Synthesis Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 I meant with some form of alternate cockpit and such.Alternate cockpit module, not alternate cockpit, right? I would imagine not--the Soviet Buran was intended to fly with a crew, but it only few completely unmanned, so it could be used for both. I imagine it's going to be the same for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrianCEV Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 I REALLY,REALLY WANT THIS AWSOME MOD!!!,great job on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhoark Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 I think its great you're going for accuracy out of the box with liquid hydrogen engines. It's a bit odd not to be using solid boosters in that case, though. Looks odd without that big exhaust plume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyze Of J Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I think its great you're going for accuracy out of the box with liquid hydrogen engines. It's a bit odd not to be using solid boosters in that case, though. Looks odd without that big exhaust plume.I agree, I want SRB's too, also, the liquid hydrogen is for the low density of fuel in the tanks, so you can get more fuel without increasing the mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I agree, I want SRB's too, also, the liquid hydrogen is for the low density of fuel in the tanks, so you can get more fuel without increasing the mass.Wow, the way you say it makes it sound like an advantage. In the end it all comes down to the rocket equation, and unless you can accelerate your propellant to extreme speeds (read: Tintin and the secret of the ion engine) what really matters for your fuel is mass, not volume. In that sense LH is a liability; you'll need extreme large tanks (using a precious amount of material and thus weight) to hold fuel with a certain amount of mass (compared to, say, kerosene). There are some advantages to luiquid hydrogen (otherwise it wouldn't be used), but “it doesn’t weigh a lot†isn’t one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhoark Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Not weighing a lot is a huge deal, given the exponential nature of the rocket equation. Weight isn't the whole story, it's energy/mass ratio, but H2 is an ideal fuel for upper stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mettwurst Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Its incredible seeing how this developed! From a little mod to a project with B9'ish quality. Keep up the great work, i'm reaaly locking forward to flying this beaty!cheers, Mettwurst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrianCEV Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 if this isn't released soon,i'm gonna die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephf Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Awwwww... how cute :3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Not weighing a lot is a huge deal, given the exponential nature of the rocket equationI looked at the rocket equation five times now. For the life of me I cannot find a single reference to "volume," only to "mass," and 1kg of H2 is not lighter or heavier than 1kg of parafine or kerosine. So how it's an advantage for fuel that it takes up a large volume to carry a certain amount of mass of it is beyond me. It is true that H2 has higher specific energy than oil based fuels, and as long as that doesn't get offset by the extra weight required to carry all that volume there will be an advantage. Hence the use of it in upper stages. Keep in mind that my response was to: liquid hydrogen is for the low density of fuel in the tanks, so you can get more fuel without increasing the massWhich suggested that H2 was great because you'd get less weight for a specific volume, which suggests an important omission in understanding the very nature of kinetic (rocket) engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woopert Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I've seen this thread before but just now took a closer look. This looks awesome, and I love the coziness inside of the shuttle. Does the nose of the shuttle stay pointed up on landing? That has always been an issue when I use space planes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 correctnessDingdingding. Correct.LH2 is _good_ because it's _energetic_. It's _bad_ because it's _light_. (For values of light equaling "low density"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted October 8, 2013 Author Share Posted October 8, 2013 I've seen this thread before but just now took a closer look. This looks awesome, and I love the coziness inside of the shuttle. Does the nose of the shuttle stay pointed up on landing? That has always been an issue when I use space planes.Not sure what you mean. Does the nose stay pointed up? What do you mean?Go a couple pages back to the imagur album I posted you can see the whole sequence from launch to landing.If you attempt to somehow land it engines down as if it was a command capsule/moon lander, it'll explode. It's not designed for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest links123 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 If you go a few pages back you will see the whole sequence from the launch to landing. The nose stay pointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woopert Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 (edited) I was talking about when there is not enough torque to keep the plane pointed up for landing, so it hits the ground nose first. Great job on the design, it looks like it lands well. I think it's what you call a "lawn dart." Thanks, sorry for confusing you. Edited October 8, 2013 by Woopert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marscommander Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I was talking about when there is not enough torque to keep the plane pointed up for landing, so it hits the ground nose first. Great job on the design, it looks like it lands well. I think it's what you call a "lawn dart." Thanks, sorry for confusing you. If you have that problem it is not the airframe's fault but pilot error. If you don't have enough control you have a deficiency in speed. In English: SPEED UP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartybum Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Looks awesome. What's the lowest speed at which you can still flare the nose for landing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DisarmingBaton5 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Looks awesome. What's the lowest speed at which you can still flare the nose for landing?The picture says 67m/s, I'd keep it well above that just to be safe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted October 8, 2013 Author Share Posted October 8, 2013 The aircraft flies perfectly once you get down to atmospheric effect. Before that it falls through the atmosphere like a tumbling rock. That's just temporary as right now my alpha copy doesn't have functional RCS. Hence once I'm done in space I just tumble down, not like I can do much in space without RCS. Again keep in mind I just have an Alpha copy of the project and physics, weights, instruments are missing. They are a lot further ahead on ZRM's version of the project.You'd have to do a descent procedure that gets you close enough to the area you wish to land. You need a runway or very flat land, I've ended up out near the foothills a few times without enough altitude to glide down to KSC, ended up tearing the whole thing apart minus the cockpit.Once you get down to few Km above ground, the control surfaces kick in and the KSO becomes very easy to handle. You just need enough altitude to coast and glide down to KSC. The KSO is very light and very balanced currently, so much so that if you're not careful it'll balloon up easily. So it's just a matter of placing the FPM at about the halfway point to 3/4 down the runway.At least in the current build, and even at release, your biggest concern is getting it and keeping it centered on the runway horizontally (roll). Vertically (pitch) you'll be fine, but that is subject to change since I'd like a little more weight on the nose, or an adjustable elevator trim tab. I don't want ZRM to change the handling or the runway/flat surface requirement, it's just too perfect I mean it's just perfect man it flies like a Cessna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xzxvrx Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Is there any noticeable difference in atmospheric flight between the V-tail and the single rudder configurations? (Assuming that you are continuing the option to have just 1 rudder) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woopert Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Thanks for the reply. I was just saying that my planes in general (or rather my piloting) result in catastrophic failure from crashing into the ground. You're making good progress and this looks very promising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devo Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Is the IVA intended to be that dark or will there be a light option? I understand the glowing from the instruments is significant and needs to be seen, but I also would like to enjoy the detail you put into the cockpit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirkut Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Is the IVA intended to be that dark or will there be a light option? I understand the glowing from the instruments is significant and needs to be seen, but I also would like to enjoy the detail you put into the cockpit.There's actually a light switch in the cabin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygun Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 There's actually a light switch in the cabin. Now it just needs a Siri app for the MFD display. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devo Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 There's actually a light switch in the cabin. What doesn't it have lol... so looking forward to flying this thing, possibly more than any other mod i've seen made. Besides the mod, the progress reports in this thread are pretty cool, I have to admit I have learned alot from Helldiver. His ego doesn't overstep his talent and he explains things very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts