Print

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

[IronTomato]

Also, I forgot to mention before, there's a pretty decent spaceplane that I've had for a long time. It's lightweight, has 2 stages, the first of which has 6 turbojet engines, and the 2nd with a single toroidal aerospike rocket. It can go really far, and with proper vertical landing skills it can visit Minmus really easily. I've done an Eve flyby, too. The only downside is that it needs to be refueled before it can leave.

This is why I designed an orbital refueling rocket for use especially with it. It has much more juice than what's needed to completely fill the plane, so you can be pretty generous with it during rendezvous.

The only real reason I'm saying this is because I was wondering, would anyone want to have the .CRAFT files and/or pictures for educational porpoises?

[BigD145]

After finally getting some beamed thermal infrastructure in Interstellar the beginning's of plasma craft using vacuum as a "fuel" has begun. Plasma engine + thermal receiver + electric engine = craft. That's it. You're effectively bathing your craft in fuel and turning heat into electricity to use that fuel as long as you have not a lick of atmosphere.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The only real reason I'm saying this is because I was wondering, would anyone want to have the .CRAFT files and/or pictures for educational porpoises?

Might be interesting. I'd also be interested in knowing how to upload .CRAFT files.

[ank]

If you're going off the 'drag' number in the parts list, that's not entirely accurate. An orange tank and a tiny puddle-jumper tank both have the same drag per surface area, but even the base game bothers to actually care about that surface area. With a mod focused on making aerodynamics more realistic, like FAR, you can notice an even greater difference.

Of course, I haven't played in a while, so I might be wrong for lack of newer developments, but I don't think the game's creators would backtrack like that.

My main gaming PC is on the fritz, but maybe someone can launch test this by launching two identical crafts, with the only difference being one has 2 tanks of half length and the other with 1 tank with double length.

According to you they should go to the same height, according to me, the single tank one will go higher.

TEST PREASE!

[BFEL]

Best part: This made it back to Kerbin!
However, the science part was torn off when parachutes deployed a couple hundred meters. I was glum the last 20 seconds of landing, until the pod touched the ground and I found out that through some miracle, the engines, fuel and landing struts where torn out and blown up violently, but the science modules were alive!
Just went to the Tracking Station, and all the Science came back to me.

This was a triumph~

Just so you know, when you're in space you can have your Kerbal grab the science out of experiments and put it in the pod. That way you don't have to worry when it gets all splodey.

Also "Scenic Background Crater" would be a good name for a band

[Helgoland]

Make it a plural and you've got a record deal.
"Scenic Background Craters"
scenicbackgroundcraters.tumblr.com
"All New LP: The Moons Of Jupiter"

Yup, it works.

[Theodolus]

My main gaming PC is on the fritz, but maybe someone can launch test this by launching two identical crafts, with the only difference being one has 2 tanks of half length and the other with 1 tank with double length.

According to you they should go to the same height, according to me, the single tank one will go higher.

TEST PREASE!

!Science! _{(With a disturbing lack of fiery deaths and explosions. Oh well.)}

Code: [Select]

         | Rocket 1    Rocket 2    Rocket 3   Rocket 4 |
         | --------    --------    --------   -------- |
   Tank  | FLT 100x8 | FLT 200x4 | FLT400x2 | FLT800x1 |
   Fuel  |    360    |    360    |   360    |   360    |
Fuel Mass|   1.76    |    1.8    |   1.8    |   1.8    |
 Oxidizer|    440    |    440    |   440    |   440    |
 Oxy Mass|   2.16    |    2.2    |   2.2    |   2.2    |
   Mass  |    4.5    |    4.5    |   4.5    |   4.5    |
   Drag  |    1.6    |    0.8    |   0.4    |   0.2    |
         |-----------|-----------|----------|----------|
(Mass and drag do not include the common parts values)

Common Parts
Inline Reaction Wheel, Command Pod Mk1, LV-T30 Engine

Method
Throttle to full on the launchpad. Turn on SAS. Hands off for the rest of the flight.

Code: [Select]

Apoapsis (Test 1 / Test 2)
--------------------------
Rocket 1: 92,684 / 92,678|
Rocket 2: 92,663 / 92,658|
Rocket 3: 92,590 / 92,584|
Rocket 4: 92,565 / 92,558|
--------------------------
No time dialation was used during the test to ensure that the physics engine didn't start estimating and getting the margins wrong.

Thoughts
Rocket 3 and 4 seemed to run out of fuel at roughly the same time, but I would peg 4 as running out just a bit sooner. This is coroborated by the slightly lower apoapsis. I believe that the main reason why the smaller tanks lifted higher is because of a slightly larger volume.

I'm not sure what the empty mass of each of the containers is either. The FLT 100 cycled through each container pretty quickly. If an empty container ends up not having as much mass that may account for this side effect: Rocket 1 accelerated much faster than the other three. It displayed the atmospheric burn animation for much longer than any of the other rockets. 2 and 3 both displayed it, but at a smaller intensity and for a much shorter period of time. 4 did not display the burn animation at all. I wasn't, however, tracking maximum velocity during the tests, so this is a bit theoretical and may be attributed to the total drag.

I originally tracked the fuel exhaustion altitude, but it was pretty much the same for all 4 rockets. Possibly some small variances, but nothing of serious note as far as I could tell.

[BFEL]

Next up in

Spoiler: ADVENTURES IN WHAT NOT TO DO! (click to show/hide)

((The mission was actually a success, the capsule had all the science and was detached/safe, but the image of what was left was just comedy gold))

[Putnam]

Here ya go.

