hieywiey Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I thought it was the other way around, the wider being better for in-atmosphere. That's why aerospikes work, the ambient air pressure acts as the other half of the nozzle and, as it decreases, it lets the exhaust go wider to maintain efficiency.Oh, you're right, it was just the way that you said it was confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hieywiey Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 This is kinda like the ACRV proposed by the ESA a while ago: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackheart612 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Yep... at least it was cleared out. It was the other way around. I didn't check it but I knew it was something. huehue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 blackheart612: nope, you were correct at the beginning.wikiThe main point is that when you fire a rocket in atmosphere, atmospheric pressure "pushes back" against the exhaust (this is also why, no matter how atmospheric-optimal your nozzle, it will never be as efficient in atmosphere as it is in vacuum). This means that the nozzle has to have a lower expansion ratio (i.e. less wide exit) than a vacuum-optimized nozzle.That said, the thing is, it doesn't matter how wide the exit is. What matters is the *ratio* of throat to exit (expansion ratio). The SSME, since it spends most of its burn time at high altitude or in space, has a decently high expansion ratio (though far from the crazy 250:1 of the RL-10B!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackheart612 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Now I'm confused. But after some reading... not anymore. Hue. Oh well. Thanks for finally clearing that topic up Nathan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sochin Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Think of the Apollo CSM engine, stubby and fat for space. Know think of the larger KW engines where they are longer and thin for first stage motors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackheart612 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 There for we can conclude that poodle.... sucks. XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asdfCYBER Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 What i've seen here looks absolutely amazing!Any ideas about an experimental version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hieywiey Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 What i've seen here looks absolutely amazing!Any ideas about an experimental version?YOU JUST COMMITTED HERESY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sage Sagan Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 Hi all, away from the PC for the day...damn family:). Blackheart, I was PM ing Daemoria and we were kicking the idea around of just having 2 x0.65m attach nodes in the roots of the wings. There are so many addon engines out therealready I am thinking of Dtobis incredible shuttle engine pack for instance or RLA by Hoojiwana that I'm not sure we need a new engine for this beastie. That being said if Daemoria is doing new engines for his pack and wants to toss one this way I'm sure no-one would object. A pair of those 200lb thrust motors in the link really would look very sexy on the back of the shuttle....Thoughts please: 1) Let people "roll their own" just leave attach nodes and then people may choose engines from stock or from other packs, this would necessitate adding LFO tanks to the Pteron so as no to limit engine choice to Monoprop only. The original config is for Monoprop R.C.S AND de orbit motors.2) Fixed motors, this would mean the motors would have to be modeled, would keep part count down but I think it would limit usefulness.3) 0.65m attach nodes and newly modeled motors probably the most sensible but will mean the most delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sage Sagan Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 YOU JUST COMMITTED HERESY! heresy is a bit strong, but definitely testing the boundaries of theology:)And the answer to the original question is :"Absolutely no idea when" but deposit holders will be served first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer Tech Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Hi all, away from the PC for the day...damn family:). Blackheart, I was PM ing Daemoria and we were kicking the idea around of just having 2 x0.65m attach nodes in the roots of the wings. There are so many addon engines out therealready I am thinking of Dtobis incredible shuttle engine pack for instance or RLA by Hoojiwana that I'm not sure we need a new engine for this beastie. That being said if Daemoria is doing new engines for his pack and wants to toss one this way I'm sure no-one would object. A pair of those 200lb thrust motors in the link really would look very sexy on the back of the shuttle....Thoughts please: 1) Let people "roll their own" just leave attach nodes and then people may choose engines from stock or from other packs, this would necessitate adding LFO tanks to the Pteron so as no to limit engine choice to Monoprop only. The original config is for Monoprop R.C.S AND de orbit motors.2) Fixed motors, this would mean the motors would have to be modeled, would keep part count down but I think it would limit usefulness.3) 0.65m attach nodes and newly modeled motors probably the most sensible but will mean the most delay.Definitely attach nodes; as you say there are many awesome shuttle motors out there.For the issue of including fuel, why not have a tweakable that sets the fuel type in the style of Procedural Parts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackheart612 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Wings are thick as I see it, they should countain fuel. LFO and MonoProp for both Translation and Movement. But it could have an all MonoProp version for MonoProp engines. Still dibs on choice 3. I could throw up a texture on the engine, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tygoo7 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I'm just making a high poly mesh. The color is just for breaking up the forms for my own sake.To any interested, here is what i've got. Got to take a break now, that pesky thing called a 'job' calls.https://p3d.in/yA1R2+spinBeware, it's a 45mb large file, so it might take a while to load the viewer.Edit: it's *only* ~20mb. I guess their site has some sort of mesh compression.Very nice! There are some things I don't like about it. First I don't think its necessary to model in the heat shield tiles. Just use a normal map. Also I think it looks a bit too sci-fi to me if you are trying to get Dream Chaser or KSO style. Other than that it looks good so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackheart612 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I get that feeling too earlier anyways afaik no, it's not model, it's a mere bump map Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sage Sagan Posted March 8, 2014 Author Share Posted March 8, 2014 Wings are thick as I see it, they should countain fuel. LFO and MonoProp for both Translation and Movement. But it could have an all MonoProp version for MonoProp engines. Still dibs on choice 3. I could throw up a texture on the engine, too. So attach modes, LFO motors from other packs all fine so far. However is it possible to have wings with fuel in them? I haven't seen any. There is no strict need to have fuel in the wings, there are enough crevices in the main fuselage to have a reasonable amount of Mono and LFO in there. The amounts of both we will determine once we have something in game that can be flight tested to find optimum amounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemoria Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) The reason why wings don't have fuel in them in KSP is that the weight of the wing determines its lift power. As fuel is drained, it would actually lose lift.And because I can't post without shiny pictures... here is the uvmapped/low poly mesh. 2k normal+AO texture. 1,106 trianglesAmbient occlusion bake + real time normals.I have to fix some errors before i upload it for texturing, namely the mirrored wing's normals are all sorts of messed up. I'm going to have to put it on the 1,1 uv space... Edited March 8, 2014 by Daemoria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Explorator Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Wow that looks great! any chance that the dimensions could fit in a kso shuttle? just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerLoki Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Wow that looks great! any chance that the dimensions could fit in a kso shuttle? just wondering.Yo dawg I heard you like shuttles, so I put a shuttle in your shuttle so you can shuttle while you shuttle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemoria Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 it can fit inside a 2 meter scaled bay, so if that's the dimensions of the bay, then yea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackheart612 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Hah, that's a nice thumbnail, Daemoria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Skull Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Looks awesome. Can't wait to see it tumbling out of control through the atmosphere as I attempt re-entry... At least I'll be doing it in style! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtedastro Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 ah, tumbling out of control..... I love the smell of burning shoe rubber in the morning...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stubbles Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Hah, that is outstanding, Daemoria! Coming along great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekan1k Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I think the first version of this I fly will be named "The Falling Shoe" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts