SanderB

I love this mod, If you could integrate the trajectories mod in it and/or the landing guidance targeters from mechjeb, or something like that it'd be even better!

I don't thnk its very realistic to make it so ablators dont evaporate on heating up.

without the decoupler attached, my entry would be at 22.17% (800kg less on the payload)

With my pure rocket (ie. not air breathing) I've achieved 22.52% (link). I left the decoupler attached to the payload because it wasn't specified that I couldn't even though I think it's not quite kosher because it's usually not part of the payload.

Hi all, I'm trying to launch my rescue rocket with an empty command pod and so far I've lost several due to overheating. I think I launch a pretty normal ascent profile, but while ascending it will super heat, apparantly due to convective flux or something. Video of the superheating. http://youtu.be/I4yMb2YqwGM I don't understand it, the command pod's convective heating flux will spike and plummet near instantly upon me throttling back and forth to 100%. It doesnt make sense to me, why would the command pod superheat due to cv flux but not the parachute? And why does it superheat at all? It doesn't seem realistic.

after creating it, click anywhere on the projected orbit track after the node

in chrome i get server maintenance but in any other browser (which i never use) the website shows up.

Open Broadcasting Software has a recording feaure and works great for me.

can someone illuminate the uninitiated on the concept of a horizon mod?

As a further measure of efficiency, the mass ratio of the fuel to its tank is also a consideration, and in the case of monopropollant the mass ratio is usually lower than for liquid fuel. This is however more of an issue if you want to use mono prop as your main fuel...

Mesklin (or someone else) can I ask how you can input turn end altitde in Mechjeb Ascent Guidance? I can find no way to manipulate it. I have MJ 2.4.2.0.

Actually i figured that I had an outdated version of FAR and that's why it didn't work. Now with FAR 1.4.6 it works.

Hi Laie, Your rocket now comes with .At the end of the video I forget to include the decoupler in the payload, but with it included the costs come down to 520.04 kredits a ton. It could probably go down by another ~1.8 kredits if I make a higher velocity touchdown.

I'm trying to use this with FAR and in the trajectories settings screen from the map it says it doesn't recognize the aerodynamics model. Is there something I can do to fix it? I have version 1.1.3 and Mechjeb.

(intended for the <1t entry even though it is precisely 1t.)Payload: 1.00t Fuel: 1193 Kredits fuel cost / t: sorry idk, math too hard! Recovery on launchpad. Kinda MJ compliant (Someone has to turn off the main engine at vessel mass ~12t), sustainable compliant, lands on landing legs (which are wholly reusable without needing to be repaired) and reaches a 76km periapsis. I think i have MJ assisted precision landing down pretty well now. Just have to make sure that the latitudinal prediction is on target and that the longitudinal prediction is a little over the target by half an arcminute, and just gradually retrothrust while descending to bring it more on target as it fluctuates less and less. Next up: 0.1t and 10kg entries.

Mid Level Booster range: Mechjeb & sustainable compliant and 75km periapsis to boot! Payload: 18.385t Booster Cost - Recovery: 87,620 - 74,352 = 13,268 Cost / t: 721.68 Fuel Cost: 11,750 Fuel cost / t: 639.11. I think it is fair to go with 639.11 kredits/t considering how close I got to the launchpad .

Medium Category entry: http://youtu.be/ykp5hMA0IWk Vessel Launch Cost (minus payload): 98,800 Recovery: 82,491 Payload 22.5t Launch Cost: 16,309 Cost / t: 724.44 Sustainability award should apply. It should be valid for the sustainability award.

target the ship and set your navball to display the target relative speed, once you get in 100km start retroburning and keep your speed at 1/40th of the distance, then 1/30th at 20km, 1/20th at 10km and 1/10th at <5km. Naturally you need to use wider margins if your engines arent as good.

I was so sad when SpaceX delayed again, I've been wanting this rocket to launch months in advance of the planned 16 Dec launch.

What are our rockets covered with, sand paper perhaps?

I'm trying out v0.14.5.1 and the ballistic coefficient of one my rockets (with a fairly normal build) is 12k at launch (pointing along the velocity vector) and progressively gets lower and lower, down to 1k and even 250 at its lowest. Is this normal? It's quite a difference from previous versions.

FAR was completely installed and did alter aerodynamics. The trajectories mod didn't give a precise result as to where my landing would've been. With FAR landing on the pad isn't about luck but skill and mods that do calculations for you. In my case my mod didn't give the results I was hoping for, maybe due to mistake on my side or something else. I'm pretty sure you can use retrothrust to control your landing in Stock Aerodynamics pretty accurately as well (in a suicide landing type of descent), but your descent must overshoot the launchpad precisely so you can retroburn when you get close to it so you don't overshoot. I made a 2nd & 3rd attempt, they are non entries because they didn't get on the launchpad and lost their engines but I'll post it anyway. http://youtu.be/B8bKd-9XRYA 3.1km from the centre of the launchpad. http://youtu.be/k7OQY_yn9Rc 501.6m from the centre of the launchpad. I think maybe this should be a competition about who can get closest to the launchpad without much more than 4km/s in the vehicle at launch or any airbreathing engines.

I took a go at this too: http://youtu.be/6UDlz7pNZdU 98% recovery on an SSTO rocket. I'm finding it extremely difficult to land a rocket on the launchpad without air breathing engines or insanely cracked up modded parts.

This is simply a challenge to see what is possible with stock parts and FAR aerodynamics. The back story is simple, Kerbal rocketry is becoming a more and more crowded business and prices are getting more and more competitive. The extremely hostile aerospace environment demands the lowering of launch costs, and thus the cost of sending fuel to orbit. One of the main aspects in which we can theoretically lower cost with present day technology is in the more fuel efficient launch of fuel to orbit, which we can use to extend our reach into the kerbol system and beyond. It is your goal to improve fuel economy or be left biting the dust. A few bonuses are given for full recovery. Rules: KSP 0.25, FAR and Deadly Reentry are mandatory. No air intakes or solid boosters. No staging, separation, losing a part due to burning up or aerodynamic stresses, until periapsis >70km. No modded engines/fuel tanks or any parts that perform better than stock. No mods that enhance the flight characteristics of your rocket (exception: procedural fairings). The rocket must have a docking port that has a diameter no less than 1/2 the diameter of the rocket. The docking port must be usable once in >70km orbit. Allows mods are (for example) kerbal engineer, MechJeb and KOS script. Definately not: tweakscale, b9 aerospace, KW rocketry, . Scoring: Fuel Fraction (Fuel in 70km orbit / Fuel at takeoff) * 100% Video entries will be granted a 0.05% bonus on top of their calculated fuel fraction. Video entries which show the rocket landed/splashed-down within 50km of KSC (after reaching orbit) are granted another 0.05% bonus and an asterisk. Video entries which show the rocket landing on the launchpad (fully on the flat part of the launchpad) receive another 0.15% bonus and a 2nd asterisk in the hi-score list. The last two bonuses for recovering your rocket are only valid if no part of the rocket is lost during descent. Entry format #1: Screenshot at takeoff and in final orbit (both showing the ship, navball and resource tab). More screenshots are welcome. Alternatively post a video on YT or another public video hosting website (without any annoying adds). May the best rocket & pilot win!

doesn't it logically follow that rockets don't breathe air, especially because they cant on earth? It seems to make no sense to have air breathing rockets, might as well allow space planes... Airbreathing propulsion has insane isp especially when you consider the low dV requirements of kerbin. I don't think air-breathing engines should be in a grasshopper challenge.