selfish_meme Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 Progress, I hit the side of a barn with it, the VAB to be exact, the counterbalance of the barrel needs to be tweaked and may involve a couple of ore cannisters as their contents can be jettisoned at each shot keeping the barrel in balance the whole time. I also made a pretty darn small powerful bearing for it, the bearing actually controls the rotation of the turret and the elevation of the barrel, which move on separate bearings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 10 hours ago, Raptor9 said: Ok Rune, now you're just showing off. In all seriousness though, that shuttle that you posted on Friday with the two side-mounted orange tanks...beautiful. (I will not steal the blueprints...I will not steal the blueprints...I will not steal the blueprints) Well, I have just done a serious end-to-end test flight, and I can tell you that it doesn't have just the looks, it works beautifully. It is a bit touchy on descent, and I almost lost it (the CoL is really low, and without payload uncomfortably close to the CoM, meaning it likes flying upside down), but if you leave some fuel (on the fore tank) for the RCS system to brute-force it back into a nose-up attitude if you lose it, it can handle a very gentle reentry at 40º AoA, and even... ok, maybe not fly, but at least fall slower... on the four Junos. And it has a ton of performance, I might upgrade the airbreathing system to allow full flight: I clocked 630m/s left in the tanks on the customary 100kms circular orbit, with the proof 20mT payload! Other reasons why I think it rocks: 80 parts on the pad without payload, 50 when coming down, so potato-computer-certified (PCC™). A full flights costs about 25k√ in external tankage and fuel, which is peanuts for a rocket, making it actually useful for a career game. And a damned fast rocket-like gravity turn, on account of it having effectively a steeper TWR curve than an all-rocket SSTO, meaning it makes orbit really really quick: those 5G's in the album where clocked during the circularization burn (at T+6m!), the reentry was much gentler. Rune. And I was totally trying to show off. Guilty as charged! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlipNascar Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 I think I will regret going down the cog and gear route again.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) Just now, FlipNascar said: I think I will regret going down the cog and gear route again.... LOL, awesome man. This is real Kerbal engineering. Edited December 13, 2015 by Majorjim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) 3 hours ago, Rune said: Well, I have just done a serious end-to-end test flight, and I can tell you that it doesn't have just the looks, it works beautifully. It is a bit touchy on descent, and I almost lost it (the CoL is really low, and without payload uncomfortably close to the CoM, meaning it likes flying upside down), but if you leave some fuel (on the fore tank) for the RCS system to brute-force it back into a nose-up attitude if you lose it, it can handle a very gentle reentry at 40º AoA, and even... ok, maybe not fly, but at least fall slower... on the four Junos. And it has a ton of performance, I might upgrade the airbreathing system to allow full flight: I clocked 630m/s left in the tanks on the customary 100kms circular orbit, with the proof 20mT payload! My STS shuttle-analogue can take 20tons to 500x500km orbit and return (or heavier payloads to lower orbits) but can only safely land with 9 tons on board, and that's assuming the 9 ton mass is centered evenly in the cargo bay. If it's mounted forward, it will probably be more like 6 or 7 tons. Any more and you can't bring the nose up during the short final flare. So it can easily take it's SpaceLab up and back for long-duration science research, and should be able to bring reasonably heavy satellites back, not to mention having more than enough "oomph" to bring space station modules to 100x100km orbit. As an added challenge, I put my ISS-like station in a ~50 deg inclination (real ISS is 51.6) to add a greater challenge, and it covers more biomes during it's orbit (minus the tundra and ice caps). It definitely adds to the planning challenge since I now have legitimate launch and reentry windows, but it's fun. Edited December 13, 2015 by Raptor9 My crappy grammer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 1 hour ago, Rune said: Well, I have just done a serious end-to-end test flight, and I can tell you that it doesn't have just the looks, it works beautifully. It is a bit touchy on descent, and I almost lost it (the CoL is really low, and without payload uncomfortably close to the CoM, meaning it likes flying upside down), but if you leave some fuel (on the fore tank) for the RCS system to brute-force it back into a nose-up attitude if you lose it, it can handle a very gentle reentry at 40º AoA, and even... ok, maybe not fly, but at least fall slower... on the four Junos. And it has a ton of performance, I might upgrade the airbreathing system to allow full flight: I clocked 630m/s left in the tanks on the customary 100kms circular orbit, with the proof 20mT payload! Other reasons why I think it rocks: 80 parts on the pad without payload, 50 when coming down, so potato-computer-certified (PCC™). A full flights costs about 25k√ in external tankage and fuel, which is peanuts for a rocket, making it actually useful for a career game. And a damned fast rocket-like gravity turn, on account of it having effectively