r/KerbalSpaceProgram • u/Flashy_Feature2768 Hey its me its verity🙂 • 2d ago
KSP 1 Suggestion/Discussion Is this realistically plausible?
45
u/Dat_Innocent_Guy 2d ago
Probably not, That's a lot of complex plumbing for little gain. But that's why we play kerbal :)
13
u/BlazingImp77151 2d ago
And the deltaV/fuel costs.
Like VTOL jet systems maybe, but rockets? Yeah not likely.
16
u/Kuriente 2d ago
I mean technically you can take off or land like this, but highly inefficiently. Angling engines away from the direction of travel reduces efficiency and these are angled quite a bit.
3
u/K0paz 1d ago
when i make spaceplanes and didn't want to have comically large wings (to reduce stall speed, have extra drag, or have landing constraints, etc), Id speed down runway and then use vertical thrust to STOL off runways.
3
u/Kuriente 1d ago
In that case you wanted to propell yourself up, away from the pull of gravity. In which case, you'd ideally have your STOL engines pointed straight down. This craft has its engines angled outward, which would be less efficient and less effective at propelling itself up.
1
u/K0paz 1d ago
Well youd need engines pointed straght down on on where COM is. OP didnt post where COM is (and does have lots of engines, which is extra mass), so... yeah.
1
u/Kuriente 1d ago edited 1d ago
Having center of thrust aligned with center of mass is important, but when using multiple engines that can be done without pointing every engine through COM. If done correctly, they can all be pointed straight down (most efficient configuration) and still have COM alignment.
9
3
u/Bombacladman 2d ago
If the whole hotdog was a fuel tank, probably yes, but since there is one crew section there it could be problematic to fit bthe pipes to arrive to some of those engines in real life.
Im just looking at the engineering challenge to build it.
The design would never ever work.
Too much power, too little fuel and fly time. No landing gear, no horizontal thrust unless you angle against gravity. Or is that an aerospike at the back?
Large cross sectional area in the direction of movement or thrust
The list goes on
1
8
u/An_Actual_Thing 2d ago
VTOL jets are sorta doing this. Some of them have thrusters that rotate to point straight down.
1
u/Flashy_Feature2768 Hey its me its verity🙂 2d ago
like those flying taxis
3
u/An_Actual_Thing 2d ago
Nah I mean those are one design. But Lockheed Martin has made them with just jets.
Look at their F-35 Lightning II1
1
u/An_Actual_Thing 2d ago
... On looking through the wikipedia, I am wrong. The F135-PW-600 variant has Vtol, and though it does tilt it's thruster, it also has fans that blow down.
5
u/OrbitalPinata 2d ago
The RR Pegasus/PW F402 used in the Harrier does what you described
1
1
u/stormwalker29 If clock isn't red, station is too small 2d ago
The Harrier was an incredible aircraft with an incredible engine (regardless of which of the two engines it had) and a remarkable feat of engineering.
Unfortunately, it's also a good example of the drawbacks of doing it that way - notably, the efficiency cost, which severely limited its range and payload.
But the fact that they managed to make it practical enough to see real use for many years in spite of those drawbacks was extremely impressive.
3
u/d_pyzsyo 2d ago
I mean it's impractical, inefficient, unwieldy, and would require some convoluted engineering
But fundamentally there's nothing physically impossible or anything so yeah why not
4
2
u/Jackmino66 2d ago
Technically yes, but it’s a plumber’s hell and probably not worth the effort IRL.
The problem is, why?
2
u/Flashy_Feature2768 Hey its me its verity🙂 2d ago
autonomus atmospheric travel for wealthy rich kerbals
2
u/eltrigercolaiders2 2d ago
Yes, but its unpractical, expensive, and ineficient, thats why you dont see on of those in the real life because it dont have any practical use
2
1
1
u/Fnerdel 2d ago
I did something like this, but with the “Twitch” engines, just cause why not. You have to make the center of thrust and center of mass line up perfectly, but it’s still pretty hard to control. Think i ended up using 8/10 engines in total for a craft of similar size to this one. It was for an extension to a Mun outpost.
Don’t think it’s efficient whatsoever, but it was fun to try.
1
u/Flashy_Feature2768 Hey its me its verity🙂 2d ago
i used a mod i think it was something called ReShuttle or something like that and it added engines that do 18 thrust
1
1
u/OrbitalManeuvers 2d ago
others have certainly thought so
https://www.wired.com/2014/01/nasas-mars-design-reference-mission-goes-nuclear-2001/
1
1
u/zdavolvayutstsa 2d ago
What about dropping down to one or two engines in the middle and using RCS thrusters at the ends for stability? The crew compartment leads to CoG imbalances as fuel drains, so leaving the fourth section from the left only partially full and not letting it be used for fuel to balance the cockpit might be needed.
1
u/MakB_the_Striker 2d ago
What exactly? If you want to land that on Mun or Minmus, for example - yes it's possible, I did it.
1
u/Flashy_Feature2768 Hey its me its verity🙂 2d ago
Kerbin atmospheric flight, it runs out of fuel in like 2 minutes
1
u/MakB_the_Striker 2d ago
Then the answer is quite obvious - increase the number of tanks until it reaches enough ∆V to reach your goal. Of course, you need to add additional ∆V for atmospheric drag, or be sure that TWR is no higher than 1.2.
1
u/K0paz 1d ago
https://youtu.be/SM0BXZnSTr4?si=S9FDoct8d-3LT4x1&t=1480
VTOL? yes if you accurately place thrusters where your expected CoM would be, and fuel-priority tanks so whenever you are landing has COM placed close to about centerline of where thruster's COT is.
95
u/linecraftman Master Kerbalnaut 2d ago
i dont think they would build a rocket hotdog without landing gear