[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18

[Temeter]

Great that you figured out increasing wingspan makes it better on your own.

After a certain altitude your control sufraces won't help much, you may want to add some SAS modules.

Be careful though, when flying at low altitudes using SAS modules can be harmful, if you have too many.

The plane looks a lot better now.

Are you still running on half tanks? I believe that you can try adding more fuel.

On extreme cases you can use some engines controlled by action groups for extra control.

Or just bring some RCS thrusters.

What is the paylod it can bring to orbit?

I also delayed the wing-modification a bit on purpose, since I just wanted to build around a single design for a better learning effect. Still surprised by the big improvement, but it makes sense.

It was originally build to bring up a 40-ton craft, that's why i always flew it with a 42 ton cargo-dummy. The half full fuel tanks are pretty much result of my inexperience with bigger FAR-cargoplanes. Bigger tanks allowed much more variation with fuel, and it probably doesn't even need as much as i use now. A fraction of the amount and nukes might even do the job with 40 tons of cargo.

I'm a bit curious myself how much that thing can carry into space. Might need to again increase the wingspan. How does FAR fare with bi-plane wings on big spaceplanes? Stock was just fine, but i don't now the actual aerodynamic implications.

edit: Manages to bring 64 tons into low orbit with 2/3 fuel tanks, long acceleration time and bad piloting. Can't fit more weight into 16m of HL storage.

I'll be careful with the SAS modules, too strong SAS even causes problems in stock. I think the current 2 (S2+HL) will be more than enough, though. As said, that plane could fly into space with the smaller module and no RCS at all.

@Temeter: You probably don't want any dihedral on that wing, since highly swept wings have a strong enough dihedral effect on their own. You'll simply make the plane very roll-happy at high AoA during reentry.

The big middle part of the wings isn't actually that much swept. It was a bit to roll-happy at high altitude, though. I'll try playing a bit with the outer wingtips.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Temeter

[Wanderfound]

Can anyone recommend a simple, stable "trainer" craft to practice flying into orbit with my combination of mods? Maybe one of Wanderfound's fleet? Thanks in advance.

All of my stuff is well-tuned high performance rather than ultra-forgiving trainer. However, of mine, the one I'd normally recommend as a trainer is the Benchmark. It was designed as a trainer, but as a high performance trainer: it's a very quick, very agile plane that will do exactly what you tell it to. However, that means that if you tell it to kill you, it will. If you look at the things I've posted about how to fly the Benchmark and how to fly in general and do what they say then you shouldn't have much trouble.

The Goblin is probably the "easiest" to get to orbit, but it's basically a hand grenade at low altitude if you open the throttle all the way. As with the Benchmark, if you tell it to kill you it will be happy to obey.

If anybody else thinks that a different one of mine would be more suitable though, please let me know.

-

Edited to add: actually, for the simplest way to orbit, do this instead. Get yourself in an Epinephrine, engage SAS, crank the throttle to full, take off, pitch the nose to 25°, level the wings, hands off the controls and have a sip of tea, turn the Vernors and Aerospikes on when the RAPIERs switch to closed cycle, have some more tea, shut down when apoapsis hits 70,000m. Watch the pitch while you're drinking your tea and gently tap it back online if it starts to wander. The Vernors should keep it tight, though.

It's not the most fuel efficient way to fly it, but it'll work. Expect to see some "reentry" flames on the way up.

The Benchmark is probably the better trainer, though. The Epinephrine is a bit too polished for the purpose; the Benchmark might teach better.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Wanderfound

[marchingknight11]

I just tried to install FAR and for some reason the GUI doesn't load. There's no button and the GUI never shows up, in VAB, SPH, and in flight. Anyone know how to resolve this?

[taniwha]

Is it possible to install this plugin on Linux?

Very. I won't play without FAR, and I use KSP on Linux .

[Master Tao]

I just tried to install FAR and for some reason the GUI doesn't load. There's no button and the GUI never shows up, in VAB, SPH, and in flight. Anyone know how to resolve this?

Where is it installed? You should have FerramAerospaceResearch.cfg in KSP/GameData/FerramAerospaceResearch/.

[Mister Spock]

I was able to fly the FAR Velocitas into orbit pretty easily. Getting it back home was another matter! So now I need to read more about spaceplane re-entry with FAR/Deadly Reentry. Still, orbit is half the battle, and that Velocitas seems like a good plane to practice with. I'll try the craft you mentioned too, Wanderfound.