a steeper TWR curve than an all-rocket SSTO, meaning it makes orbit really really quick: those 5G's in the album where clocked during the circularization burn (at T+6m!), the reentry was much gentler. Rune. And I was totally trying to show off. Guilty as charged! Why is there four reverse intakes on the rear of the craft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dwarf Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 39 minutes ago, Majorjim said: Why is there four reverse intakes on the rear of the craft? Those ain't intakes! They're Juno engines, for flyback. You can see them working in the last pictures Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, Raptor9 said: My STS shuttle-analogue can take 20tons to 500x500km orbit and return (or heavier payloads to lower orbits) but can only safely land with 9 tons on board, and that's assuming the 9 ton mass is centered evenly in the cargo bay. If it's mounted forward, it will probably be more like 6 or 7 tons. Anymore and you can't bring the nose up during the short final flare. So it can easily take it's SpaceLab up and back for long-duration science research, and should be able to bring reasonably heavy satellites back, not to mention having more than enough "oomph" to bring space station modules to 100x100km orbit. As an added challenge, I put my ISS-like station in a ~50 deg inclination (real ISS is 51.6) to add a greater challenge, and it covers more biomes during it's orbit (minus the tundra and ice caps). It definitely adds to the planning challenge since I now have legitimate launch and reentry windows, but it's fun. Sounds like a tad more powerful than mine then! Because I imagine that is manned of course... Still, this was built more for the hell of it (and to try out the Vectors), and only late in the build converted to a low-cost shuttle. 45 minutes ago, Majorjim said: Why is there four reverse intakes on the rear of the craft? Those are Junos, actually. I don't know that you can actually fly on them for any lenght of time, even with the shuttle completely empty, but hey, they do their best and they do give you a gentler gliding slope. Maybe at very low speeds they can overcome the drag... I should run tests, shouldn't I? Rune. In the vicinity of 0.2 in TWR, though, so I doubt it. Edited December 13, 2015 by Rune Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Rune said: Sounds like a tad more powerful than mine then! Because I imagine that is manned of course... Still, this was built more for the hell of it (and to try out the Vectors), and only late in the build converted to a low-cost shuttle. Mine does have the advantage of having a lot more fuel feeding those three "Vectors", and I have a pair of "Mainsail"-powered liquid fuel boosters that are almost exactly like your side-mounted external fuel tanks. However, mine is manned like you said, has a lot more parts on it, and it also jettisons a lot more during ascent to orbit. Yours has the advantage of being simpler, lower part count, and much cheaper and economical since you recover most of your launch system. Every time I launch mine, I lose just under 86,000 funds from the launch stack alone: external tank, boosters, and fuel. So a fair trade-off in my opinion. Edited December 13, 2015 by Raptor9 Typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlipNascar Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 So it seems you can make universal joints... I didn't fancy unclogging the cogs and gears so figured it had to be worth a shot adding ant/spider engines and using their elasticity. And yes. It works. Is it reliable... No. Well not yet. And of course the obligatory gif: http://gfycat.com/JoyousThoroughJavalina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 Just now, FlipNascar said: So it seems you can make universal joints... I didn't fancy unclogging the cogs and gears so figured it had to be worth a shot adding ant/spider engines and using their elasticity. And yes. It works. Is it reliable... No. Well not yet. And of course the obligatory gif: http://gfycat.com/JoyousThoroughJavalina What are we seeing here? Is it the kink in the bearing 'chain'? What connects the parts that meet in the bend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlipNascar Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 13 minutes ago, Majorjim said: What are we seeing here? Is it the kink in the bearing 'chain'? What connects the parts that meet in the bend? What you see in the last image is the internals. Connecting the two ibeams are something like eight spider engines. The spider engines are stacked one on top the other. The middle ibeam (the one with the angle) is just rotated down about 45 degrees. The elasticity in the spider engines means you can hold it in place and they absorb the torque of the twist. It's actually very very simple. The bearing spits out at the back end and is reasonably solid (at dry thrust - needs strengthening to handle more thrust). Then there's an ibeam out the back with a monoprop tank, held in place by wheels. Then come the spider engines and the rest of the i-beam/RCS tank combo. So yes, it's basically a kink in the bearing without need another bearing. So it's all still directly driven by the waterwheeling panthers. Perhaps I should have taken a better screenshot the first time around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 Just now, FlipNascar said: What you see in the last image is the internals. Connecting the two ibeams are something like eight spider engines. The spider engines are stacked one on top the other. The