Search the Community

I'm getting a little bored with my 1.2.1 career save, and want to start a new 1.2.2 save built on the Galileo planet pack with accompanying mods to mix up this KSP career. However, I just spent the last two months intensively learning SSTO spaceplanes, and I'm really proud of my newfangled proficiency. Spaceplane folks: What do you think of your Galileo career experience, and how different is it from stock? Will my normal, working SSTO spaceplane designs fall flat in this new mod pack? Will my tried and true design philosophies just need gentle tweaking, or ground-up overhauls? Do SSTO spaceplanes even have a place in this new solar system, or are they made obsolete and inefficient by its unique features and limitations? Will I be able to build intuitively and enjoy the science payouts from my efficient and handsome ships, or will I have to learn an entirely new way of building around entirely different engines and planetary requirements? Thanks!

So, in my career I have been searching for low cost ways to get crew/cargo into orbit. I do have a functional Falcon 9 replica (no barge), but that still costs money. So, in short I need an Mk2 or Mk1 SpacePlane that can SSTO and dock. However, I do not have the Whiplash, RAPIER, Goliath, Vector, or Aerospike engines. Any tips/designs? Thank in advance!

bbfrsfSorry for my bad english Anyway, i have a promlem, that liquides me off. I really want to make orbital space station like in this video: But I can't fill station core into Mk3 Cargo bay (like here:http://s018.radikal.ru/i508/1701/ef/ea6620f9f576.png). It just doesn't want to be in CB without any problems. And I can't fully build core, because docking port doesn't want to connect with anything (http://radikal.ru/lfp/s018.radikal.ru/i520/1701/3b/7c77b255c27f.png/htm) Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeace, help me . I don't understand

I've been building a lot of SSTOs lately. I'm fairly far into a career-mode game and it was annoying me that I didn't have a cheap way to get Kerbals into orbit and back down again, but while I have a good portion of the tech tree unlocked it wasn't complete yet and I didn't have access to the R.A.P.I.E.R. engines. Not to be deterred, I built the Grasshopper, a spaceplane based around a pair of Whiplash engines for atmospheric flight and a Toroidal Aerospike for space. The thing turned out fairly well, able to easily transport 4 Kerbals up to 250km orbits (which is where I keep my Kerbin space station) and back down again and, when pushed to its limits, can get up to a 500km circular orbit (although once up there I had trouble getting back down again, needing to use my RCS thrusters for that last bit of delta-V that I needed to get back into the atmosphere.) Today, after completing a successful mission with the Grasshopper (several, actually; I had four different Kerbals from four different rescue contracts on my station and brought them all down at once) I took a look at my new contracts and discovered that I'd been offered one to test the R.A.P.I.E.R. engine, effectively unlocking it for the duration of the contract without needing to invest the science points to get it normally. I immediately upgraded the Grasshopper with the new technology, replacing its Whiplash engines with R.A.P.I.E.R.s, ditching the Aerospike (putting a second shielded docking port in its place) and rebalancing my fuel tanks to better suit the new configuration. The new craft turned out to be slightly lighter than the old one (but also more expensive) and I immediately took it to the runway, got it into orbit and discovered that it performed... well... pretty much exactly as well as the old one. It could get to a 500km circular orbit but didn't have enough oxidizer to come back down again. The new design did have some advantages, with that second docking port meaning that I could attach a NERV tug to the back for long-range journeys and still have it dock with a station (where before I could only have it docked with one thing at a time) and I managed to fit a science container in where I used to have a small LiquidFuel tank, but it was also substantially harder to fly due to the R.A.P.I.E.R.'s poor low-speed performance and, as I said, more expensive. That got me thinking about the various SSTO designs I'd seen for this game. Nearly all of them are R.A.P.I.E.R.-based (with the occasional NERV engine for when you absolutely positively have to take a pair of wings and a set of air-breathing engines with you to Eeloo,) to the point where I don't think that a lot of builders are even considering the possibility of alternate designs. The R.A.P.I.E.R. is certainly convenient, being a jet engine and a rocket in a single package, but it has significant disadvantages in both modes, with its odd thrust curve requiring an exacting (and often tediously long) ascent profile in atmosphere and just being generally inefficient in vacuum. On the other hand, the Whiplash (and even the Panther) are still able to get a craft into the upper atmosphere with a significant fraction of its orbital velocity, are cheaper, get unlocked earlier and offer some significant advantages for in-atmosphere flying (with the Whiplash's smoother performance curve and the Panther's dry mode offering a very long cruise-time for when your re-entry falls wide of the KSC.) So what do you think? Is it time to re-examine the R.A.P.I.E.R.'s status as the be-all and end-all of SSTO engines?