In general, I wonder if I accelerate too fast before I get to 20,000 meters. I often find myself at Mach 4 at 20,000 feet, unable to climb more, with red flames lashing around my ship, because I can't get to 20,000 meters without going full thrust to gain altitude. Fortunately, the Velocitas flew right up to 20,000 meters at a steeper angle than most of the craft I've tried, and I was only at Mach 2 at 20,000 meters. From there it was easy to accelerate gradually to Mach 4/30,000 meters, then light the rocket. I guess, using FAR/DRE, I should try harder to climb steeply (at a relatively slow speed) for those first 20,000 meters.

[Hodo]

I was able to fly the FAR Velocitas into orbit pretty easily. Getting it back home was another matter! So now I need to read more about spaceplane re-entry with FAR/Deadly Reentry. Still, orbit is half the battle, and that Velocitas seems like a good plane to practice with. I'll try the craft you mentioned too, Wanderfound.

In general, I wonder if I accelerate too fast before I get to 20,000 meters. I often find myself at Mach 4 at 20,000 feet, unable to climb more, with red flames lashing around my ship, because I can't get to 20,000 meters without going full thrust to gain altitude. Fortunately, the Velocitas flew right up to 20,000 meters at a steeper angle than most of the craft I've tried, and I was only at Mach 2 at 20,000 meters. From there it was easy to accelerate gradually to Mach 4/30,000 meters, then light the rocket. I guess, using FAR/DRE, I should try harder to climb steeply (at a relatively slow speed) for those first 20,000 meters.

Sounds like you are dealing with a form of hypersonic tuck. At supersonic and hypersonic speeds your CoL moves back further, thus making your craft nose heavier.

[Wanderfound]

In general, I wonder if I accelerate too fast before I get to 20,000 meters. I often find myself at Mach 4 at 20,000 feet, unable to climb more, with red flames lashing around my ship, because I can't get to 20,000 meters without going full thrust to gain altitude. Fortunately, the Velocitas flew right up to 20,000 meters at a steeper angle than most of the craft I've tried, and I was only at Mach 2 at 20,000 meters. From there it was easy to accelerate gradually to Mach 4/30,000 meters, then light the rocket. I guess, using FAR/DRE, I should try harder to climb steeply (at a relatively slow speed) for those first 20,000 meters.

So go full thrust. You're not going too fast until things start tearing off your ship or exploding. The more speed you carry to 20,000m, the more speed you'll have at 30,000m.

Experiment. Spaceplanes can take quite a bit of toasting before they blow up, and the first thing to go is usually something small and expendable anyway. I just melted the canards off something, but that was caused by sustained 10,000m Mach 5. And the plane is still flying.

What they can't take is aerodynamic failure; if you've got your flame suit on, don't even think about turning. At most, carefully shift your nose to the teensiest distance outside of the prograde circle.

For the most fuel efficient ascent, you usually want a very flat one, building as much lateral speed as possible, climbing just enough to gain altitude at a rate that prevents your plane from getting eaten by the low altitude soup. What you lose to drag you make up in less rocket / more jet time. For the quickest ascent, you want as steep as you can, but topped off with a smooth curve that zeroes your climb rate just before your last jet engine dies. For the "I can't be arsed thinking about this" ascent, just stick the nose at 35° after takeoff and leave it there until engine shutoff time (exact angle may vary depending on aircraft).

[Mister Spock]

Thanks. I guess I've been turning and wiggling too much, because I've gotten zapped by aerodynamic failure several times now.

About re-entry (with FAR/DRE): in stock I used to lose speed by doing S-turns on the way down, as Scott Manley demonstrated in one of his videos. But that doesn't seem to slow me much, if at all, in FAR. I keep burning up. With a heat-shielded capsule, I aim for a periapse of 30,000 meters and obviously point the shield at the retrograde vector. With a plane, maybe I should aim for a much higher periapse? Skim the air for a while? And of course point prograde.

I hope ferram4 doesn't mind me cluttering up his thread with questions about piloting, but they are FAR-related, as I'm re-learning how to fly now that I've made the transition from stock to FAR.

[Wanderfound]

Thanks. I guess I've been turning and wiggling too much, because I've gotten zapped by aerodynamic failure several times now.

About re-entry (with FAR/DRE): in stock I used to lose speed by doing S-turns on the way down, as Scott Manley demonstrated in one of his videos. But that doesn't seem to slow me much, if at all, in FAR. I keep burning up. With a heat-shielded capsule, I aim for a periapse of 30,000 meters and obviously point the shield at the retrograde vector. With a plane, maybe I should aim for a much higher periapse? Skim the air for a while? And of course point prograde.

