GoSlash27

Giltirn, I tried it, throttling back to avoid overspeed. It handled fine and ran out of fuel before reaching 400 m/sec at 10 km. Best, -Slashy

Probably exceeding terminal velocity and pointing the nose off prograde. Keep your acceleration under 2 G, make sure the nose is faired- in, and be gentle with the controls. My rockets almost fly themselves into orbit now, and I don't need tailfins. Best, -Slashy

Allmhuran, That looks slightly better than what I saw with a very simple single seat/ single engine aircraft. I got 1100 m/sec and 21 km altitude before it went all explodey. Early to tell, but I think adding engines doesn't give much in the way of additional performance. Thanks for the mention of the batteries and solar panels being fragile. That's good to know! Best, -Slashy

The velocity curve looks like the value is Mach number and the second is thrust in kN. For the atmosphere curve, the first should be pressure (relative Kerbin Sea Level) and the second is Isp multiplier. I don't know this for a fact, and I have no idea what the other values are. Best, -Slashy

Nah. I'm enjoying the changes so far. The changes are a challenge and I'm enjoying the learning curve so far. Best, -Slashy

This competition is all about exploring the limits of KSP 1.02 aerodynamics. I will maintain a leaderboard for the top 10 performers in altitude and airspeed. Rules: -Stock KSP 1.02 parts and physics only. -No debug menu cheats. -Reentry heating effects must be a minimum of 100%. -Air breathing engines only. You may not use rockets/ RCS/ ions during any part of the submitted run. -No cheats (debug menu, etc.) -Aircraft must remain intact throughout the run. You do not have to land. -Record must be recorded in level flight. No zoom climbs or dives to pad your results. -Please submit a photo of your craft showing you attaining the submitted performance. *Edit* I am including another category called "Ironman". Rules are the same as above except: The entry must be manned, and contestant must also include a pic demonstrating safe recovery at KSC after the run. Good luck! -Slashy Kollier trophy for highest altitude (Ironman) Rank / Submitter/ Craft name/ Altitude 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kollier trophy for fastest airspeed (Ironman) Rank / Submitter/ Craft name/ Altitude 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kollier trophy for highest altitude (Open) Rank / Submitter/ Craft name/ Altitude 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rank / Submitter/ Craft name/ Altitude 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kollier trophy for fastest airspeed Kollier trophy for highest altitude (Ironman) Rank / Submitter/ Craft name/ Altitude 1 AngusJimiKeith SP-1C Hyperstreak 28,937M 2 Aetharan Skybreaker 28,001M 3 MunGazer Sojourn prototype 1 27,860M 4 Zekes MiG-19 22,800M 5 Zekes MiG-25 22,100M 6 7 8 9 10 Kollier trophy for fastest airspeed (Ironman) Rank / Submitter/ Craft name/ Altitude 1MunGazer Sojourn prototype 1 1,485 m/sec <-- First Kerbin circumnavigation! 2 Zekes MiG-25 1,155 m/sec 3 Aetharan Skybreaker 1,046 m/sec 4 Zekes MiG-19 908M/sec 5 AngusJimiKeith SP-1C Hyperstreak 762 m/sec 6 7 8 9 10 Kollier trophy for highest altitude (Open) Rank / Submitter/ Craft name/ Altitude 1 Migelato No name given 28,214M 2 Rodyle ToastRXtreme 26,001M 3 FlipNascar FN-1C 26,000M 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kollier trophy for fastest airspeed (open) Rank / Submitter/ Craft name/ Altitude 1 Lesbiotic no name given 2,001 m/sec 2 fluffysnowcap no name given 1,994 m/sec 3 Lesbiotic Marpesia 1,933 m/sec 4 Rodyle ToastRXtreme 1,727 m/sec 5 Migelato No name given 1,685 m/sec 6 FlipNascar FN-1C 1,602 m/sec 7 8 9 10

Engines: The turbojets seem to be limited to Mach 3 now. Turbojet/ OMS SSTOs seem to be a thing of the past now. Best, -Slashy

Physics: I have found so far that if I keep my velocity below terminal, the SAS is adequate to keep me on course without fins. This also seems to be very efficient in terms of DV.

