[0.20] Deadly Reentry 2.3 - reentry heat, plus thermal and g-force damage to parts

[erbmur]

Thanks for the update!

Will test it out when I get home

[Bloodbunny]

Epic! About to test it out. Thanks for making this mod just get better and better

[BigNose]

Totally awesome. KSP Hard-mode is fully back now!

[taniwha]

2.3 is up.

That'd be right, about an hour after I finally get around to installing 2.2f

[King Jareth]

Just come back from a Mun trip I started yesterday, first time using Deadly reentry with FAR, Ioncross and Ampyear. Finally touched down with 10 power left, no ablation on the heatshield (it ran out at about 20km up) and less than 1 CO2 capacity left after hitting 5km up still doing 280m/s with the 'cute popped. A quick EVA found every component in "severe" damage.

So that was intense.

edit - Not sure ridiculousMaxTemp is working though, all my mod parts are showing their original maxtemps in the VAB but all the @PART changes in the config are getting applied as far as I can see.

Edited June 25, 2013 by King Jareth

[SchroedingersHat]

edit - Not sure ridiculousMaxTemp is working though, all my mod parts are showing their original maxtemps in the VAB but all the @PART changes in the config are getting applied as far as I can see.

I've been having similar issues, try going out and flying something until it gets hot then coming back to the VAB. The numbers change for me when I do this although I'm yet to figure out if this is the exact criterion or if the new numbers are actually reflected in later behavior.

[ZobrAA]

Something wrong with 2.3 :| Sounds are still buggy, even in SPH/VAB when I attach wings (from B9) it burns. Mk1pod deorbiting from 90km LKO at 2150mps gains only about 490C and ablative is used only by ~120/250 with a veak flames. It's not good...

[rifter]

Something wrong with 2.3 :| Sounds are still buggy, even in SPH/VAB when I attach wings (from B9) it burns. Mk1pod deorbiting from 90km LKO at 2150mps gains only about 490C and ablative is used only by ~120/250 with a veak flames. It's not good...

It really only becomes deadly at speeds in excess of low orbital speeds, that is > 2300 m/s or so. Try a higher apoapsis.

[ialdabaoth]

Agreed - Kerbin is a VERY forgiving environment. Making it actually "deadly" at such low velocities would require ignoring several laws of physics.

[Sleipnir]

Sound bug is still in place in VAB, and my rockets like to randomly combust due to excessive g forces when my rocket wobbles and a part detaches

[MR4Y]

Agreed - Kerbin is a VERY forgiving environment. Making it actually "deadly" at such low velocities would require ignoring several laws of physics.

Exactly. Needless to say:

-The Apollo 10 command module reentered the atmosphere at 11,086 m/s

-The Stardust probe reentered the atmosphere at 12,900 m/s

-You can't even reenter Kerbin at 2000 m/s without exploding the ablative shield.

[Geckoleon]

Hey, loving this mod. But the gforce break thing is getting quite annoying for my planes that go fast. At current, one of my planes has about 10 or so B9 airbrakes on it. Go in for a landing, and brake... Three seconds later, airbrakes explode from exceeded gforce. And sometimes, on take off, my engines(a lot of B9 engines) explode from exceeded force. I find that unrealistic, but maybe I'm just not realizing that irl planes don't land as fast as mine.

[Hyratel]

Hey, loving this mod. But the gforce break thing is getting quite annoying for my planes that go fast. At current, one of my planes has about 10 or so B9 airbrakes on it. Go in for a landing, and brake... Three seconds later, airbrakes explode from exceeded gforce. And sometimes, on take off, my engines(a lot of B9 engines) explode from exceeded force. I find that unrealistic, but maybe I'm just not realizing that irl planes don't land as fast as mine.

they don't. RL planes deploy flaps, which GRADUALLy slow the airspeed, and they also touch down going at under 100mph (most of them)

[Festivefire]

they don't. RL planes deploy flaps, which GRADUALLy slow the airspeed, and they also touch down going at under 100mph (most of them)

that applies to prop planes. most commercial airliners land in between 105 and 130 knots, which is about 115-150ish mph. but yeah, ksp planes haul anus compared to irl planes.

[Lexif]

that applies to prop planes. most commercial airliners land in between 105 and 130 knots, which is about 115-150ish mph. but yeah, ksp planes haul anus compared to irl planes.

According to Wiki, the record for the fastest landing speed is held by a Tu-134 with 415 km/h (or 258 mp/h or 224 knots). That was even with passengers. The real limit for design landing speed would be set by the tires. I know commercial jets with small wings at heavy weights like the MD-11 routinely land at about 160 knots, while speeds in emergencies (like no flap landings) might even be higher, though you'd have to expect burst tires then.

