Are you ok

Yep he is i think

Nice seeing you here, Beene arching your videos for years now

Oh no

@@rundownpear2601 beene arching?

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

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.

LMAO

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!

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.

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.

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

Then again, roughly 85% of the mass is then gotten rid of.

i know, he really overengineered this one

I did a 94kg with 26.4 ton takeoff on RSS ;-; (About 9km/s delta-v in the launchpad)

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?

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"

Hi

JKerman511 I really wish

Sadly Elon doesn’t have RAPIER or SABRE engined

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

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.

Just imagine him and Scott Manley colabing using the multi player.....

Shuttle wings have free integrated fuel tank. So they are more efficient.

@@rainbowhyena1354 didnt think of that

That's not an SSTO, assuming you dump the boosters after takeoff.

Hi

Wing strakes are indeed superior. I used these as part count reduction

4 tiny fuel tanks 1 spark engine a probe core with the lowest mass and a nose cone should do it

I can just

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.

=) As an aside, 98k oxidizer is 490 tons!

Then it's not an SSTO.

Yea the challenge is no staging, a propellor would accelerate this thing fast enough so it would just be useless weighr and bad earodynamics

@@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.)

Plane mass includes fuel =)

Sebastião Mendonça *laughs in 20 kiloton orbital fuel depot*

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.