@@marcustulliuscicero5443 I thought the aerospike ingame-stock was at 340 seconds, maybe I'm wrong, 410 would be a realistic number for hydrogen fuel in real life albeit pretty bad vaccum efficiency even for a hydrogen booster, the RS-68 which is pretty bad in vacuum still does 412 with a low expansion ratio nozzle compared to other hydrogen sustainer engines like Vulcain (430) or LE-7 (440).
@@chriskerwin3904 Oh yes. It's 340s No idea where I got the 410s from.That would be an insanely good engine. 340s still is the tied 4th best chemical vacuum engine though, behind the 345 of the Terrier, 355 of the Cheetah and 380 of the Wolfhound. Though neither of those are really useful for normal-sized spaceplanes. The Cheetah and Wolfhound are too large, while the Terrier has horrible thrust (which means lower efficiency during ascent due to gravity losses).
@@marcustulliuscicero5443 If your looking for good relatively good TWR and decent vacuum performance (320) try using large clusters of Spark engines. Kerbal gravity losses tend to be quiet small though or at least compared to real life.
@@professionalprocrastinator8103 And if we're going to be pedantic, it's not all that inaccurate. Missions like these with strict requirements require a lot of thought to be put into the mathematics of it all, drag/gravity losses, best mass ratio, etc. Half of engineering is the maths, the other half is practical application.
Would you consider doing a tutorial on aerodynamic optimization? It's a part of the game that nobody really thinks of (besides you, of course) and would expose a more technical aspect of KSP to people working on efficient designs.
Maybe there's something I'm not thinking of, but I doubt there's a whole lot to say about it. KSP's aerodynamic model is very simple, so basically thin shapes (minimal cross section into the airstream) are the most optimal. This includes limiting wing area to minimum as he mentions in the video. If you're really interested in aerodynamics I suggest the FAR mod. It simulates aerodynamics based on how the shape of the vessel changes along its longitudinal axis as well as how lift and drag change in stall, transsonic, and supersonic regions. You can also build your own cargo bays with it, for instance surrounding the cargo with wings, unlike in stock (something he also mentions in the video).
It's mostly about how to use the offset tool to minimise drag. E.g I'm fairly certain the rapier engines on this craft are connected one to the other (to occlude both attachment nodes), then moved to their final position. So the drag you get is the same as having a 59 long stack of rapiers instead of 59 separately attached rapiers, that would have an open node at least at the rear. You can also see the LV-Ns are using the engine plate i believe? which makes the drag model ignore the drag on the LV-N. Would love to hear about all the tricks Bradley used here :)
@@blaztrik Didn't they remove that exploit quite a while ago? I went and did a quick test with an offset rapier and according to the aerodynamics overlay of the game the offset engine caused more drag than the one that was inline. Not sure if it translates into actual gameplay difference, but I could swear it hasn't worked for a while. Not sure what version Bradley is on here but I doubt it's that old.
@@Greippi10 It still worked in 1.7 afaik. I'll check again when I get home, but I don't think this craft would ever break the sound barrier if those rapiers produced full frontal drag.
@@blaztrik Keep in my mind that the structures in game are ridiculously heavy compared to real life mass fractions meaning that the lower twr of the rapiers would be offset in real life with a lighter structure?
@@iain3713 I tried this about a jear ago to launch a nucler powered low speed airplane (absolutuly shitty concept i know) before breaking ground came out to launch the wings alined with the main body of the plane then decopple in orbit, turn the wings about 90 degree and redock them. The problem was that i wasnt able to dock the wings to 2 docking ports to make shure the 90 degree angle becouse when the first ports were docked the 2 parts were already connected
@@supertatze2960 Solution is to use 2 docking ports, spread wide, not 3. His design its called a split shuttle and is a very old concept, since 0.9 at least !
Yes it would! This would favour a design with a higher TWR. I considered using payload/fuel as a metric - it is more arguably more relevant for a cargo plane. The decision maker was that the fractional payload metric is more instructive for the other single stage missions I have planned.
@@BradleyWhistance If you were to do this in real life, I think it would be a better metric, because for reusable launch vehicles fuel cost becomes one of the limiting cost factors.
