Jump to content

Which do you think will go higher?


DarkGravity

Which do you think will go higher? See photos inside, then vote.  

56 members have voted

  1. 1. Which do you think will go higher? See photos inside, then vote.

    • Nose cone
      24
    • No Nose Cone
      33


Recommended Posts

Two rockets (4 photos), identical except for the nose cone.

The one without the nose cone has mass 26 tons. With nose cone =26.2 tons.

Which one will go higher?

ZcOix12.png

nbDgRcw.png

uGVpyTf.png

mgO7PzJ.png

- - - Updated - - -

This thread got me thinking about nose cones. Great data in there: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/122595-Some-rough-test-results-with-different-nosecones

I'll post the results of my test here, after a few more responses are given, so the answer is at least a little hidden from those who are voting.

Edited by DarkGravity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No nosecone by far

Parts produce drag on exposed surfaces in BOTH the front and back. So since that nosecone is so oversized on that stack and has a large exposed flat area behind it, it will create a lot more drag than without it

I don't think radially-attached parts are occluded at all, so the big nosecone wouldn't help to shield the side boosters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with the other people saying without because the nose cone is too big. I'd be more interested in a which will go higher involving fairings with a fairly larger payload. I feel like the added weight isn't worth the reduced drag with the fairings but I'm too lazy to test it myself.

Edited by RobertR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE OFFICIAL RESULT: The one without the nose cone beat the pants off the one with the nose cone. It wasn't even close to being close.

If the rockets had 50% fuel in them: 7.8km vs. 13km. With 80% fuel: 16km vs. 47km.

(I didn't use full rockets, cuz I wanted to conduct a test inside a reasonably thick atmosphere.)

Edited by DarkGravity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just posted this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here...

Mounting an oversized part at the front does nothing to occlude parts behind, other than the attachment face. For instance, radially attached parts produce the same drag whether they are fully exposed to the airstream or whether they are partially tucked in behind an oversized fairing or nose cone. Placing a 2.5m nose cone on a 1.25m attachment point is bad because the larger nose cone only increases the drag surface area while providing no other benefit. The large nose cone also adds mass, so it's doubly bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking with nosecone.

Sure, the nosecone is heavy, and has a lot of unecessary drag, as it's so wide

-BUT-

Your probodobodyne will catch fire because of the shock heating fairly quickly, I'm sure :)

Probe cores seem to not like heat at all. Especially the Stayputnik.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I wasn't trying to tease out the underlying academic principles. I was going directly to the applied phase. Since I don't normally send up my radially mounted rockets without nose cones, I wanted to see if it would make a difference when they do have nose cones... their usual nose cones. Your concept is a worthy one for the proper pursuit of science, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...