Dispatcher

The Revealing Science of God:

Then there is this:

In Memorium.

I made an SSTO spaceplane (which launched horizontally from the runway) using ONLY rocket engines; no jets and this was before the Rapier was introduced. The rocket engines? Aerospikes. I didn't succeed with other engines (yeah, yeah, probably my lack of design and piloting skills). My biggest beef with the spikes is that they do not stack. I also made a (vertical) ship which lands on Laythe and returns to Kerbin. It uses jets and aerospikes. (Edit: that was the lander; O to O were NERVAs). It may be a niche product, but for those times it works well.

Nice work, zarakon! The next time I refine/ retest engines, I think I'll use the shock cone instead of the "plain" intake, even if its a little more massive. Here's the current V. 1.02 graph for your perusal: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/121394-60-Dry-Mass-Engine-Load-Test-Graph-%28KSP-v-1-0?p=1940701&viewfull=1#post1940701 Hopefully we'll be seeing more such things from you, like your cone tests. The fact that you'd put an engine on upside down to test its aerodynamics shows that you think "outside the box".

I use tin cans and string.

How many things can I cook? As many as fall into the cooking pit.

Nice thread. I hope others will read and join in.

Ameseno Italy:

Yep. I started as a Cub Scout.

Kerbol?

Forum User Boy Scouts. Was a Star (almost Life). Then into Venturing.

Its not so much the artist or instrument as it is the mood. Here are a few:

I think we should have radiators and shadow shields as stock parts to complement the LV-N.

Of course the aerodynamics/ physics have changed with 1.0.2. The densest air used to be found up to 10-12Km above sea level. Now the lower atmosphere goes up to about 7Km. As for TWR, often my launch TWR is partly dependent on the mission needs and launch/ part restrictions. Of course if I don't have enough, I can always tweak my fuel/ oxidizer levels, but that affects dV. But in an ideal world, if it flies, its good.

Well, I do consider these test flights successful, though not within your parameters. These are engine comparison tests and I think you will find the data on the air breathers interesting. Take a look at the graph: https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5330/17586916398_fe69d2d033_o.png I think the Whiplash turbojet is well named.

This thread could go to the Kerbal Network forum.

Finished tweaking this graph, which is based on comparison tests of the stock engines/ physics/ aerodynamics in version 1.0.2. Its also posted at the Tutorials page:

You've done a lot of work, Meithan. Your charts/ graphs cover quite a range of needs. I didn't notice these on the Tutorials page; some people might miss this thread since its in General Discussion. I put up a graph of specific engine tests (60% dry mass, TWR 1.2 in VAB, so just over 1 on the pad). Its rather crude in comparison to your calculated graphs, but you might like to compare it with your work. Thanks for sharing with us!

Thanks for the video, malkuth. Explaining the suborbital and orbital trajectories was nice for the newer players. I found your methods for orbital flight and deorbiting and landing/ splashing down near the KSC useful. My own preferred method of orbital flight is a hybrid of the old and new version methods I've seen explained. I like to climb vertically until I'm at the boundary between lower and middle atmosphere (about 7K meters) and start my turn there. Then I entice the prograde marker towards the horizon line gradually. My theory is that clearing the lower atmosphere before the turn reduces drag. The turn and curved flight go through the middle and upper atmospheres, where the drag is less. Mine's probably not the most efficient way of flying but it works for me. Thanks again for your efforts and for sharing with us! Edit: I tend to launch at 100% throttle and will only throttle back a little if I have control issues.

I've added the image above; the link remains so that the full size image can be obtained.

The Gauntlet:

For those who may find it interesting: https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5330/17586916398_fe69d2d033_o.png I had tested all engines, thrusters, etc. Those shown as efficient were from the top half of another list when sorted by efficiency. Similar sorts were used for other result categories. The graph is sorted for the 60% dry mass tests (or 40% "wet" mass). Edit: There were some interesting things to note in connection with the graph. All craft started with a TWR > 1. Generally, it was 1.2 in the VAB and a little over 1 on the pad. The Rapier Mixed mode altitude was less than the Rapier Air-only mode altitude because the fuel ran out just before the closed cycle was to engage. The SRBs were emptied of about half of their propellant mass prior to launch. This is due to the fact that I did two other test categories not shown; "efficiency" used one smallest fuel tank and for SRBs I equated that with the propellant mass of one Sepratron: the other test was TWR > 1, with about 90% "wet" mass, so for the SRBs the propellent was full. Radials were tested with three engines (and the values for two engines were calculated). Most engines were tested at 100% throttle. The aerospike was tested with the 1+ meter diameter parts and also with the 2+ meter diameter parts. Vernor clusters were placed under the fuel tank rather than radially. Engines which did not lift even one meter are not shown on the graph. Its interesting that the Rhino in this test peaks at just above the lower atmosphere.

Towel Boy:

I think that with v. 1.0 out now, there will be some resurgence of videos by the former You Tube crowd. But over time, the novelty wears off.