GoSlash27

This is what I'm working on at the moment: Project Y.E.R.T.L. (Yield Evaluation Reactive Thrust Launcher) The pilots call it "Yertl the Turtle" (or that freakin' deathtrap, according to mood). It's got 3 engines, 5 tanks, and 16 wings. 1.91t and 181 parts. My first successful run (running out of gas before losing control) was 31,167 @ 1,211.7. I'm sure I can get a bit more out of it, but I'm also sure it won't be going to space today.

I was trying to find that out yesterday, but no luck. I may have to do a drop test to find out. *Edit* According to my drop tests, kerbals have extremely low drag. Best, -Slashy

I concur. .34 t/w was a minimum set back in the .24 KSP by Tsevion and it still seems to hold up pretty good. The old lift/ mass seemed to be closer to 20:1 with the old swept wings, but the reduced drag numbers of the strakes have reduced that a lot and they *may* have also reduced the minimum t/w ratio. Best, -Slashy

Congratulations on clearing the 1K hurdle. 30KM is just around the corner. The current unmanned designs probably won't be successful by slapping on a command chair, but they have created a knowledge base to build on. It's just a matter of scaling the same concepts enough to cope with the drag and mass of a kerbal. I'm sure MabDeno will take point on this effort and I will be happy to provide tech assistance, but my back problems are limiting my ability to fly a lot of attempts. I will still do what I can and pass on what I learn and (of course) keep the leaderboard in order. Best, -Slashy

I've put mine in orbit this morning too. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Voyager%203 74x72 equatorial orbit. The pictures that say "orbit" in the title are of this run. So now that we've established that, time to do it with a Kerbal on board! Some thoughts on where we're at now: Mab Deno's design had more guts overall. It's comprised of 4 engines, 8 tanks, and 32 strakes. a 1:2:4 ratio Mine is a good deal lighter. 3 engines, 5 tanks, and 20 strakes. 1:1.67:6.67 ratio. The "perfect" proportions are somewhere in this neighborhood. Judging by MabDeno's result and the improvement I got by reducing my wing panel count in the voyager series, the ideal wing/ engine ratio is closer to 4. Judging from empirical testing, the ideal tank/ engine ratio is still closer to 1.67. Using this going forward, we should be able to put a Kerbal in orbit. Rather than lifting a 40kG probe controller, now we're dealing with roughly 200KG of payload. Best, -Slashy

Dude! You've just accomplished something nobody's ever been able to do before! This is historic! Congratulations, -Slashy

Bakanando, Tsevion and I were lucky (or cursed, depending on how you look at it) to have been obsessed with ion gliders back in .24. What we learned back then is that you live or die by the proportions of the parts. Tanks are heavy and draggy, but they give you time. Engines are *really* heavy and draggy, but they make you go faster. Wings are light and a little draggy, but without them you're never going to get high enough to accelerate. Any other part with mass really has no business being on your aircraft. All of these parts provide needed benefits and unwanted disadvantages and they're all opposed to each other. The real trick to this is finding the balance; the correct proportion of wings/ tanks/engines for maximum efficiency. We have a lot of time invested (for no return) in finding the best proportions, so we've got a head- start. .25 introduced the Pork-jet parts, which made orbit actually possible. I'm where I'm at now because I used the old conventional wisdom as a baseline for my designs, but where I'm at now is not ideal. The pork- jet wings are much less draggy than the old stuff and it changes everything. My advice is to seek the balance. Feel free to use my craft files as a baseline. Best, -Slashy

I'm *very* tempted to do just that, but first I'm going to try to push my apoapsis further around so I can do a circularization burn in daylight. Not tonight, tho'. I've had enough of this fun for one night! Best, -Slashy

Voyager III: First sub-orbital hop into space. I ran out of daylight and was unable to complete my circularization burn though I still had enough fuel to do it. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Voyager%203 New unmanned record 2,300 M/sec, 70,084 M/sec

Records have been shattered tonight! Preliminary testing of the Voyager II: http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g13/GoSlash27/KSP/Voyager4_zps7dfec63c.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g13/GoSlash27/KSP/Voyager5_zps2958ad70.jpg Altitude 67,815M, orbital velocity 2,294 I'm confident that one of us will make it soon. VoyagerII craft file -Slashy