Stock Aero Grand Tour Demo: Kerbodyne Planet Hopper Album at http://imgur.com/gallery/ujLIL -- Stock Aero Grand Tour Part 2 Album at http://imgur.com/gallery/F3vzM

For some time, i've known how to get spaceplanes with very low takeoff and landing speed up to orbit with decent delta V. Landing gear however, wasn't my strong suit, I've just recently updated this with a sensible (though seriously oversized) conventional tricycle arrangement. Despite having not flown the craft in six months, i put it down first time... so that makes it officially "noob friendly" yes? https://kerbalx.com/AeroGav/WhippyNerv-IIi It's a mostly re-usable two stage design, the Whiplash jet engine is decoupled when it outlives its usefulness. Launch on Year 1, day 236 or use an online transfer window planner to get a good departure to Duna. Climb to 17km keeping the nose less than 5 degrees above prograde for low drag, then level off and accelerate to 1300 m/s. Up to this point I find it is best to keep SAS off and just use pitch trim (alt S and alt W) adjustments fine tune the nose angle. Once you reach 1300, add nose up pitch trim until the nose is 5 degrees above prograde. Right click the whiplash engine and monitor it's thrust output. When it falls below 30kN, toggle SAS on and press Space Bar to stage. After that, just maintain a nose angle of 5 degrees above prograde throughout the slow climb to space. With SAS, the nose slowly rises over time, so you'll need to make periodic nose down corrections to prevent a draggy attitude. Alternatively just take SAS off and hand fly it, you'll find yourself gradually reducing nose up trim as the reaction wheel torque becomes more effective. Aerobraking - 17 to 20km PE into Duna. Approach - use the map screen to avoid the higher ground. No part of Duna is completely flat however. Configure - In the video above it appears i forgot to enable the landing lights on the gear legs. RCS opens the service bay and activates the Vernor lifting thruster. Landing - gravity is much less than on Kerbin but so is lift, so be aware it takes much longer to arrest a descent. Keep your descent rate below 5m/s when near the ground and look ahead to spot rising ground so you can start pitching up early. It takes a long time for speed to bleed off but aim to land at 70-40 m/s. Getting too slow means landing with either excessive pitch angle or high rate of descent. Make sure your service bay is open and that RCS is on, and keep a finger over the K key (RCS Translate UP). Use it as a backup method of reducing descent rate for touchdown - if you're already pitched up at 10 degrees or more, use the vernor engine rather than risk a tailstrike. Features - in line clamp o tron, RTG power source, fly by wire hub for non-pilot kerbals, service bay. Science? I didn't put any instruments on this ship, and I appreciate that Spaceplanes are time consuming to modify and set traps for the unwary - everything tends to affect everything else. The service bay contains an Oscar B tank, you can attach items to this part and know they will be shielded. The upper surface of the Oscar B has a deployable radiator module currently which isn't really necessary, that should free up room for a few small instruments.

I can't find any aerodynamic cones that are suitable for the front of a mk2 or mk3 spaceplane... what do people do? Always use a mk2 or mk3 cockpit? ah, there are fuel converters to std cone shapes... just need to flip them round. Ignore me!

