NovaSilisko Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 a satellite that is a cube. Right now satellites do not function in any way. they are just payloads for missions. Once we have persistence, they could become objects to visit in orbit.Exactly. The entire purpose of this is to flood kerbin\'s (and anything else\'s) orbit with tiny little bullets of science equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 The rebalancing effort is not going well. Should I revert to the old balancing system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cepheus Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Define 'not going well.' If it\'s of any help to you, I\'d be willing to lend a hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 Define 'not going well.' If it\'s of any help to you, I\'d be willing to lend a hand.The values aren\'t working with a realistic-density fuel, and keeping the rockets the same scale as normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cepheus Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 In that case, I\'d probably lean closer to the old balancing system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charzy Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I\'d say go with the newer one, I always thought it felt better. If there\'s serious problems then the old one is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 I\'d say go with the newer one, I always thought it felt better. If there\'s serious problems then the old one is fine.Well, you\'ve never tried the new one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamyesque Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 The values aren\'t working with a realistic-density fuel, and keeping the rockets the same scale as normal.Not working well how, exactly? Not enough fuel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 Not working well how, exactly? Not enough fuel?Yeah. It seems it\'s not possible to make viable rockets with fully realistic values :x You either have to have an unrealistic efficiency, or an unrealistic density fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venku122 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Yeah. It seems it\'s not possible to make viable rockets with fully realistic values :x You either have to have an unrealistic efficiency, or an unrealistic density fuel. maybe it has something to do with the whole kerbin is tiny thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 maybe it has something to do with the whole kerbin is tiny thing?I think it stems from Kerbal rockets being 1m in diameter. It might just be too small for realistic values to apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venku122 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I think it stems from Kerbal rockets being 1m in diameter. It might just be too small for realistic values to apply. might be time for a new standard. 5m sounds nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 might be time for a me standard. 5m sounds niceNo. The Titan II was 3m. 1.5m might be good for KSP, but I don\'t know if it\'s worth invalidating everything else just to stay with realistic values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GroundHOG-2010 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 No. The Titan II was 3m. 1.5m might be good for KSP, but I don\'t know if it\'s worth invalidating everything else just to stay with realistic values.1.75??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamyesque Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Yeah. It seems it\'s not possible to make viable rockets with fully realistic values :x You either have to have an unrealistic efficiency, or an unrealistic density fuel.I\'m hestitant to make that claim. RP-1/LOX runs around 650kg/m^3 for fuel and 3 kg/m^3 of tankage. On that basis you could get around 0.5tne of fuel per 1m diametre tank per metre of length (plus effectively negligable tank weight). RP-1/LOX Isp is around 263 s at sea level (i.e, Ev of ~2.6km/s). Knowing that you can scale your thrust with whatever your mass flow rate is. Real life rocket values should generally give you what KSP would treat as enormous TWRs from the engines. The Atlas, f\'rex, got 300kN from its sustainer engine and 1.2MN from the boosters.If you\'re scaling your payload to appropriate weights then a realistic approach should give you ridiculous oodles of thrust and dV to play with. On my Saturn work I had to double/triple the fuel consumption levels in order to make \'em fit Kerbal scales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 I\'m hestitant to make that claim. RP-1/LOX runs around 650kg/m^3 for fuel and 3 kg/m^3 of tankage. On that basis you could get around 0.5tne of fuel per 1m diametre tank per metre of length (plus effectively negligable tank weight). RP-1/LOX Isp is around 263 s at sea level (i.e, Ev of ~2.6km/s). Knowing that you can scale your thrust with whatever your mass flow rate is. Real life rocket values should generally give you what KSP would treat as enormous TWRs from the engines. The Atlas, f\'rex, got 300kN from its sustainer engine and 1.2MN from the boosters.If you\'re scaling your payload to appropriate weights then a realistic approach should give you ridiculous oodles of thrust and dV to play with. On my Saturn work I had to double/triple the fuel consumption levels in order to make \'em fit Kerbal scales.I\'m assuming a monopropellant with the density of water and an Isp of ~350s for the main engine, 450 for the upper-stage engine.Of course, if I kept the 1m tanks, and added 1.5m and 2m tanks...Also, if I multiply the amount of fuel (and the weight) of the tanks by 1.5, I think I should be able to get good results.For the new balancing, there\'s going to be a cost of 1 dollar (or whatever the currency is) per kg of fuel. Maybe in the future, fuel costs could fluctuate with the kerbal economy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamyesque Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I\'m assuming a monopropellant with the density of water and an Isp of ~350s for the main engine, 450 for the upper-stage engine.Of course, if I kept the 1m tanks, and added 1.5m and 2m tanks...Also, if I multiply the amount of fuel (and the weight) of the tanks by 1.5, I think I should be able to get good results.For the new balancing, there\'s going to be a cost of 1 dollar (or whatever the currency is) per kg of fuel. Maybe in the future, fuel costs could fluctuate with the kerbal economy...Those Isps and densities are pretty high. You\'re going to be lofting an awful lot of payload for a rocket of a given size. =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 Those Isps and densities are pretty high. You\'re going to be lofting an awful lot of payload for a rocket of a given size. =/Well, it wasn\'t working with lower values. I\'ll tweak it based on this increased density, now. Edit: Got the benchmark payload to an 88 km circular orbit using just about all my fuel. Now to see how it scales... Hopefully good. For a basic crew vehicle with a few Kerbonauts, science equipment, and a LES, this should work great. If it needs larger payloads? Attach some SRBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamyesque Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Well, it wasn\'t working with lower values. I\'ll tweak it based on this increased density, now. Edit: Got the benchmark payload to an 88 km circular orbit using just about all my fuel. Now to see how it scales... Hopefully good. For a basic crew vehicle with a few Kerbonauts, science equipment, and a LES, this should work great. If it needs larger payloads? Attach some SRBs.What\'s your benchmark payload? The Mercury Atlases could put just over a tonne into LEO, but they were 3m rockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 What\'s your benchmark payload? The Mercury Atlases could put just over a tonne into LEO, but they were 3m rockets.CM, decoupler, SM, parachute, 4 RCS blocks. Total mass 1.5 units.Note that this vehicle is an equivalent of the Falcon 9. For lower capability vehicles, I\'m going to make smaller fuel tanks (like the Fregat stage) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamyesque Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Hrm. Toss me your numbers in a PM and I\'ll look \'em over on the weekend, if you want; I\'m no modeller, but I\'m reasonably good at math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 Hrm. Toss me your numbers in a PM and I\'ll look \'em over on the weekend, if you want; I\'m no modeller, but I\'m reasonably good at math. All right.Just tested a falcon-heavy sort of setup, and was able to get a fully fueled second stage into orbit with the same payload. This upper stage was able to perform TMI using only half of its fuel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardBoardBoxProcessor Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 you know most modellign tools calculate volumes of any shape :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 you know most modellign tools calculate volumes of any shape :/I know... That\'s what I used to get the volume of them initially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agamemnon Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 did you try to use the rocket equation to calculate how much you can launch to orbit? i think it could help you create a better image of what you gonna get with a given rocket configuration... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts