totm june 2018 Work-in-Progress [WIP] Design Thread

[andrew123]

3 hours ago, SaturnianBlue said:

 

Hopefully it won't accidentally identify an enemy destroyer as a friend ship... How well does the ship turn?

It turns pretty well for its size and stability, though I'm still trying to improve it.

I'm removing some of the stabilizing features from the hull bottom and shifting the COM upwards... The hull is so stable that it refused to capsize no matter what I threw against it in the sea trials, and I'm using a modified version of the same hull for an ~200 meter long aircraft carrier, if I have enough time to finish it.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2016 by andrew123

[Torquimedes]

On 12/25/2016 at 1:01 PM, evader said:

My greatest in-progress failed creation.

  Hide contents

Made up of 4 highly inefficient subassemblies consisting of independent, over-engineered tilting engines that change mode from a single button...sequence.  With a whopping range of 1km.

I have spent a lot of time figuring out how to make craft with rotating sections, and I still haven't tried one with rotating engines.  Yours is an interesting failed unfinished creation.  I saw one very important feature: the rotation works!

It looks like you use tiny rockets to rotate the engines.  Are those Separatrons?  That's a clever way to get independent sections to rotate at the same time.  Do the rotating sections redock with the main craft for throttle control?  It looks solid after rotation.

From the video I can see Vernors for pitch control, but you might want to add some big reaction wheels.  These will save fuel if you're concerned about efficiency and will help the main craft fight the independent sections if they wobble at all.  And for forward flight it looks like you might need more wings aft to move the CoL behind the CoM for stability.

You may not need it based on this video, but the RCS Build Aid mod is great for balancing VTOLS.

[andrew123]

Will start installing the AA guns on the 200+ m long Shoho light carrier, which carries enough fuel to circumnavigate kerbin more than two times.

The side angled smoke exhaust is working pretty nice, and the ship's slightly less maneuverable than the Yuudachi.

Over 1 million units of liquid fuel.

 

Imperial seal.

 

This hull will make a good base for a battleship. I'll start with the Kongo then move up to the Nagato.

Edited December 27, 2016 by andrew123

[Castille7]

Diesel Rig Set
Update: 12.26.2016

I decided to add a Sleeper Cab to the Diesel Truck, also Antennas, Mirrors, more Wheels on the rear, and Air Breathers. I am undecided on releasing both Trucks, one with and one without the Sleeper Cab.

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Castille7

[JWOC]

14 hours ago, Castille7 said:

Diesel Rig Set
Update: 12.26.2016

I decided to add a Sleeper Cab to the Diesel Truck, also Antennas, Mirrors, more Wheels on the rear, and Air Breathers. I am undecided on releasing both Trucks, one with and one without the Sleeper Cab.

 

@Castille7 this is really cool. In probably going to use it to transport cargo and other things around kerbin in support of my KEI program. 

-JWOC 

EDIT: oops posted this in the wrong forum can a mod move this to the correct forum section. Thx 

Edited December 27, 2016 by JWOC

[evader]

On ‎26‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 2:51 PM, Torquimedes said:

I have spent a lot of time figuring out how to make craft with rotating sections, and I still haven't tried one with rotating engines.  Yours is an interesting failed unfinished creation.  I saw one very important feature: the rotation works!

It looks like you use tiny rockets to rotate the engines.  Are those Separatrons?  That's a clever way to get independent sections to rotate at the same time.  Do the rotating sections redock with the main craft for throttle control?  It looks solid after rotation.

From the video I can see Vernors for pitch control, but you might want to add some big reaction wheels.  These will save fuel if you're concerned about efficiency and will help the main craft fight the independent sections if they wobble at all.  And for forward flight it looks like you might need more wings aft to move the CoL behind the CoM for stability.

You may not need it based on this video, but the RCS Build Aid mod is great for balancing VTOLS.

They use 2 spark engines on one side & 2 pairs of spider engines on the other (need radial engines due to docking port obstruction used for engine re-attachment). With several group commands, they can rotate one way or the other, detach, or shut off (needed after re-attachment).  I found out if thrust is set to 25% before detachment but after the spark/spider engine activation then they dock each time but require holding the throttle button since each aerospike may attach at different times and then thrust goes to 0 automatically.  Since they're not separatrons, I can detach and change directions multiple times.