I haven't made an SSTO in absolutely ages. In fact I haven't made one since before the significant aero changes occurred as I simply lost the ability to do it. That really had to change so I put my mind to it and over the last 3 days have designed and flown this mission in my spare time. First some stats: Name: Mullet Dyne Cross Wing (Variant 5) Parts: 86 (including payload) Mass: 43.155t Cost: 81,464 (including payload) Power: 3 x CR-7, 2 LV-N Mission Report - Click here Craft File - Click here So basically what I'm looking for is a bit of feedback if anyone wants to chip in. Since this is my first foray into SSTO's since before the major aero changes (although the design went through 5 iterations before I was happy with it) I've no real idea (beyond being capable of Mun/Minus return) whether I've got the balance, look, design, efficiency right etc. Feel free to download it and try it out, or just provide feedback based on what you see Thanks everyone! SM

This is my first spacecraft exchange, i have have always wanted to share my SSTO with the world. SSTO Lammergeier Specifications: Part Count, 93 Mass, 68.362t Height, 4.5m Width, 20.5m Length, 19.7m This my SSTO, the Lammergeier, seen here on Minmus Here it is in the SPH, and you can see its interesting wing shape. Here it is back on Kerbin after its voyage to Minmus, it has made the trip a couple of times and hasn't failed me yet. Thank you.

So I've been poking around with 1.2 off and on between another project I've been working on, and I've decided to go bang my head on the wall to create a reusable spaceplane with as low a tech as I can get my hands on. Preferably without upgrading anything (thus, 30 parts/18 tons) and max tech level 4 (the 45 cost tree region). While doing this, and after banging my head on the wall repeatedly, I decided I'd poke my head in here and see if anyone had been taking up the idea... and haven't seen much. I love Thrimm's work, but his lightest is a 25tonner. I haven't seen much else out there. So, has anyone been successful at this so far? I assume someone (or many someones) have, so if you know of them, would you be kind enough to point me at them for some ideas?

1. Crafts must be able to safely land without parachutes. 2. Crafts must not require any building upgrades to build. 3. Crafts must be stock. Category A. Reuseable SSTO spaceplane limited to tech level 4. Bonus points if it's crewed and if it has scientific instruments on board. Category B Reuseable SSTO spaceplane limited to tech level 5. Bonus points if it's crewed and if it has scientific instruments on board. Category C Airbreathing Crewed crafts capable of reaching >20,000 meters required to have a thermometer and barometer on board. (intended to be used for contracts) Here are my entries, Category A: (okay I used a level 5 fuel tank, but I had a low enough part count that I could have replaced the fuel tanks with the shorter ones). Not even gonna share the craft file for this rather unimaginative design, this craft is capable of getting into orbit but it requires the operator to be rather precise. this one has all of the low tech science on board. Note I had to tilt it at an an angle and it was just barely short enough to fit the required 15m dimensions but upon startup if you hold the a key it will reorient itself in the right direction. (it seemed harder to get into orbit in vertical takeoff). Again, this is not optimized but it does reach orbit, not too proud of this one, here's one more to prove I landed it: Here's my Category C entry: Now this one I consider much more useful, this will enable you to complete any of the survey contracts I've seen: This thing will literally fly itself up to 22,000 meters just by hitting the prograde button. I posted this earlier now that it's a contest I will try to fly it again to post a higher height, here is the craft file: it's exactly 30 parts and doesn't even have a front wheel. http://pastebin.com/raw/eQWfQM6T

"Complete the Ultimate Mun 6 Expedition" 6 words that meant pain and suffering for the last 2 days. I didn't read properly before I accepted so I missed a little 3 letter word in the mission description. "We need you to land on the Mun, Laythe, Eve, Ike and Minmus and finish on the surface of Kerbin using a single vessel." Basically for these "tour"-missions I use one of my spaceplanes and refuel it at every planet system, I have mining stations and/or space stations at Minmus, Ike, Gilly, Laythe, Bop and Pol so I usually really don't need multipart vessels. This time KSP got me. I didn't finish the mission yet since I will have to do it in between my other missions but I finished building and testing my vessel in sandbox mode (Thank god for Hyperedit). Since Eve is on the list I thought maybe I could build an Eve lander around one of my modified spaceplanes. I spare you the details of hours and hours of building, optimizing, tearing it apart, rebuild, optimize.... Here is what I came up with: Part count: 966 Weight: 6015.7 tons Price: 2,563,633 (Mission Reward is 4,122,260 + 618,030 Advance) Craft file: EVE-LanderJet.craft The Images are from 2 flights but I did it in one, the Jebediah flight landed in an Eve ocean though. This is the spaceplane I wanted to bring to Eve and back up: And this is what I needed to get it done: Since I cannot embed Imgur albums anymore here is the link for more images: http://imgur.com/a/bEkEs It looks like I'm stranded in Eve orbit now but in career mode i have a tanker stationed at Gilly that makes it there easily. This was pure Sandbox-proof of concept. Morale of the story: Never just click accept on missions.