The one thing that stuck out to me immediately was you had no static incidence on the wings. If you can get through the 320-390 m/sec Mach barrier with the nose pointed precisely prograde, you need a lot less thrust. Less thrust means fewer engines, less fuel to feed them, and less structure. I have made large SSTO tankers with initial takeoff acceleration as little as .32G. While they weren't optimized for payload fraction (I'm all about the Benjamins), they were still very respectable in that regard.
Not reading the title too carefully, so thinking something in the vincinty of "B.W. He probably do something like Jool and all the moons using 1.125 tons" Video starts, "Wadda you mean? 1000 ton payload?" I'm most impressed, not only can you do small efficient crafts, you can do huge efficient crafts. Thank you for the entertainment, and for surprising me!
@@naomiwolf8944 The continuous and constant thrust provided by speed stripes is very useful during takeoff, ascent and manouvers... but becomes a major issue during all other phases of the mission and on landing. Massive brakes are needed just to keep the spacecraft still if you add them
I'm still on baby steps compared with your skill, Bradley, so I don't have anything to suggest that would be of value. Awesome and fascinating work, though!
recently i tried dividing all the wings relative area by their weight to figure out which wings have the best lift to weight ratio so i could build the loftiest plane i could, i found the tiny winglet with the yellow stripe is the most efficient, if you used those winglets for all your non steering wings you could save a little bit of weight, dunno if it would be worth doing but its something
the 0-60 of this vehicle is about 14 seconds, 4 seconds slower than the toyota prius. In conclusion, don't buy large spaceplanes, buy the prius instead.
@@TristanPopken Aerodynamics wouldn't be hit too hard. Optimizing props means that at their max possible speed, they are just a few degrees from being at 0° AOA, so designing a prop that will have low drag past it's useful speed isn't too hard. The real issue is that props are only good to ~270m/s and are dead weight after that. Getting off tehe runway quick is nice, but are you saving fuel? (I didn't do the math so that's a legit question.)
This is amazing. 63% fraction payload is more efficient than any of the modern transport aircraft out there, which are already considered really efficient. Would you consider trying the same thing with a realism scale mod or something, to see what kind of efficiency you can get with Earth?
When you say you're out of oxidizer you have 98k left. Is that part of the payload? Edit: I misunderstood the part where you replaced the ore containers with fuel tanks...
Could you replace the nuclear engines with a bunch of ion engines? Your ascent profile is extremely shallow, so the ions might have enough time to squeeze the orbit above 70km...
My analysis suggests that a combination of nuclear and ion would be optimal approach. This has some issues, not least of which is extreme part count increase.
My only disappointment is that this didn't show up in my recommended sooner. Nice plane. Also nice that Lowne can be found in the comments. Kerbalnauts united. Now where's Scott Manley with his version?
To answer your question how to dramatically improve that SSTO just add some heat protection the simplest one is the tiny ball shaped monoprop and put it just in front of the tip of your craft. That way your craft becomes much easier to land and you can also use different ascend profiles. Offsetting your wings can also help a lot by making the SSTO more stable and therefore loose less deltav for corrections.
So far I only managed to build a spaceplane that bring itself up to orbit... not with payload nearly twice as it’s mass, not much payload at all. If it’s stock and engines have limited Isp for me that 1000 tons will be fuel tanks
Meanwhile I can barely hit the runway with a regular plane in fully powered flight. I've gotten pretty good with rockets, but never got the hang of landing planes.
You can do this...: Make booster rocket that is equal parts fuel and oxy, put high power thrusters such as mammoth types and do the move/adjust until you have about 8 of them in one supertight cluster. That on a huge airfoil with a port coupler and break away boosters to ensure it helps pull a heft craft up and get up to altitude and velocity without taking off the tail. That can be calculated as to how much extra lift and thrust it will provide and for how long. Based on that, you can theoretically add more mass to the payload.
Numbers wise, this is supremely impressive. Practicality wise, no one is going to design a 1000t spacecraft/station as a small thin tube... ok maybe I should say most instead. Can you please show how heavy a ring station it can lift in one run? One whose ring is too wide for a faring as I paid around 450k in mostly fuel costs (and inaccurate landing losses!) for 2 runs hauling a 360t ring station with reusable rockets for my career mode. For a job that paid like 110k haha.
@@BradleyWhistance Ok makes sense. How about putting a spaceship/rocket into orbit with stupid amounts of delta V in 1 run? I love the way you split the hauler in 2 parts, would love to see it's actual real use capability.
