GoSlash27

See the rules. Exactly. That's why I did this; it's too easy with the stock turbojet. What can you do when the stock turbojet and RAPIER are off limits? Best, -Slashy

All, I made a "new" part to try to rebalance the game a bit by converting the stock turbojet into a ramjet. It works pretty much the same as it always has with one important difference: The engine won't produce thrust below Mach 1. The download and additional info here http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106156-I-made-a-ramjet!?p=1649423#post1649423 So now the challenge: Build the best hybrid SSTO spaceplane you can without the RAPIER or turbojet. Tha rulez: -No dropping parts -No RAPIERS and no turbojets -No standard "cheaty" stuff. -No intake spamming. This is defined as clipping to fit more intakes. -I don't think FAR will know what to do with this part, but you're welcome to try. -Entries should be able to orbit, dock, transfer payload, deorbit, and return to KSC runway. Entries will be scored by price, economy (cost in supplies/ mass of payload to orbit), and overall "cool factor". All entrants are encouraged to rate other entries in cool factor. Good luck! -Slashy Leaderboards Bargain Basement 1) 2) 3) Cheap Hauler 1) 2) 3) Cool Factor 1) 2) 3)

All, I was thinking about the turbojet and how badly it imbalances the game, and it hit me: There really shouldn't be a turbojet engine. IRL, nobody makes a turbojet capable of hypersonic speeds. Having one in the game seriously devalues the basic jet engine and the RAPIER. That kind of performance is reserved for ramjets. So then I thought "why not just convert the turbojet into a ramjet?" So I did. This thing is pretty cool. It'll dump fuel below Mach 1, but won't ignite. Once it lights off, it mimics the performance of the stock turbojet. You can still use this part to make a hybrid SSTO, but now you'll need basic jets to get it supersonic. I stripped out the alternator (no moving parts) and deleted the thrust vectoring. I also got rid of the jet whine noise and sped up the throttle lag. http://wikisend.com/download/908108/Ramjet.cfg It goes in KSP/GameData/Squad/Parts/Engine/jetEngineTurbo. It doesn't overwrite your stock config file, so you'll still have your turbojet if you want it. Best, -Slashy

Some suggestions for aerodynamic parts rebalancing: Wings: All wing parts should have standardized drag coefficients according to their sweep angle. The straight sections would have the highest drag coefficients, the 60* angled parts would have the least. Likewise, the straight parts would have the highest lift coefficient (proportional to mass) and the 60* swept parts would have the least. As it stands now, smaller parts have proportionally lower drag coefficients. This should not be. Engines: The basic jet seems okay the way it is. The turbojet needs seriously de-nerfed. In fact, the "turbojet" should not exist at all. I'd propose replacing the turbojet with a "ramjet", available under hypersonic flight tech level. Velocity curve would be 300 0 0 0, 1200 1 0 0, 2400 0 0 0 and the Isp curve would remain as-is. *edit* I just made a ramjet, and it is cool!! Velocity curve kicks in at 300, hits full power at 350, stays there until 1000, then 50% at 2000 and 0 at 2400. This would mimic the behavior of ramjets, which don't operate below Mach 1, but are capable of hypersonic flight. It would also make the Rapier a more attractive choice for SSTO spaceplanes. Intakes: The fuselage intakes are all pretty useless, and with the availability of radial mount intakes they might as well be scrapped. The shock cone intake should have it's intake area nerfed a bit to .016 to make it competitive with the others. The structural intake should have it's mass reduced to .004. It's too draggy and heavy for it's size. The circular intake should have it's intake area reduced to make it less attractive as an SSTO intake and more useful as a low speed intake. Best, -Slashy

No, that's assuming throttled back and topped out, so the shock cone just isn't competitive right now. The single shock cone could be feasible if you're running a lighter SSTO design. Say, 8 or 9 tonnes of spaceplane per engine. I'll have to test that to be sure. Personally, I think the shock cone needs nerfed to .016 intake area to be competitive with the other offerings. *edit* I just ran the single shock cone on the test rig. It topped out at 2,413 at 46k. Definitely not enough to haul a full-size SSTO to orbital velocity on it's own, but a half-size would probably be fine. Best, -Slashy

