pa1983

I splashed down on water to so I think thats another 5 points for me.

Watched the howl video to see what your doing after the PM you sent me. I know some people take offence when you ask or point stuff out but my intention is not to look down at some one here. Im curious why you opted for the airospikes? I see a lot of people do that but I dont realy understand why. Wounder if I have missed something. Many seem to like that engine but for me its to heavy and no vector trust and the ISP realy is not that much better then the LV-30 or 45 plus the LV-30 is lighter and has more trust so for me the aiospike usually dont save any fuel with its higher ISP. So from all the testing I have done it seems almost nurfed to pointlessness buts thats my opinion. I some times use the LV-30 in combination with the LV-45 to get some vector trust once the atmosphere no longer offers enough force for the control surfaces and that combo has lower wight and higher trust for just a tad bit less ISP.

Here is a working N1 replica if any one wants to play with it. Should work its from 0.18. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27196441/n1.zip But what ever you do DONT gravturn before drooping first stage! Will just tip over if you try that. Also its a CPU killer with 2000 parts so but it has the right staging and engine configuration. Frame rate will pick up a lot after the first stage has dropped away from the craft so its mostly a pain in the start. See if I can find the time to take it for a spin again. Maybe update it a bit.

Yea its 7 in the morning here so why do you think I didn't calculate them ;-) Joke aside here are the numbers and they are from my memories but I went for authenticity with in the limits of 0.18 at the time. - 3-man Mission +10 - 2-man Lander +10 - 2-stage Lander (leave the decent-engine on the mün) +20 - Lander stored behind the CM during ascent +20 - Tucked away behind some fairing? +5 (the howl carft do not have fairing but 95% do so dont know if thats enough, still has most of the right look tough) - Flawless landing (no parts broke off, Neil Armstrong is watching you!) +10 - Got a Munar Roving Vehicle (MRV) on board? +15 - After succesfull Mün landing docked CM and MM in Orbit (no swapping ships without docking them first) +10 - Spashing down on Kerbin (land on water) +5 - Escape tower? +10 115 points I think that is. I got a escape tower to that must be bonus points ;-)

K-prize is my favorite. Rules are good so people can build almost anything but also go anywhere as long as it makes kerbal orbit.

I did a similar challenge before the forum wipe in 0.18 all stock parts no mods. Staging is identical to the real thing even the design and it has a rover to. http://youtu.be/QK-79I5HPEs I also did a N1 replica but it lags alot with 2000 parts to get the right number of engines and the proper look.

Vtols are always impresive.

Well all 3 ideas are true. My allowed physic cpu time is reduced from 0.10 to 0.03 in the game settings and that helps a lot. I have tried 0.01 manually but not sure it helps. My cpu, i7 3930k run all cores at 4Ghz, 32Gb of DDR3 1600Mhz, Stock GTX570 (about as fast in games as GTX660ti). I dont know what cpu you have but modern i5 an i7 are the fastest, IPC off 4-5 and hich clocks, fast low latency cache etc make them very fast per core preformence. Phenom II is okay but IPC is still low, like 3 so still a lot slower at the same frequency. Pildriver and bulldozer have even lower per core preformance so there IPC is even less that off Phenom 2 but they do have new instructionsets but really nothing ksp uses yet. An FX processor have to be clocked very high to offer the same preformance per thread as an intel equivalent. The fact that bulldozer and piledriver share fetch and decoder between two cores is the problem plus the fact that there cache is a lot slower and has higher latencies . Max IPC for a module is 4 but etch core has limited resources so thats why per core performance is low. Remember intel processors have sens core 2 had an IPC of 4 per core and intel processors have more resources then a single thread can use most off the time. Thats why they use hyper threading to take advantage of unused resources. Best CPU for KSP to day would be an i5 4670k. You only need 2 cores atm but this are the fastest cores avalible that can be overclocked. I5 usually clocks higher to sense hyper threading utilizes more of the core at once it demands more power and requires a higher level of stability. But sens ksp wont even use 4 cores an i5 makes most sense. I also speed up my videos to reflect real time. My current video runs at 0.5x so speed it up 2x. I do have good frame rates most of the time. What anoys me the most is the fact that I more or less always have 0.6x physic time at kerbin. Planets kill physics. If I look at the sky or ground I get 1.0x but looking at the horizon gives me 0.6x even with just a few parts. They need to fix this asap. Im not the only one whit that problem.

Falxon XI Hercules lifting Eeloo Explorer craft to LKO. http://youtu.be/CLJP_w6C93o

Falxon XI Hercules lifting Eeloo Explorer craft to LKO. http://youtu.be/CLJP_w6C93o

Nice B1 style Like it.

