Hotel26

Under ColdJ's expert tutelage, I am experimentally creating a Submariner parts pack: Results look good so far. I intend to fabricate 3 Utility category parts modeled on the three sizes of ore tanks. They will be the Submarine Trim Tank, Submarine Ballast Tank and Submarine Super Ballast Tank. I've been able to bind their Flood and Blow functions to Custom Keys. One would typically place one or more ballast tanks at center keel position (directly under the CoM) and a small trim tank at each of the for'ard and aft positions. Two custom keys would start/stop moving trim For'ard or Aft, respectively. Two more keys would increase/decrease net buoyancy. Following unwritten submariner lore/convention, pumping ballast draws electrical charge. In addition, the Submariner's Guild *requires* that ballast tanks be clipped unless written permission is obtained from the Guild.[1] If this works out, I'll start converting my submersible fleet, starting with the funny Ping submarine. [1] This, so that you don't have to feel any guilt about it. It's the Law.

For perspective: object-oriented is about data/method encapsulation. A struct is only a collection of data. A class defines a collection of data along with the methods that operate on that data: an 'object'. (An object is analogous to the biological cell in which receptors on the cell's wall may receive and act on external signals, but only the cell may operate directly upon on its own internal state: its 'instance' data.) Seen this way, your struct (which does exist in C#), is so poor a subset of the object (of a class) that no one is often interested in using it. Constructors guarantee the integrity of the initial state (and are a class method again roughly analogous to cell division) for ensuring that a new object is created in a 'healthy', consistent state. So you might better ask, "why use a struct when it is such a poor cousin to a class?". Especially when you consider that your for-now-wisely-chosen-struct may need to become a richer class in the rapidly-changing future. To complete the answer, delegates are a modern-fangled (and class-entangled) re-interpretation of "call-backs" [and more; e.g. 'dependency-injection']. Progress is good.

I can testify that Direct Link works on both.

I work on the Images page. When I click an image (there is no upper-right arrow in the image on this page), it pops open with a list of URLs down the side. The Direct Link works directly in the forum with none of the pesky tags to be post-deleted. From here: to the Direct Link here:

That is the best-looking SR-71 I've seen here or at KerbalX.com...

Outstanding work! Very impressive.

"a happy life with just one 'bad day'".

Starling, to be published this week, can only be flown at high altitude with the aid of Atmosphere Autopilot, so I thought I'd record a "short" flight from KSC to BKB (Baikerbanur), 750 kms. (General mission profile is 70-180 degrees. Pole-to-pole (180 degrees), chocks to chocks in 19m 33s.) Here's the ascent to an initial 29 km and then climb to final cruise at 31km and 2.1 km/s: Followed almost immediately by a "hot" descent to land: Starling sprang from a joint effort with the eminent @swjr-swis to explore flying in the 28-33 km stratosphere.

Indeed. In KSP, one must design not to fly! And often fail. My first sub flew -- and better than it submerged. By the way, I didn't intend to sound like I was bragging about speed. We're all aeronautical engineers here, so vital data like "How fast will she go?" is stock for trade, especially such a big ship. I am continually surprised such a heavy beast will go so fast given the colossal drag in water. I've also made a series of hydrofoil amphibians, so have some experience. I took the original foils off Wildfire because one mistake and it rolled over. That having been said, a trio of small foils might do wonders. I'll look into it before publication. Tho current speed is more than satisfactory. At some speed, one must go to more rarified air to go faster, higher and further -- and then you are no longer a cruise ship!

Yep, you've got it. Wildfire was reverse-engineered, originally, from Ship Hydrofoil Pax 64, by Lisias. (At the time, I had not realized he had posted it on KerbalX.) In truth, ships have limited 'mileage' and Wildfire gets much better mpg at a speed closer to 50-60 knots. The engines in both my versions are 'safe' as long as one doesn't attempt turns at higher speeds.

Wildfire 3 on a high-speed test run. We've switched to the twin Big Berthas because they seem less vulnerable to wave impact, fish strike, floating plastic debris, etc. And our engineers feel this is the best way to tow Duckboat 3. We'll post this update bulletin... Then I'll get the result in the next 5 minutes. You know the drill... P.S. being a nautical man, from now on I will use the traditional kerbal term for your "meters per second". That's 'knots', abbreviated with a 'K', as in 108K on that test run pictured above.

If you've ever wondered what Kerbals do for tourism....? Well, this is the Wildfire 2 cruise ship going through sea trials. 102 m/s and rock stable. Turns on a dime with differential thrust. It's amphibious, of course, so no ports/docks required to visit the little coastal towns for golden sands and grappa. It's equipped with a spacious hold which will contain a high-speed pontoon boat for extra fast excursions to shore, reef snorkeling and/or water-skiing. The KSC-to-Antarktika run is very popular for vacationers aiming to escape the summer-time heat of equatorial KSC & environs. Cruise company is planning a first launch, "around the planet" tour, for no particular reason, other than the "Free Marketing"... (Kudos to @Lisias for the original hydrofoil design. It's not a hydrofoil anymore, though.) This is the launch, 'Duckboat', under development. (Under water, more like it. It does just over 20 m/s. I'll be putting chutes on it for reasons; very KSP reasons.[1]) [1]

Very constructive! Nice work.

