Jump to content

[UNOFFICIAL/FANMADE] 0.17 Discussion Thread 2


kacperrutka26

Recommended Posts

Is actually putting lava on the lavaless planet slated for this release? or will it remain rocky? I'd guess since they haven't released any pictures of it, that they have something more in the works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is actually putting lava on the lavaless planet slated for this release? or will it remain rocky? I'd guess since they haven't released any pictures of it, that they have something more in the works.

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/16723-UNOFFICIAL-FANMADE-0-17-Discussion-Thread-2?p=236112&viewfull=1#post236112

In short, as of the time of that post there was no shader for Charr's lava. That may have changed by now, however...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering if any information has been released on what gravity each of the new planets would have in relation to Kermin? I saw a post from Nova about a moonlet with 0.05 gravity. Any of of the other planets have a particularly high gravity to made it a v.hard challenge to achieve an intact landing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, Nova said a couple of weeks ago that Eve would have 2g gravity (either he said it in this thread, or on the comments of his development album). But I also read somewhere (can't remember where, to be honest... it's a shame) that Eve's surface gravity would be 1.35g.

Seems it will be higher than Kerbin's gravity, in any case! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eve's current gravity is 1.7g.

I'll help you guys out a little bit, here are the latest stats on Eve:

(may change, they've been changed up quite a bit so far)

Radius: 700km

Surface gravity: 1.7g

Atmosphere density: 5x kerbin

Rotation period: 22.5 hours

Semimajor axis: 7440000km

Eccentricity: 0.03

Inclination: 0.025

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...well, here we go. Thanks what-the! Didn't remember the atmosphere's density would be so high, though. I mean, it's already scary what kind of speeds Kerbin's atmosphere can eat up, so imagine it 5x denser! I can already here Jeb: "Chutes? Chutes for what? Screw the chutes! If anything, then moar boosters!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll figure out how to post a pic later. But after I played with the fuzzy image a bit, I tried to blur it. That seemed to have worked rather well. IMHO it is the KSP launch pad with a rocket angled at about 45 degrees. Maybe damned robotics is going to become stock parts. Maybe it is just an idea to play with using the takeoff struts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along with "Atmosphere density: 5x kerbin"

I don't think we should be planning to land on Eve and leave it.

I do not agree with you on that. Wings should create a lot of lift in such a thick atmosphere. Imagine having a plane like descent/ascent stage with a rocket return stage on top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree with you on that. Wings should create a lot of lift in such a thick atmosphere. Imagine having a plane like descent/ascent stage with a rocket return stage on top.

Good point, I had forgotten that they were reworking the spaceplane mechanics. I dont think conventional rockets will have much hope though, unless you build something ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree with you on that. Wings should create a lot of lift in such a thick atmosphere. Imagine having a plane like descent/ascent stage with a rocket return stage on top.

But wouldn't the thrust from the engines be dampened tremendously by the thick atmosphere? It could still be possible to escape, but it might require an incredible effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does Nova exactly mean by 5x atmosphere density? 5 times more drag? or maybe 5 times taller? If it's the first, i don't think using a spaceplane would help at all. Lift is not proportional to density, it's porportional to the specific velocity through the medium. If it's the latter, sure it would help. There's two possibilities, and I hope he means the second one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does Nova exactly mean by 5x atmosphere density? 5 times more drag? or maybe 5 times taller? If it's the first, i don't think using a spaceplane would help at all. Lift is not proportional to density, it's porportional to the specific velocity through the medium. If it's the latter, sure it would help. There's two possibilities, and I hope he means the second one.

5x atmosphere density means 5 time more atmosphere density...

Kinda like flying through water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does Nova exactly mean by 5x atmosphere density? 5 times more drag? or maybe 5 times taller? If it's the first, i don't think using a spaceplane would help at all. Lift is not proportional to density, it's porportional to the specific velocity through the medium. If it's the latter, sure it would help. There's two possibilities, and I hope he means the second one.

Lift IS proportional to density. Lift = Cl*0.5*ÃÂ*V^2*A, where Cl is the lift coefficient (determined experimentally in a wind tunnel), ÃÂ is density, V is velocity and A is the area of the wing. Density's pretty important to lift.

Edited by Winter Man
Added italics to �� to avoid confusion with p
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lift and drag use basically the same formula. They will both be 5 times greater (force) in a 5 times denser atmosphere. The overall result will be more lift at lower velocities. Think of Kerbin when your close the ground.You go very slow but you can fly. But higher up you need to go much faster to get the same lift.

Let Kerbin density = 1 and Eve = 5

If you went 100m/s on Kerbin you would only need to go 45m/s on Eve to get the same lift. Taking into account the heavier gravity on Eve (x1.7) we need %170 of the lift to counter gravity and need to go 59m/s

We are only changing the density and velocity variables (the aircraft is assumed to be the same) so the formula is Lift Force = density * velocity ^ 2.

So when we leave the atmosphere we will be going much slower (depending on how quickly the atmosphere thins out) and thus would need a rocket transported to high altitudes via plane for even a good chance of making orbit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)#Lift_coefficient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Drag_at_high_velocity

Edited by what-the
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Because lift and drag are actually the same force (in aircraft), just separated into vectors to make calculations easier. Lift you oppose with weight, and drag you oppose with thrust. Makes everything a bit neater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... yes, so just use a plane to get you out to the thinner atmosphere, decouple the plane and rocket up again?

Oh yeah, I forgot how planes worked for a second. >_>

Still, if you were to try to do that in real life on Venus, your oxygen breathing plane would fail since, y'know... the lack of oxygen. I was thinking about Orbiter and how hard it is to put a Delta glider into orbit around Venus.

Edited by AlternNocturn
"Reply" function is a bit useless, IMO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They all kind of do, angle of attack is factored into the lift coefficient. In fact, the lift and drag coefficients change with the angle of attack. So the proportion of lift to drag will be different for every wing shape, but it's still the same principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...