Brotoro

Ooo, yes, an active heat pump system. Connect them like fuel ducts.

I keep expecting it to do this:

And a fine little station it is!

I got my first 1.0 SSTO Spaceplane into orbit: This took many attempts, and finally the addition of the precoolers, to thread the needle between exploding cockpit and falling short of orbital velocity. To re-enter, I had to move all the remaining fuel to the rear of the plane so I could keep its nose up 30 degrees during entry. The retro burn targeted the periapsis at 48 kilometers. Didn't end up at KSC, but there was a lot of jet fuel left, so I would have been able to fly somewhere else...but just landed deadstick as soon as possible.

Not shedding the mass would certainly be a problem -- you don't want to be carrying the mass of a fairing you already ejected. Not having the mass in the first place is also a problem -- there is no penalty for putting on a bigger fairing. Not having the mass in the correct location is ALSO a problem -- the mass of the fairing should be bringing your rocket's CoM forward (not having it back at the base part, if it even did that) where it will help it be more stable. Not realizing this is a problem is ALSO a problem.

I got my first 1.0 SSTO Spaceplane into orbit: This took many attempts, and finally the addition of the precoolers, to thread the needle between exploding cockpit and falling short of orbital velocity. To re-enter, I had to move all the remaining fuel to the rear of the plane so I could keep its nose up 30 degrees during entry. The retro burn targeted the periapsis at 48 kilometers. Didn't end up at KSC, but there was a lot of jet fuel left, so I would have been able to fly somewhere else...but just landed deadstick as soon as possible.

This week, on Criminally Negligent Engineering Jeb: When we add the heat shield to the bottom of the Mk1 capsule, that's going to move the CoM backwards, right? Bill: Nah...we'll arrange all the other equipment inside the Mk1 so that the CoM stays in the same place. Of course...it'll be unstable that way. Jeb: Eh, no problem. We'll have Val fly that mission. Bill & Jeb: Hahahahahahaha. Jeb: How about the rebalancing of the nuclear engine? When we set throttle for 100% reactor power, how much fuel should we pump through it? Bill: Oh, I don't know... Maybe 90% of what's needed to keep it from overheating? Jeb: And we'll let Bob fly that mission. Bill & Jeb: Hahahahahahaha! Be sure to tune in next week for another episode of Criminally Negligent Engineering!

Except...we have been told that Squad deliberately made the fairings massless and they LIKE this behavior. *sigh*

It was the exhaust coming out from the sides of the launch pad, or blowing outward as you land/take-off from a surface.

regex, I very much appreciate what you said elsewhere about enjoying a good engineering challenge. Version 1.0 is making us all re-think how we design our ships, and such challenges are the best part of KSP, in my opinion. But I just don't like the idea of having to overcome a challenge that is rooted in some unphysical or erroneous implementation made by the devs (be it aerodynamic instability caused by improper implementation of heat shields, or overheating caused by a decision to make the nuclear engines run overly hot). I'll do it if I HAVE to...but I won't enjoy it.

Your source says the fuel rods in the NTR may get as hot as 3000 Kelvin. The Space Shuttle Main Engine combustion chamber can get as hot as 3588 Kelvin.

I'm hoping that Squad will give us some giant inflatable heat shields (once they get the time to make them) that our ships can cower behind during interplanetary aerobreakings, because that would be so awesome... but they aren't going to work if only axially-attached components are protected in the shadow of the heat shield.

Yes. Nuclear engines actually run at temperatures LOWER than chemical engines. The only reason they can get great Isp when operating at these low temperatures is because hydrogen (the propellant NERVA was designed to use) has such a low molecular weight.

It's not items clipped into tanks or fuselages or whatever that I'm concerned about. For example, at one point I dumped a set of 8 probes onto Laythe (supposedly to monitor ocean conditions around the moon). I gave them little token heat shields made from structural plates, but if I was to do the same thing again, I'd like to stick a heat shield (large enough to shield all the parts from the oncoming airflow) on the bottoms instead. But from what panzer1b says, all of the parts of my little probes (except for the ones axially connected to the heat shield) would NOT be protected from the oncoming air, despite being behind the heat shield. This is what concerns me. (I wouldn't mind if the little retro rocket motor on the bottom exploded during entry, since it already did its job.)

