Jump to content

Nich

Members
  • Posts

    1,226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nich

  1. sadly slash I can not rep you anymore but I 100% agree
  2. You can also click on my Pro SSTO badge for a challenge with lots of current builds for 1.0.4
  3. Considering I can barely hit Duna with patched conics and flight planning that was thoroughly impressive. Did you do it in 1 try or did it take a couple reloads?
  4. Your right Val I was thinking of the AOA for the body. Not sure what that is called Yes you are right all planes I can think of have an AOI so that when at cruse the body AOA is near zero (but slightly up). The AOI actually changes along the length of the wing to create more lift at the base (less bending moment) and better stall characteristics at the tips for control purposes. This change in AOI also helps with induced drag as more lift is produced in the middle and less at the tips Doesn't really count but I am not sure how you would calculate AOI on a flying wing
  5. cant be number one because he has patched conncis on the exit of the SOI. I am going to guess mod related
  6. Not to mention SSTO planes are doing 1400 m/s at 17 km to maximize air breathing engines where as rockets are doing 600-800 m/s Drag is 4 times less important.
  7. Yes it is the same way in real life. A barn door has an L/D ratio but it is not nearly as good as a wings. I believe 8:1 was the breaking point that made powered flight possible Supersonic wings have less camber and tend to be thinner (sharper on the front) to help transition through the transonic reagon. <wrong>All modern commercial AC are designed to cruse with an AOI of less then 1. Climb and descent will of course departure from this.<wrong>
  8. I agree with pretty much everything said and want to add I also feel like your plane has a bit too much wing and switching to aerospikes or terriers on your LFO engines.
  9. Except KSP doesn't calculate AR or induced drag for wings so winglets wouldn't help. Also on supersonic craft and short range craft with low wing loading winglets add more weight then fuel saved. The debate of correctly sized wings vs winglets is a hot topic among the aviation community and there is very little consensus either way. I will have to point out that the 787 has blended raked winglets and it is the model of efficiency for commercial aircraft. That being said you will never see winglets on a glider because it has a vastly lower wing loading and vastly higher Aspect ratio.
  10. Meh upgrade engines can quickly become OP then you never use the mid game engines so then those need an upgrade but then the endgame engines suck to those need an upgrade. I personally think how it is set up is fine
  11. So the reason angled wings work is because the lift to drag ratio is better for the wings then the lifting bodies Real airplanes use cambered wings that produce lift even when they are parallel to the flow however they have a rotational moment that makes them more difficult to stabilize.
  12. Nef on your assent did you try an aero turn rather then a traditional gravity turn? I was wondering if straight up to 30-40km then aero turn and lifted acceleration out would be more efficient?
  13. Actually even if we assume the wing and canard have the same lift profile you need the delta Lift(Alpha) because at a stable state canard lift * distance from CoM = wing lift * distance from CoM However alpha is not the same for the wing and canard. Because the center of lift is behind the COM alpha will be greater for the canard. In most flight profiles (not stalling or flying very slow) with a low alpha lift is approximately linear thus; Canard 10m from COM with 1t lift = 10mt Wing -1m from COM with 10t lift = -10mt is stable Change alpha on the canard by 1 degree Canard 10m from COM with 1xt lift = 10x mt Wing -1m from COM with 10t lift = -10 mt Plane pulls up 1 degree Canard 10m from COM with 2xt lift = 20x mt Wing -1m from COM with 10xt lift = -10x mt You now have a ton torque and the plane flips out until front canard starts to stall out but at this point the wing pretty well stalled out as well
  14. I use a single orange tank with a nuke to be my transfer vehicle. It will take a couple trips or you can do something similar with a single 3.5m tank. Makes life a lot easier
  15. I would think anything with canards is unstable and can not be trimmed into stable flight
  16. 32 gigs but I feel no need to increase the minimums that is what mods are for.
  17. Cant you adjust the values on mechjebs PID filter? Make it less reactive to offset and more reactive to rate and intergul.
  18. The premise is you are short on time and do not have time to launch multiple ships. Nice mission I like the double ring
  19. With that inclination I do think dres is a harder target to hit then Jool.
  20. It is a trade off circularizing low allows for a much smaller lander and if you are landing 10-15 times on a planet this will save you a lot of fuel. Also since tugs usually have more efficient nuclear engines it can take less fuel for an entire tug to circularize then an LFOX lander to land and reorbit into a highly essentric orbit.
  21. - Make an SSTO with zero launch mass and infinite payload fraction That is called a rail gun but the payload needs a boat load of heat resistance
  22. actually I used rk of 100km when I should have used 700km (have to add the radius of kerbin) the real SOI in that example would be 15,652m (at 100,000m altitude) which is still inside the body of Minimus. It would be less closer to Kerbin and more on the opposite side or Minimus away from kerbin. That being said in this situation you would clearly be in the realm of 3 body physics and 2 body physics no longer apply. Because KSP has no bodies this close together you can define the SOI as the boundary when the force from one planet equals the force from another planet/moon techically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence_(astrodynamics) is correct however this leaves large areas where you have to solve the 3 body problem because at some point you will have kerbin and the Mun canceling each other out and Kerbol becomes the main force which KSP does not calculated because it uses a simplier 2 body logic
  23. It depends I know rapiers pretty well and a truly optimized craft can not fly above 4km unless it is supersonic. If you have too much lift or too much thrust it is more economical to get to 15km at 150-200 m/s then level out and accelerate. dont pull up more then 15-20 degrees (i normally do 10) as it will rob too much speed. Once you hit 1400 you only need 800 more to holman transfer up to an AP of 75km. Rapiers have a ton of kick in closed cycle mode and this is not a problem. If you are lifting out on nukes you may want to pull up more as air friction at 26 km at 2200m/s is a bit too much for nukes to overcome and poping up to 32-36km with less horizontal velocity makes it more efficient
  24. I had incorrectly assumed you would keep moving away from the Mun but the more I think about it no mater which way you leave you should intersect the Mun again in 1 orbit assuming the difference in relative velocities is small. I am going to agree that the SOI boundry depends on the size of the relative bodies in question. If Minimus was orbiting Kerbin at 100km its SOI would be tiny, at this point it would make a lots more sence to leave the SOI to change orbit. Fk = G*mk*ms/rk^2 Fm = G*mm*ms/rm^2 SOI is defined as when Fk=Fm mm/rm^2 = mk/rk^2 mm = mass of minimus (2.6457897×1019 kg) mk = mass of kerbin (5.2915793×1022 kg) rm = SOI of minimus rk = 100km sqrt(mm*rk^2/mk) = rm = 2236m thus as i suspected Minimus's SOI would be inside the surface that close to Kerbin.
×
×
  • Create New...