Destroyer713

Add me to the list of people who want to know if the landing gear will have lights and/or be steerable.

You're talking about the ones that aren't in a white case, right? Those haven't been able to retract since 1.0, so that's intended.

I'd honestly love to see something like this in stock. As it is right now, it's a pain to adjust the periapsis and orbit of an encounter for anything farther than a Kerbin to Mun transfer. You can either focus on where the node is and not be able to see the encounter orbit, or you can focus on the body you'll encounter and become unable to properly adjust the maneuver node. So yeah, +1 to this idea from me.

Oh, well, seems I stand corrected. I was taking that info from the wiki, which in retrospect might be outdated. