[0.16] KW Rocketry v0.5

[Volt]

Sure you\'ve got the updated fairings?

If so, do what I do on super large fairings and use struts on them.

I used struts on the 3m fairings and they turned themselves inside out.

About the parts, I love them. My second and third ships using these parts got me into a stable orbit in two stages. If I attached MOAR BOOSTERS I could probably get even further.

[Kickasskyle]

Moar boosters, moar fun.

Or so they say.

Center Stack SRB\'s are good to go in 1m, 1.75m and 2m.

[CarolRawley]

^^^^OH GOD Hes crazy!

Also, congrats on your pack, which I am sensing will become the most DLed and popular pack out there. Also it\'s realistic.

Cheers.

[derhp]

Awesome pack. I\'m loving the long 2m tanks, perfect for first stage launches with the hassle of stacking tanks. Here\'s my mun candidate, nice and lean.

[CarolRawley]

what do you call it?

[derhp]

Name it for me.

[CarolRawley]

The Saturnalia.

Because I want the Mun by Saturnalia.

[greencross]

Moar boosters, moar fun.

Or so they say.

Center Stack SRB\'s are good to go in 1m, 1.75m and 2m.

Great! Now I\'d be able to build something like Ares I/Liberty without tweaking the existing solid fuel boosters.

[derhp]

The Saturnalia.

Because I want the Mun by Saturnalia.

There we go*, though I will say in it\'s current form I may be lifting too much fuel in the third stage.

*Note: For final mun mission configuration, replace radial decouplerx4 and mini SRBx4 with lander legs. Must have SIDR, Sunday Punch and this pack to load.

[nivvydaskrl]

We need to adopt a standard, 1 unit of weight = 100 units of fuel.

This really depends on the sort of fuel you\'re working with.

I work on a standard of 25 thrust-seconds per unit of fuel, and figure out the thrust-second to weight ratio based on the specific impulse of the particular fuel in question. My tanks are less weight efficient than the stock tanks, to make things more challenging:

• 
  [li]Stock fuel: 227 fuel / 1 weight[/li]
  [li]RP1/LOX: 133 fuel / 1 weight[/li]
  [li]LH2/LOX: 157 fuel / 1 weight[/li]
  [li]Hydrazine/Peroxide: 125 fuel / 1 weight[/li]

[\list]

[semininja]

What would people think about strap-on reserve fuel tanks like this:

If you could set these up so that they fit around, for instance, the SAS module (width-wise, but tall, and affixed from beneath as one part, I would use these for orbital maneuvers and such. Because small=not much fuel, it\'s not very useful anywhere else, but with the tuned SAS (spaceplane model), orbit changes get much easier.

As far as the model, it just needs to be the three rings + tanks, no inside shell. That way, it looks like it\'s been strapped on to whatever part. I think that\'s what you were going for?

[Winston]

The pale grey cylinder and dark grey engine bell were just mock-ups of a spaceship. The three grey rings with the tanks attached are the part itself.

[Kickasskyle]

This really depends on the sort of fuel you\'re working with.
I work on a standard of 25 thrust-seconds per unit of fuel, and figure out the thrust-second to weight ratio based on the specific impulse of the particular fuel in question. My tanks are less weight efficient than the stock tanks, to make things more challenging:

• 
  [li]Stock fuel: 227 fuel / 1 weight[/li]
  [li]RP1/LOX: 133 fuel / 1 weight[/li]
  [li]LH2/LOX: 157 fuel / 1 weight[/li]
  [li]Hydrazine/Peroxide: 125 fuel / 1 weight[/li]

[\list]

The problem is, as it currently stands kerbal space program already has problems with scaled up tanks with the same efficiency as stock.

Until that problem has been fixed, making less efficient fuel tanks would cause alot of rockets to fail, especially on the 2m and 3m sizes.

The new adaptors will help this, but they won\'t fix the base issue, which is the constraint system appears to not be able to keep stuff intact (Rigid). This causes collision models to clip throught each other and make rockets bounce around and be generally unstable on the pad.

But all in due time, once KSP progresses we have no problems making realistically scaled fuel tanks as a seperate download for those who want it.

[nivvydaskrl]

• 
  The problem is, as it currently stands kerbal space program already has problems with scaled up tanks with the same efficiency as stock.
  Until that problem has been fixed, making less efficient fuel tanks would cause alot of rockets to fail, especially on the 2m and 3m sizes.
  The new adaptors will help this, but they won\'t fix the base issue, which is the constraint system appears to not be able to keep stuff intact (Rigid). This causes collision models to clip throught each other and make rockets bounce around and be generally unstable on the pad.
  But all in due time, once KSP progresses we have no problems making realistically scaled fuel tanks as a seperate download for those who want it.
  

I\'ve noticed that my tanks are very hard to lift. However, I set the strength on my tanks\' connection nodes to a Arbitrary Very Large Number and it seems to work alright. My 1.75m tanks are grand, anyway. The three meter ones...well...36 weight units of RP-1 tends to make the engine cluster lifting it try to snap off and go its own way. Definitely need to use radial engine pods for that.
I dunno. Not many people use my mod. The math\'s there, but the weight is pretty nasty. When you can get a rocket to lift, though, you have a lot of juice without it feeling broken.

[Kickasskyle]

I\'ve noticed that my tanks are very hard to lift. However, I set the strength on my tanks\' connection nodes to a Arbitrary Very Large Number and it seems to work alright. My 1.75m tanks are grand, anyway. The three meter ones...well...36 weight units of RP-1 tends to make the engine cluster lifting it try to snap off and go its own way. Definitely need to use radial engine pods for that.
I dunno. Not many people use my mod. The math\'s there, but the weight is pretty nasty. When you can get a rocket to lift, though, you have a lot of juice without it feeling broken.

If you scale stuff correctly they usually can lift it the fuel tanks.

But there is no 'strength' variable for connections, just the amount of torque/force required to break them.

Rigidity would be the best word to use rather strength though, if i\'m honest.

[nivvydaskrl]

If you scale stuff correctly they usually can lift it the fuel tanks.

But there is no 'strength' variable for connections, just the amount of torque/force required to break them.

Rigidity would be the best word to use rather strength though, if i\'m honest.

Breaking force is what I meant by strength, of course.

I sometimes use lander legs on radial decouplers to lift the rocket off of its engines and prevent on-pad breakage, then blow the couplers right after liftoff. That solves some of the weight issues.

[derhp]

I sometimes use lander legs on radial decouplers to lift the rocket off of its engines and prevent on-pad breakage, then blow the couplers right after liftoff. That solves some of the weight issues.

Mmmm I always do this. Radial stack decouple > Fuel tank > 1x3 couple, keep the engines off the ground negating the launchpad stick (if that\'s even still a thing). They also act as hold down clamps, the added weight of the fuel allowing you to set thrust to just below liftoff before decoupling. Once you\'ve decouple and shed the weight of the fuel tanks you should drift efficiently upwards.

[semininja]

Has the external tanks part actually been modeled in a game-usable format, or is it still just a mockup model?

[feanor]

Since I can post again, I\'ll post this here.

ICBM. 1.25-1.5 meter diameter first stage. Very stump. 2 more stages, each with a burn time of somewhere 50-60 seconds, but with decreasing weight and diameter ( 2nd stage and 3rd having the same diameter, both 1 meter? )

The first stage\'d be quite a kick, a bit overpowered, with a very fast t/w ratio. Basically get up to 15-17 km or so?

The second less of a kick, more efficient, less thrust, same burn time, but less heavy. Going up to final altitude, 60 or so, with quite a bit of orbital burn in it? ( perhaps all if the payload is small enough! )

the 3rd stage even less thrust ( but still quite a boost ), same diameter, shorter. Deorbit burn?

The post-boost vehicle can be made already with 1 meter diameter parts - low-powered decouplers, a tuned SAS and a small fuel tank + small engine + command pod ( as payload, or with a mirv on top ) would make quite the package. Payload fairings are also around ( although your new ideas looks awesome, a 1 meter version/nosecone ? :D D )

MIRVS are already around, could easily be adapted. a 1 meter final stage diameter would be great, to possibly even launch manned ( )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman

That\'d be the easiest one, there is quite some good information there; I am looking at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minuteman_III_MIRV_path.svg graph in particular. Perhaps burn times adapted more towards the kerbal planet / atmosphere.

Something in general.

SRBS across addons, and also the stock ones, are underpowered. This pack is one of the few ones that does it right.

Shuttle SRBS burn for 124 seconds. 124. Not 23, or 40, as quite a few. 124. This pack is the first that actually applies SRBS as they should be. They can\'t be turned off for aborts and they tax infrastructure- these are real life concerns. Heavy, with lots of thrust, and a lower ISP, sure.

But not THAT low! 60-100 seconds of burn time is about the lowest strap-on boosters on rocket\'s you\'ll get. 23/40 second burn times of SRBS really are useless.

these smallest strap on rockets are amazing; truely a model that has uses everywhere.

Other modders take note; this is how you do strap on srbs. when the stacked version is brought out we\'ll finally be able to make a good ares-1.

[Kickasskyle]

The stacked SRB\'s also burn for about 5-6ish seconds longer than their counterparts, so you can jettison them and continue for a little bit too.

Progress report is that textures for the adaptors are pretty much next to done, just needs some tweaking and minor details.

Taking longer than usual due to university stuff.

[Winston]

[feanor]

gimme gimme gimme

A liquid fueld soyuz is possible with that? do the side tanks hold fuel as well, and can they be detached / the fuel flow can be stopped from the central one to the side ones?

If that is true, you\'ve made me very, very happy ( if that\'s not true, it\'s still awesome ;D )

[Winston]

It\'s an adapter, so that whole thing is just one part. It\'s essentially a fuel tank with 4 nodes on the bottom. We\'ve got 1-5 ones too, like Soyuz.

[feanor]

It\'s an adapter, so that whole thing is just one part. It\'s essentially a fuel tank with 4 nodes on the bottom. We\'ve got 1-5 ones too, like Soyuz.

ah, excellent. New options are always good! can\'t wait to play with this and other new parts.

[Winston]

Won\'t be long.