For the moment, I'm looking at the "effective intake area" at the top end Mach of my engine. It seems to be right around .001m^2 per engine in 1.05. It was about .007m^2 in 1.04. So for example looking at a "radial variable ramp", the velocity multiplier looks like this: area = 0.001 Mach/multiplier/ slope in/slope out key = 0 0.85 0 0 key = 1 1 0 0 key = 2 0.95 -0.08751557 -0.08751557 key = 4 0.5 -0.4034287 -0.4034287 key = 8 0.01 0 0 A single intake will have about half the required effective area at Mach 4, but 2 would be sufficient and empirical testing bears this out. All of these curves are presented in Right's graph on page 1. Best, -Slashy

Stoney3k, Yeah, I agree with all of this. It's a shame we have such awesome shuttle parts, but we don't have a proper SRB to go along with them. I can understand the tank issue, though. You just plain don't need that big a tank to orbit a shuttle from Kerbin unless you're using just 1 pair of Kickbacks like I am. We definitely need to be able to tailor the gimbal response of our LF&O engines differently for each axis. Best, -Slashy

My first shuttle replica for 1.05: The Shuttle Kolumbia. I went for "accurate" over "easy". The Vector SSME's added gimbal range is definitely more of a liability than an advantage. Too much yaw with roll and vice- versa. It still has to be balanced nearly perfectly before it will act right. Best, -Slashy

KerbMav, That's judging it by the wrong criteria IMO. You *could* build a Mk1 lifter with it, but the fuel required would necessitate an excessively tall noodly stack. A practical lifter design using this engine is going to use at least Rockomax tanks. Geher, My 1.04 shuttle used 3 skippers and 2 KD-25K boosters and it was just enough to work with a reasonable payload. The Vector has better Isp and almost twice the thrust, so yeah it's a bit OP. This is probably a good thing though since it will make shuttles more accessible. Best, -Slashy

The Vector is (ironically) a little OP for a stock shuttle, but it's not OP in comparison to it's stablemates. It shouldn't be compared to the Swivel, but rather the Skipper and Mainsail. It fits nicely between those 2 engines in the pecking order, and is ridiculously expensive. Best, -Slashy

KerbMav, The Vector has a slight advantage in Isp and weighs a little over half what 5 Swivels would weigh, but costs 3 times as much. A better comparison would be the Skipper or Mainsail. Type: Thrust,Mass, Isp, Cost Skipper: 650kN, 3t, 280-320s, $5,300 Vector: 1,000kN, 4t, 295-315s, $18,000 Mainsail: 1,500kN, 6t, 285-310s, $13,000 Best, -Slashy

KerikBalm, Actually, the shock cone is not the least- draggy thing you can put on a node. The tailcones and Mk1 cockpit are much cleaner. The shock cone often gets used because it's lighter than the other options, but for spaceplanes "light" is a much lower priority. If you want the ultimate low drag intake, the tailcone A + precooler is the way to go. Total frontal drag is less than half that of a shock cone. I should also point out that you don't necessarily want to adapt your structure just so it'll have a node for a shock cone. Often the additional drag of the adapters offsets any gain from the shock cone itself. For example, you wouldn't want to (and I see this a lot) use an inline Mk2 cockpit preceded by a long Mk2-Mk1 adapter and a shock cone. You'd have much less total drag with a plain old Mk2 cockpit. Right, Agreed. Your thrust and airflow are going to taper off with speed and altitude no matter what you do. This is a function of the engine rather than the intake. So long as it doesn't flame out before you max out, you've got enough intake. example: 1600m/sec at 20 km altitude using just 2 structural intakes. In 1.04 I would've needed 10 of these intakes to do the job. This sets the upper limit of how much intake you actually need for an engine, and nearly all of them can do the job no problem. *edit* After further testing, the Mk.1 diverterless intake and the XM-G50 are inadequate to keep a RAPIER fed at Mach 5 by themselves. This should set a lower bound for what's required. Best, -Slashy

spikeyhat09, I'm with Claw on this. It's not really OP when compared to it's neighbors. It's heavy and expensive. You get crazy thrust if you spam a bunch of them, but that's true for every engine. Best, -Slashy