middle ibeam (the one with the angle) is just rotated down about 45 degrees. The elasticity in the spider engines means you can hold it in place and they absorb the torque of the twist. It's actually very very simple. The bearing spits out at the back end and is reasonably solid (at dry thrust - needs strengthening to handle more thrust). Then there's an ibeam out the back with a monoprop tank, held in place by wheels. Then come the spider engines and the rest of the i-beam/RCS tank combo. So yes, it's basically a kink in the bearing without need another bearing. So it's all still directly driven by the waterwheeling panthers. Perhaps I should have taken a better screenshot the first time around. Yes, yes I see now. That's awesome man! Very clever idea. I see how each set of wheels holds it in place, looks like it could be quite solid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimech Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) FlipNascar I really love the idea, but you should use a thrust measuring rig (for example, mine) to test the power loss in the universal joint. I suspect it to be enormous. Someone asked me to build a modern car. An SUV for example. Now I really dislike modern cars. My own car is 31 years old, had it for 9 years already, a daily driver, and I want to drive it until it's at least 50 years old. But this thing is nearing completion. Whadda ya guys think? Edited December 13, 2015 by Azimech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderSpock Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 Oh man that's awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 Just now, Azimech said: FlipNascar I really love the idea, but you should use a thrust measuring rig (for example, mine) to test the power loss in the universal joint. I suspect it to be enormous. Someone asked me to build a modern car. An SUV for example. Now I really dislike modern cars. My own car is 31 years old, had it for 9 years already, a daily driver, and I want to drive it until it's at least 50 years old. But this thing is nearing completion. Whadda ya guys think? The overall shape looks good. It's a bit messy looking though. Wheels clipping, holes in the body, exposed strut ends ect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimech Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 That's why I haven't released it yet ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 Just now, Azimech said: That's why I haven't released it yet ;-) In that case, carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 On 12/11/2015, 6:01:03, Yukon0009 said: Star Wars stuff A-Wing (stock) ATAT Walker (needs robotics mod + partwelding to reduce part count) Slave 1 (stock) http://gifmaker.cc/PlayGIFAnimation.php?folder=2015121016fIUaMOGcFZMCfhJ8EzLyPS&file=output_CtgJAj.gif That walker is amazing! But the A-wing needs to be a bit longer, and more pointy, IMO. On 12/12/2015, 12:06:07, Bubbadevlin said: Well, I have been working on a bunch of stuff, but I have also re-done the top part of my model LEM. Now I need to work on the lower landing part.. (hyper-edited it down in the photos) I also learned that KSP NEEDS more cubes!!!! They are SO useful in building!! Awesome! That's the best LM I've ever seen! 3 hours ago, FlipNascar said: So it seems you can make universal joints... I didn't fancy unclogging the cogs and gears so figured it had to be worth a shot adding ant/spider engines and using their elasticity. And yes. It works. Is it reliable... No. Well not yet. And of course the obligatory gif: http://gfycat.com/JoyousThoroughJavalina Also amazing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Space Cowboy Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbntqbxUj4g Looks like I haven't mastered Youtube embedding yet. Edited December 13, 2015 by Space Cowboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaturnianBlue Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) I'm almost ready for the PT Boat release, I fixed the chart house, since it was a section I made early on, and so I improved it. Got it working without KJR (I think), and tried a 2 wheesly 1 panther config that didn't work, as one of the engines suffered multiple flameouts, so I'm back to the Goliath engine. I added on Azimech's wake effect engines, i'm using 2 juno engines for my wake, with the aft wake being provided by the game and Goliath engine . The album shows the finished chart house and some "promo pics". Edited December 13, 2015 by SaturnianBlue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimech Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 Smoke on the water ... fire in the sky! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlipNascar Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 12 hours ago, Azimech said: FlipNascar I really love the idea, but you should use a thrust measuring rig (for example, mine) to test the power loss in the universal joint. I suspect it to be enormous. I really have no hope that it will be efficient... Given the huge inefficiencies that are inherent with the whole turbine thing anyway. But it works, which is good enough for now, hopefully it can deliver enough grunt at some point to make a boat move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Some time spent on the shape of the Daedalus, a trybrid of plane, ssto and dropship. The shape is more and more kick-ass I think! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pTrevTrevs Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 Guess 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.