KASA "Preferred Vendor" challenge #2 is up!

[juzeris]

On another point, what is the purpose of the cubic octagonal strut at the front? I'd download and test your craft, but I don't have MJ installed.

MJ not necessary, I'm not using the MJ part for exactly this reason. It should work on stock.

For the cubic strut, the way I understand the current aerodynamics is there are two ways to reduce drag - cargo bays eliminate it completely and having a stack mounted part 'shields' it. Not sure how much, but it does not appear to matter what the shielding part is, it's just a flat %. So the strut is just a cheap (and I believe more effective) nosecone.

EDIT: based on testing, it does NOT work as a nosecone at all. However it shields the part behind it from aerodynamic heating very well. I put it there because I'm clueless.

Also based on testing it seems drag on shielded/occluded parts is about 15 times less than on non-shielded ones.

END EDIT

I suspect the strut being physicsless is what is causing the physics weirdness described above, but I haven't gotten around to test it.

Edited May 21, 2015 by juzeris

[Starhawk]

It is true, no more massless parts in version 1.0.2, I made some experiments for test new aerodynamics and you can see results on this picture (bottom side):

http://i.imgur.com/XXgS8N2h.jpg

That is very good info! Thanks for sharing. So I guess the question is 'What does the PhysicsSignificance = 1 flag do now?'

@juzeris - Thanks, I will check out your craft today if I have the time.

Happy landings!

[juzeris]

Abstract Aerodynamics would like to submit an anonymous inquiry on what are the KASA safety guidelines and regulations on

1. part stacking (in general, and specifically to fit more parts into a cargo bay)?

2. exploitation of, uh, well what seems to actually be physics anomalies unexplained by current science, and of which we were not really aware when building the craft? This one would also apply to our previous entry.

Because we may or may not have a prototype (download) which has hypothetically delivered 14 batteries to orbit on, uh, simulated test flights, for a projected cost of 9893.

We have also performed additional tests on the physics anomalies identified, which are - the cargo bay in this craft generates no drag through the drag system (it still produces some drag through the lift system when not aligned with velocity vector) - with the following results:

- It is not caused by mods - deleting all mods did not affect the identified irregularities

- It is not caused by the cubic strut in front

- Reverting to launch is a definite prerequisite for it to happen

- Having aerodynamic flight data enabled via the debug menu is not a prerequisite

- No testing performed if the cargo bay has to be the root part

- It is most definitely some sort of a bug or maybe a feature, which may or may not fall within the scope of the challenge, however it has plenty of utilitarian applications

Edited May 21, 2015 by juzeris

[Mesklin]

juzeris, if you remove cubic strut from top of your craft, you will achieve best result (more spare dV), trust me

[GoSlash27]

Juzeris,

With KASA's extremely tight budget and critical mission goals, we're not inclined to look this gift horse in the mouth. If you can make drag disappear, we're just fine with that.

By the way... Some intern at engineering suggests that you try a "sea level prograde injection burn" (whatever that is). He explained it to us and I thought I understood it at the time, but I forget now. Nobody really likes him anyway...

Best,

-Slashy

[Starhawk]

Hey juzeris, I ran a couple of tests and that definitely appears to be a bug. Since your craft exploits that bug to improve performance, I would think this would be classed as an 'exploit'. It's up to Slashy whether that's allowed or not.

Your use of cli... I mean trans-dimensional engineering was interesting as well. I wondered how you managed to fit all that stuff into that cargo bay.

Happy landings!

edit: I see this exploit is okay. The things that people will do when the budget is tight!

Abstract Aerodynamics was good enough to open source their blueprints and our engineers believe that they have picked up a little trans-dimensional engineering knowledge. Along with unexplained atmospheric phenomena, that might be enough...

Edited May 22, 2015 by Starhawk

[goduranus]

Might the culprit be having the cargo bay open at the start? I tried that a few times and it had caused aerodynamic oddities to happen.

[juzeris]

We're not saying it's possible - because it isn't - but here at Abstract Aerodynamics we have this guy who says 16 batteries are possible, if you're crazy enough. Crazy enough to throw out the gyroscopic control, and the TWR and maybe even throw out the expensive computer and strap in a Kerbal inside the vacuum supercavitation pipe, because it's cheaper than a computer. We decided against the Kerbal - they tend to be gravitationally non-deterministic, and without gyroscopes it's hard to work with. But otherwise (download).... combined with a low atmosphere orbital burn (not quite sea level though, the thrust and specific impulse are higher up there, though we probably benefit less from the lifting body as well)... we might or might not have achieved that for just 9 911 funds. See for yourselves:

Edited May 22, 2015 by juzeris

[GoSlash27]

We're not saying it's possible - because it isn't - but here at Abstract Aerodynamics we have this guy who says 16 batteries are possible, if you're crazy enough. Crazy enough to throw out the gyroscopic control, and the TWR and maybe even throw out the expensive computer and strap in a Kerbal inside the vacuum supercavitation pipe, because it's cheaper than a computer. We decided against the Kerbal - they tend to be gravitationally non-deterministic, and without gyroscopes it's hard to work with. But otherwise (download).... combined with a low atmosphere orbital burn (not quite sea level though, the thrust and specific impulse are higher up there, though we probably benefit less from the lifting body as well)... we might or might not have achieved that for just 9 911 funds. See for yourselves:

Juzeris,

That's preposterous! We'll take it...

Best,

-Slashy

[Starhawk]

Well, it seems that none of my engineering staff majored in the Dark Arts. I can't match juzeris' amazing performance, let alone beat it.

That is some incredible creative engineering.

Happy landings!

[GoSlash27]

Starhawk,

Stick around!

The next challenge is going to be a doozy and I don't think dark arts are going to help much...

I'm going to save the next one for after the holiday.

Best,

-Slashy

[Jodo42]

Starhawk,

Stick around!

The next challenge is going to be a doozy and I don't think dark arts are going to help much...

I'm going to save the next one for after the holiday.

Best,

-Slashy

The next one? They're already hard!

Although to be fair I guess it's not the actual challenge that's hard. It's the people competing in it!

[Starhawk]

Don't worry Slashy. Starhawk Speculative Investments is waiting with bated breath for another chance to prove themselves to KASA.

Happy landings!