Kronus_Aerospace

Ya think this is enough engines?

doing some test flights of my farthest range science SSTO yet! It has a wet mass of 26.45 tonnes, has a full compliment of science equipment, carries 2 kerbals, and reaches LKO with 5300 m/s of delta-V.

I bet it's very useful, but I don't like to use mods that affect the gameplay to that degree, mods like Kerbal Engineer that just give you another of information is fine by me though. I personally want my craft to be accessible and re-creatable by anyone.

I realize many people do not know about the symmetry glitch, so I'll just explain it here, just take a part which we will call the parent part and radially attach other parts to it, we will call these the daughter parts, take the parent part and radially attach it to another part, which we will call the grandparent part. Lets say the daughter parts were attached to the parent part with 8 way symmetry, if the parent part was then attached to the grandparent part with 8 way symmetry that will give a total of 64 daughter parts. If you then attach a part to the daughter parts with symmetry on it will bump the symmetry number all the way up to 64, you can than move this part and attach them to the grandparent part or any part in line with it, and it will place that part with 64 way symmetry! This effect can be stacked to get 512 way symmetry and beyond. This effectively allows you to multiply symmetry numbers, so if you attached the daughter parts with 6 way symmetry and the parent parts with 2 way symmetry that would give you 12 way symmetry. Another nice thing is that when reattaching the part that you just attached to the daughter parts you can press shift+x to reduce the symmetry number by 1, so if you were starting with 64 way symmetry you could bump that down to 63 way symmetry, or 62, or 61, or 60, etc. This is how I was able to accomplish the 40 way, 32 way, 24 way, 16 way, and 10 way symmetry on the bottom of this rocket, which you can see by looking at the staging sequence in the image included above.

It's rather simple, just take a part which we will call the parent part and radially attach other parts to it, we will call these the daughter parts, take the parent part and radially attach it to another part, which we will call the grandparent part. Lets say the daughter parts were attached to the parent part with 8 way symmetry, if the parent part was then attached to the grandparent part with 8 way symmetry that will give a total of 64 daughter parts. If you then attach a part to the daughter parts with symmetry on it will bump the symmetry number all the way up to 64, you can than move this part and attach them to the grandparent part or any part in line with it, and it will place that part with 64 way symmetry! This effect can be stacked to get 512 way symmetry and beyond. This effectively allows you to multiply symmetry numbers, so if you attached the daughter parts with 6 way symmetry and the parent parts with 2 way symmetry that would give you 12 way symmetry. Another nice thing is that when reattaching the part that you just attached to the daughter parts you can press shift+x to reduce the symmetry number by 1, so if you were starting with 64 way symmetry you could bump that down to 63 way symmetry, or 62, or 61, or 60, etc. This is how I was able to accomplish the 40 way, 32 way, 24 way, 16 way, and 10 way symmetry on the bottom of this rocket, which you can see by looking at the staging sequence in the image included above.

I know right!?! Thanks to the symmetry glitch I was able to get it just about perfect. I think an over excessive amount of engines is my favorite aesthetic.

True, having recently completed my Highschool Physics class I can say with full confidence that having played KSP beforehand made the class significantly easier for me than otherwise. I know it has been said time and time again, but KSP's value as a teaching tool cannot be overstated!

Well, in between my bigger projects like my Mriya replica I need a bit of down time, and that usually manifests itself in stuff like this! It's not made to impress or wow, it's just made to be super silly and to make me giggle!

This craft was made more for fun than to be anything spectacular. The challenge behind this craft was to transport the Big Three as well as a full compliment of scientific equipment to the surface of Duna and back, all only using the Spark rocket engine. Needless to say, many of them were required, 254 to be exact! Somehow, this is not the most engines I’ve ever used on a craft. This craft has only around 6600 m/s of delta-V, so it goes without saying that the margins of error when using this craft are SLIM. This precision was required to keep the size of the craft down, since every ton that was added to its mass would require an additional 2 sparks. Beasts of this nature are not for the faint of heart or trypophobes! Download: https://kerbalx.com/Kronus_Aerospace/Duna-on-Spark Part Count: 630 Vehicle Mass: 177.15 tonnes -During the launch an optimal gravity turn will have the craft naturally reach 45 degrees at 500 m/s. -When landing on Duna a small bit of retro-burning is required to slow the craft to a landing, try to be gentle with the landing as the craft does not have landing legs to save on mass. -The aerobreaking at Kerbin must be split into two passes otherwise the craft will burn up.

This crazy rocket is finally done! This craft can take Jeb Bill and Bob as well as full compliment of science equipment to the surface of Duna and back, all only using the Spark rocket engine! Or, rather 254 of them! Download: https://kerbalx.com/Kronus_Aerospace/Duna-on-Spark

Well in general I try to make all of my SSTO'S as aerodynamically efficient as possible, and they never require particularly flat trajectories to reach such velocities, My SSTO'S usually have a thrust to weight of around .6, and are more likely to dip below that number than above it, although it is true that this does not apply to all SSTO'S, especially SSTO'S with drag issues as it is more efficient in that case to take slower but more steep flight Profile. I think 1200 m/s is rather low considering that is well below the maximum operating potential if the R.A.P.I.E.R.s, a fairer estimate in my opinion would be 1400-1500 m/s, having built innumerous interplanetary capable SSTOs I have done much experimentation with flight profiles and I find that those numbers work the best.

