@kerothehero The whole process is very fun at least, but all this logistic for such a small payload is simply too inefficient and I stopped doing it after a while as time warping caused the booster to distort and lose even more efficiency.
I did handle single booster landings with a second stage flying in Simplerockets1. It was an interesting process. First I have to perform a weird gravity turn then detach first stage @30,000m, then power the second stage for a few seconds to get it higher. Switch back to the first stage and perform a boost back burn. While waiting for the first stage to fall into the thicker part of the atmosphere I power the second stage even longer, then I carefully perform a near hoverslam landing of the first stage near the launch site. After orbiting the second stage, I will drive a rover to refuel the first stage. When the second stage finished its mission, it will also land and then get refueled. After refueling, it will tediously fly to the top of the first stage and dock, and after a final fuel check the system could launch again.
All of this hard work for 4 tonnes of fuel that could be delivered to ships at Low Smearth Orbit.
@AndrewGarrison Could the team spend a few minutes next week discussing the idea of a branching story-line and maybe give a yes/no response at the end of next week? I am more than happy to start writing a story for it.
@AndrewGarrison Sorry for the rude comment :( I was writing this at midnight and my brain does not want to cooperate. I deleted the comment and thanks for cooperation!
@AndrewGarrison The equations that I used are: Fp = (F * Ve ) / 2 and Isp = Ve / g0, where Fp is the thrust power measured in watts, F is thrust in Newtons, Ve is effective exhaust velocity in m/s, Isp is specific impulse in seconds, g0 is gravitational acceleration in m/s^2 (I assumed 9.81m/s^2)
@AndrewGarrison Still...The engine is consuming Waaaaay tooo little power than it should. Maybe increase mass flow rate in order to drastically decrease Isp. I calculated a 100kW engine with 50N thrust will have an Isp of about 407s emmmm. To achieve the same ISP under 100kW, we will be stuck with 1.77N thrust. So, if we do not increase its power consumption, we will be stuck with a very useless / impossible engine. Also, for all the calculations, I assumed 100% efficiency.
@Thepilot172 There is probably one as simpleplanes does have this feature on the PC version (I wonder if it will be extended to the mobile version though)
@Venus If you consider your questions ‘fixed’ then I will tell you there are spelling and grammar errors in your questions. It’s hard to understand what you are trying to say with all the errors.
@AndrewGarrison Plz no. I have to wait till Christmas for my parents to buy me the game after tons of arguing and reasoning (she told me that I have to behave well during the waiting). I can’t bare waiting five months again if I want a DLC.
@AndrewGarrison I want to mention something quite important...
So, in the share & download page of the website, could you add a tag that is called "xml modified", which will be displayed very clearly on the download page so to notify gamers that the craft was xml modified and its performance might not reflect true possibilities. This will prevent people from cheating the game and earning false fame.
Even more stuff now
Using RP-1's density as 810kg / m^3
Time it by the fuel's ideal volume of 1.77m^3 (The value that I got) to get mass of 1434kg
Subtract that from the fuel tank's total mass of 1797kg to get 363kg as the fuel tank's dry mass.
However, this is not accurate, since I assumed that all volume in the fuel tank is fuel, which is not true (as we now know that the fuel tank has mass), but it will make for quite a good estimation.
Now,
The volume of the tank is 1.77m^3, we divide mass by volume to get the fuel tank's empty density as 205kg / m^3
However, the mass of the fuel tank should be determined by its surface area, not its volume (since it is a container). So, dividing the mass by the tank's surface area (2 * 0.75^2 * 3.14 + 1.5 * 3.14 * 1.17 = 9m^2) to get mass per surface area as 40kg / m^2
40 is a much nicer value than 205, so I think that the mass of an empty tank is determined by its surface area, not volume.
So...
Using the height you gave in your post: 1.17m
The radius of the command pod is 0.75m
I got a volume of 1.77m^3 (I have no idea how you got such a large number)
Assuming that all is fuel, density is 1797 / 1.77 = 1186kg / m^3
Quite close to RP-1's 810kg / m^3
You are wrong
Fuel consumption of Apex 1: 1350L / s
Specific Impulse of Apex 1: 298s
Thrust of Apex 1: 3200000N
gravitational acceleration at surface of planet: 9.81m/s
We could get exhaust velocity of the engine as 298 * 9.81 = 2923m/s
Then we could get mass flow rate as 3200000 / 2923 = 1095kg / s
We divide mass flow rate by fuel flow rate to get density 0.81kg / L, or 810kg / m^3
Density of RP-1 is 810kg / m^3
Jundroo did get the density right.
You might've got the volume wrong then.
@kerothehero The whole process is very fun at least, but all this logistic for such a small payload is simply too inefficient and I stopped doing it after a while as time warping caused the booster to distort and lose even more efficiency.
6.3 years agoI did handle single booster landings with a second stage flying in Simplerockets1. It was an interesting process. First I have to perform a weird gravity turn then detach first stage @30,000m, then power the second stage for a few seconds to get it higher. Switch back to the first stage and perform a boost back burn. While waiting for the first stage to fall into the thicker part of the atmosphere I power the second stage even longer, then I carefully perform a near hoverslam landing of the first stage near the launch site. After orbiting the second stage, I will drive a rover to refuel the first stage. When the second stage finished its mission, it will also land and then get refueled. After refueling, it will tediously fly to the top of the first stage and dock, and after a final fuel check the system could launch again.
