Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ank]

Landing legs and the structural pylon, I believe. At least until the landing legs got remodeled. Might not work so well now.

thanks. ended up with infernal robotics http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/37707-0-21-0-22-Magic-Smoke-Industries-Parts-Infernal-Robotics-0-8b-%2810-7-2013%29

there are gaps and seams.. I'd need a 1.5 panel 

Spoiler: open (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: closed (click to show/hide)

That's a very nice looking craft!

And NERVA for SSTO... I will have to try that!
Are you engaging the NERVA before turning off the Jets?

[LoSboccacc]

Yes at 25km from groubd te jet brings me at 1500m/s, then I engage the nerva and turn to 40' climb. When the jet flames out I kill it.

Note that it is a far craft, and even stalls mid flight with a heavy payload. Luckily I can raise the bay doors to gain portance  (which is actually pretty cool)

[Sean Mirrsen]

Hmm, that craft can't be very heavy.

Have you tried using 909's instead of NERVAs? I think the losses in efficiency (50%) and thrust (12%) will be sufficiently offset by not having to lug three and a half extra tons of nuclear engine into orbit. Each NERVA is 2.25 tons. Each LV-909 is 500kg. Try it.

[ank]

Hmm, that craft can't be very heavy.

Have you tried using 909's instead of NERVAs? I think the losses in efficiency (50%) and thrust (12%) will be sufficiently offset by not having to lug three and a half extra tons of nuclear engine into orbit. Each NERVA is 2.25 tons. Each LV-909 is 500kg. Try it.

Gimmy the total mass of the craft and I can figure it out with the good 'ol rocket equation!

I was actually wondering about when NERVA's was effective due to thier high mass, and you gotta have a pretty small fuel tank for the NERVA to be inefficient.

[LoSboccacc]

Total mass is 20.5 ton

Math away

[Sean Mirrsen]

Well, you'd be down to 17 tons total, and you'd be down to 100kN of thrust, for a TWR of .58. With 20.5 tons and 120kN of thrust... hm. About pretty much the same, really. So the NERVA's efficiency would win out, especially at that altitude. Oh well.

[ank]

Total mass is 20.5 ton

Math away

Ok!
I am assuming some values for ISP, because the SSTO is partly in atmosphere. I am assuming 700 for NERVA and 380 for lv-909.

For the Nerva I get Delta-v = 1490.581955 m/s

And for the Lv-909 I get Delta-v = 894.4881073 m/s

These calculations does not take the fuel and stuff spent to get the NERVAs to 20km height though, but the numbers are so much in favor of the NERVAs that I am gonna call it the better choice.

[LoSboccacc]

Yes also using a single engine to get 20km I use up only half fuel so I prefer the dv than the weight

[Ultimuh]

So I lost Bill, Bob and Jeb one after one.
Somehow, they all died due to parachute failiure.
However the research they gave was valuable so it was not all in vain.
Now how do i prevent the parachute, from being ripped off the pod just before landing?

[rabidgam3r]

Remove some weight from the pod, and possibly add secondary parachutes to it.

[TheBronzePickle]

A single chute can usually stop a command pod and any non-sectional secondary objects you strap to it. I've managed to stop a pod with 4 goo canisters. You'll probably need more chutes to stop anything heavier, though, unless you want to put some shock absorbers on the bottom.

And don't forget, time acceleration will be the death of you if you're not careful

As a note, I've never had a chute failure once, so my advice is from 'I've done this and it works' perspective. The fact that I have a good computer that handles KSP pretty well might have a profound effect.

[BigFatStupidHead]

Did you know you can take an EVA report from the external command chair?

Spoiler: Cue !!SCIENCE!! (click to show/hide)

I love that ship.

[BigD145]

One parachute will get the 1 man pod down to 4m/s with a couple things tacked on. The 3 man is quite a bit heavier.

[Girlinhat]

Total mass is 20.5 ton

Math away

Ok!
I am assuming some values for ISP, because the SSTO is partly in atmosphere. I am assuming 700 for NERVA and 380 for lv-909.

For the Nerva I get Delta-v = 1490.581955 m/s

And for the Lv-909 I get Delta-v = 894.4881073 m/s

These calculations does not take the fuel and stuff spent to get the NERVAs to 20km height though, but the numbers are so much in favor of the NERVAs that I am gonna call it the better choice.

The 909 is basically an upscale of the NERVA - similar to the Mainsail and Poodle, or the 909 and the LT-30.  Compared to NERVA, the 909 gets lower fuel efficiency but higher thrust.

The basic rundown of engines is:
Ion: For autopilot making 10m+ burns.
NERVA: For anything you want to get very far.
909: Mostly landers, also small vessels during upper ascent stages or medium sized payloads needing long travel.
LV-30: Useful for ascent, as well as propelling extremely large payloads through orbital transitions.
Poodle: For extremely large payloads needing orbital movements, and for landing extremely large landers.
Mainsail: Ascent.  Nothing else.

[Putnam]

Skipper's probably better for ascent if you're not desperate for thrust.