The aerospike is the most powerful engine that I could fit inside.  Unfortunately it's underpowered when combined with the housing.  I was only able to attach 1 MK3 fuel fuselage while still do VTOL and that meant that fuel ran out when I reached the coastline.  I was barely able to gain altitude as well.  The nice thing about it is each housing is saved as a subassembly so I can combine them to increase lifting capacity (though it's by a small multiplier factor).  I was even able to attach them in a 4 corner configuration (like a drone chopper) and somehow the front aerospikes didn't burn the 2 subassemblies behind them.

It also appears as though those small landing gear used as guides while rotating the engines might not be needed.  If I could remove those wheels and fit a splitter for 2 engines instead and add the reaction wheels to increase fuel efficiency then this might work (but still not get to orbit).

Edited December 27, 2016 by evader

[Castille7]

1 hour ago, JWOC said:

@Castille7 this is really cool. In probably going to use it to transport cargo and other things around kerbin in support of my KEI program. 

-JWOC 

EDIT: oops posted this in the wrong forum can a mod move this to the correct forum section. Thx 

Thank you for the compliment JWOC, I will try and complete this project over the weekend

[Triop]

Designing an electric engine for the KD2017, like the looks so far but it needs to be tested.

 

[He_162]

I have a question, it probably doesn't pertain to this thread, but it's for a work in progress build of mine, the He969 lifter. It takes 1000 tons to orbit, but that is 14.5% of it's total mass to a 80 km orbit, is that considered efficient? If so, how much? What is the highest efficiency achievable by average?

I would like to make it lighter, and therefore capable of taking more cargo to orbit for less cost / weight. So I heard 16% is considered efficient, but I think I can do better than that.

[septemberWaves]

9 hours ago, He_162 said:

It takes 1000 tons to orbit, but that is 14.5% of it's total mass to a 80 km orbit, is that considered efficient?

For such a high payload mass, 14.5% is a pretty good proportion I think. I don't know how to calculate for perfect efficiency but that seems like a fairly good payload ratio.

Edited December 28, 2016 by eloquentJane

[Rune]

9 hours ago, He_162 said:

I have a question, it probably doesn't pertain to this thread, but it's for a work in progress build of mine, the He969 lifter. It takes 1000 tons to orbit, but that is 14.5% of it's total mass to a 80 km orbit, is that considered efficient? If so, how much? What is the highest efficiency achievable by average?

I would like to make it lighter, and therefore capable of taking more cargo to orbit for less cost / weight. So I heard 16% is considered efficient, but I think I can do better than that.

A tad outdated, but here, a challenge on the subject. If we didn't get to the theoretical maximum, we went damn close:

 

Rune. TL;DR, depends on what you are talking about, my SSTOs routinely go over 30%.

[Azimech]

Decided to build the Porsche 935/78 "Moby Dick". By far the fastest car I've built and it's got a great handling too.

Not putting it online though ... If we ever get a real race circuit, this will be my weapon of choice :-)

[steve_v]

26 minutes ago, Azimech said:

it's got a great handling

Isn't the 935 supposed to try to kill you at every opportunity?

[He_162]

3 hours ago, Rune said:

A tad outdated, but here, a challenge on the subject. If we didn't get to the theoretical maximum, we went damn close:

 

Rune. TL;DR, depends on what you are talking about, my SSTOs routinely go over 30%.

Have you done any SSTO's with the vector engine only, and if so, how efficient were they?

4 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

For such a high payload mass, 14.5% is a pretty good proportion I think. I don't know how to calculate for perfect efficiency but that seems like a fairly good payload ratio.

I know real life is 4-5% of your total mass should reach orbit.

[Azimech]

Just now, steve_v said:

Isn't the 935 supposed to try to kill you at every opportunity?

Must've been ghosts winning those races then :-P

In KSP ... yeah a bunch of kerbals have lost their digital lives.