Rocketeer, Got it. Updating the leaderboard now. Congratulations! You should try to find a way to replace those solar arrays with static panels since static panels are massless parts. Best, -Slashy

MabDeno, Lookit that!! We're on the verge of makin' history! Does this craft have a name? -Slashy

KevinW42, That has worked well for me in the past, but I recommend different parts for the wings. You want the least mass and drag for the lift, and those panels aren't ideal. Porkjet strakes and Structural D are the best out there according to my calculations. Strakes are a lot lighter, while structural D is slightly less- draggy. The classic swept wing is barely lighter than strakes, but is *much* draggier than either of these two. Anything else can be out- performed by one (or all) of these 3. Best, -Slashy

As Sgt Flyer pointed out above, there are other staged cycle lean- burn russian engines out there. The difference is this one was so small and light that they didn't have the real-estate to implement proper cooling. They cryo-cooled the impeller bearings and ran both fuel and o2 on a single shaft. Here's the important part: This engine didn't survive under standard operating conditions using standard metals of the day. The other engines did. They actually had to invent new alloys in order to make these engines survive *in normal operation*. It's running close to the redline when there's nothing wrong at all. When things *do* go wrong, it can easily exceed it's design parameters and go kablooey, which these engines did with alarming regularity. It's not a simple problem of "old engines" or "Russian technology". You could build brand- spanking new ones with modern techniques and still face this problem simply because this design lives on the edge. Best, -Slashy

Flying on Eve is almost like swimming below 11KM. Everything's extremely draggy and heavy, so don't expect much in the way of performance. You need less wing than you think, and your wings should be as efficient as possible. I recommend the pork jet strakes. Finally, use the solar panels. You'll get better flight time for the same part count than batteries. Best, -Slashy

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g13/GoSlash27/KSP/Voyager2_zpsc911c235.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g13/GoSlash27/KSP/Voyager3_zps69ec930b.jpg Bumped up my marks a bit with Voyager. New orbit speed 2,152 and altitude 46,759 Still trying to squeeze that last tiny bit out of it. Best, -Slashy

The issue with these engines isn't their age or origin, it's their design. Even with modern metallurgy, the turbopump's only going to hold up when things are going well. Best, -Slashy

jessyager, If I understand your question correctly, there's no ballpark answer to it. Winged SSTOs have a lot of atmospheric losses. How much depends on your acceleration. Best, -Slashy

I'm soooo close!! A little tweaking and adjustments to the profile, and this one might be able to make orbit. Voyager1.craft

Kookoo_gr, Leaderboard updated. Do you have a name for this craft? Best, -Slashy

Rocketeer, That is correct; the command seat has no control torque and also draws no electrical current. You might want to consider stepping up from the OKTO-2 to the small reaction wheel. It's only 10 Kg heavier, but puts out 10 times the torque. Best, -Slashy

All, My cursory analysis of the new wings was confirmed by last night's flight. The best wings to use now are (in order) 1) Wing Strake M 0.025 Cd 0.2 Cl 0.75 2) Structural D M 0.012 Cd 0.08 Cl 0.25 and 3) the original swept wing M 0.05 Cd 0.6 Cl 1.6 Mathematically modeling their implementation on a previous winning design shows that an installation sufficient to lift the glider over the wall with strakes is just barely heavier than using swept wings (2% heavier), but total drag is slashed by 25% making the strake the clear winner. The structural D wing lowers drag even more, but it comes with a significant weight penalty. -Slashy

It would be illegal and also unnecessary. No dropping parts for any reason other than boarding a command chair. Landing gear are massless and dragless in the latest update, so you'd gain nothing by dropping them anyway. The parts required to drop them would actually add mass and drag to your craft. Best, -Slashy

Rocketeer, I love that the new manned attempts with the command chair are actually competitive with the unmanned drones. Does this craft have a name? -Slashy

I think, perversely, that you're running out of fuel because you're carrying too much of it. You may also not have enough wing for the job, but I'm still a newb at using porkjet parts for ion gliders. If you reduce your xenon tanks from 6 to 3, I bet you'll do better. In the meantime, do you have a name for this craft? Best, -Slashy