I'm sorry to doubt, but what's the velocity jump between 6:54 and 6:56 about? Your the skills and designs behind these craft amaze me. I consider myself 'gud' at this game, but you continue to remind me how much there is to learn. Thanks Bradley!
Looking at 6:54 in more detail, mechjeb says you're orbit apoapsis and periapsis are both above 70km. It also says you have nine meters per second left. But the next clip shows you at the same altitude, with a periapsis about 6 meters lower, and 12 m/s. Explain please?
He switched the velocity indicator from surface velocity to orbital velocity. The surface velocity is less because it's the plane's speed relative to the surface that is already rotating at nearly 200m/s in the same direction as the orbit.
@@johnrivers5934 The change in velocity is due to a different frame of reference. Surface velocity is measured relative to the surface of Kerbin (which is rotating), orbital velocity is relative to the center of the planet. The minor change in periapsis is due to the small amount of impulse from the decoupling.
you can lithobrake if enough of your momentum is lateral. Same concept behind how skateboarders can fall far further when moving faster, without breaking their ankles. bradley has actually even taken advantage of this before when landing on minmus, although lithobreaking is easier there, it would save greater dV on tylo
@@neverfearthekraken taking off is the challenge. I figure with a large enough natural ramp, and a *tolerable* twr, it could be done. But then there's the same problem that arises with an Eve take off. You still have to **get there** in the first place. as for landing, I haven't been to tylo enough to know if there's a flat enough place to do it, but with a low enough orbit, I wonder if it would be possible to lithobreak the rest of your delta-v away. Maybe even have a "crush gear". you take the brunt of the impact at first with that, and drop yourself a few hundred meters per second, and then finish it off on wheels
@@DarkSlayer9587 So your idea is to basically orbit along the ground and use wheel brakes to slow down? I think with a perfectly round planet this could actually work.
Impressive as always! :) Wouldn't using wing streaks be more efficient than the big wings? More "free" LF space for the same mass in wing area. Did the big wings already hold more LF than you required and you just went for the wing area or was it a part consideration? Also a follow up, because I can't count the wings exactly. What is the ton/wing area, seems to be ~36 wings there, so ~8.5t/m2?
o lawd he comin
Are you ok
Yep he is i think
Nice seeing you here, Beene arching your videos for years now
Oh no
@@rundownpear2601 beene arching?
BREAKING NEWS: entire economy is in ruin after all the raw materials on kerbin have been bought by the ksp
Plus continents are underwater due to the amount of polar ice melted
And launched into space.
After kerbin is bought by the KSC
Breaking news: gilly disappears after being entirely used on new spaceplane
the most efficient way of getting into orbit is always a kraken drive
I mean... Your not wrong
True
Orbit of the sun*
@@leonidasi6170 * orbit of the galactic core
What about Fuel Exploit Engine Array? It can have a great thrust, mass ratio and refuel other spacecraft, too!
You know it’s Bradley when a 305s I_SP engine is “highly inefficient”.
I mean, it is. If you want pure vacuum efficiency you could use aerospikes which offer equal thrust at a much better ISP (410s) and half the mass.
@@marcustulliuscicero5443 I thought the aerospike ingame-stock was at 340 seconds, maybe I'm wrong, 410 would be a realistic number for hydrogen fuel in real life albeit pretty bad vaccum efficiency even for a hydrogen booster, the RS-68 which is pretty bad in vacuum still does 412 with a low expansion ratio nozzle compared to other hydrogen sustainer engines like Vulcain (430) or LE-7 (440).
@@chriskerwin3904
Oh yes. It's 340s
No idea where I got the 410s from.That would be an insanely good engine.
340s still is the tied 4th best chemical vacuum engine though, behind the 345 of the Terrier, 355 of the Cheetah and 380 of the Wolfhound. Though neither of those are really useful for normal-sized spaceplanes. The Cheetah and Wolfhound are too large, while the Terrier has horrible thrust (which means lower efficiency during ascent due to gravity losses).
@@marcustulliuscicero5443 If your looking for good relatively good TWR and decent vacuum performance (320) try using large clusters of Spark engines. Kerbal gravity losses tend to be quiet small though or at least compared to real life.
Some high efficiency KSP engines are actually comparable to the main lifting engines on a Saturn V.
