hoioh

I would be inclined to say, launch a spare, or two and go make repairs, it will be very "hubble"

Abd if it doesn't I still have another, more BSG-style craft that can go toe to toe with the sk-22, but I want to do some more tuning on that one so it can reliably beat it

That does happen sometimes, I noticed it before when at least 1 plane is lagging behind its sidewinders can get confused and then it's done because the leading plane is not dropping flares for a friendly missile... I'm curious to see how it does against the zircon from the island, in my tests it was either one that dominated each consecutive match, over 8 rounds It was still 50/50 when taking off from the field near the runway 3v3

I'll have to try again then, because currently it simply won't show up at all

Yeah, I know, but it won't work well on 1.6.x Latest version is for 1.5.x I mostly use mechjeb for engineering purposes, but the one thing it won't tell you is which mods are required, so I have to upload it to KerbalX to find out. So instead I keep 4 or 5 different installs of KSP each with different mods for different purposes, one of which is for this kind of challenge, another one for KEA, one for duna base architecture, etc. It pretty much guarantees a limit on mods used within a challenge enviroment

And then I finally realized that comment wasn't directed at me

Should be better now, I replaced a part for a scaled stock alternative and removed 2 parts Come to think or it, if it wants any other mods, those may be dependancies, but there really shouldn't be any Here's my mod list: Red is a mod that contains parts Blue are dependancies, some may not be required Green are build aids and other things you don't need to have to fly the craft

I didn't pay attention to my part count, I'll see what I can miss It should only be using AP+, tweakscale and BDAc, what else does it mention on your end?

Yeah, there's a couple scaled parts in there (about 50% or so) didn't scale engines or weapons though, mostly the intercoolers, air hoppers and some control surfaces

I would like to join in the fun and submit this plane: https://kerbalx.com/hoioh/SK-22-MK-2

We already determined the boosters have a little gimbal range to do the rolling. Thinking about it now, it seems obvious that the com is not perfectly in the center, 1 weight of fuel pod and boosters, 2 the engines of the shuttle are positioned at an angle to accomodate for the com offset. But that does not neccesarily mean that at the time of the final belly down roll the com may have moved towards the shuttle enough to roll using the flaps, but by then the air is too thin to gain anything by that

They look great @Rocket_man1234 by the time they're up for review I'm sure we'll know how many passengers really fit, or we'll just keep stuffing kerbals in to find out

For example, it's for anything that doesn't fit any category. To get purchased from there requires extreme creativity and the pitch will have to really sell it

On close inspection it looks like they are using the wing mounted roll control flaps Considering the amount of engineering that went into it, could it be possible that the center of mass is directly in line with the main wing at this stage?

If I had to guess I'd think they balanced the thrust to make the vector be perfectly vertical at least, that way you're not wasting fuel on bad earo. The next trick is to balance the vectors on all your engines to get the roll to be balanced around the cot With the real shuttle the flip isn't made until the boosters have been jettisoned, so the only vectors to account are those of the shuttle engines, while for the roll control in the first stage withe boosters they would only use the tail fin and block the vector control completely to avoid what you're describing altogether

How is it without the cargo? Does it move much as the fuel drains? Going up usually isn't much of an issue, though your center of mass and thrust need to line up (with and without cargo) to make orbital maneuvers go smoothly, the better aligned the more smoothly it goes. Going down without a payload means you will be low on fuel and the bays are empty since you left it all in space, that's when you want your col to just about touch the com with the arrow to get stable flight at low speeds. At high speeds you might want to move all your remaining fuel forward for stability and move it back once you're down to about 600 m/s. For 2b you're going down with cargo, but still low on fuel, so you may have to reconfigure a little for that one to obtain the same flight characteristics as for 2a Once you've got that down everything else should be a matter of scale and the next real challnges are the ones where you're going to land on another body (and maybe sts9 due to sheer size and mass of the object)

That looks like you understand perfectly

I guess I am again, but I think @Box of Stardust is next

Seems kinda redundant

I'll oblige, how about @neistridlar?

In the sense of maintaining the thread I might actually be a reasonably good OP, considering I log in daily, keep uo to date and have a lot of spare time during work hours, not to mention the experience as a judge I'll think about it

Same here, maybe @panzerknoef is up for it?

There has been a mention, some discussion and then, nothing. There has not been any ruling as to the size of a 1.875m cabin. What most of you can't see is the discussion in the judges message thread, only judges can. I can and I said no consensus has been reached in the main thread. So yeah, there's an idea, but as long as CrazyJebGuy does not add this size to the OP with a number attached to it the amount of Kerbals a 1.875m cabin carries is 0 Sorry On a maybe brighter note, I very much like how involved people are with this particular challenge, it's why I started judging and had fun doing so. I haven't written any reviews recently because I had been working on a faster, more objective and efficient judging system, but it was considered too "hardcore" basically. No hard feelings either way, but it has kept me from judging more planes recently, which is a shame considering the queue. Consider it writers block, or a bit of a winter depression or some such. I'm sure I'll be back at some point when I feel I have the energy to do so. In the meantime you might consider this: CrazyJebGuy is the OP, the challenge is his to manage untill such time as he cedes control and another judge takes his place. That means he sets the rules, no matter how anybody else might feel about that is completely irrelevant because he's the OP and the challenge is his. So whatever it is you may want, consider how you could best put your argument amd entice him to find your point of view attractive, so attractive that he might come to accept it. I've recently responded to someone demanding an answer, I chose to do so to keep the peace, but was seriously considering escalating. Demands are not for anyone to make of anybody else. The best you can hope for is agreement and that is reached easiest and soonest if we all remain civil with each other and consider each other friends who want the same thing: a lot of fun!

I had a similar problem so I went for the 'once around' approach. My SLV takes the payload to 170km circular orbit and then deorbits back to KSC. So I don't need FMRS or stage recovery mods for that. Also, I will land each and every SLV that I launch, but it is only mandatory to demonstrate the ability once, after which it itsn't required to land any further SLV's

KIS and KAS are allowed, but all items carried count towards NPM