Hello everyone! I'm new to the forums (I probably should have checked these forums out ages ago though as I have been playing before 1.0 4 years ago) so I would first of all like to say how much of a good job people are doing to keep these forums a nice place! But I would like to ask what are some tips to get me going on spaceplanes as I have had much difficulty throughout these years getting them to go a few inches above the ground before they blow to pieces. I get the general idea of center of mass in front of center of weight but my spaceplanes still don't seem to work that well, and also I have found jet engines can't produce enough thrust to lift any plane I create off the ground even though I have 2 air intakes on the plane! It would be nice to know what I could possibly be doing wrong! It would be very appreciated if someone could give me some tips on ways to make my planes more stable and why mine could be simply flipping out of control! Any advice is appreciated!

Wageera Aerospace, the same people who brought you the Kearjet Bussines/Leisure Jet, have the pleasure of bringing you a new design: The N2 Personal Shuttle is a SSTO spaceplane, designed to carry 1 crew plus baggage to orbit or to a space station and back in a safe and economical fashion. It is an excellent spacecraft for pilots seeking the challenge of precision flying and the ultimate in speed, and for space programs in need of a cheap way to level up their pilots, and bring science and crew to space stations and back. This spacecraft can reach anywhere on Kerbin either via long-range atmospheric cruise or a faster suborbital hop, and will always achieve orbit safely and with margin to spare as long as you follow the instructions provided here. In most cases, even if you somehow have managed to run out of fuel during climb, as long as your apoapsis at the time is at or near 65 km, and your speed is above 2 km/s you will be able to limp into orbit with the translation RCS system only. The amount of ΔV remaining after orbital insertion will depend heavily on the launch profile used and the parameters of the target orbit but the best we’ve seen in testing is 347 m/s ΔV remaining when inserted to a circular equatorial 71 km orbit. The usual ΔV remaining after inserting into a 100km circular equatorial orbit is about 300 m/s ΔV plus about 600 kg of monopropellant, wich is more than enough to perform a rendezvous and dock to a refuel station with very wide margins of safety. After refueling in orbit, you can get up to 1.44 km/s ΔV. A typical cruise speed in atmosphere is about 1300 m/s (Mach 4.4) at 26 km altitude. Basic capabilities: Stability: Very stable in all regimes, up to and including hypersonic reentry. Just trim it as needed and it will fly hands-off, no SAS required. Stalls: Due to its mixed canard/elevon design, this spacecraft will not stall, but, upon reaching critical angle of attack, pitch authority will be lost, and the nose will drop, with no tendency to drop a wing as long as reasonable yaw angles are maintained. Stall recovery is the same as in a normal aircraft, but be conscious that it will take more height to recover. Achieving the critical angle of attack is almost impossible whenever full power is applied. Other unusual attitudes: For all tested anormal pitch, roll and yaw attitudes at speeds below Mach 1, centering all controls will result in either immediate self-stabilization or a mild dive from which you can then recover by slightly increasing pitch. Anormal attitudes above Mach 1 were not tested, due to the obvious risk, but our best guesses engineering models indicate that the spacecraft should recover in the same way. Aerobatics: The N2 was not designed to perform aerobatics, and consequently pitch and yaw are too sluggish for aerobatics, but it still can do cool aileron rolls and barrel rolls with ease. Variants: The plane comes in two variants, fully fueled, and jet fuel only, so you can easily fly a lighter, higher performance model for short hops that do not require oxidizer or monopropellant, without having to waste time manually editing fuel tank levels and worrying about potential center of mass issues. Included in your download, in classic Wageera Aerospace style, is a VERY comprehensive Pilot's Handbook with everything you might ever need to take the N2 Spaceplane to orbit and back. Download from: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7TPwnJRH1AYQ2pjLVdzaEVEbk0/view?usp=sharing