Testing out some of the intake combos on a common test rig. 3 XM-G50 radial intakes. $3,000 and .03t mass. intake area .018. 1 circular intake and 2 XM-G50s. $2,680 and .03t mass. .020 intake area. 2 circular intakes. $1,360 and .02t mass. .016 intake area 1 Ram air intake and 1 XM-G50. $3,680 and .02t mass. .016 intake area. Best, -Slashy

All, I ran the numbers based on Numerobis' script, and came up with some conclusions about "best" intakes for SSTO use. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106114-Stock-KSP-90-intake-comparo-for-SSTO-turbojets?p=1648763#post1648763 The best performance will be had using the ram air intake. The best value (balance of price and performance) will be had using the circular intake. The best utility will be had using the XM-G50 intakes. Any other intake type will be inferior to these 3 choices. My reasoning is that an SSTO spaceplane will need intakes that will keep the engine lit at 42 km altitude and 2,300 m/sec velocity. Any intake can do this so long as you spam enough of them, but they won't weigh the same, exhibit the same drag, or cost the same. The big driver in these test results is the intake area. If all of these were normalized for equal intake area, then drag would become the dominant factor. Best, -Slashy

I knocked this together for another thread. Figured I'd share it here. So here's what I did: I assumed enough surface area to adequately keep a turbojet lit at 43km altitude and 2.3 km/ sec velocity, where terminal velocity and aircraft velocity both exceed orbital velocity at 70km altitude. I assumed an aircraft built to the standard rules of thumb; 13 tonnes of aircraft per engine and 1.0 lift coefficient per tonne of aircraft. Finally, I assumed that the intakes themselves were granular. I computed the number of intakes required, the mass, the drag coefficient when running at high altitude and 2.3 km/ sec, and the cost. Here's what I found: Stock KSP .90 Intake Comparo for SSTO Turbojets [TABLE=class: cms_table, width: 500] [TR] [TD]Type[/TD] [TD]Number per engine[/TD] [TD]Drag coefficient[/TD] [TD]Mass[/TD] [TD]Cost[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Mk1 Fus intake[/TD] [TD]2.67[/TD] [TD]7.06[/TD] [TD].320[/TD] [TD]$1,922[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Radial[/TD] [TD]3.20[/TD] [TD]10.6[/TD] [TD].480 [/TD] [TD]$5,280[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Nacelle[/TD] [TD]3.20[/TD] [TD]10.6[/TD] [TD].480[/TD] [TD]$4,960[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Ram air intake[/TD] [TD]1.60[/TD] [TD].354[/TD] [TD].0160[/TD] [TD]$4,288[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Circular intake[/TD] [TD]2.00[/TD] [TD].442[/TD] [TD].0200[/TD] [TD]$1,360[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]XM-G50[/TD] [TD]2.67[/TD] [TD].589[/TD] [TD].0267[/TD] [TD]$2,670[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Structural[/TD] [TD]6.40[/TD] [TD]1.13[/TD] [TD].0512[/TD] [TD]$5,760[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Shock Cone[/TD] [TD]1.33[/TD] [TD].736[/TD] [TD].0333[/TD] [TD]$4,057[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] The single most important consideration is drag coefficient. All of these intakes will allow the engine to make the same amount of thrust, but their drag will impact the top speed of the aircraft. Clearly, the fuselage intake, radial, and nacelle are unsuitable for spaceplane SSTOs. Looking at the rest of them... The ram air intake is the best choice in terms of sheer performance. On the downside, it's fairly expensive and it's clunky shape can make it a bit of a bear to plug into multiengine designs. Overall, an excellent choice. The circular intake is an outstanding all-around choice. Low drag, low mass, and excellent price. The only drawback is that you have to fit 2 per engine. This is a problem with all stackable intakes, but at least this one has a low-profile shape. Overall, I was shocked to find out how good this intake actually is. XM-G50: Unremarkable stats. Average in all respects. On the plus side, it attaches radially, allowing it to be placed nearly anywhere you can find room. This is a huge bonus for high-speed stability, as placing the intakes in the back is very helpful. I have had good success with these, and definitely recommend them. The structural intake is a problem child. Poor performance at an outrageous price. You can make an SSTO spaceplane using these, but nearly any other choice will give you better performance. On the plus side, it does attach radially (see above) and it's low profile design can make for a more compact and pleasant design. Overall, I do not recommend these. I was surprised to discover how good the shock cone intake isn't. Average stats, medium-high price. It doesn't quite have the surface area to feed an SSTO spaceplane on it's own, so it really holds no practical advantages over the other 2 stackable intakes. Overall, I do not recommend these. Using the stackable intakes together in concert with XM-G50 radial intakes will provide a neat, compact design in multiengine spaceplanes. The Ram Air or shock cone will feed an engine fine when assisted by a single XM-G50. The circular intake will need 2 XM-G50s to assist it. For a single engine design, 3 XM-G50s will do the job, and so will 2 circular intakes. Best, -Slashy

