Kerbal Space Program - Page 25

eddie · 12-25-14, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Define "honeycomb design" please.

Kind of like this ikalugin!

http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=34966

ikalugin · 12-25-14, 03:04 PM

Does this also qualify?

eddie · 12-25-14, 04:18 PM

I would think so, is that the Energa?

ikalugin · 12-25-14, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddie

I would think so, is that the Energa?

One of its variants, yes.

Gargamel · 12-25-14, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Define "honeycomb design" please.

ikalugin · 12-25-14, 05:16 PM

So subsequent staging and not parallel?

Gargamel · 12-26-14, 11:44 AM

No, usually an asparagus design of multiple multiple stages in a large flat disc of boosters.

ikalugin · 01-13-15, 06:22 AM

Well, how would you rate this? Honeycomb or not?

NeonSamurai · 01-15-15, 06:36 AM

I never build rockets like that (the flat asparagus type that Gargamel posted). But then I fly ferram aerospace, where those kinds of designs do not work at all (they will rip themselves apart most of the time, and you waste a lot of DV on air resistance).

As for your rocket ikalugin, i suspect it flops around like a wet noodle, even with all those struts. It also would have higher drag in Ferram because of all those side rockets. I'm also not sure what your trying to accomplish with that design. Are you going for lifting power or interplanetary. I do think you have too many engines though. You are better off tailoring your engines for the different stages. high power engines with solid boosters to get you out of the lower atmosphere. Keep in mind that engines are very heavy in KSP (far more heavy than their real world counterparts), and stacking lots of engines with little fuel is counter productive. You also dont necessarily want huge acceleration. Ideally you should aim for 1.2-1.8 TWR (thrust to weight ratio) for liftoff, and maybe 3 TWR max for mid/upper atmosphere.

Personally i tend to go for energia or saturn v + solid booster designs. One main core with one engine block. I often even set it up so that only the solid boosters do the work for the first bit. Occasionally i'll use jet boosters, or a liquid fuel asparagus configuration. But I generally find solid boosters to be preferable due to their low empty weight. They are great for getting you out of the thick parts of the atmosphere. I never use more then one set (ie not stacked on each other)

Oh and this is asparagus staging btw
http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w...aragus_staging

Gargamel · 01-16-15, 06:42 PM

Not honeycomb. Interesting, but not a honeycomb.

ikalugin · 01-17-15, 02:05 AM

Well the objectives I had (when making this space booster) were:
- to make it look like N1 (because I like it).
- to have a manned space vehicle that could go anywhere in Kerbel system (without landing).

What I have tried to do:
- to optimise the engine selection for the stage, to reach maximum specific impulse for the altitude that stage is likely to operate at.
- to optimise the flight path by boosting quickly through the lower atmosphere and gaining sufficient vertical velocity to just go back to lower thrust/weight ratio on 2nd (achieves near orbit) and 3rd (achieves 500km orbit I use as standard) stages that gain orbital velocity. I get a very good reserve of delta-v on the 3rd stage, should I wish to go inter planetary on it (rather on slower drives).

Note that the 1st stage is not quite what it seems - the thrust/weight ratio is actually regulated by the fuel pumping system I got running (mech jeb doesn't see it, but then it doesn't need to), so that at the end of it's boost it is actually around 1.5 or so.

The shape is resultant from the general look I was going for (N1) and the diameters of the stages I was looking for. If I had larger diameter fuel tanks I would have used those. Structurally it actually doesn't woble and is very stable.

p.s. does any one know how to make custom size fuel tanks?

Penguin · 01-24-15, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin

p.s. does any one know how to make custom size fuel tanks?

Procedural Parts and/or TweakScale are both great. I have them both in my mod soup and they don't seem to conflict.

-----

Version 1.0 is on the horizon!

Looks like they finally work over the aeroplane part of the game, providing some necessary adjustments.

Oberon · 01-24-15, 08:53 PM

Huzzah! Hopefully the improved atmospheric flight model will enable us to have a smooth progression from atmospheric flight and flight testing to orbital flight.
Would be nice if computerised probes would be the first stage on the tech tree too, rather than manned...after all, the USSR didn't just throw Gargarin into space before Sputnik...but yeah, I know, Kerbals.

Fr8monkey · 01-24-15, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Would be nice if computerised probes would be the first stage on the tech tree too, rather than manned...after all, the USSR didn't just throw Gargarin into space before Sputnik...but yeah, I know, Kerbals.

Huzzah indeed. Finally atmospherics and Girbals (female Kerbals)!

There is a mod called Better Than Starting Manned that does give you probes before manned ... er, Kerbaled... flight. Not perfect; but not too bad.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/...31-Sep-21st%29

NeonSamurai · 01-25-15, 03:53 AM

I think they should start us with aircraft first.

as for 1.0...

No they have not hit all the promised goals, though the intended 1.0 patch will get several of the outstanding ones.