I probably should have posted it here instead of inside another thread. I know copying posts is frowned upon so just follow this link http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/27292-what-did-you-do-in-ksp-today/&page=1144#comment-2861953

So, I decided to finally try to make a spaceplane SSTO. It's all going well, until i got to the altitude where i need to switch mode. My engines didn't change mode, so i used the action group i set to change their mode. Didn't work. Ok. I tried manually changing their mode. Still didn't work. I've tried everything, and the Rapiers won't change mode. I've restarted the game (as well as my computer), i've done everything i can think of and it just won't work. can someone please tell me why this is happening? Craft file: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0Bx91FQJHP8inZkI5QWs5OTFNaXM?usp=sharing NOTE: I haven't tried deleting and redownloading my game. I think it may be because of some modifications i did to the squad folder in order to attempt to make a mod, but i still don't think it should of made the difference that it did.

A quick demo of how to hit KSC every time in a spaceplane. When you hold the angle of the nose about 7 degrees above prograde, you get the best gliding angle and your impact point will steadily move downrange of the initially plotted ballistic arc. The further you point your nose away from "best glide", the less this effect till, at large angles, it actually causes the impact point to move closer. Whilst you can pitch down, left or right to acheive this effect, i recommend UP because it takes you away from the thicker atmosphere and gives you a respite from re-entry heat. As you can see, this mk1 doesn't have much problem with re-entry heat. Possible reasons for this 1. Inline cockpit is quite far back. The fly by wire unit has a pointy antenna thing on the nose, that moves the bow wave well forward of the cockpit. 2. large wing area means it stays high until it has lost a lot of speed. 3. engine pre-cooler makes a good radiator. As do the jet nozzles on the rapier. these parts surround the cockpit.

