Korsakovski Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) Decided to downsize the clipper and got the dinghy https://kerbalx.com/Korsakovski/Dinghy-O2 http://imgur.com/a/ZNPeK Edited February 5, 2017 by Korsakovski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korsakovski Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Extended range Phantom https://kerbalx.com/Korsakovski/Phantom-U4A2 http://imgur.com/a/PY2b4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatsmithen Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Look to the left and also look on my profile page there is my SSTO lel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korsakovski Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Another vector SSTO. 6 kerbals to orbit, nothing fancy https://kerbalx.com/Korsakovski/Skydart-P1 http://imgur.com/a/4iPDL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerospacer Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) Hard slow climb but reach - ultralight tiny low-tech SSTO based on just 2 Juno engines: Launch mass 6.3 tonn, dV LKO=21 m/s. Enough for landing to KSC runway though. Spoiler Edited February 6, 2017 by Aerospacer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korsakovski Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Ion SSTO, nuff said https://kerbalx.com/Korsakovski/Arrow-IX http://imgur.com/a/pF6Do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerospacer Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 @Korsakovski, compact and powerful. (some overclipped cockpit imho) To Laythe and back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korsakovski Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 50 minutes ago, Aerospacer said: @Korsakovski, compact and powerful. (some overclipped cockpit imho) To Laythe and back? Doesn't really have an intended purpouse other than "Ion SSTO", but I suppose a Laythe flyby and return to Kerbin would be feasible with that dV. Landing on Laythe and then taking off is probably impossible without refueling. Also, I turned a lab into a rocket SSTO https://kerbalx.com/Korsakovski/Sirius-S1 http://imgur.com/a/MLBk0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jett_Quasar Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) Updated Kerbal-X with my Star Wars Corvette craft file. Click the link in my signature below to see the details and download the craft. - Jett Edited February 7, 2017 by Jett_Quasar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korsakovski Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Another vector SSTO, a full passenger version this time. https://kerbalx.com/Korsakovski/Nightingale-N2 http://imgur.com/a/NsBxz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korsakovski Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Two-man interplanetary science SSTO, basically a heavier version of the earlier Phantom and Valkyrie designs. https://kerbalx.com/Korsakovski/Vulture-Y1 http://imgur.com/gallery/2G2sa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heckspress Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 whoa dude, slow down! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystik Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) On 05/02/2017 at 11:08 AM, Korsakovski said: That crude prototype shall never go beyond LKO unfortunately. This is what I am planning on having go to Laythe. https://kerbalx.com/Korsakovski/Phantom-U2A1 http://imgur.com/a/9a1Z5 Also somewhat finished the overweight VTOL prototype. https://kerbalx.com/Korsakovski/Kraken-E4 http://imgur.com/a/6ub8J @Korsakovski Your Kraken E4 has officially ended my quest to make an inteplanetary SSTO for all planets (except Eve) available here. The fact that it can do Tylo is great. My idea used 2 ships, one for landing (based on your Midgard B16M) and another low orbiter tug ship that would assist with getting to another moon to refuel. Anyways, how do you use the VTOL feature? I tried this in space and all it did was to spin me around. Does it require to use the back engines at the same time? Maybe I was using it wrong. Also, are there any chances to get a version with even more DV without making it too heavy? It already looks great. I would recommend to scrap the Monoprop tanks and the monoprop engines and go with vernors to use the standard fuel instead. Plus, the vernors are 6 times more powerful than the ones used now so that drops the part count and also makes the ship look cool. Edited February 9, 2017 by mystik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whippler Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Recent video by Scott Manley ( https://youtu.be/rG254Km2iXY ) inspired me to built a SSTO Viper. I wanted it to be useful so i have included a docking port, and other essentials for docking. I'd like to have the side engines as long as the top one but i didn't want to block the airlocks, since you cant EVA from a docking port. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korsakovski Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 37 minutes ago, mystik said: @Korsakovski Your Kraken E4 has officially ended my quest to make an inteplanetary SSTO for all planets (except Eve) available here http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/154137-building-a-long-range-miner-rover-carrying-ssto-tips-wanted-regarding-efficiency/&page=2&_fromLogin=1. The fact that it can do Tylo is great. My idea used 2 ships, one for landing (based on your Midgard B16M) and another low orbiter tug ship that would assist with getting to another moon to refuel. Anyways, how do you use the VTOL feature? I tried this in space and all it did was to spin me around. Does it require to use the back engines at the same time? Maybe I was using it wrong. Also, are there any chances to get a version with even more DV without making it too heavy? It already looks great. I would recommend to scrap the Monoprop tanks and the monoprop engines and go with vernors to use the standard fuel instead. Plus, the vernors are 6 times more powerful than the ones used now so that drops the part count and also makes the ship look cool. The Tylo landing/takeoff has not been tested yet to be honest, so don't go praising me yet on that. In the latest E7 prototype, the rapiers give out only 1252m/s in closed cycle and vectors offer 1293m/s when fully fueled, after that the nukes will give out 4458m/s. As for the VTOL flying instructions... (I am just repeating what I read myself, as this is my first functional SSTO VTOL, so I actually do not have the foggiest clue on what I am doing with it.) Normally you adjust the thrust of the frontmost engine, that has been placed more foward to compensate for changes in the center of mass as the fuel level changes. So you just watch that thrust limiter like a hawk and if you don't mess up, you should be fine. A bigger problem is that the E4 is just a prototype, having problems like CoM slightly behind CoL when empty and whatnot. As for the issue with the monoprop, the current version in the works is the E7, which already has LFO RCS (as did the E6) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystik Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Korsakovski said: The Tylo landing/takeoff has not been tested yet to be honest, so don't go praising me yet on that. In the latest E7 prototype, the rapiers give out only 1252m/s in closed cycle and vectors offer 1293m/s when fully fueled, after that the nukes will give out 4458m/s. As for the VTOL flying instructions... (I am just repeating what I read myself, as this is my first functional SSTO VTOL, so I actually do not have the foggiest clue on what I am doing with it.) Normally you adjust the thrust of the frontmost engine, that has been placed more foward to compensate for changes in the center of mass as the fuel level changes. So you just watch that thrust limiter like a hawk and if you don't mess up, you should be fine. A bigger problem is that the E4 is just a prototype, having problems like CoM slightly behind CoL when empty and whatnot. As for the issue with the monoprop, the current version in the works is the E7, which already has LFO RCS (as did the E6) Cool, I love your designs, take your time. As a special request, the 1.5t service bay would be very helpful, because I have a subassembly made to fit perfectly in that full of science instruments. Best placement would be behind the crew cabin. Most people could do with a universal science and ISRU SSTO. One ship to see all places is on target. But I rather have an efficient model as I can tweak it to my needs afterwards, so ignore any of the above if it messes with your design. You did mention that you have issues with stability. What if you scrap the extra crew cabin? It's hardly needed since you'd want to take the original 4 with you to places. Edited February 9, 2017 by mystik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korsakovski Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 3 hours ago, mystik said: You did mention that you have issues with stability. What if you scrap the extra crew cabin? It's hardly needed since you'd want to take the original 4 with you to places. The problem is the massive amount of rocketfuel in the central fuselage. When full you will be nose-heavy, when empty you will be rear-heavy. (or fat@$$) Still, the passenger cabin defo has to go, large isru is unnecessary, small one would do. Two drills is also unnecessary, all you need is one. I guess I could minmax the design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystik Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 9 hours ago, Korsakovski said: The problem is the massive amount of rocketfuel in the central fuselage. When full you will be nose-heavy, when empty you will be rear-heavy. (or fat@$$) Still, the passenger cabin defo has to go, large isru is unnecessary, small one would do. Two drills is also unnecessary, all you need is one. I guess I could minmax the design. Ok, time for the review and feedback session on the design, because I played around with it. If you're going for that design, then may I suggest some of the following, if you don't mind my input: If you want the small ISRU, then check out the conversion rates to make sure that it is being fed enough ore (the max it can do at 100%). I don't have the numbers now because I can't find them anywhere. They are in game in the part description. Just to make sure you have enough drills. For the large ISRU I found the sweet spot to be at 4 drills. Having 3 drills empties your ore tanks when ISRU is running at max (that means lf+ox with lf and ox also enabled so converting 3 resources at the same time, while having 4 drills keeps them full. I have not played around with