Okay, Results are in, and they're kinda surprising. So here's what I did: I assumed enough surface area to adequately keep a turbojet lit at 43km altitude and 2.3 km/ sec velocity, where terminal velocity and aircraft velocity both exceed orbital velocity at 70km altitude. I assumed an aircraft built to the standard rules of thumb; 13 tonnes of aircraft per engine and 1.0 lift coefficient per tonne of aircraft. Finally, I assumed that the intakes themselves were granular. I computed the number of intakes required, the mass, the drag coefficient when running at high altitude and 2.3 km/ sec, and the cost. Here's what I found: Stock KSP .90 Intake Comparo for SSTO Turbojets [TABLE=width: 500] [TR] [TD]Type[/TD] [TD]Number per engine[/TD] [TD]Drag coefficient[/TD] [TD]Mass[/TD] [TD]Cost[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Mk1 Fus intake[/TD] [TD]2.67[/TD] [TD]7.06[/TD] [TD].320[/TD] [TD]$1,922[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Radial[/TD] [TD]3.20[/TD] [TD]10.6[/TD] [TD].480 [/TD] [TD]$5,280[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Nacelle[/TD] [TD]3.20[/TD] [TD]10.6[/TD] [TD].480[/TD] [TD]$4,960[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Ram air intake[/TD] [TD]1.60[/TD] [TD].354[/TD] [TD].0160[/TD] [TD]$4,288[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Circular intake[/TD] [TD]2.00[/TD] [TD].442[/TD] [TD].0200[/TD] [TD]$1,360[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]XM-G50[/TD] [TD]2.67[/TD] [TD].589[/TD] [TD].0267[/TD] [TD]$2,670[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Structural[/TD] [TD]6.40[/TD] [TD]1.13[/TD] [TD].0512[/TD] [TD]$5,760[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Shock Cone[/TD] [TD]1.33[/TD] [TD].736[/TD] [TD].0333[/TD] [TD]$4,057[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] The single most important consideration is drag coefficient. All of these intakes will allow the engine to make the same amount of thrust, but their drag will impact the top speed of the aircraft. Clearly, the fuselage intake, radial, and nacelle are unsuitable for spaceplane SSTOs. Looking at the rest of them... The ram air intake is the best choice in terms of sheer performance. On the downside, it's fairly expensive and it's clunky shape can make it a bit of a bear to plug into multiengine designs. Overall, an excellent choice. The circular intake is an outstanding all-around choice. Low drag, low mass, and excellent price. The only drawback is that you have to fit 2 per engine. This is a problem with all stackable intakes, but at least this one has a low-profile shape. Overall, I was shocked to find out how good this intake actually is. XM-G50: Unremarkable stats. Average in all respects. On the plus side, it attaches radially, allowing it to be placed nearly anywhere you can find room. This is a huge bonus for high-speed stability, as placing the intakes in the back is very helpful. I have had good success with these, and definitely recommend them. The structural intake is a problem child. Poor performance at an outrageous price. You can make an SSTO spaceplane using these, but nearly any other choice will give you better performance. On the plus side, it does attach radially (see above) and it's low profile design can make for a more compact and pleasant design. Overall, I do not recommend these. I was surprised to discover how good the shock cone intake isn't. Average stats, medium-high price. It doesn't quite have the surface area to feed an SSTO spaceplane on it's own, so it really holds no practical advantages over the other 2 stackable intakes. Overall, I do not recommend these. Using the stackable intakes together in concert with XM-G50 radial intakes will provide a neat, compact design in multiengine spaceplanes. The Ram Air or shock cone intakes will feed an engine fine when assisted by a single XM-G50. The circular will need 2 XM-G50s to assist it. For a single engine design, 3 XM-G50s will do the job, and so will 2 circular intakes. Best, -Slashy

