GoSlash27

Next test / I hate ion gliders!

Okay, that test went a *lot* better. 31.9KM @ 1,276 M/Sec. It looked like it was accelerating nicely when the xenon ran out. Eliminating drag seems to be the key here, but there's not a whole lot more I can do. I'm going to try swapping out the small ailerons for the big ones. Same drag, but more lift and mass. After that, I'm down to eliminating the elevator and finding another way to balance it, then lifting the whole mess on a single control surface, then finally ditching a xenon tank. If it ain't possible by then, then it ain't possible.

The gauntlet has been thrown down. The challenge is to create an SSTO from Eve to LEO. -Stock parts only. -The craft must work in a stock KSP installation, so you can use mods to design it, but cannot use them to make it work. -No using loopholes in the physics engine to make it work. No kraken drives, no infinigliding, no GOAP drives, no nuthin' we haven't thought of yet (lookin' at you, whackjob! ) - You can, however, take advantage of the stock "zero physics" parts. I have a feeling you're gonna need them... We're thinkin' of declaring stock Eve SSTOs impossible. Here's your chance to prove us wrong! Good luck! -Slashy

I think it's difficult enough as- is The challenge is SSTO from Eve. Stock parts only. It must work in a stock setup (though you can use mods to design it). No infinigliding, no kraken drives, no GOAP drive. No taking advantage of any other loopholes (known or unknown)in the physics engine. However, liberal use of "zero physics" stock parts is permitted and encouraged.

First test ran me down to 358 units of xenon (about a quarter tank)when the batteries died. 27 km and 820 M/sec. It was still accelerating well, so I'll restart the test at predawn. This is definitely the best design so far.

Full scale test. I may have to wait until pre-dawn if I run out of daylight and batteries before xenon.

Duplicate post

Trying this as a scaled test. I can add more solar panels and batteries without adding any weight or drag, and *surprise* it actually does fly! I'll see what this does and then go from there.

Hmm... Maybe I should try *no* wings! Just cubic struts with small control surfaces. It will probably have to go really fast to take off, but that would minimize drag...

Checking back on my notes.... All gliders used 1 ion engine, 6 small control surfaces and an okto 2 controller. All items other than the wings and xenon tanks were massless. #1) 2 tanks, 2 swept wings. I wasn't able to hang enough solar panels and batteries to burn all the xenon, so no result recorded. #2) 2 tanks, 4 swept wings. 8,037 DV. It made 27 kM altitude and 838 M/sec. #3) 4 tanks, 4 swept wings. 13,070 DV. It made 28 kM altitude and 550 M/sec. #4) 4 tanks, 6 delta wings. DV not calculated (I figured it wasn't an issue). It made 33kM and 720 M/sec. I tried various AoA profiles and strategies, but I always ended up hung in the same balance in the end. Best, -Slashy

Welcome aboard! I (thankfully) haven't killed any Kerbals yet, but I have had some close calls.

I proved to myself that ion gliders ain't goin' to space today

I was flying lead for this test hop. /loves me some FSX!

I disagree. trajectories don't have to lead "out" in order to not lead "in". An infinite acceleration inside an event horizon would theoretically approach the event horizon, but would never cross it. Of course, I've never taken a vacation inside a black hole.... -Slashy

I see what you're getting at, but 1) I don't think this can ever be as efficient as a run-of-the-mill chemical rocket and 2) there's nothing I can do to help you with it. Good luck, though! -Slashy

Personally, I think Schroedinger's cat is dead. Best, -Slashy

After wasting a day playing with ion gliders, I've decided that it's impossible. Gliders don't simply "limp into orbit" if given enough DV as I had assumed. They merely reach an equillibrium point of lift vs weight and thrust vs drag and hang there. Barring loopholes in the physics engine, SSTO is impossible from Eve with current technology.

Heck, not even FTL travel will get you out of an event horizon. Even a ship capable of instantaneous travel between any 2 points in the universe can't escape a black hole. "out" is a direction that doesn't exist AFA an event horizon is concerned. "Out" is just another word for "in" in that construct. Going back to the OP, I have a model that illustrates the problem. Imagine you have a horizontal stretched piece of fabric. This would represent "space" in the 3 dimensional sense. Now if you place a mass on the fabric so that it distorts the fabric, it represents matter distorting space. If you place another object on the fabric and move it, it will behave exactly in accordance with Newtonian kinematics (so long as you neglect friction), leading you to conclude that the newtonian model is correct. So far so good... An event horizon would be represented by a depression in the fabric so deep that it's sides are parallel. A weighted soup can hanging from a hole in the fabric. Once you cross the lip of the can, how fast do you have to go to get back out? Of course, you can't. There is no such thing as a speed fast enough to get a marble out of that can. The poor marble that stumbled across the lip of that can would continue to follow the laws of Newtonian physics... right into the bottom of the can. The can doesn't have to add any energy to the marble to trap it and there's nothing wrong (fundamentally) with physics where the model breaks down. It's just that the *space* has been distorted.

K^2, My thinking on the subject was highly over simplified You cannot convert energy from one form to another without efficiency losses, and the losses multiply through each step. Burn fuel--> exchange heat-->convert heat to pressure-->expel propellant through nozzle can never be as efficient as Burn fuel-->expel propellant simply because there's more steps. Thanks for the more in-depth analysis; it's an eye-opener! Best, -Slashy

dbmorpher, Unless you are planning on building it yourself, you don't really need to know the ins and outs of rocket construction. Although I guarantee you you could knock together a functioning rocket if you just wanted to. Not all that difficult. Making a *good* rocket, otoh, requires a whole lot of research, planning, money, and a good team of eggheads. Are you looking for guidance on what to do with your idea? -Slashy

dbmorpher, I promise I won't steal your idea! The problem here is that rockets don't work by generating heat. They work by ejecting exhaust molecules at a high velocity. eK= mv^2/2. The heat is usually a by- product of the process, not the source of the thrust. All you have to do is figure out how to channel that heat into accelerating particles and you have a rocket. Best, -Slashy

My understanding with ramjets is that that's not the way that they work. They actually create a shock wave and it's the shock wave that compresses the intake air. *scratching head*

Technically, not so. Else, it would be impossible for matter to ever enter a black hole. More properly, time and space are warped by the gravity in such a way that every possible direction from the event horizon is inward. It would be more proper to say that escape velocity from an event horizon exceeds the speed of light, although that's not necessarily the important part. The important part is that escape velocity exceeds infinity since there is no possible direction to escape. Best, -Slashy

"Don't be a party pooper" isn't a very persuasive argument IMO. YMMV.

Ahh... I see what you're getting at. You're effectively using the original rocket exhaust as an obstruction in order to squeeze the ambient air into a combustion chamber. How do you propose to fight the reversion? I'd expect the ambient air to create a high pressure pocket at the inlet, forcing the slipstream to flow around your chamber rather than through it. Regards, -Slashy