spikeyhat09, Who says that this engine *isn't* good relative to it's peers, and how do you define that? Best, -Slashy

uncle_jew, I generally disable my reaction wheels on reentry in order to conserve electricity during a time that requires constant maneuvering with no electrical input. The key to making it work is keeping track of the center of gravity during the entire flight. If you can build a spaceplane with a center of gravity that remains constant regardless of the fuel quantity, you should do fine. It helps if you have control surfaces laid out to guide the aircraft rather than crutching it's weaknesses. Control in a spaceplane should be heavy and solid, not darty and overpowered. The aircraft should always maintain it's static balance, it's dynamic balance, and automatically seek a pointy-end-forward and wings level attitude in all situations. If you can achieve this, spaceplanes are easy. Good luck, -Slashy

sardia, Actually, I think this complaint is *only* relevant in sandbox mode, if then. The Vector doesn't seem to be a very good engine for career or science mode according to my testing thus far. Best, -Slashy

*coughJEBcough*

paul23, Definitely not. Remember that airflow that isn't used is wasted. You have to look down into the chart and see how much airflow you actually *need*, and then figure out which intake can supply it for the least drag. Best, -Slashy

Right, I'm glad you've started tackling this. This is the root of all the mystery drag problems people are running into in 1.05 IMO. Rather than looking at which intake can get the most air for the least drag, we need to look at which intake setup can keep an engine lit throughout it's envelope for the least drag. My early testing confirms that any air breather up to and including the RAPIER can be supplied adequately with just 0.001 m^2 effective intake area. I have run all of the spaceplane engines up to their operational limits using just 2 structural intakes, and this is *much* less than what was necessary in 1.04. My testbed Panther hybrid SSTO is successful using a plain old nacelle, and that's not a particularly good intake. The Shock cone is technically the second-most drag effective intake, but it's advantage is wasted if you're not driving a large number of engines. The Mk1 radial "precooler" intake is going to be the best intake available because it feeds an engine and adds absolutely no drag. Anywho... I look forward to discovering the new wrinkles of 1.05 and I'm glad we've got your help on this. Best, -Slashy

spikeyhat09, Ultimately what defines "better" in rocket building is whether it can accelerate a payload to a desired DV at a desired t/w for less mass and/ or less cost. So far, I'm not seeing the Vector do anything that other engines can't do better. The Vector is an excellent single stage booster, but it's only viable economically if it's recovered intact. It's simply too expensive to be disposable. SRBs do the disposable booster job cheaper and dedicated upper stage engines like the Poodle or Terrier can do the same job with less mass. If you're building a recoverable SSTO launcher, the air- breathers are still way better in every respect. I'm still updating my info and testing, but so far the Vector doesn't look to be all that. Best, -Slashy

Hotel26, In addition to what's been posted up- stream, I'd like to recommend a fundamental change in design philosophy. If it doesn't look like it'd work in real life, it probably won't work in KSP anymore. I'm a big proponent of letting form follow function. Your payload mass, DV requirement, and minimum t/w are the basic criteria that the launch vehicle must meet. So work that out and then engineer the launcher to meet the requirement. Good luck! -Slashy

Yessir. Even less intakes. A single engine needed about .007 m^2 of intake area to run at top end in 1.04. Now .001m^2 effective area will do. I say "effective area" because now intakes are working under a velocity curve so their effectiveness tapers off with speed. Well, to put it in perspective, a pair of structural intakes (now called "radial variable ramp" or some such) is sufficient for any spaceplane engine to max out it's speed and altitude capabilities, so a shock cone is pretty much overkill unless you have multiple engines. My first spaceplane was able to max out the Panther using the engine nacelle, which is supposed to be a subsonic intake. If I were to design an ultimate low drag setup, it would have a tailconeA at the front followed by a radial intake. This will beat the stuffing out of a shock cone. I'm still sorting out the new physics, so I'm sure there'll be lots to follow. Best, -Slashy

panzer1b, I didn't figure you were. I'm talking about 1.04 designs when I say "old". A 1.05 design needs a lot less intake. You can redesign to use a cleaner nose and less intake or you can run the "old" designs by doing your speed runs at a higher altitude. Best, -Slashy