Alright. I'll knock something together... Best, -Slashy

I wouldn't mind at all, but honestly Numerobis is better qualified for the job IMO. Best, -Slashy

Oh, crap! I didn't catch that you had FAR installed. In that case, don't try the turbojet SSTO. It won't work. Sorry, -Slashy

http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Lifter-Ception http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Lifter-Ception/Flight If you have the tech, I suggest a turbojet SSTO mass lifter. Crazy payload capacity, cheap to operate, and fully recoverable. If you don't have the tech, I recommend not doing space station contracts. Best, -Slashy

Other than specific choke points, there's really no point in space traffic control. Stations need to guide traffic in their vicinity, and certain orbits need to be deconflicted, but other than that there can be no standard routes. Since everything is on a trajectory, it's not like you can just change directions. It'd basically be the pilot's job to monitor the collision detection equipment and take evasive maneuvers. Best, -Slashy

MarvinKitFox and 5thHorseman have covered all the basics here. I recommend completing satellite contracts whenever possible. I've built pretty much my entire career executing these. Orbits around Kerbin, Mun and Minmus are cheap, quick, easy, and net you lots of cash and science. Maybe we should put up a tutorial on this? Best, -Slashy

Foxster, For stock turbojet or Rapier powered SSTOs, this is the simplest, most straightforward advice I can give you: Use 4 XM-G50 intakes per engine minimum and put them as far back on the plane as possible. You can use more if you wish and it'll keep your jet lit at higher altitudes, but it gets spammy if you use too many. 4 is adequate if you fly it right. If you can't find room for 4 XM-G50 intakes, use 2 XM-G50 intakes and a single shock cone intake per engine. For low altitude farting around, the structural intake will serve the need. As for when to use the other types... don't. * Best, -Slashy *Yeah, I know that isn't 100% true... but this is highly simplified advice and it'll keep him out of trouble.

Well... yes and no. The center of mass is placed where it won't move. You build the plane so that the CoM is in the middle of the fuel tanks. What you're adjusting is the center of *lift*. And yes, the center of lift should be either perfectly centered in the center of mass or just barely behind. If there's any imbalance at all, you want it to be slightly nose-heavy. Best, -Slashy

*Nods sagely* Having the bulk of the aircraft above the center of thrust means that as drag increases, a torque moment is produced that wants to pitch your nose up. Longitudinal, static, and dynamic balance are all important, but don't forget to balance the drag a well. Best, -Slashy

I differentiate this technique as the "zero descent rate" approach. My use of the term "suicide burn" is in the generally- used context. The only reason it appears that way is because I was busy taking screen caps while flying. What differentiates this approach from the others is that the throttle setting isn't necessarily "full" at any part of the descent. The throttle setting is whatever keeps the ship midway between apoapsis and the surface at the moment. It is not a "series of burns", but rather one continuous burn at various throttle settings. Likewise, the pitch angle isn't a fixed value, but constantly changing to correct overshoot/ undershoot of the landing area. What sets this technique apart from the others is that the ship is under active guidance to the desired landing area throughout the approach, which yields very high safety and accuracy. Best, -Slashy

Finally tried out career mode. All that mucking about in sandbox seriously paid off! -Slashy

I have encountered this many times. Even a heavily- loaded rover can unload it's suspension if you catch an awkward slope. It's a bug in the game; local gravity doesn't seem to be dependant on inclination angles. I've seen stuff do a small angle transition and suddenly go from heavily loaded to light and skittering all over the place. I've even had rovers fall uphill. There's no real fix for it, other than to take it slow, drive with light controls (caps lock), and disabling the front brakes/ rear steering. Best, -Slashy

Grazi! Happy New Year!, -Slashy

I do everything I can to keep my Kerbals alive. Not because I "care", but because that's how I play the game.

ihtoit, Good morning... I have no idea. I linked the craft file, so you could always test it out. I have the thrust limited to 30%, so it should go a good deal faster at low altitudes by opening it up. Best, -Slashy

It can also be the rover is simply too light for the suspension, which will cause the rover to jitter around on the surface at certain angles. I never saw that actually *break* stuff, though. Best, -Slashy