We all do it don't we? Put 3 CRG100 back to back, fill with orange tanks, cluster the cargo bays with so many engines you can't see them, then put a pair of Basic Fins on as wings. Roar off the end of the runway stalling at mach 1, barely miss the water, zoom to orbit. The thing is, Werner Von Kerman's allotment is at the end of that runway, and he's getting quite fed up with Jeb upsetting his chickens. So, the challenge is to show something that can takeoff and land horizontally using a bit less runway, whilst still getting to orbit. The Rules Stock parts and physics obviously. Informational mods are allowed. SSTO please - I do often build spaceplanes with drop tanks and boosters, but i can't see a way to allow that in this challenge without people abusing it. No VTOLs. Sorry but that is a completely different challenge. For takeoff and landing from Kerbin, lifting engines are not allowed. For other planetary bodies, you are allowed to use RCS and Verniers if you wish. No parachutes or Separatrons. I think a true STOL SSTO should just be "fuel and go", and not have to worry about repacking chutes or replacing rockets. Parachutes wont help at these landing speeds anyway. The vessel will carry a single large mk2 cargo bay with two Science Juniors as payload. The vessel should be manned and the Kerbal needs a proper pod (no deck chairs or ladders to heaven). On clipping A blanket "no clipping rule" could make this unreasonably hard, it may also stifle some innovative approaches. In my play testing of this challenge, you may want 3 different kinds of engine on this small SSTO. For example, I'd very much like to have tried this with one Panther, One Rapier, and one NERV. Without clipping, you're going to have some most un-fun off-axis thrust issues. I just spent my morning trying to build a stock Space Shuttle, I don't want to go there. So, I will allow engine clipping so long as it's fully disclosed and so long as there is no way to accommodate your selection in a symmetrical way otherwise. For example, if you want one rapier and one whiplash, clip away :-) OTOH, if you're asking for a RAPIER with two junos, the RAPIER can obviously sit centrally and the junos hang off the wings, no reason to clip. One Whiplash, one nerv and two terriers? Well the whiplash and nerv can cohabit, but the pair of terriers can sit either side without violating any laws of physics. You are also allowed to clip cones onto the back of any engines that have an unused rear attach node. I don't feel this is cheating, you are simply bringing the drag values of a RAPIER or other rocket engine down to what nodeless jets like the Whiplash and Panther experience. But no clipping fuel tanks please and your cargo/service bays need to be big enough for any items you feel you need (batteries, radiators, reaction wheels) without clipping them inside each other. Categories and Scoring Ok there's two ways of doing this. My first idea was to have three classes of SSTO. Orbit, Minmus, Duna. Entries in each category would be scored on the total of takeoff run ength (when full) and landing run length (when empty) on Kerbin. Details for this version of the challenge, below However, I'm tending away from this, because of the difficulty in measuring takeoff and landing run length. So, keep it simple. The challenge is to have wheels off the ground by the second set of "Piano Keys" on the runway. At the takeoff end The STO (Short Takeoff to Orbit) award goes to any vessel that can do this and reach orbit. The STM (Short Takeoff to Minmus) award goes to any vessel that can get airborne by the piano keys, reach Minmus, land there horizontally on the flats, and come back to Kerbin. The STD (Short Takeoff to Duna) award is for any vessel that can get airborne by the piano keys, land on Duna horizontally, using only wings, RCS and vernors, no parachutes or lift engines. Oh yes and here's proof btw, that it can be done. My design is clearly not optimal. Two nervs is obviously excessive on something this size. One rapier is actually ok for speed run, but the subsonic climb to orbit wastes a lot of fuel due to low TWR of rapier in subsonic mode - some junos or panthers would really help. Also note how low wing loading plus wings angled with incidence makes it hard to fly fast unless you're going very very high up. So high in fact that the engines flame out first So I'd recommend using low wing loading or incidence, but not both together. On the bright side, look at how easily it climbs away once the nervs start up. It lifts itself above the atmosphere at quite low speed and the orange glow dies off. No heat whatsoever.

I've been trying to get some experience with aircraft, since I'd been making spaceplanes in my old 1.1.3 career, so I thought I'd try to challenge myself a bit. I even had vague thoughts about making it an actual Challenge, and posting this as the first entry. Primary rule: No usage of VAB or launch pad, all craft must take off horizontally and preferably land the same way. Funding efficiency and reusability is a primary concern, and runway landing is always the goal, but no hard rule about full recovery. I'll spare you the first couple rocket-sleds I built; those don't matter. But here's my first real aircraft. The Spirit 1 was a great little workhorse, lasting me quite a while, and having several variants. Starting there, I pushed through the tech tree and was doing pretty decently for a while. Since we still can't insert imgur albums, here's the link to a quick career summary: http://imgur.com/a/ucdXy And here's where I am now: My problem is, I've hit a bit of a wall. The Panther is a fun engine, but it just doesn't have the upper-atmosphere power I need to start reaching beyond LKO. I've mined Kerbin of most of its science, and finishing that up (just the south pole and badlands left) won't get me enough to push to Hypersonic Flight. Where should I go from here? My design creativity is running out, after the monstrosity that is the This Might Work. I still need to pull 300 more science from somewhere to push for Hypersonic, and that's ignoring everything else (I mean, I still don't even have reaction wheels). Any advice, whether on research or aircraft design, would be greatly appreciated.