6.3 years agoAll of this hard work for 4 tonnes of fuel that could be delivered to ships at Low Smearth Orbit.
Check all the posts for their price
6.3 years agoMobile will be first half next year
6.3 years ago@AndrewGarrison Thanks for the answer!
6.3 years ago239,999 is probably what the game could handle
6.3 years agoyou should be glad that it didn't flip back to -239,999
@AndrewGarrison I Finally managed to pull an image from github after messing around with Markdown for an hour
6.3 years ago@AndrewGarrison Could the team spend a few minutes next week discussing the idea of a branching story-line and maybe give a yes/no response at the end of next week? I am more than happy to start writing a story for it.
6.3 years ago@AndrewGarrison Sorry for the rude comment :( I was writing this at midnight and my brain does not want to cooperate. I deleted the comment and thanks for cooperation!
6.3 years agoSuggest on uservoice
6.3 years ago@AndrewGarrison Mind checking out Alumaur’s post in the forum? Thank you!
6.3 years ago@AndrewGarrison check this one out!
6.3 years agoMe
6.3 years ago@AndrewGarrison The equations that I used are: Fp = (F * Ve ) / 2 and Isp = Ve / g0, where Fp is the thrust power measured in watts, F is thrust in Newtons, Ve is effective exhaust velocity in m/s, Isp is specific impulse in seconds, g0 is gravitational acceleration in m/s^2 (I assumed 9.81m/s^2)
6.3 years ago@AndrewGarrison if I was designing the engine, I will go with a 4000s 20N engine, which will use 392kW of power.
6.3 years ago@AndrewGarrison I used information and equations from http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appequations.php
6.3 years ago@AndrewGarrison Still...The engine is consuming Waaaaay tooo little power than it should. Maybe increase mass flow rate in order to drastically decrease Isp. I calculated a 100kW engine with 50N thrust will have an Isp of about 407s emmmm. To achieve the same ISP under 100kW, we will be stuck with 1.77N thrust. So, if we do not increase its power consumption, we will be stuck with a very useless / impossible engine. Also, for all the calculations, I assumed 100% efficiency.
6.3 years ago@realluochen9999 tieba?
6.4 years ago@Jetliner101 Mobile will be released next year, and wings are already available
6.4 years ago@Thepilot172 There is probably one as simpleplanes does have this feature on the PC version (I wonder if it will be extended to the mobile version though)
6.4 years ago@Venus If you consider your questions ‘fixed’ then I will tell you there are spelling and grammar errors in your questions. It’s hard to understand what you are trying to say with all the errors.
6.4 years ago@Buizer We quickly begin demanding faster physical warps :D
6.4 years ago@AndrewGarrison Plz no. I have to wait till Christmas for my parents to buy me the game after tons of arguing and reasoning (she told me that I have to behave well during the waiting). I can’t bare waiting five months again if I want a DLC.
6.4 years agoWhile I’m in China and about to move to Utah...
6.4 years ago@Pikapilot If you want to ofcrs
6.5 years ago@AndrewGarrison I want to mention something quite important...
6.5 years agoSo, in the share & download page of the website, could you add a tag that is called "xml modified", which will be displayed very clearly on the download page so to notify gamers that the craft was xml modified and its performance might not reflect true possibilities. This will prevent people from cheating the game and earning false fame.
@unfortunately there are only probes now
6.5 years agoHad the team removed smoke from the exhaust yet?
6.5 years agoEven more stuff now
6.5 years agoUsing RP-1's density as 810kg / m^3
Time it by the fuel's ideal volume of 1.77m^3 (The value that I got) to get mass of 1434kg
Subtract that from the fuel tank's total mass of 1797kg to get 363kg as the fuel tank's dry mass.
However, this is not accurate, since I assumed that all volume in the fuel tank is fuel, which is not true (as we now know that the fuel tank has mass), but it will make for quite a good estimation.
Now,
The volume of the tank is 1.77m^3, we divide mass by volume to get the fuel tank's empty density as 205kg / m^3
However, the mass of the fuel tank should be determined by its surface area, not its volume (since it is a container). So, dividing the mass by the tank's surface area (2 * 0.75^2 * 3.14 + 1.5 * 3.14 * 1.17 = 9m^2) to get mass per surface area as 40kg / m^2
40 is a much nicer value than 205, so I think that the mass of an empty tank is determined by its surface area, not volume.
So...
6.5 years agoUsing the height you gave in your post: 1.17m
The radius of the command pod is 0.75m
I got a volume of 1.77m^3 (I have no idea how you got such a large number)
Assuming that all is fuel, density is 1797 / 1.77 = 1186kg / m^3
Quite close to RP-1's 810kg / m^3
You are wrong
Fuel consumption of Apex 1: 1350L / s
Specific Impulse of Apex 1: 298s
Thrust of Apex 1: 3200000N
gravitational acceleration at surface of planet: 9.81m/s
We could get exhaust velocity of the engine as 298 * 9.81 = 2923m/s
Then we could get mass flow rate as 3200000 / 2923 = 1095kg / s
We divide mass flow rate by fuel flow rate to get density 0.81kg / L, or 810kg / m^3
Density of RP-1 is 810kg / m^3
Jundroo did get the density right.
6.5 years agoYou might've got the volume wrong then.