SSTOs are the most difficult type of craft that you can make in KSP. It personally took me many attempts before I made one that could even get into orbit. However when done correctly they are FAR more efficient than traditional rockets. There are two very important details about SSTOs that you really need to know. One is that the balance between liquid fuel and rocket fuel tanks needs to be precise, this may seem obvious but it's importance cannot be underestimated, too much of either one can leave you with a lot of excess liquid fuel or oxidizer which will greatly decrease the delta-V of your craft, you should have more rocket fuel tanks than liquid fuel and the exact proportion can really only be determined using experimentation. Secondly is the flight profile, a good flight profile can make or break an SSTO. A good rule of thumb is that a good flight profile should require minimal user input to minimize speed loss to maneuvering, most of the acceleration should be done outside of the lower atmosphere (above 7 kilometers), and in general the SSTO should reach atleast 1500 m/s while the R.A.P.I.E.R.s are still in jet mode. These speeds are simply not possible using any other type of jet engine, hence why very few SSTOs incorporate a significant amount of any other type of jet engine. An SSTO of that size should be able to deliver a payload around a fifth it's own mass, however the exact proportion will vary. Experimentation is key, the only way you can fix an SSTO is by flying it over and over again until you work out the kinks, I have NEVER built an SSTO to this day that worked on the first try. Hope this was helpful!

Hope you don't have trypophobia!

Yes-siree George!

This is a stock replica of the Rocketdyne F-1 engine which powered the first stage of the Saturn V. The engine is just barely small enough to fit in a 3.75m diameter fairing, meaning that this could feasibly be used as an upper-stage engine. The attachment node for the underside of the engine is located inside of the mainsail, this is a product of how the engine was constructed. https://kerbalx.com/Kronus_Aerospace/Kronus-F-1-Engine -Max Thrust Vac: 7500 kN -Max Thrust SL:6895 -REAL F-1 Max Thrust Vac: 7770 kN -REAL F-1 Max Thrust SL: 6770 kN

My F-1 Engine is up for download! https://kerbalx.com/Kronus_Aerospace/Kronus-F-1-Engine

Well first I would want to finish it up a bit more, than I'll put it on KerbalX, yes it is fully stock.

This rocket is a perfect demonstration of how much easier it is to get payloads into orbit of Kerbin vs Earth, this rocket has a payload capacity of 118 tons, the same as the Saturn V. However, this rocket is only 1/5 the mass, as such it only requires the use of a single F-1 Engine.

We should launch all of the snow into the sun, I don't care if it's not practical or cost effective, LAUNCH IT INTO THE SUN.

Thinking of building a full scale Saturn V, usually you would just use Rhinos for the F-1 Engines, but I decided to make my own! This has the same diameter (3.7 meters), and approximately the same thrust (about 6800kN SL and about 7500kN vac vs the real F-1's 6770kN SL and 7770kN vac). The asthetics are a WIP, but I already like how it's turning out!

With no cheats on, this thing crashed into the VAB, the cockpit got destroyed, and it flipped around and kept flying....... I love this game

Trying to taxi my full scale Antonov AN-225 replica through the KSC, it's turning out to be more difficult than I was expecting.

Another thing people often times do not take into account is drag, an aircraft can be perfectly balanced in terms of it's trust and CoL and CoM placement, as in they are right on top of each other. But drag forces could cause the craft to pitch down or up if left to it's own devices. Another thing is when flying SSTO space planes it is best to take flight profiles that require minimal user input, because of the drag generated by the control surfaces. I have had many craft in which drag was actually the cause of my stability problems. Having more drag in front of the CoM than behind it has a very similar affect to having the CoL in front of the CoM, as it will cause the craft to flip over backwards, we all know this from aero braking with a rocket and having it flip around 180 degrees, but we rarely think about the force of drag the same we do with lift and thrust, even though we should.

Short answer? No. If the rocket is extremely long and thin than having the engines on top does make it more structurally sound which could increase stability. But there is a difference between structural stability, and flight stability. The idea that having the engines in top keeps the rocket stable comes from the idea that it will act as a pendulum, however in a pendulum the arm is suspended on some kind of joint allowing it to rotate freely, and most importantly, it is attached to something which is being held up vertically, counteracting the force of gravity. If you glued up the joint of a pendulum such that it couldn't rotate, it wouldn't work, and if a pendulum was in a free fall in the air, it wouldn't work, and if a pendulum was being accelerated on a rocket which was traveling at 45° from the horizontal, the pendulum wouldn't point straight down, it would point in the opposite direction of it's acceleration, which in this case would be 45° from the horizontal. The Pendulum fallacy, as some call it, comes from the earliest days of rocketry and is an example of a concept formed not out of calculations and testing, but rather common sense logic, which isn't always reliable.

Just wait till you see the rest of it! Hopefully it will be finished by this weekend.