They also urgently need to get the 64 bit version into a working state.
It is also about time for a balance pass, as the part stats are totally all over the place. Hopefully they will finally fix the brake locking bug, that has been around forever, I can't count how many times the brakes locking up has caused me to flip a space plane over at takeoff.

12-25-14, 04:18 PM	#363
eddie Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,023 Downloads: 99 Uploads: 0	I would think so, is that the Energa? __________________ Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I'm kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me. Al Capone

12-26-14, 11:44 AM	#367
Gargamel Lucky Sailor Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Rome Posts: 4,272 Downloads: 81 Uploads: 0	No, usually an asparagus design of multiple multiple stages in a large flat disc of boosters. __________________ Luck is a residue of Design.

01-13-15, 06:22 AM	#368
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Well, how would you rate this? Honeycomb or not? Last edited by ikalugin; 01-13-15 at 11:23 AM.

01-15-15, 06:36 AM	#369
NeonSamurai Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Socialist Republic of Kanadia Posts: 3,044 Downloads: 17 Uploads: 0	I never build rockets like that (the flat asparagus type that Gargamel posted). But then I fly ferram aerospace, where those kinds of designs do not work at all (they will rip themselves apart most of the time, and you waste a lot of DV on air resistance). As for your rocket ikalugin, i suspect it flops around like a wet noodle, even with all those struts. It also would have higher drag in Ferram because of all those side rockets. I'm also not sure what your trying to accomplish with that design. Are you going for lifting power or interplanetary. I do think you have too many engines though. You are better off tailoring your engines for the different stages. high power engines with solid boosters to get you out of the lower atmosphere. Keep in mind that engines are very heavy in KSP (far more heavy than their real world counterparts), and stacking lots of engines with little fuel is counter productive. You also dont necessarily want huge acceleration. Ideally you should aim for 1.2-1.8 TWR (thrust to weight ratio) for liftoff, and maybe 3 TWR max for mid/upper atmosphere. Personally i tend to go for energia or saturn v + solid booster designs. One main core with one engine block. I often even set it up so that only the solid boosters do the work for the first bit. Occasionally i'll use jet boosters, or a liquid fuel asparagus configuration. But I generally find solid boosters to be preferable due to their low empty weight. They are great for getting you out of the thick parts of the atmosphere. I never use more then one set (ie not stacked on each other) Oh and this is asparagus staging btw http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w...aragus_staging __________________ SH3 Newbie Guide Links and other helpfull stuff

01-16-15, 06:42 PM	#370
Gargamel Lucky Sailor Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Rome Posts: 4,272 Downloads: 81 Uploads: 0	Not honeycomb. Interesting, but not a honeycomb. __________________ Luck is a residue of Design.

12-25-14, 03:04 PM	#362
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Does this also qualify?

12-25-14, 05:16 PM	#366
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	So subsequent staging and not parallel?

01-17-15, 02:05 AM	#371
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Well the objectives I had (when making this space booster) were: - to make it look like N1 (because I like it). - to have a manned space vehicle that could go anywhere in Kerbel system (without landing). What I have tried to do: - to optimise the engine selection for the stage, to reach maximum specific impulse for the altitude that stage is likely to operate at. - to optimise the flight path by boosting quickly through the lower atmosphere and gaining sufficient vertical velocity to just go back to lower thrust/weight ratio on 2nd (achieves near orbit) and 3rd (achieves 500km orbit I use as standard) stages that gain orbital velocity. I get a very good reserve of delta-v on the 3rd stage, should I wish to go inter planetary on it (rather on slower drives). Note that the 1st stage is not quite what it seems - the thrust/weight ratio is actually regulated by the fuel pumping system I got running (mech jeb doesn't see it, but then it doesn't need to), so that at the end of it's boost it is actually around 1.5 or so. The shape is resultant from the general look I was going for (N1) and the diameters of the stages I was looking for. If I had larger diameter fuel tanks I would have used those. Structurally it actually doesn't woble and is very stable. p.s. does any one know how to make custom size fuel tanks? Last edited by ikalugin; 01-17-15 at 02:40 AM.

01-24-15, 08:53 PM	#373
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Huzzah! Hopefully the improved atmospheric flight model will enable us to have a smooth progression from atmospheric flight and flight testing to orbital flight. Would be nice if computerised probes would be the first stage on the tech tree too, rather than manned...after all, the USSR didn't just throw Gargarin into space before Sputnik...but yeah, I know, Kerbals.

01-25-15, 03:53 AM	#375
NeonSamurai Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Socialist Republic of Kanadia Posts: 3,044 Downloads: 17 Uploads: 0	I think they should start us with aircraft first. as for 1.0... No they have not hit all the promised goals, though the intended 1.0 patch will get several of the outstanding ones. They also urgently need to get the 64 bit version into a working state. It is also about time for a balance pass, as the part stats are totally all over the place. Hopefully they will finally fix the brake locking bug, that has been around forever, I can't count how many times the brakes locking up has caused me to flip a space plane over at takeoff. __________________ SH3 Newbie Guide Links and other helpfull stuff