StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Imperial528 wrote:Not enough rockets, apparently. I had to redesign it from the ground up since it kept exploding due to structural oscillations, but the end vehicle is only 69.8 tons to LKO. It's barely 100 tons if you count the spent fuel tanks that are left over. It's over twice the mass of the Saturn V and has 12 times the first stage thrust, and it can't even chuck 100 tons to LKO. Though those 69 tons can get to Mun and hopefully land on it.

Are you trying to tell me you designed a KSP ship that's 6000 tonnes on launch?

Can I see the craft file? Please? Can I? Pretty please? A video, perhaps? A screenshot?

*drools*

PeZook wrote:

Imperial528 wrote:Not enough rockets, apparently. I had to redesign it from the ground up since it kept exploding due to structural oscillations, but the end vehicle is only 69.8 tons to LKO. It's barely 100 tons if you count the spent fuel tanks that are left over. It's over twice the mass of the Saturn V and has 12 times the first stage thrust, and it can't even chuck 100 tons to LKO. Though those 69 tons can get to Mun and hopefully land on it.

Are you trying to tell me you designed a KSP ship that's 6000 tonnes on launch?

Can I see the craft file? Please? Can I? Pretty please? A video, perhaps? A screenshot?

*drools*

As it turns out, it was actually only a third of the mass. (I fail at reading wiki articles) Time to make a 6000 ton ship!

It would be a most glourious creation to make benefit the people of Kerbalistan!

But man I am disappointed now, though I should've caught on when you mentioned it could not even get 100 tonnes to LKO - Kerbin is so much smaller than Earth that a 6000 tonne rocket would exceed that quite handily (provided it held together). Of course, it was always possible that you just fucked up the design and it was just horribly, Kerbalistani inefficient

Okay, I fucked up the head-math this time. It was about 1/2 of the mass of the Saturn V. So 69 tons isn't bad at all.

New rocket is 2.3 thousand tons (so far). Here's a screen:

How on Earth can this do the pitchover maneuver with so few control surfaces?

It doesn't start the turn until the first stage has fully burnt. And technically what you see here is the second stage undergoing ground testing....

EDIT: Succesful orbit between 367km and 398km, 177.97 vehicle mass at orbit. This includes a full Jumbo-64 tank, well, two full ones.

I'd suggest going for the lowest possible orbit, actually, it shaves off a lot of fuel, but also means you burn a lot more in atmosphere so that beast might fall apart

I usually launch with a 65km apogee set in the autopilot, then kick it up higher after MECO.

I went medium orbit because I waited for the first stage to burn out. When it's complete I may try for a lower orbit.

Yeah, my rockets pitchover at about 10 km, most of them before first stage burnout, which means it's a very worrisome moment for me every launch

I had first stage burnout at about 60-70km, lol. Going to add another booster stage, bringing the total mass to about 3,800 tons. When I get home, at least.

Imperial528 wrote:I had first stage burnout at about 60-70km, lol. Going to add another booster stage, bringing the total mass to about 3,800 tons. When I get home, at least.

Are you trying to deliver a complete base to the mun in one piece? Or a medium city to low orbit?

That rocket looks like one I tried building out of LEGO as a kid. Looks about as stable too

Okay, I've attached the 55 engine first stage. It now masses quite a bit and is bigger than the launch pad.

Yes, you read that right:





Let's hope it survives liftoff.

What the bloody hell???

That looks...well, like it was designed by Top Gear. I hope for your sake it doesn't prove to be "ambitious but rubbish."

On the first launch it started blowing up at nine seconds. I dialed down the thrust from 1000kn to 825kn per engine via the throttle and now it seems to be working fine so far:



Its total thrust is 82.5Mn max, 45.375Mn nominal, from fifty five engines in the first stage.

Question: I have heard you can use nuclear thermal rockets in KSP...can you use Orion-based vehicles?

I think there are plans for Orions at some point in the future. Modders will probably get to it eventually if that doesn't happen.

Also, the superheavy failed. I've made a new, leaner design, which worked perfectly when carrying a full Jumbo 64 fuel tank. Now it keeps exploding with the small solar module that I am trying to launch....

What does that thing mass and what payload capacity can you get up with it?

I don't think "superheavy" does it justice.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:What does that thing mass and what payload capacity can you get up with it?

The megaheavy (how's that PeZook?) masses at 3671.78 tons at launch, and so far it doesn't get past the first stage without blowing up. That may have just been lag causing computation errors though, since the design itself seems pretty stable, and I had similar problems with previously successful rockets later that night.

Since IIRC .17 KSP slows the simulation down when it can't handle it all.

What is most likely happening is that you are reaching max-q (the moment where forces acting on the rocket peak out) - try throttling down right before it blows up. This is most likely true if the thing always falls apart at the same time.

If it doesn't, then you might try MOAR STRUTS

PeZook wrote:Since IIRC .17 KSP slows the simulation down when it can't handle it all.

What is most likely happening is that you are reaching max-q (the moment where forces acting on the rocket peak out) - try throttling down right before it blows up. This is most likely true if the thing always falls apart at the same time.

If it doesn't, then you might try MOAR STRUTS

With the megaheavy that made it last a bit longer. With my new superheavy strangely lower throttle made the solar module lifter actually fall apart sooner. Yet the one with a full jumbo on top is fine....

Imperial, I want to know why you bothered with the crew tank on the recovery mission? You could have just used empty external command chairs attached to the side of the rocket to bring the stranded Kerbal home.

Because that's just not right.

No, I change my mind.

It's simply wrong.

Oh really?