the small drill, but keep in mind that the difference in weight is only 3 tonnes, which may not mean much for your design if you only perform this change. But you would save 3 tonnes of weight (4.25-1.25). My guess is that one drill is enough for the small ISRU, two drills are enough for the current design since you want some portability at the expense of performance. I would also recommend to take a look at your ore storage. Both weigh in at 4 tonnes and are not needed. Like I said, if you have enough drills that your tank is always being filled, there is no need to store so much. If you go with the smallest tank and attach it inside radially to the bottom (you only need one tank) that would mean that you save 3.875 tonnes, more than you save with the reduction of the large ISRU. Also, I recommend to scrap solar panels. If this thing is going passed Duna, those will be useless. Instead focus on RTGs and fuel cells. I usually place 6 RTGs to give me a steady 4.8 ec at all times (0.8 per RTG). That is more than enough to power all the reaction wheels and science transmitted. For the rest of the power needs, go with enough fuel cells, but it is important not to overdo it. It's easy to calculate how much is needed, via the part descriptions, then add a safety margin of 10%. Speaking of reaction wheels, this thing needs to be smooth as butter when landing on airless objects. It would also add stability to the VTOL functions, because you are more able to control the angles at which it does the maneuvering. I would recommend more reaction wheels, scattered around the place to balance weight. Another thing I noticed it is missing is a proper antenna. I know the space is limited, but it could really use a Communotron 88 on the roof somewhere on the back, away from the aero drag. Keep the current antenna as well, you never know when it is needed. If you're sending data from Eelloo, you might want to take into consideration using two Communotrons 88 for good signal. Speaking of roof mounted things, since the atmospheric drag is only present on Kerbin, Duna and Laythe, you can sacrifice a bit of aero and add a resource scanner on top, the M700, because if you're using this thing for mining it would be useful to know where to land it. Again, you can add and match as needed to balance the weight of this thing. Last, and I know this one might cause a headache, I noticed that it is kinda hard to land it, because you are tempted to pull hard on landing to slow down. Some of the engines are too low, so maybe it is possible to redesign the placement or rotate them to optimize the layout? I especially lose the whips. It makes me wonder if a landing is doable on airless bodies if the engines are so low, especially on a high gravity moon like tylo. Another solution could be maybe if you add an extra set of heavy landing gears to the bottom engines, that would prevent them from hitting the ground. These landing gears would require their own action controls, because taking off with them would be impossible, so they need to start off retracted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korsakovski Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 19 hours ago, mystik said: Ok, time for the review and feedback session on the design, because I played around with it. If you're going for that design, then may I suggest some of the following, if you don't mind my input: If you want the small ISRU, then check out the conversion rates to make sure that it is being fed enough ore (the max it can do at 100%). I don't have the numbers now because I can't find them anywhere. They are in game in the part description. Just to make sure you have enough drills. For the large ISRU I found the sweet spot to be at 4 drills. Having 3 drills empties your ore tanks when ISRU is running at max (that means lf+ox with lf and ox also enabled so converting 3 resources at the same time, while having 4 drills keeps them full. I have not played around with the small drill, but keep in mind that the difference in weight is only 3 tonnes, which may not mean much for your design if you only perform this change. But you would save 3 tonnes of weight (4.25-1.25). My guess is that one drill is enough for the small ISRU, two drills are enough for the current design since you want some portability at the expense of performance. I would also recommend to take a look at your ore storage. Both weigh in at 4 tonnes and are not needed. Like I said, if you have enough drills that your tank is always being filled, there is no need to store so much. If you go with the smallest tank and attach it inside radially to the bottom (you only need one tank) that would mean that you save 3.875 tonnes, more than you save with the reduction of the large ISRU. Also, I recommend to scrap solar panels. If this thing is going passed Duna, those will be useless. Instead focus on RTGs and fuel cells. I usually place 6 RTGs to give me a steady 4.8 ec at all times (0.8 per RTG). That is more than enough to power all the reaction wheels and science transmitted. For the rest of the power needs, go with enough fuel cells, but it is important not to overdo it. It's easy to calculate how much is needed, via the part descriptions, then add a safety margin of 10%. Speaking of reaction wheels, this thing needs to be smooth as butter when landing on airless objects. It would also add