So if you build a lander protected by a larger-diameter heat shield, only the central components of the lander that are attached inline would be protected, and all the componets attached radially to those axial parts would be causing drag/getting heating even if they are fully shadowed by the heat shield? If so, this is bad news. Thank you for noticing this.

Torham234’s tests showed that solar panels are a very poor option for cooling.

Having to add 24 additional parts to every nuclear engine just so it can operate as intended is goofy. I use nuclear tugs to move around complex payloads, and the part counts already make things so laggy that it's no fun.

I agree. Both surface mounted radiator panels (like the Apollo Service Module had mounted on it) and extendable radiator panels that orient their surfaces at right angkes to the sunlight.

The first thing I put into orbit in 1.0 was a Standard Nuclear Tug on top of one of my Reusable Rockets (flying its old inefficient trajectory that lets the side boosters fall back onto the KSC). I had lots of overheating problems with the nuclear engines. Afterward, I recovered the sustainer from orbit (its winglet fins exploded during reentry, but the rest if the sustainer survived reentry heat).

It should say, "The glass is half full, but its CoM is in the wrong place."

I saw those... but having to add 24 wing sections per nuke seems extreme. Not only will your ships be part-count-hell, I'm concerned about how sticking all those wing sections on top of a rocket is going to affect the stability. If heat was going to cause us all these problems, why didn't we get radiator parts with this update? Radiators are important on spacecraft. - - - Updated - - - Oh...I've been testing my planes. The BirdDog flies (at least with full tanks). The C724 airliner I built recently (just to compare with its 1.0 behavior) flies. The Passenger Pigeon SSTO spaceplane flies...but so far I haven't gotten it anywhere near getting to space. I thought I knew spaceplanes.....now I think I know nothing.

I certainly feel like I know nothing about spaceplanes now. But my old airplanes still fly.

I liked the Barn. For your first rockets, especially in a rushed, low-budget program, any big building will do for assembling things.

Giggleplex777 is correct.

My Reusable Rocket with Standard Nuclear Tug on top was able to put the Tug into orbit following its 'stupid' old trajectory (straight up until the side boosters burn out so that they can be dropped straight down onto the KSC for recovery). But now the side boosters push the rocket ridiculously high before they burnout (over 30 km) and the apoapsis is up at 185 km -- that's just goofy. So I had to drop the side boosters before they even burned out (at 20-something kilometers) so that the sustainer could turn and head into orbit (with the help of the friendly nukes of the Tug above 40 km). I couldn't just run the nukes the whole time, because they would overheat to the point of explosion. Who would design a nuclear engine that couldn't be run at its full rated throttle? That's just stupid. I guess they want to make our loooong nuke burns even loooooonnnnggeerrrr. Anyway, it got into a 100 km orbit with the Tug finishing the burn and dragging the sustainer along. By the way, this was with the Tug tanks full of unnecessary oxidizer (since I wanted a comparison with the old situation where the Tug had oxidizer as well). The Tug transferred enough fuel and oxidizer to the sustainer so that the sustainer could attempt a return to Kerbin (reusability, you know). I separated the Tug and eye-balled the retro burn for the return to KSC (since, of course, no MechJeb to help target it). The sustainer was stable butt-first during reentry. The heat caused the four fins (AV-R* Winglets) to explode. I guess those aren't designed for reentry. The rest of the sustainer survived (I did the cheaty "pop ou the chutes during the reentry flames" method) and landed a few kilometers off shore from KSC using parachutes and engine braking. Then it fell over in the water and exploded its forward tank. In version 1.0, the delta-V capacity of the Standard Nuclear Tug with all of the oxidizer removed is about 4.1 km/sec. That compares to a delta-V or about 9.5 km/sec that the Tug had in version 0.90. AND the inability to run the nukes at full throttle would require much longer burns. It's a sad day in TugLand, boys and girls. A new Tug design is going to need to use the aircraft Liquid-Fuel-only tanks to be efficient. - - - Updated - - - Oh! The sepatrons on the side boosters were, of course, positioned to safely push the side boosters away from the sustainer back in the day when the bug was causing the boosters to try to nose inward after separation. So for this flight in 1.0, the sepatrons caused the side boosters to pivot rather violently nose-outward, and swing around to smash into each other below the sustainer. - - - Updated - - - Uh oh! After messing around with the reusable booster for several launches and trips back and forth from the VAB...KSP has crashed again, taking up over 3GB again. And this is in a NEW save game. This does not bode well. Back to testing...