Nefrums
-
Posts
647 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Nefrums
-
-
I made a small ship with a MCT inspired lander. Turn out that it works quite well to use a glider/powered lander. A bit harder then using chutes but more fun.
Full report: http://imgur.com/a/xnB3O
-
And were done: http://imgur.com/a/mK5Ij
Mother ship and all landers are single stage.
Guess this is the first entry in 1.2? Is this the first fulle reusable entry wo ISRU?
5 Kerbals where on the mission, 1-2 landed on each moon.
Mods: KER, mechJeb, PreciseNode
dV info: Hard to say with airbreathing engines, but the mothership had over 4 km/s dV in LKO. Tylo/Vall lander had little over 5km/s and the ion lander had over 9km/s.
-
My latest project: SSTJ5
Fully reusable, (no ISRU)
-
It is only little more than 3k m/s dV for a kerbol escape from LKO.
My initial testing points to that SSTO is a lot easier in 1.2. Heating is not a big problem anymore.
Here is one ship that i made to test what speed you can get in airbreathing mode, It was pretty easy to reach 1670 m/s.
About 1,7 k m/s dV left when on a kerbol escape trajectory.
-
The spark buff in 1.2 shold alow for a even smaller lander!
Isp have been increased by ~7%.
-
He obviously does this just for the money/attention.
" Anders Björkman, M.Sc. is a Naval Architect and Marine Engineer with more than 45 years experience of tanker and ferry design, construction and operations. " ref
A person working with this must at least have a rudimentary understanding of fluid dynamics, and there is no way such a person could seriously believe that air resistance does not exist.
-
The ITS is obviously designed to travel with engines facing the sun.
- Engine section is designed to handle high temperatures
- No direct sunlight on the fuel tanks.
- The entire craft acts as radiation shield for the crew section.
-
I made a small Tylo lander for my 8.6t Jool 5 ship.
It was 1178,5 kg wo the kerbal.
more pics: http://imgur.com/a/YPZMV
-
The MSNW is closer to a micro fusion bomb than to a fusion reactor.
It will use magnetic fields to comperes the deuterium to ignite fusion just like in a fusion reactor, (a H-bomb uses a fission bomb to ignite fusion). The hard part with using magnetic fields is to sustain them, this requires large superconductors etc. This will not be done in the MSNW, the magnetic fields will not be sustained and fussion will only happen in very short pulses.
The energy required to ignite fusion would be huge. And the thermal losses in the electromagnets would be large. So even a short (ms) pulse would require some time afterwards to let the engine cool down and the capacitors to be recharged by the solar panels.
Still, if they can get it to work it would be like a ion engine with several order of magnitude better thrust and thrust/W.
-
I think that you still have to much wings and control surfaces.
I put together a small ship that easily makes orbit with 2000 dV left in the tanks.
Control surfaces authority limiter is put to about 30%.
The flight profile i used was to turn on sas, point ship to a 10 degree climb, then at ~15km put sas to prograde lock and at 20km turn on nerv.
This is stock, so no FAR etc..
-
Wonder if there will be weather complications to the restorations of the launchpads and/or investigation of the incident in the near future...
-
Don't give up!
Spaceplanes are easy when you figure out how to do them.
Here are some general tips:
- Never add a radial mounted part except: wings or stacks of tanks with engines at the back and nosecones at the front.
- Don't have to much lift. 0,25/t is enough.
- Don't have to much control surfaces. Less is always better so long as you are able to have some control. Gimbaling engins are often bad.
- Use the right amount of engines. 1 rapier per 15-20t
- Keep CoL/CoM balansed with full and empty tanks.
- Have the right noce cone at the front. Have one that can handle the heat or add a Communotron 16 on front of it to handle the heat.
- Find a good ascent profile. Keeping a steady climb from 10-20 km is better than trying to turn up from level flight at 20 km.
Trouble shouting guide:
- I can't get to mach 5 in airbreathing mode. => see point 1,4 and 7
- SAS make my plane wobble back and forth = > see point 3
- My ship overheats: => se point 6
-
Why do you think that payload of a single stage would be even remotely close to what you could get with a two stage rocket?
-
I made a small plane and went to jool.
10,322t 18608 sci
Guess this scores about 627p?
-
I guess the intent is to not allow docking? In that case this is a unique and very difficult challenge.
-
-
There have been many good challenges, but for me there are two that stand out, due to the design challenge the offer:
Stock Payload Fraction Challenge by @Red Iron Crown
The Ultimate Jool 5 Challenge by @sdj64
I really hope for a revival of the first for 1.2
-
There will be a third type of ship launched from the top of that booster. one with a cargo hold like the space shuttle, but bigger.
With 360t cargo to LEO
That one is going to make all the profits needed to finance the rest.
-
15 minutes ago, evileye.x said:
You mean nobody is going back home from Mars vacation? Consider life support, heat shielding for successful Earth aerocapture... 6km/s is not that low. And faster-than-Hohmann transfer will require more dV anyway....
Putting the numbers given at the presentation into the rocket equations (isp 382, dry mass 150t, propelant mass 1950t) we get that the payload capacity is ~350t at 6km/s dV.
Comparing this to the given payload to mars: 450t. gives that you would need to unload about 100t cargo in order to get back.
Faster transfers would require more dV (less payload) that is true.
Edit: They also stated that the would make only 600t of fuel on mars, coincidentally this gives just above 6km/s dV for 0 payload. Guess this is based on that no one wants to come back.
-
Mars SSTO is only about 4km/s dV and Earth transfer is a bit above 2km/s dV (assuming aerocapture).
Considering that they have unloaded most of the payload on mars, 6km/s dV is not that high.
-
Digging a hole and building in that makes no sense. It will be simpler to build on the surface with some form of locally made mars concrete and just cover that with more mars dirt if needed.
-
1 hour ago, McQuacker said:
Ah no, I can get a Tylo encounter with only a small burn. The problem is that it doesn't put me in a stable orbit - I still need to do a burn at either my Tylo or Jool periapsis to get there, with a minimum of about 1,500 m/s - or so I found.
What would the correct place for Tylo be then? Say the direction of my entry is at zero degrees, at what phase angle should Tylo be when I encounter it?You want your relative velocity towards Tylo to be as low as possible, That happens when your ship and tylo are traveling in the same direction. Best is if you can get the intercept as close to your Jool PE as possible.
Like this: (green line)
-
You need to correct the timing of your jool flyby in order to do it when Tylo is in the correct place. This correction is cheaper the earlier it is done.
It would have been 100 timers cheaper to do the same correction just after leaving kerbin soi. It will be expensive to do this late.
-
Having a paved landing field a few km from the pad makes more sense. Transporting the landed booster back to the pad would be almoast as simple as from VAB.
The Ultimate Jool 5 Challenge - 1.0 to 1.3
in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
Posted
Thanks. It is accuatly two Cargo bays, one large and one small.