From the moment the 935 was introduced, it remained competitive until the FIA killed off the formula in 1982. The 935/78 wasn't that successful but it's easier to build with stock parts ... and it has the looks ;-)

 

 

[steve_v]

44 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Must've been ghosts winning those races then :-P

Fast, very. Easy to drive, not that I've heard.  Something to do with to insane power + considerable turbo lag. Does yours spit flames?

[Rune]

1 hour ago, He_162 said:

Have you done any SSTO's with the vector engine only, and if so, how efficient were they?

Mmm. The closet would be my Korolev, one Mammoth and a couple Vectors. That manages to lift ~50mT with a GLOW around 350mT (without payload), so around the same number (somewhere between 10 and 15%).

Another example would be the Heinlein/Lackluster, but those use spikes and again, not very efficient, I design my chemical SSTOs mostly for looks, and high efficiency chemical SSTOs are all about choosing your tankage wisely, which leaves you very few esthetic choices.

Anyhow, yeah, for a rocket, 14.5% sounds like a respectable number. If you want to go higher, you'd better go the airbreathing route.

 

Rune. Also, bigger is better to get close to the theoretical maximum.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Rune

[Azimech]

37 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Fast, very. Easy to drive, not that I've heard.  Something to do with to insane power + considerable turbo lag. Does yours spit flames?

I've solved the turbo lag ... but it doesn't spit flames

[vitekc45c]

Continuing work on my carrier/ mothership, crew section is almost complete, main hull plating is in place and so are medium torpedo bays.

Just under 2000 parts so far.

Inside of the hangar, still without inner plating and docking clamps.

Edited December 28, 2016 by vitekc45c

[mrmcp1]

3 hours ago, Azimech said:

Decided to build the Porsche 935/78 "Moby Dick". By far the fastest car I've built and it's got a great handling too.

Not putting it online though ... If we ever get a real race circuit, this will be my weapon of choice :-)

That looks really good. What spring and damper setting are you using (if you don't mind me asking) can't seem to stop my cars from cornering on 3 wheels for some reason 

[Azimech]

2 minutes ago, mrmcp1 said:

That looks really good. What spring and damper setting are you using (if you don't mind me asking) can't seem to stop my cars from cornering on 3 wheels for some reason 

To minimize body roll I've chosen to max out both. Doesn't help much though, I wish the scale could go a lot stiffer. For rally cars this would be madness, for race cars this is pretty normal.

[mrmcp1]

Just now, Azimech said:

To minimize body roll I've chosen to max out both. Doesn't help much though, I wish the scale could go a lot stiffer. For rally cars this would be madness, for race cars this is pretty normal.

Thanks, also what sort of friction settings do you use (forgot to ask) 

[Azimech]

9 minutes ago, mrmcp1 said:

Thanks, also what sort of friction settings do you use (forgot to ask) 

It depends ... I don't want it to roll over, usually I stay below 2.0, often even lower than 1.5. I want my cars to be lightly oversteered at low speed, understeered at high speed and always predictable. So aerodynamics have a big role as well.

[He_162]

7 hours ago, Rune said:

Mmm. The closet would be my Korolev, one Mammoth and a couple Vectors. That manages to lift ~50mT with a GLOW around 350mT (without payload), so around the same number (somewhere between 10 and 15%).

 

 

Another example would be the Heinlein/Lackluster, but those use spikes and again, not very efficient, I design my chemical SSTOs mostly for looks, and high efficiency chemical SSTOs are all about choosing your tankage wisely, which leaves you very few esthetic choices.

Anyhow, yeah, for a rocket, 14.5% sounds like a respectable number. If you want to go higher, you'd better go the airbreathing route.

 

Rune. Also, bigger is better to get close to the theoretical maximum.

Seems so. The 5000 ton (5 kT) lifter I made has a 17% efficiency. (Cargo Mass / Total Mass x 100) <--- I know you know that, but other people are reading.

[Exothermos]

I've been having a lot of fun playing with Fairings as fuselage sections.  They make some very clean looking replicas. These are mostly just rough "first-passes" as a sort of proof of concept (except for the xb-70 which is done.)

Fairings have some finicky building properties. Things need to be done in a certain order to enable these designs.