I think Geckoleon might have more success by deploying the air brakes one after the other (but I have no experience with planes in KSP). A problem with the g-load damage in this mod is that in reality, you can design a part to the expected force, propably increasing weight. And there's also the fact that most parts would have different tolerances based on the direction of the force. Consider how a real wing of a transport plane will take much more positive force than negative force (relative to the normal orientation of the plane). Not to mention the other directions -- can't imagine a plane's wing can unload much force into the fuselage if you'd push at the wingtip. But there are lots of aerobatic planes that have the same g-limits in normal and inverted flight, I think, because that was what the design required.

[MR4Y]

According to Wiki, the record for the fastest landing speed is held by a Tu-134 with 415 km/h (or 258 mp/h or 224 knots). That was even with passengers. The real limit for design landing speed would be set by the tires. I know commercial jets with small wings at heavy weights like the MD-11 routinely land at about 160 knots, while speeds in emergencies (like no flap landings) might even be higher, though you'd have to expect burst tires then.

I think Geckoleon might have more success by deploying the air brakes one after the other (but I have no experience with planes in KSP). A problem with the g-load damage in this mod is that in reality, you can design a part to the expected force, propably increasing weight. And there's also the fact that most parts would have different tolerances based on the direction of the force. Consider how a real wing of a transport plane will take much more positive force than negative force (relative to the normal orientation of the plane). Not to mention the other directions -- can't imagine a plane's wing can unload much force into the fuselage if you'd push at the wingtip. But there are lots of aerobatic planes that have the same g-limits in normal and inverted flight, I think, because that was what the design required.

Also, different materials and building methods are able to handle different amounts of g-force. Problem is that you can't apply real g-force loads on KSP aircrafts because they have wobbly joints and things like that.

[Lexif]

True. But despite my earlier comments, I must say that the implementation in this mod seems to work well for rockets. The slightly imprecise g-force handling is very well balanced by Kerbin's (and presumably the other planet's as well) more tolerant athmosphere. (Again, I can't speak for space planes, but I guess those were pretty much incompatible with the old version of the mod anyway.) It's fun and a good challenge that can be mastered.

You don't have to resort to CFD-modelling of your craft before flying it, as it would have to be if everything were earth-realistic. Maybe realistic aerodynamics/reentry physics and space planes are incompatible with KSP's game philosophy anyway, as space planes are hard-mode in real life as well.

[MR4Y]

True. But despite my earlier comments, I must say that the implementation in this mod seems to work well for rockets. The slightly imprecise g-force handling is very well balanced by Kerbin's (and presumably the other planet's as well) more tolerant athmosphere. (Again, I can't speak for space planes, but I guess those were pretty much incompatible with the old version of the mod anyway.) It's fun and a good challenge that can be mastered.

You don't have to resort to CFD-modelling of your craft before flying it, as it would have to be if everything were earth-realistic. Maybe realistic aerodynamics/reentry physics and space planes are incompatible with KSP's game philosophy anyway, as space planes are hard-mode in real life as well.

Space planes are not hard. And I use FAR as standard. The problem with the mod is that it relies on it's ablative shields. It also makes impossible for you to orbit using SSTO's because they'll explode if you go above 1 Km/s when crossing the edge of atmosphere.

[Festivefire]

Space planes are not hard. And I use FAR as standard. The problem with the mod is that it relies on it's ablative shields. It also makes impossible for you to orbit using SSTO's because they'll explode if you go above 1 Km/s when crossing the edge of atmosphere.

I am thinking that spaceplane parts should be shielded on the front and the bottom to prevent this. also, is there any kind of shielding so far besides ablative? we don't have heatsink type stuff besides parts that just have a really high temp tolarance?

[Lexif]

Space planes are not hard. And I use FAR as standard. The problem with the mod is that it relies on it's ablative shields. It also makes impossible for you to orbit using SSTO's because they'll explode if you go above 1 Km/s when crossing the edge of atmosphere.

I meant they are hard in real life. Everyone can get a capsule (manned or unmanned) to space and back with a bit of ICBM-grade research, but who's got a working space plane? 1 km/s is SR-71 territory, right? That was done without extensive computer simulations (i.e. the Kerbal way) and I consider that a miracle. I mean, that thing leaked fuel on the ramp, the tanks only sealed up when the metal in the wings expanded under the thermal stress and closed the gaps between the panels!

I am thinking that spaceplane parts should be shielded on the front and the bottom to prevent this. also, is there any kind of shielding so far besides ablative? we don't have heatsink type stuff besides parts that just have a really high temp tolarance?