[GreatWyrmGold]

My main gaming PC is on the fritz, but maybe someone can launch test this by launching two identical crafts, with the only difference being one has 2 tanks of half length and the other with 1 tank with double length.

According to you they should go to the same height, according to me, the single tank one will go higher.

TEST PREASE!

Actually, they would both end with the double-tanker going higher, because the surface area of the two cylinders is longer because it has twice as many circles.
Degree should be pretty clear, though.

I got the basic spaceplane parts, but sadly I cannot seem to make one.
Helps?

1. Go to hangar.
2. Slap together parts that look like a plane.
3. Crash plane. Return to 2.

Actually, I had some success with planes towards the beginning. Never spaced one, though, but I imagine it's "just" a matter of getting it to fast speeds, then launching kinda like a rocket.

[TheDarkStar]

I've just started messing with spaceplanes. Usually, you're trying to get above 10km as fast as you can, and then you aim as close to the horizon as possible while still climbing. If you're using more than 1 airbreathing engine, make sure to turn them off once your air gets too low to avoid spinning.

Also, make sure your center of mass is ahead of your center of lift to make liftoff easier.

[Lightningfalcon]

I've just started messing with spaceplanes. Usually, you're trying to get above 10km as fast as you can, and then you aim as close to the horizon as possible while still climbing. If you're using more than 1 airbreathing engine, make sure to turn them off once your air gets too low to avoid spinning.

Also, make sure your center of mass is ahead of your center of lift to make liftoff easier.

I've actually found it better to slowly climb to about 15,000 meters.   Then I alternate between my jet engines and rocket engines to gain speed, until I finally switch to just rocket engines at about 22,000 meters.   

[BigD145]

Even if I turn my plasma engine thrust way down it's still too powerful to land on the Mun. A single 1.25m vacuum plasma engine is OP. :/ Or the 60GW of power is OP. Time to switch to a smaller engine and stop smearing Kerbals across the Mun.

[ank]

My main gaming PC is on the fritz, but maybe someone can launch test this by launching two identical crafts, with the only difference being one has 2 tanks of half length and the other with 1 tank with double length.

According to you they should go to the same height, according to me, the single tank one will go higher.

TEST PREASE!

!Science! _{(With a disturbing lack of fiery deaths and explosions. Oh well.)}

Code: [Select]

         | Rocket 1    Rocket 2    Rocket 3   Rocket 4 |
         | --------    --------    --------   -------- |
   Tank  | FLT 100x8 | FLT 200x4 | FLT400x2 | FLT800x1 |
   Fuel  |    360    |    360    |   360    |   360    |
Fuel Mass|   1.76    |    1.8    |   1.8    |   1.8    |
 Oxidizer|    440    |    440    |   440    |   440    |
 Oxy Mass|   2.16    |    2.2    |   2.2    |   2.2    |
   Mass  |    4.5    |    4.5    |   4.5    |   4.5    |
   Drag  |    1.6    |    0.8    |   0.4    |   0.2    |
         |-----------|-----------|----------|----------|
(Mass and drag do not include the common parts values)

Common Parts
Inline Reaction Wheel, Command Pod Mk1, LV-T30 Engine

Method
Throttle to full on the launchpad. Turn on SAS. Hands off for the rest of the flight.

Code: [Select]

Apoapsis (Test 1 / Test 2)
--------------------------
Rocket 1: 92,684 / 92,678|
Rocket 2: 92,663 / 92,658|
Rocket 3: 92,590 / 92,584|
Rocket 4: 92,565 / 92,558|
--------------------------
No time dialation was used during the test to ensure that the physics engine didn't start estimating and getting the margins wrong.

Thoughts
Rocket 3 and 4 seemed to run out of fuel at roughly the same time, but I would peg 4 as running out just a bit sooner. This is coroborated by the slightly lower apoapsis. I believe that the main reason why the smaller tanks lifted higher is because of a slightly larger volume.

I'm not sure what the empty mass of each of the containers is either. The FLT 100 cycled through each container pretty quickly. If an empty container ends up not having as much mass that may account for this side effect: Rocket 1 accelerated much faster than the other three. It displayed the atmospheric burn animation for much longer than any of the other rockets. 2 and 3 both displayed it, but at a smaller intensity and for a much shorter period of time. 4 did not display the burn animation at all. I wasn't, however, tracking maximum velocity during the tests, so this is a bit theoretical and may be attributed to the total drag.

I originally tracked the fuel exhaustion altitude, but it was pretty much the same for all 4 rockets. Possibly some small variances, but nothing of serious note as far as I could tell.

Thanks buddy! Good test!
You have pretty much proven that just adding drag on parts is not the way to figure drag.
I honestly thought this was how it worked.

The test shows conclusively that there is no difference between the setups.
I am chalking the lower apo on rocket 4 up to rounding errors in the game.

Now, how to take this further? what is drag actually dependent on?
Is it the drag numbers on all parts not in the shadow? Or is it looking at the front area?

Time to put some tanks next to each other!

[dragnar]

I believe drag is calculated through the exact same ray casting algorithm that re-entry effects use - if a part is blocked by another from the direction you're headed, it's drag is 0. Partially block, partial drag... Hmm, though I think technically that means multiple tanks would be slower - even if in-line with each other - if oriented SIDEWAYS instead of vertically. Though, uh, that's a bit harder to test admittedly.