I hope ferram4 doesn't mind me cluttering up his thread with questions about piloting, but they are FAR-related, as I'm re-learning how to fly now that I've made the transition from stock to FAR.

I've been posting some screenshot narratives to my assorted challenge threads (speed up, speed down, economy). A lot of them involve fairly extreme shock-heating hijinks. Have a look at the data windows in the shots; it'll give you an idea of just how low and fast is survivable.

S-turns are nice in theory, but often more trouble than they're worth. Get to 20,000m, zero your climb rate, wait. Descend as you slow, as fast as you dare.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Wanderfound

[TheGatesofLogic]

Huh, 35 degrees you say? That would not go well with any of my designs, i tend to start off with about a 1 .6 degree angle of attack going up to a 4 degree angle of attack by the time i'm reaching engine switch... Unless you are referring to static direction in which case i'm still rarely going more than 15-20 degrees above the horizontal...

Edit: to clarify, this isn't by choice directly. I build my aircraft so they tend to be very forward stable, so a lot of effort is needed to shift the AoA without causing aerodynamic failure

Edited August 24, 2014 by TheGatesofLogic

[Rainbowtrout]

Is it possible to make gliders with this mod?

[ferram4]

Sure. You just need something to give them the initial energy, since weather effects like updrafts aren't included. So if you drop a glider from a transport plane, or get it up to a very high velocity on the runway using a powered cart and then let it go you can get some decent distance.

I'd advise trying to get your L/D as high as possible though. Try for something around 40 if you can.

[Rainbowtrout]

Sure. You just need something to give them the initial energy, since weather effects like updrafts aren't included. So if you drop a glider from a transport plane, or get it up to a very high velocity on the runway using a powered cart and then let it go you can get some decent distance.

I'd advise trying to get your L/D as high as possible though. Try for something around 40 if you can.

So, plane - decouple glider - fly? Fun! Kerbin just got some extreme sports!

[Renegrade]

I'd advise trying to get your L/D as high as possible though. Try for something around 40 if you can.

Is that even possible? Some of my verylights have an L/D of around 4-5, most are significantly less :/

[Jasmir]

Hi Ferram,

i think i found a issue:

http://i.imgur.com/QiCGN02.jpg

-> there seems to be lots of aerodynamic stress in space

KSP is 0.24.2, running on Win7/64 as 32Bit Version

Mods:

DeadlyReentryCont_v5.2
DebRefund-1.0.12DebRefund-1.0.12
DockingPortAlignment_4.0
EditorExtensions_v1.3
Ferram_Aerospace_Research-v0.14.1.1
Fine_Print-0.53a
Firespitter_634
GoodspeedPump-2.14.1
HotRockets_7.24_Nazari
KerbalAlarmClock_2.7.8.2
Kerbal_Joint_Reinforcement-v2.4.3
KW_Rocketry-2.6c
Magic_Smoke_Industries_Infernal_Robotics-0.18.3
MechJeb2 Build #281
MechJebFARExt.zip from 02.08.2014
ModularFuelTanks_v5.1.1
ModuleManager.2.2.0
ProceduralParts-0.9.17
RealChute v1.2.3
ResearchThemAll
SelectRoot-Jul18
StationScience-1.1
TacFuelBalancer_2.3.0.2
TacLifeSupport_0.9.0.9-pre3
Taurus_HCV_-_3.75_m_Stock-ish_Crew_Pod-1.2.1.1
Toolbar-1.7.6
VertVel113

Output.log/saves: tmp.7z

Ok, i think i can reproduce this:

Launching this thing into space: Kerbal Rescue.craft

In Space, press F5 to quicksafe.

Reload the quicksafe -> all aerodynamic surfaces broke away during reload due aerodynamic stress _in_space_

[ferram4]

@Rainbowtrout: Yep, that'll work. Although range and endurance readouts aren't in FAR currently (they will exist in Flight Data in the next release), FAR does have a pair of readouts to maximize gliding range or endurance. Maximize L/D for endurance, maximize V*L/D for range; you'll have to do this in-flight, but generally it's not too difficult.

@Renegrade: Look at the scale on the graph; it's measuring 0.1 * L/D to keep everything on the same scale.

@Jasmir: I believe some testing was by someone else (I forget who) and it came down to the MJFARExt. Some people are working to improve it, but until then, you'd be better served by removing it.

[Wanderfound]

Thanks. I guess I've been turning and wiggling too much, because I've gotten zapped by aerodynamic failure several times now.