KSP: The only game where a math degree is a competitive advantage.
Not really maths, rather engineering
@@professionalprocrastinator8103
Bradley Whistance has a math degree, that's the joke.
@@jeffvader811 yup but it's rather inaccurate which makes the joke not so funny anymore
@@professionalprocrastinator8103
Oh boy bet you're fun at parties.
@@professionalprocrastinator8103
And if we're going to be pedantic, it's not all that inaccurate. Missions like these with strict requirements require a lot of thought to be put into the mathematics of it all, drag/gravity losses, best mass ratio, etc.
Half of engineering is the maths, the other half is practical application.
Tsiolkovsky hates him! Get payload fractions larger than 100% with this one weird trick!
LMAO
love it
Noticing the awful lack of speed stripes. Speed stripes would seriously improve upon this design. Yes.
How about putting a number on the side of the fairing???
Baactiba definitly and than maybe add lightning bolt and flames for that extra performance
I convinced someone that speed stripes did in fact add speed once. Say anything in a serious tone and people will believe you.
don't forget to paint it red
@@baactiba3039 Absolutely. A number is a must-have. And it must be two digits, with a leading zero.
Would you consider doing a tutorial on aerodynamic optimization? It's a part of the game that nobody really thinks of (besides you, of course) and would expose a more technical aspect of KSP to people working on efficient designs.
Maybe there's something I'm not thinking of, but I doubt there's a whole lot to say about it. KSP's aerodynamic model is very simple, so basically thin shapes (minimal cross section into the airstream) are the most optimal. This includes limiting wing area to minimum as he mentions in the video.
If you're really interested in aerodynamics I suggest the FAR mod. It simulates aerodynamics based on how the shape of the vessel changes along its longitudinal axis as well as how lift and drag change in stall, transsonic, and supersonic regions. You can also build your own cargo bays with it, for instance surrounding the cargo with wings, unlike in stock (something he also mentions in the video).
It's mostly about how to use the offset tool to minimise drag.
E.g I'm fairly certain the rapier engines on this craft are connected one to the other (to occlude both attachment nodes), then moved to their final position. So the drag you get is the same as having a 59 long stack of rapiers instead of 59 separately attached rapiers, that would have an open node at least at the rear.
You can also see the LV-Ns are using the engine plate i believe? which makes the drag model ignore the drag on the LV-N.
Would love to hear about all the tricks Bradley used here :)
@@blaztrik Didn't they remove that exploit quite a while ago? I went and did a quick test with an offset rapier and according to the aerodynamics overlay of the game the offset engine caused more drag than the one that was inline. Not sure if it translates into actual gameplay difference, but I could swear it hasn't worked for a while. Not sure what version Bradley is on here but I doubt it's that old.
@@Greippi10 It still worked in 1.7 afaik.
I'll check again when I get home, but I don't think this craft would ever break the sound barrier if those rapiers produced full frontal drag.
@@blaztrik Keep in my mind that the structures in game are ridiculously heavy compared to real life mass fractions meaning that the lower twr of the rapiers would be offset in real life with a lighter structure?
Only Bradley would allow 9m/s of Delta V left in stable orbit...
Then again, roughly 85% of the mass is then gotten rid of.
i know, he really overengineered this one
That docking idea is terrifying. You need to have zero roll.
You could add 2 other docking ports to the side I guess
@@iain3713 I tried this about a jear ago to launch a nucler powered low speed airplane (absolutuly shitty concept i know) before breaking ground came out to launch the wings alined with the main body of the plane then decopple in orbit, turn the wings about 90 degree and redock them. The problem was that i wasnt able to dock the wings to 2 docking ports to make shure the 90 degree angle becouse when the first ports were docked the 2 parts were already connected
@@supertatze2960 Solution is to use 2 docking ports, spread wide, not 3. His design its called a split shuttle and is a very old concept, since 0.9 at least !
Imagine how nice it would be now with rotating docking ports
"I solved the problem by _putting halve the engines in front."_
*YOU ABSOLUTE MAD LAD!!!*
This makes my 100t payload with 600t takeoff weight look like a joke. Wow.
I did a 94kg with 26.4 ton takeoff on RSS ;-;
(About 9km/s delta-v in the launchpad)
Glorious
Hi
We get to orbit with 9 m/s dV left...