Thanks! I didnt like intake abuse or stacking either untill I realized how unrealistic the current intakes are any way. Past mach 3 the air would get so hot most jets would melt any way. Theres a reason the SR-71 blackbird was built the way it was. Also the second problem would be supersonic airspeeds of the intake air. A real intakes job is also to slow that to subsonic. The howl Ramair idea seems kind of dumb to me. Just look at the SR-71 blackbird with its variable nose cone and from what I can tell the Saber engine on the Skylon will use something similar. Also to solve the hot air problem the Saber engine would incorporate an intecooler and that is under testing IRL and that would help cool the 1000C hot air at mach 5.5. Becuse thats how hot air gets due to friction etc at those speeds and that would ruin a modern jet engine. So I would rater see that engines where limited in speed due to temperature and limited to altitude. Not to intake air thats a factor of both speed and altitude like it is now. I would rater see a new intake with a Fan for efficient subsonic flights and a new Nosecone intake for high speed high altitude flights but that is less efficient in fuel at low speed and altitude. Some intermediate intake to of more traditional design. The intecooler part s already in the game, tough not that good looking its there but have zero use atm. The faster you fly the hotter en engine should get until it fails. The intecooler should allow for higher speeds before that happens, say mach 5-6. It should be 1-1.5 tons to as a penalty. For high flying crafts there might be the option for a second part that is an extra compressor stage for the jet or maybe a howl new jet that is a bit longer like the LN-1 nerva that would offer higher compression ratio and I think that would make sens for high flying crafts. This is my Idea of a intercoolec jet engine with a more realistically working intake (airospike is a substitute for the intake here) that would be more limited by altitude then speed so you would not have to spam the intakes and also spaming would not help. Many engines might share intakes and that would have negative consequences but once an engine is saturated altitude will limit it. I also added the intercooler that would be useful for SSTO spaceplanes.

Already done with the fuel truck. Final specs for other crafts have not been given.

Im on no real hurry. Just good to know if its worth fiddling with the crafts.

People are posting and checking so it cant be dead. But the author have not posted sense the 8:e according to the profile so if its dead thats why. Seems like a lot of people are just waiting for a go ahead. I have already built my own duna base while waiting and that was weeks ago now.

No rule against clipping that I know of. Clipping happens all the time even when the user dont intend to have parts clip.

My latest SSTO the Falcon XI Hercules. Lifted 72+ tons during its first flight to 100km LKO. Wil lbe use to lift a payload plus a booster that then will take the payload from LKO to its target destination. You can see more pics and read more about the craft here. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/11214-The-K-Prize-100-reusable-spaceplane-to-orbit-and-back?p=484622&viewfull=1#post484622

Some pictures of the new SSTO aka Falcon XI Hercules on its first successful run lifting 72T+ to LKO. Future payloads will use a booster to get to there target destination so this SSTO is a lifter to LKO only.

So its been a while. Been fiddling with some experimental crafts etc but yesterday I produced a new craft. Its still a bit of a prototype but it now works. Took me for ever to figure out that the rudders turn the wrong way when I used ailerons so well it went in to a spin when I tried to maneuver more then small increments. This SSTO is unmanned, it saves parts sens you dont need an abort system and also wight so its not the world if it crashes. It has a new wing that do not run trough the center of CoG but is in line with the belly of the fuselage to better accommodation the small landing gears that KSP only offers atm. It also has engine nacelles 2/3 out and the idea was to have engines and fuel there but with fuel it was to heavy. If I could get the fuel there CoG would have been easy to maintain because placing fuel in the now lowered wing lowers CoG relative to CoT and well causes nose downs at high altitudes. I had to get around that by having some of the heavier fuel tanks on top of the wing and widening the fuselage. Was not the original idea but it solved that problem. Earlier version of the craft also had a V shaped stabilizer but it proved inefficient and increased the risk of a spin when doing a role with hard banking so a more traditional stabilizer proved more efficient. Also the ruder control surfaces are at the center line of the pod in the nose to avoid them turning in the wrong direction when ailerons are applied to avoid a stall and spin. The craft is only capable if a 100km LKO but its main objective is to lift a payload and its booster etc to orbit where it then will be boosted to the target. So the SSTO is not in need of range or precision maneuvering. Its made to get the payload up asap and do a fast turn around for the next trip. Take off tonnage was 161.99 tons and payload delivered was 72.92 tons to a 100km orbit. Landed back at KSC with a perfect landing. Some pictures of the new SSTO aka Falcon XI Hercules on its first successful run.

Its in the wiki but yeas Laythe has oxygen so it works like kerbin but lower gravity so its easier.

You can download it here. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27196441/n1.zip Think I made it in 0.18 so it do not have some new parts that could have been useful. Also the faring makes a gravity turn during stage 1 impossible so stage that first then turn.

Is this project dead now?

The Internet is not big enough...

With 14 engines and 209 intakes and running on two engines that 100+ intakes on per engine Suppose thats the advantage when you have 14 jet engines. So bigger ssto in this case makes room for more intakes so a bit of an advantage.

I use F5 and F9 to save kerbals some times. But I try to build safe crafts, crap do happen. Sens I fly spaceplanes the most common cause of dead kerbals is landing on Duna. High speed landing at low grav can cause the plane to bounce and nose down and well the pod is the first to go. Im considering unmanned crafts in the future. Most of my New SSTO's do have ejection systems but when you crash when landing often the pod is the first to go. Most of the time bugs kill my kerbals.