NikkyD

This thread feels either like: - someone wants help with his homework or - someone wants to rant about something he doesnt like but would need

Until someone beats my rocket im gonna say this challenge is maxed out. If KSP doesnt come out with a patch with more or adjustable small parts, this is useless

@ OpenWorldAddict I just watched ur vid. It may sound silly but the cheapest (deltaV) course for leaving the SoI is to establish orbit first (really low) then go for mun slingshot. There are tons of challenges for achieving orbit so just take ur "best" value there and then its about 750 to 800 dV for the mun slingshot and thats it. With certain rockets it all can be done with less than 4000 dV, but somewhere 4500 is a safe bet.

@annallia, i already did that and it is allowed. If you use "Take Command" mod and start with ONLY a seat you get into the modded scoreboard. @LordCorwin: Some more hints. Because of how we fly in this competition it is often best to use the "intake air cooler" thing with 40 fuel and 0.6 air. Its enough air and fuel. It is not aerodynamic if you connect it to small engines but aero does not matter that much because the jet engines do have WAY MORE power than needed in this. Same goes for the mk1/lander can issue. Lander Can is more expensive but lighter, if you want to go for light weight challenge, lander can is better. If you go for cheap, then mk1 is usually better.

@ LordCorwin, ALWAYS remove the monoprop from the cockpit, its not much but still. Also the lander can is lighter than mk1 but its more expensive and has a really bad aero shape.

With the discovery of the "Take Command" mod, i managed to get rid of the heavy capsule. Time for a light weight entry. Jet Boosted Rocket Chair uses mod 'Take Command' Cost: 6178 (screenshot shows 750 more due to mechjeb unit attached) Weight: 3065 ( <- in VAB, during flight the kerbal will add an additional 94 kg to the chair, changing the VAB dV) Parts: 9

How do you place a kerbal on a chair inside a fairing ???

previous entry had a mistake in cost, the silly mechjeb component costs 750 and is used only to display stuff so it should not count. But here is one better, 2 parts less, money saved! Name "Rocket Chair" Cost 2315, Weight 9.065 t dV left: somewhere in the 200 m/s region, depending on maneuvering errors (+- 50 ) Booster is at 50%, starting up to 100 m/s straight, then turning. Should turn only a little (maybe down to 60°) so that it can achieve an AP of 80 km. Booster is out at about 20 km and you need to wait to about 50 for Jeb to savely EVA and board the chair. Once done achieve orbit and then plot course for mun slingshot. (all very easy due to high TWR of RocketChair™ )

9 parts, correct. Some things i found out experimenting with it: Horrible aerodynamics with the seat and all, but fairings etc would just increase the cost. Also, if i had better aero -> less dV needed all i could use it on is dropping tanks. So FLT100 instead of 200 or taking a booster a number smaller but i doubt that it would work. With a slow enough start, the seat with its 1400 heat tolerance doesnt even get hot, so in theory a kerbal could sit in it, but i wouldnt know how to start with a kerbal in the seat, not taking a cockpit along AND maintaining cost. Still not finished testing stuff

Next patch is out... no change They're changing physics upside-down but still the same old unbalanced command pods!

Cost 4133 and kerbal needs to be tricked into playing along as he needs to go for the seat HOWEVER if he doesnt he will die in reentry, so forcing a kerbal into the cockpit and starting should be enough Weight 10515 kg

The new heat is a biach, managed to get up to 200.000m tho. Update: about 5km more if i drop the 2nd intake/tank

it does take off from the runway

@rubisco just wondering, is there a reason why you built that huge tail wing like a real plane ? KSP doesn't really need that and it creates drag for little control

You should do that from 50km downwards, playing "umbrella". It works quite well even at higher altitudes with little but still existing atmosphere.

That's what it once was. You have to turn on the aero values in ALT+F12 menu. There you can see that intakes now always have the same amount of drag... which is total crap

Can i have a clarification on the rules ? Do i need to be able to LAND horizontally like a plane or can i just paradrop like psyberduckling, which would make things 10 times easier!!!

I been trying to get my new lightweight design back into the contest but somehow the glide-phase is completely messed up. I always get into a flat spin because i have to attach the wings completely in the middle because the rapier pushes the CoM there! Air intake on/in the nose generates so much drag, the second it goes off prograde upon landing phase it starts spinning

The OLD story, lack of parts in stock KSP. If you build a very small, minimalistic plane, you dont have pure liquid fuel tanks. The standard fuselage tank holds 150 units, way too much. Using a FLT100 without oxi is inefficient. A nacelle now gives intake air and holds 40 units of liquid fuel for a weight that is just within acceptable limits... guess that is its use. If you play sandbox, the cost doesnt matter so i use the precooler as i need a light weight item that holds liquid fuel only. I am sure there are ppl who manage to overheat certain engines and they might benefit from it. Esp. LVN requires liquid fuel now, so sticking and LVN behind a precooler may make sense even tho i doubt it. On a personal note: is it a new bug or feature that closing air intakes no longer changes their drag value ?! I don't understand how an Intake can generate so much drag anyway, its streamlining most of the air through to the engine so where does it pile up ?!

The precooler only has a very high value of heat dissipation, so it "makes heat go away" faster than other parts. normal nacelle emissiveConstant = 0.6 ram intake emissiveConstant = 0.7 precooler & shock cone emissiveConstant = 0.95

As i wrote some posts up, - Ram Intake ~72 [0.47] - Shock Cone ~48 [0.20] So at mach 3 the shock has 2/3 of the drag, but weighs double (matters only on really light weight planes). Shock however has less air and takes 100 less heat. The precooler nacelle has a very high heat dissipation, so attaching "hot" parts to it helps cool them off faster or keeps them cooler for a bit longer.

Why don't they just make the engine + nacelle one unit ?! Like this it is totally misleading!

thats total BS... messes up every small design

Question, is there a CoM issue with rapiers ? When i build a spaceplane with two flt100 tanks and a remote control in the middle. If i add a rapier at the end and a shock cone at the front, the CoM is on the cone side... HOW ? it weighs 10% of the rapier

Then what the hell are you doing here ?