camlost

ferram, Is the CoL offset we experience during sub-sonic and supersonic flight working properly now? Flying the SR-71 I find this effect much smaller than previous versions, negligible tbh. Also I realized that the jet engines are completely overpowered. In real world the thrust decrease a lot while the aircraft climbs to a certain altitude. However no mod has corrected this. As a result the whole thing was just too easy and completely absurd.

That's not aerodynamics, that's like two made-up equations with some eye-balled parameters. It's been there for over a year and nothing has been improved. Mine was a rhetorical question.

Does anyone in the dev team has proper knowledge of aerodynamics?

Does the author mind if I repackage this mod and tweak some cfg to reduce RAM?

Which one? I got Anderson's Introduction to aerodynamics and liking it.

Although this is very impressive, I think the Component Space Shuttle mod has a deficiency. In the real-life external tank, the LOx is on the top and LH2 is in the bottom. This configuration allows the overall CoM to be closer to the head, thus reducing the requirement for SSME gimbal range. I think this mod is much better for our RO users. It contains external fuel tank parts and a few engines. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55985-0-23-24-Dec-Space-Shuttle-Engines-V0-9-New-code-linear-aerospike-tweakables I will upload a cfg for RO of this mod later, basically rescaling the tank and tweak some engines. These are some pics from my shuttle flight weeks ago. I built the Orbiter first and found out it's about 1/3 the weight of the real thing, so I went on to rescale everything else to 1/3 reality.

That's exactly my point. And I find the opposite reaction of "USA numbo won, suck it China" equally stupid.

That is just something the CPC pull up to explain free market policies in the past 30 years. Nobody cares about it now. As for future space plans of China, there is none for after 2020. Mars landing? Man on the moon? Spaceplanes? A lot has been proposed but nothing has been decided yet.

Why am I seeing this cliche again and again? If China was in an "intense campaign" at least Long March-5 development would have started 10 years earlier. Tiangong -1 is not going to be the core component of the future station. It is actually near retirement. There will be something like Tiangong-3.

That solution seems fair enough. Actually I think it would be reasonable to add a propeller efficiency factor to the equation.

I have kind of planned to do that for several months but still yet to learn blender...

nice mod. 2 questions 1. Skimming through the code i see this is where thrust is applied base.rigidbody.AddForceAtPosition(thrustDirection * (((((((engineID.cylForceIdeal * sparkEff) * airEff) * throttleActual) * propScalePower) * coldLoss) * actualAirDensity) * currentBoostMulti), actualThrustPosition.position); Correct me if I'm wrong, but the thrust here doesn't depend on airspeed? That seems wrong. Propellers should output power, not thrust. 2. Any idea of how to make a turboprop or jet engine?

How about making an all-moving tail?

Hope this will be updated for 0.23 and make use of the new engine power control function

1.FAR assumes all fuselage are cylindrical and calculate its drag and lift. Any part from any mod can be recognized and nothing needs to be specified. 2. All wing parts need their span/taper ratio/swept etc. specified in the cfg. B9 and a few other mods have these parameters, apparently tiberdyne does not. If you really want you can try to write it 3. Seems to me the best way to build a space shuttle with FAR is to use B9 wings/fuselage. Then you need some kind of large-gimble-range engine like "space shuttle engine pack" and find some proper mod for the SRB and external tank. Shuttle wings have complex geometries that are hard to configure with a single part.

I just want to point out that this kind of "jet on blade" configuration doesn't require a tail rotor or being coxial, in RL. The only torque applied to the body is friction from the axis.

May I ask how did you print orbital information on the screen?

where can you fit 3 x 2.5m engines? I think 2.0m would be better.

Could you make a bigger variation to fit with B9 HL fuselage? Thx

Ferram, Now that the earth-size-kerbin plugin is out, are you going to try to add some hypersonic aerodynamics into FAR? Also that I assume in the current algorithm of FAR the speed of sound is constant, right? Do you think it's best to model temperature variance from altitude?

If the turbojet lose power at mach 8 then I don't see anything wrong then. Seems your small spaceplane is a success. If there's something wrong with some engine, your can probably find the bug in its cfg.

@Hodo, All jet engines should have thrust curved against velocity. That is, at very high speed it will lose power, eventually. I remember that B9 VTOL jet is missing a line 'usethrustcurve=true' or something, and that might be the cause of this phemomena. Anyway

I have an idea. Is it possible to make a rotatron which angle is controlled by the Y-axis? Basically that will allow us to make all-moving stabilizers however we want.

Everybody is talking about launch costs yet launch cost only comprises of a small fraction of the total cost. All the satellites, spacecrafts etc are considerably more expensive than a rocket. Lack of ambition in space is stalling human kind's progress in launch vehicles, that's true, but I don't see how lowering launch cost will turn that if the payloads are still expensive.

Back in 92 nobody could have forseen that China can be the second economic power in 20 years