Just culled this from a KerbalX entry... And I quote: Hmm. Does that sounds like a +1 for "Unrealistically draggy"?? Jest sayin'...

Starling is designed for stratospheric/hemispheric operations. The North/South Pole route. KSC to/fro BKB. 180 degrees. Tagline: Anywhere to anywhere. Minimum time, jetway to jetway. Currently, 2 km/s at 30km on 0.31 lf/s. Still tuning for the 'sweet spot'... The boys in the workshop have dubbed it a 'space glider'. Big wings to milk lift/control from skimming the thinnest of atmosphere. RAPIERs to get up and down from terra firma; closed cycle to punch up the strato-speed and Dirty NERV to sustain them all aloft.

I'm missing a trick, am I not? I should be using the coupe Mk2 cockpit, with a leading shock intake, like the rest of the pack. So be it. Starling, now a "space glider":

This is Starling: Don't think 28,250 is yet quite high enough for thermal stability... (That's a kinda euphemism in our aerospace industry, as ya know. Translated: "not ready for passengers".) It's a kind of triple coffin corner with speed, lift and heat... One thing I like: it gets there fast and then one punches the speed up on Closed Cycle. Bingo! (Capt. Donsted Kerman, Lt. Arhat Kerman, Requiescat In Pace. "They will be missed".)

Very neat way to solve the "getting to space" angle. Well done and congratulations on hitting your objectives!

A very good move, as a picture tells a story of 1k words. From my own experiments, attempting to fly fast and level at an altitude where the Mk2 cockpit will stay cool, one benefits from a larger wing area and some angle of incidence applied to the wings (to generate sufficient lift while allowing the nose to stay prograde, reducing body drag). Won't matter so much if your goal is going to space. In both cases, mass is your enemy. (swjr-swis succeeded where I failed because (amongst other things) he cut the mass to the bone -- and has a bigger wing area.) Zooming out: is your objective "doing science"? Or "getting there quickly"? Your machine might make a very good science harvester, flying lower, slower and further with a Panther.

Thanks for the correct terminology, bud!

It came to my attention that RAPIERs could still breathe (at certain speeds) at altitudes upto 28-29 km. But not that I could sustain in level flight however. So my experiments moved to suborbital speed hops. Then my focus turned to 'skip gliders': My current version uses two RAPIERs and a small amount of LOX to boost speed at AP one time only. (That center RAPIER pictured is now a drogue. No sense loitering in the pattern when time is of the essence!) Current testing is pole-to-pole with fuel tankers parked at each pole for refueling.

Since I can use gravity assists, encounter at periapsis is always better. It's not intuitive (hence the disagreements) but I think it is now clear-cut. See: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/197273-moho-periapsis-for-return-trip-to-kerbin/&do=findComment&comment=3872499 Borrowing the table from that citation: "I have been able to determine the orbital speed at Apoapsis and Periapsis of a) Moho and b) an HETV with apoapsis at 13.318 Gm (Kerbin altitude):" alt: 3.949 Gm alt: 6.054 Gm Moho 18,278.8 m/s 12,185.9 m/s HETV 20,614.6 m/s 15,917.9 m/s dV 2,335.8 m/s 3,732.0 m/s I think the "explanation" is that the two fastest speeds of those orbits "match" better than the fastest and slowest speeds of the orbits, respectively. (Obviously, since they do.) In addition, this suggests that if you plan to meet Moho at one of its ecliptic nodes -- without a previous inclination change -- its DN is preferable because it is closer to its PE than its AP. Mr Shifty (quoted above) is correct in noting that the dV saving in my table above (1.4 km/s) is offset by a higher price in establishing a deeper Kerbolar periapsis, but that's less than 1.4 km/s.

Correct. If you can plot the transit well enough to get a Moho encounter, without any en route adjustments, that would qualify as a CAT II mission. Good luck, Brave Sir! (Don't forget to load your 4 kerbals. )

Good idea! Put a power grid above the roads and charge a fee for cars to raise a contact device up to the cable.

Leg 15 [prev] [next] [progress] [click & arrows] Departed: -20.713/67.441 @ 3.256.4.8 Airborne: 68m Heading: 205 Distance: 471.9 km Altitude: 4.0 km Arrival: -59.210/31.415 Dick is happy today to finally fly what he calls "the Great Circle route". (Instead of going directly toward the ultimate destination, the "great circle" route is a more leisurely meandering toward any point of more proximate interest.) In this case, he has packed his fly fishing tackle and will be heading to a gorge at the foot of a prominent mountain on a lonely, southern island. Hooray. Dick is today, also, to set a new distance record: 471.9 km. Go, Dick!