Holy Gilly, that is cutting it close!
WOuld the design be different if you were optimizing for fuel to payload instead of launch mass to payload?
Yes it would! This would favour a design with a higher TWR. I considered using payload/fuel as a metric - it is more arguably more relevant for a cargo plane. The decision maker was that the fractional payload metric is more instructive for the other single stage missions I have planned.
@@BradleyWhistance
If you were to do this in real life, I think it would be a better metric, because for reusable launch vehicles fuel cost becomes one of the limiting cost factors.
You can always cheese it and say that the spaceplane IS the cargo.
Laughed out loud when i saw this title!
The one thing that stuck out to me immediately was you had no static incidence on the wings. If you can get through the 320-390 m/sec Mach barrier with the nose pointed precisely prograde, you need a lot less thrust. Less thrust means fewer engines, less fuel to feed them, and less structure.
I have made large SSTO tankers with initial takeoff acceleration as little as .32G. While they weren't optimized for payload fraction (I'm all about the Benjamins), they were still very respectable in that regard.
Eat your heart out, Elon
JKerman511 I really wish
Sadly Elon doesn’t have RAPIER or SABRE engined
"I like min-maxing" You dont say? :D
Having no yaw control seems like a quick way to spin
Not reading the title too carefully, so thinking something in the vincinty of "B.W. He probably do something like Jool and all the moons using 1.125 tons" Video starts, "Wadda you mean? 1000 ton payload?" I'm most impressed, not only can you do small efficient crafts, you can do huge efficient crafts.
Thank you for the entertainment, and for surprising me!
100% payload mass ssto: get it stuck up there
i can see the thumbnail now, "bradley whistance fails--for science"
"Listen, we called it a single stage TO orbit, no one said shit about it coming back in any of the meetings"
From someone who has made a lot of spaceplanes... that's actually a genius solution.
Hello Brad Whistance, this is Everyone
Laws of aerodynamics, prepare to be ignored!
I can't wait to see what you'll do with ksp2...
Just imagine him and Scott Manley colabing using the multi player.....
Chief engineer : How many tons you want us to put into orbit ?
Bradley Whistance : Yes.
This would be perfect for a single launch space station or Eve base complete with return craft!
I believe you have successfully broken the rocket equation in its entirety.
And he did it with a lack of magic stripes
@@naomiwolf8944 The continuous and constant thrust provided by speed stripes is very useful during takeoff, ascent and manouvers... but becomes a major issue during all other phases of the mission and on landing. Massive brakes are needed just to keep the spacecraft still if you add them
Hmm I have 10+ videos I need to watch/catch-up....Na Bradley comes first.
I'm still on baby steps compared with your skill, Bradley, so I don't have anything to suggest that would be of value. Awesome and fascinating work, though!
recently i tried dividing all the wings relative area by their weight to figure out which wings have the best lift to weight ratio so i could build the loftiest plane i could, i found the tiny winglet with the yellow stripe is the most efficient, if you used those winglets for all your non steering wings you could save a little bit of weight, dunno if it would be worth doing but its something
Shuttle wings have free integrated fuel tank. So they are more efficient.
@@rainbowhyena1354 didnt think of that
i almost got my jaw open when realising how fast and low was in the last clip
thats pretty beast man, nicely done!
I didn’t know you could for 1000 tons of stuff into that little tube of space
the 0-60 of this vehicle is about 14 seconds, 4 seconds slower than the toyota prius. In conclusion, don't buy large spaceplanes, buy the prius instead.
I cant even make one that doesn't have cargo lmao
4 tiny fuel tanks 1 spark engine a probe core with the lowest mass and a nose cone should do it
I can just
add a tail to make it land more safely?
Bro I love all your videos please never quit💜💜🖤🖤
Sounds like what you have is a spaceplane train.
Would it be possible to reduce fuel weight by using a stock propeller?
Also, maybe you can use srbs and detach them after deploying parachutes.
Then it's not an SSTO.
@@TristanPopken Aerodynamics wouldn't be hit too hard. Optimizing props means that at their max possible speed, they are just a few degrees from being at 0° AOA, so designing a prop that will have low drag past it's useful speed isn't too hard. The real issue is that props are only good to ~270m/s and are dead weight after that. Getting off tehe runway quick is nice, but are you saving fuel? (I didn't do the math so that's a legit question.)