stability to the VTOL functions, because you are more able to control the angles at which it does the maneuvering. I would recommend more reaction wheels, scattered around the place to balance weight. Another thing I noticed it is missing is a proper antenna. I know the space is limited, but it could really use a Communotron 88 on the roof somewhere on the back, away from the aero drag. Keep the current antenna as well, you never know when it is needed. If you're sending data from Eelloo, you might want to take into consideration using two Communotrons 88 for good signal. Speaking of roof mounted things, since the atmospheric drag is only present on Kerbin, Duna and Laythe, you can sacrifice a bit of aero and add a resource scanner on top, the M700, because if you're using this thing for mining it would be useful to know where to land it. Again, you can add and match as needed to balance the weight of this thing. Last, and I know this one might cause a headache, I noticed that it is kinda hard to land it, because you are tempted to pull hard on landing to slow down. Some of the engines are too low, so maybe it is possible to redesign the placement or rotate them to optimize the layout? I especially lose the whips. It makes me wonder if a landing is doable on airless bodies if the engines are so low, especially on a high gravity moon like tylo. Another solution could be maybe if you add an extra set of heavy landing gears to the bottom engines, that would prevent them from hitting the ground. These landing gears would require their own action controls, because taking off with them would be impossible, so they need to start off retracted. After some tweaking, I might be on to something. Current craft (E13) was something like 640 tons or something, can't remember. Added 6 rapiers and 2 nukes too. Kept the passenger cabin to keep dry mass at the front so my CoM won't f**k me over. Then a long mk3 cargo bay after that, with reaction wheels big ISRU a mobile lab, with two communotron 88s. Haven't added the science stuff yet, but left a 4,5 ton fuel tank as a dummy weight for testing. Tried removing the solar panels and increased the number of RTGs to 8. Already had 4 big fuel cells, so numberwise that should be enough for big ISRU and 4 large drills. Ground clearance problem was hopefully solved by upgrading into the largest landing gear. http://imgur.com/a/uO4UT Then the blooper reel http://imgur.com/a/70wPA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystik Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 @Korsakovski Looks like good improvements. Would you like to share the file for additional testing? I tend to try all sorts of maneuvers on orbit trajectory and landings, like do reverse entries or upside down to test the ship for anything that may need improving, or even reverse touchdowns (crazy). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurdurdur Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 My attempt to build a biplane spaceplane with a rover seat, like a grandfather would have had it. Full gallery here: http://imgur.com/a/SUjOH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystik Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, hurdurdur said: My attempt to build a biplane spaceplane with a rover seat, like a grandfather would have had it. Full gallery here: http://imgur.com/a/SUjOH Was your grandfather Henri Coanda? Edited February 11, 2017 by mystik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korsakovski Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 3 hours ago, mystik said: @Korsakovski Looks like good improvements. Would you like to share the file for additional testing? I tend to try all sorts of maneuvers on orbit trajectory and landings, like do reverse entries or upside down to test the ship for anything that may need improving, or even reverse touchdowns (crazy). I'll atleast add the drills and the science equipment first, in it's current shape, it feels too unfinished. Look foward to version E14 hopefully before the end of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystik Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Korsakovski said: I'll atleast add the drills and the science equipment first, in it's current shape, it feels too unfinished. Look foward to version E14 hopefully before the end of the day. Good stuff. Take your time. Post when you're happy about the design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korsakovski Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) Somewhat finished with Kraken E14, although I haven't figured out a ladder configuration that will work with the largest landing gear, since I've never used them before. Therefore, this prototype has no ladders as of yet. Also figured out how to stuff everything science-related into the main cargo bay, I think. Small ore scanner too and ground scanner to compliment the set. No large scanner though, that thing is just too unwieldy to squeeze in. Also was too lazy to check CoM/CoL while empty... again. EDIT:Checked CoM and it was a few millimeters in front of center of lift when empty. So I guess it is on the better side, but I think I'll tweak it anyway. But here it is, all 658 tons of it. https://kerbalx.com/Korsakovski/Kraken-E14 http://imgur.com/a/caTYt Edited February 12, 2017 by Korsakovski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.