I don't really think this thread belongs in Spacecraft Exchange, because I'm not actually showing off my own designs... but we don't exactly have a thread for "requesting" designs so lesser of known evils I suppose... but I digress, I'm seeking a Mk.3 Passenger spaceplane, for the purpose of quickly getting newly hired Kerbalnauts experience in, shall we say a 'supervised' environment. Minimum capability that I'm looking for here: -must have at least one Mk3 crew passnger cabins -capable of interplanetary flight (Dres or farther) -VTOL landings on low-grav moons and planets -full science package -capable of powered re-entry & landing to KSC -Stock parts If you're looking for additional challenge(s), in descending desirability: -capable of launching one, or more, mid-size satellites approximately the length of the mk-2 (short) cargobay in a single expedition -NOT be self-refuelling, provisions for external fuel drop tanks or docking to refuel yes, but no mining and refining mounted -FAR & stock aero capability friendly -Aesthestically pleasing, not simply function over form. And just because I want to try and fall within the boundaries of this sub-forum, the CSF SSTO that I've designed so far (although still haven't actually flown her)

The Czar Galactica Mk4 Capable of lifting 300 tons to orbit. https://kerbalx.com/NoobTool/Czar-Galactica-Mk-4 http://imgur.com/a/5fKEk

Hello everyone, I want to share screenshots of flying aircraft carrier with bomb bay that carries spaceplane under it for testing purpose. The purpose of flying aircraft carrier is to ferry any space craft to above 10,000 meters high, have space plane detach from flying aircraft carrier and fly toward orbit. Here are screenshots and any comments are welcomed!

I present to you the Galactic Swallow (not related to the real-life commercial space travel/tourism company). My first attempt at building a spaceplane that can do more than just strand crews in orbit. It has 6 Whiplash engines and 3 Vector engines. It also has a cargo bay into which I put science stuff, the battery, monopropellant tank, and the antenna. See? It can do science and strand Kerbals in space. Craft stats: # of parts: 81 mass: 85.41t height: 7.4m width: 18.4m length: 20.8m Performance notes: This thing can barely reach LKO. The placement of RCS thrusters needs a lot of work. Take off can be problematic, but if you don't have any fancy aerodynamics mod installed, just hold S on full throttle and you should be just fine. Download on KerbalX: https://kerbalx.com/download/craft/19846 Feedbacks are always welcome.

I have this spaceplane built in the previous versions, which doubles as a reasonable lander And it used to make it to orbit with plenty of dV to spare. I've just loaded it in 1.2.1 though and the rapiers can't keep up the thrust when they are breaking the sound barrier: They'll hold up to about match 1, but between match 1 and match 1.1 they will consistently keep loosing thrust, even if I level out or even descend slowly, which keeps me stuck below match 1.2. I've tried placing precoolers in front of the engines, but they don't change performance. I've replaced the front of the spaceplane with the MK2 (not inline) cockpit and while there is a thrust loss, it isn't nearly as pronounced and I can more easily break the sound barrier, so I guess the issue is related to the changes in drag. Am I right? (And it's a pity, because that's a nice position to put the docking port). I also installed Interstellar (and removed the rapiers MM patch as it caused them to overheat) but I don't think Interstellar should be the curprit

This is my first formal project, so bear with me if it isn't perfect. Some background: I like the flying wing aircraft concept a lot, planes like the Ho 229 and the B2 bomber are some of the coolest flying machines. I don't understand all the advantages of the flying wing design as apposed to conventional fuselages or other alternatives. Another concept I really enjoy messing around with is the lifting bodies that NASA was experimenting with slightly before they came up with the space shuttle. Things like the Martin Marietta x-24 and the similar Scramjet Drones that are more modern are my chief inspiration here. One big problem I have is that I don't totally understand the advantages of both designs, so some help here would be much appreciated. Both in reality and in game. I have some basic questions about the fundamentals of where each design is most effective (such as general altitude) and why. I usually end up relying on the fact that I appreciate well engineered machines and that if it looks really cool, then it probably works well too. So here is the actual idea I had: Using the idea of the swing wing, which briefly explained is that the wing changes angle to improve performance at different speeds, I want to create a flying wing aircraft where the wings would swivel forwards (Probably using a mod like infernal robotics) to create the profile of a lifting body aircraft. Lastly, Here are some conclusions I have come to: This is in no way practical in real life, I totally understand that, but this is Kerbal, and all things are at least attempt able. I don't understand the intricacies exactly of what I am suggesting, or even if it can be done, which is why I am leaving it here as a discussion point, for some peer review. I look forward to any advice or input given and will have some paper concept drawings added eventually. -Ja3k