So this single SSTO is enough to carry my absolute heaviest rocket into orbit fully fueled?
Sebastião Mendonça *laughs in 20 kiloton orbital fuel depot*
Well that's a cool approach. Just wish real life space travel was this easy.
Your SSTO is amazing, so i need to upgrade mine, la Baleine
Hi
Kerbal Space Command has done this. Split shuttle
This is amazing. 63% fraction payload is more efficient than any of the modern transport aircraft out there, which are already considered really efficient.
Would you consider trying the same thing with a realism scale mod or something, to see what kind of efficiency you can get with Earth?
How to seriously improve payload ratio of any SSTO...? Staging!
Ohh, where is your old microphone ?
How about maximizing the payload/takeoff mass WITOUTH reusability? It will probably increase the ratio a lot + be fun
When you say you're out of oxidizer you have 98k left. Is that part of the payload?
Edit: I misunderstood the part where you replaced the ore containers with fuel tanks...
=) As an aside, 98k oxidizer is 490 tons!
9:09 What, you haven't landed a taildragger SSTO before?
That’s not how a normal SSTO looks like buddy...
It's not exactly a normal SSTO, is it? lol
Biplanes are so last-century.
/Makes septa-plane with wings directly behind engine exhaust.
and then there's gonna be that one idiot who goes like 'it's 1009.45 tons! it's not 1010! you are cheating!!!'
Could you replace the nuclear engines with a bunch of ion engines? Your ascent profile is extremely shallow, so the ions might have enough time to squeeze the orbit above 70km...
My analysis suggests that a combination of nuclear and ion would be optimal approach. This has some issues, not least of which is extreme part count increase.
thats a big ass boa
Nice
This is quality
it's kinda cheaty due to stacking lift values of wings, unrealistically embedded inbetween the engines
Why is there a fuel tank clipped into the faring on the high mass test? I don't recall seeing that before takeoff.
Still making the best KSP videos out there man
Bradley: launches 1000 tons to orbit
Me: happy to launch 10 tons to the Mun
I can’t believe that landing actually went kinda smoothly
My only disappointment is that this didn't show up in my recommended sooner.
Nice plane.
Also nice that Lowne can be found in the comments. Kerbalnauts united.
Now where's Scott Manley with his version?
To answer your question how to dramatically improve that SSTO just add some heat protection the simplest one is the tiny ball shaped monoprop and put it just in front of the tip of your craft. That way your craft becomes much easier to land and you can also use different ascend profiles. Offsetting your wings can also help a lot by making the SSTO more stable and therefore loose less deltav for corrections.
Whats "lvn" engine with the purple exhaust?? Was it added in 1.8 ???
The LVN are the nuclear rocket engines. The purple exhaust is a gfx mod.
I really like how technical your videos are.
ciekawe skad h2o tfu h i o wezna ? jak lodowce stopnialy przez wegiel
why not to use propellors for the initial ascent
it worked great with the ssto of jool by Stratzenblitz75
So far I only managed to build a spaceplane that bring itself up to orbit... not with payload nearly twice as it’s mass, not much payload at all. If it’s stock and engines have limited Isp for me that 1000 tons will be fuel tanks
Chuck Norris can drop kick a payload to orbit
0:03 well that looks werd but is powerful
Meanwhile I can barely hit the runway with a regular plane in fully powered flight. I've gotten pretty good with rockets, but never got the hang of landing planes.
You can do this...:
Make booster rocket that is equal parts fuel and oxy, put high power thrusters such as mammoth types and do the move/adjust until you have about 8 of them in one supertight cluster. That on a huge airfoil with a port coupler and break away boosters to ensure it helps pull a heft craft up and get up to altitude and velocity without taking off the tail. That can be calculated as to how much extra lift and thrust it will provide and for how long. Based on that, you can theoretically add more mass to the payload.
And I can barely get 50 tonnes into orbit
So how few parts can you use to get 1000 tons to orbit?
a rudder would help with the yaw issue.
Think of all the drag and mass!
This is a min-max experiment. If it's non-essential it's left off.
Josh Wilder get out with your overengineered ideas every kg counts
Numbers wise, this is supremely impressive.
Practicality wise, no one is going to design a 1000t spacecraft/station as a small thin tube... ok maybe I should say most instead.