Yeah, is there a way to consider the "thermal mass" of the design in this mod? I've noticed that parts directly behind the ablative shield get hotter, so there seems to be heat transfer? But can this be used to create heat sinks?

Edited June 28, 2013 by Lexif
typo

[Festivefire]

well i seem to remember, back in the day of sas or bust, that parts actually transferred heat quite a lot, meaning that there were mod parts for parts with high heat tolerances to act as sinks, and engines with 0 thrust and negative heat production to act as thermal exchanges fridge style. I think that since then, heat transfer has been turned down quite a lot, but i don't think there is a .cfg setting for heat transfer. I remember struts were really good at it, but that might just be because it was a random part in between two engines that could absorb heat, as it produced none, so people used those to make large srb clusters without exploding. Heat sinks haven't been necessary in a long time, since we have so many actual useful parts, making 50-srb clusters rare, so i don't know if transfer works the way it used to.

[MR4Y]

I meant they are hard in real life. Everyone can get a capsule (manned or unmanned) to space and back with a bit of ICBM-grade research, but who's got a working space plane? 1 km/s is SR-71 territory, right? That was done without extensive computer simulations (i.e. the Kerbal way) and I consider that a miracle. I mean, that thing leaked fuel on the ramp, the tanks only sealed up when the metal in the wings expanded under the thermal stress and closed the gaps between the panels!

Who's got a working space plane? A lot of people in fact. If you consider SSTO's as space planes, we have the Space Shuttle, Buran, SpaceShipOne, SpaceShipTwo and a few others.

As for 1Km/s, the Blackbird doesn't go even close to that, even though it holds the speed record for both altitude and fastest manned air breathing aircraft, with a speed of ~980.44 ms.

The North American X-15 is the fastest manned plane, with a top speed of 2 Km/s, but it uses rocket engines.

There's also NASA's X-43A scramjet, that achieves speeds of a little above 3 Km/s, but they are unmanned.

[Festivefire]

Who's got a working space plane? A lot of people in fact. If you consider SSTO's as space planes, we have the Space Shuttle, Buran, SpaceShipOne, SpaceShipTwo and a few others.

As for 1Km/s, the Blackbird doesn't go even close to that, even though it holds the speed record for both altitude and fastest manned air breathing aircraft, with a speed of ~980.44 ms.

The North American X-15 is the fastest manned plane, with a top speed of 2 Km/s, but it uses rocket engines.

There's also NASA's X-43A scramjet, that achieves speeds of a little above 3 Km/s, but they are unmanned.

so you named 4 planes, the buran, spaceship 1-2, the x-43 and the x-15. If you add the shuttle, thats 5. now compare that to the amount of different rocket models. a quick estimate for me would be in between 30-50. teh ones i can name are redstone, atlas, titan-1, titan-2, ariane-5, falcon 9, soyuz, n1, appalo, and that's just a fraction of the ones if seen, I just can't remember all the names. so in comparison, spaceplanes are hardmode, if so few exist in comparison to traditional lifters.

[MR4Y]

so you named 4 planes, the buran, spaceship 1-2, the x-43 and the x-15. If you add the shuttle, thats 5. now compare that to the amount of different rocket models. a quick estimate for me would be in between 30-50. teh ones i can name are redstone, atlas, titan-1, titan-2, ariane-5, falcon 9, soyuz, n1, appalo, and that's just a fraction of the ones if seen, I just can't remember all the names. so in comparison, spaceplanes are hardmode, if so few exist in comparison to traditional lifters.

Actually that's more for finacial purposes. At first, it was thought that space planes would be cheaper to maintain than rockets. Out of all those rockets you named, I've only heard about the Souyz, which still is used today. The major part of those rockets were discontinued.

[Festivefire]

the ariane-5 is arianspaces prime lifter, and the falcon 9 (unless i mixed it up) is a brand new rocket with only 3-4 flights under its belt, with more planned. the titans were used for stattalite launches for decades, and the atlas was used for commercial launches through the 70's and into the 80's, as compared to its introduction in the 50's. there is the delta series, still used today, there is the vega lifter, used by arianspace.

as for you telling me that those rockets are discontinued, so is the x15, spaceship 1, the space shuttle, and buran. only two of the ones you named are in service, one of which (space ship two) hasn't even been to space yet. spaceplanes are harder to build because a much larger surface needs thermal protecting, limiting it to vary narrow re-entry corridors, and also making them unable to re-enter at transfer return speeds due to the weight of ablative tiles. they have benefits of cross-range capabilities during re-entry, but have really low lift to weight ratios, making them tricky to design and use. compared to standard rocketry they ARE in fact, hard mode, financially and from the engineering side.