About re-entry (with FAR/DRE): in stock I used to lose speed by doing S-turns on the way down, as Scott Manley demonstrated in one of his videos. But that doesn't seem to slow me much, if at all, in FAR. I keep burning up. With a heat-shielded capsule, I aim for a periapse of 30,000 meters and obviously point the shield at the retrograde vector. With a plane, maybe I should aim for a much higher periapse? Skim the air for a while? And of course point prograde.

I hope ferram4 doesn't mind me cluttering up his thread with questions about piloting, but they are FAR-related, as I'm re-learning how to fly now that I've made the transition from stock to FAR.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86202-Better-SSTO-Spaceplane-Challenge-%280-23-5-0-24%29-Extended?p=1372294&viewfull=1#post1372294 should be educational as to what the heating limits are.

[Mister Spock]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86202-Better-SSTO-Spaceplane-Challenge-%280-23-5-0-24%29-Extended?p=1372294&viewfull=1#post1372294 should be educational as to what the heating limits are.

Very educational. Sheesh, you were doing Mach 8 at 30,000 meters and not burning up. Also, you achieve Kerbin escape velocity while in the atmosphere? Can rockets do that? I'm going to have to try that Migration of yours. Thanks for the link.

[bartekkru99]

Hi, I've just installed FAR and my game stops working every time launching a vehcle.

Those are the mods, that I'm using now:

-Space Planes +

-KW

-B9

-D12

-Infernal robotics

-Tweak scale

-BDArmory

-Caterpillar tracks

-KSP Interstellar

-Proc.Wings

-KAS

-Turbo Nisu Parts Pack

-Persistent trails

-Improved chasecam

-Part Catalog

-Fine Print

-Mk2 cockpit internals

-Distant object

-chatterer

-hot rockets

-EVE with astronomer's pack

and that's all

EDIT:

and Active Texture Management

Edited August 25, 2014 by bartekkru99

[tetryds]

Hi, I've just installed FAR and my game stops working every time launching a vehcle.

Those are the mods, that I'm using now:

-Space Planes +

-KW

-B9

-D12

-Infernal robotics

-Tweak scale

-BDArmory

-Caterpillar tracks

-KSP Interstellar

-Proc.Wings

-KAS

-Turbo Nisu Parts Pack

-Persistent trails

-Improved chasecam

-Part Catalog

-Fine Print

-Mk2 cockpit internals

-Distant object

-chatterer

-hot rockets

-EVE with astronomer's pack

and that's all

EDIT:

and Active Texture Management

Using x64?

[bartekkru99]

Using x64?

Yup, does it change something?

[Wanderfound]

Very educational. Sheesh, you were doing Mach 8 at 30,000 meters and not burning up. Also, you achieve Kerbin escape velocity while in the atmosphere? Can rockets do that? I'm going to have to try that Migration of yours. Thanks for the link.

Just watch out for the roll immediately after takeoff. It's rock solid after you've been flying a minute or so if you can get it leveled and set your trim, but you have to manage it continuously until it gets up to that speed. Low altitude Mach 8 = not designed as a slow-stall glider. A quickish but shallow landing is probably best on Kerbin. VTOL on Minmus is fun.

PS Edit: the quickest way to load the economy cabin is to dump three loaded SP+ passenger cabins with a probe core on the runway, disembark the Kerbals then recover the transport before bringing out the Migration and boarding.

Or just strip out the seats and pack it full of probes/rovers/station bits instead.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Wanderfound

[ferram4]

@bartekku99: win64 KSP is highly unstable due to what appear to be memory issues within the game itself that I have no control over. If you can reproduce the issue in a 32 bit version or in the more-stable Linux 64 bit version I'll take a look though.

If you manage to reproduce it in one of those versions, then I'll need that mod list with version numbers for the mods and a copy of your output_log.txt. If you can't reproduce it in 32 bit, then I'm going to assume it's just another manifestation of the current 64 bit instabilities.

[bartekkru99]

@bartekku99: win64 KSP is highly unstable due to what appear to be memory issues within the game itself that I have no control over. If you can reproduce the issue in a 32 bit version or in the more-stable Linux 64 bit version I'll take a look though.

If you manage to reproduce it in one of those versions, then I'll need that mod list with version numbers for the mods and a copy of your output_log.txt. If you can't reproduce it in 32 bit, then I'm going to assume it's just another manifestation of the current 64 bit instabilities.

Ok thanks, now instead of my game crashing, my creations are crashing