Can you please show how heavy a ring station it can lift in one run? One whose ring is too wide for a faring as I paid around 450k in mostly fuel costs (and inaccurate landing losses!) for 2 runs hauling a 360t ring station with reusable rockets for my career mode. For a job that paid like 110k haha.
Bulkier, lighter payloads would favour a steeper ascent. If the payload is bulky enough, a vertical launch may be ideal.
@@BradleyWhistance Ok makes sense. How about putting a spaceship/rocket into orbit with stupid amounts of delta V in 1 run? I love the way you split the hauler in 2 parts, would love to see it's actual real use capability.
I cant even make a tiny spaceplane that carries no payload
Extreme chonk
Honestly I'd suggest using an rtg or something just in case you run out of power while approaching the runway.
Who's gonna need an anotonov 225 in space
and how come that i can't even fucking launch a spacecraft, because they explode in flight for some reason...
Just add *MOAR BOOSTERS* 🤣
If it is about the percentage only, maybe you can try out a much smaller scale? If not, why?
comically large orbital vehicle
Apparently keeping intakes open reduces drag
I'm sorry to doubt, but what's the velocity jump between 6:54 and 6:56 about?
Your the skills and designs behind these craft amaze me. I consider myself 'gud' at this game, but you continue to remind me how much there is to learn. Thanks Bradley!
Looking at 6:54 in more detail, mechjeb says you're orbit apoapsis and periapsis are both above 70km. It also says you have nine meters per second left. But the next clip shows you at the same altitude, with a periapsis about 6 meters lower, and 12 m/s.
Explain please?
He switched the velocity indicator from surface velocity to orbital velocity. The surface velocity is less because it's the plane's speed relative to the surface that is already rotating at nearly 200m/s in the same direction as the orbit.
He undocked from the rest of the craft. Less dry mass means more delta V.
@@johnrivers5934 The change in velocity is due to a different frame of reference. Surface velocity is measured relative to the surface of Kerbin (which is rotating), orbital velocity is relative to the center of the planet.
The minor change in periapsis is due to the small amount of impulse from the decoupling.
@@BradleyWhistance So a simple change then, my mistake. And of course the six meters from your periapsis and 3 to delta-v are basically negligible.
Imagine flying this into an influence of Moho, that would be absolutely mental.
Challenge: Go to Tylo and back with ONLY ION ENGINES
ImpossbleThanos.mp2
you can lithobrake if enough of your momentum is lateral. Same concept behind how skateboarders can fall far further when moving faster, without breaking their ankles. bradley has actually even taken advantage of this before when landing on minmus, although lithobreaking is easier there, it would save greater dV on tylo
@@neverfearthekraken taking off is the challenge. I figure with a large enough natural ramp, and a *tolerable* twr, it could be done. But then there's the same problem that arises with an Eve take off. You still have to **get there** in the first place. as for landing, I haven't been to tylo enough to know if there's a flat enough place to do it, but with a low enough orbit, I wonder if it would be possible to lithobreak the rest of your delta-v away. Maybe even have a "crush gear". you take the brunt of the impact at first with that, and drop yourself a few hundred meters per second, and then finish it off on wheels
Just theorizing of course. Now I'm tempted to test that out
@@DarkSlayer9587 So your idea is to basically orbit along the ground and use wheel brakes to slow down? I think with a perfectly round planet this could actually work.
Could you deliver additional mass in the nose cone to balance out the craft more?
why the fuck do you have so few views?
Impressive as always! :)
Wouldn't using wing streaks be more efficient than the big wings? More "free" LF space for the same mass in wing area. Did the big wings already hold more LF than you required and you just went for the wing area or was it a part consideration?
Also a follow up, because I can't count the wings exactly. What is the ton/wing area, seems to be ~36 wings there, so ~8.5t/m2?
Wing strakes are indeed superior. I used these as part count reduction
I now wonder how big will you be able to make something in ksp... cause thats one thicc ssto boi
heh it's a Schnabel plane
Why didn't you add a vertical stabilizer? That would give you much more control over the craft, at least on descent and landing.
This would certainly improve the dynamics on landing, but at the expense of the critical performance metric!
You're a wildman. Team crash landing on mun here.
i love how the CC changes 'apoapsis' to 'Apple abscess' loool
When you transcend in ksp