Physics: I ran a much more efficient profile with the same ship. 3,316 m/sec to 70x70 LKO. Best, -Slashy

I'm thinking an EVE SSTO is now within the realm of possibility. Just getting started, tho'. Best, -Slashy

This thread is intended to collect random observations that we make to help each other transition into the physics and gameplay of KSP 1.0. It should not be used for bug reports, complaints, or anything that other players won't find particularly handy. Please note at the beginning of your observation which aspect of gameplay your observation applies to (physics, engines, aerodynamics, etc). I will do my best to keep the observations organized here in the OP. Thanks, -Slashy Physics *Kerbin LKO takes about 3,000 m/sec (using MJ). -Geschosskopf *Kerbin LKO takes about 3,400 m/sec (calc using vacuum Isp)- GoSlash27 *Eve LEO should take about 7,300 m/sec DV (unconfirmed) -GoSlash27 *The edge of Jool's atmosphere now extends to 200km -Camacan *Radial air intakes no longer act as floats -KerrMu Aerodynamics *Fins are helpful for stabilizing rockets during launch -worir4 *Drag is negligible above 45km -eddiew *Lifting bodies are simulated, so you can adjust your landing location by steering your capsule -Hcube *Keeping velocity below terminal during the launch greatly aids stability -GoSlash27 *Spaceplanes should show good results with the lift/ mass in the region of .25:1. -GoSlash27 *Airbrakes can be used as yaw controls when mounted horizontally. -Veeltch Parts *Wing sections make a very effective heat sink when arrayed around parts -Torham234 *Turbo Ramjets top out around Mach 3. -GoSlash27 *Batteries and solar panels overheat very easily -almhuran *Reducing the gimbal authority is a good way to reduce SAS overcorrection during launch -Spuds *Heatshields are flagged as physicsless and can cause your capsule to tumble. Fix here-Endersmens *The aerospike makes 271 s of Isp near sea level on Eve and 106kN thrust. -Starhawk *The Mammoth makes 193s of Isp on Eve at sea level and 2500kN -Starhawk *Struts create a lot of drag -Zipmafia Gameplay *Warning: Switching to docking mode will not lock out staging -Randazzo

^This. The mass penalty will be a big hit for the nuke. In most cases, the 48-7S made a better interplanetary engine than the nuke due to the nuke's sheer mass. That will not have improved any. Best, -Slashy

I'll be doing an extensive analysis of the readjusted engines over the course of this week. It's definitely too early to say which engine is best for which situation. Having said that, the nuke was rarely the "best" engine to use in .90 from the standpoint of mass efficiency or cost in .90. Best, -Slashy

... But we don't know what the top speed of the turbojet is. I'm sure we'll get this answered today. Best, -Slashy

We'll have to see. It depends on how heavily they've nerfed the turbojet (assuming they nerfed it at all). The demo videos showed them exceeding that velocity at sea level before exploding. Best, -Slashy

Point #1 I fully agree. Points 2 and 2b, I also agree there, but I don't think that was ever central to it. Best, -Slashy

I disagree. Eeloo and Jool are in better places for refueling. Why do an inclination change and Hohmann transfer twice when there's already fuel at both ends of your trip? Best, -Slashy

I just opened a beer and raised it in appreciation. To SQUAD! May this project make you all filthy rich! -Slashy

I'm personally hoping they've nerfed the bejeezus out of the turbojet engines. Orbital velocity on jet power alone is super- unrealistic and it broke the game balance. I don't mean to seem uncaring about it; my entire launch fleet was turbojet SSTOs. Sorry, -Slashy

razark, Here's today's riddle: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116628-A-very-special-gift-from-Shapeways! Good luck! -Slashy

Hope you're strapped in! -Slashy

That's hilarious! Easter egg found one day *before* release Honestly, I'm not sure that even the asteroids make Dres worth more than a scientific visit. Fuel is like real estate; location determines the value. Best, -Slashy

If asteroids have infinite resources, you'd have a ship with infinite fuel. This'd make asteroid redirects a whole lot simpler... IRT the OP, I can't see how a fuel cell with attendant fuel supply would ever be preferable to solar panels and a battery. solar panels are light and give unlimited electricity. Best, -Slashy

All due respect, but that's not the issue at all. Volodyoka had said that not having KER was 'oblivious' and implied that you cannot know your t/w or DV without it. I was just pointing out that that's not actually the case. Best, -Slashy

I don't wish to derail this thread any more, so this will be my last post in this thread on this particular subject. The way I do it is through a spreadsheet that I've designed for the purpose. It's not actually any more time consuming because 1) I'm using a spreadsheet and 2) I never have to mix and match parts as I build; I already know exactly which parts I need. And for the way I design my ships, it's actually much more time consuming to use KER. I simultaneously check every engine type for each stage of the mission so I can select stages that have the least mass or are cheapest while ensuring optimal t/w. Doing that by trial- and-error in the VAB would waste a lot of time. Again, not knocking KER. Just saying that it's not necessary. Best, -Slashy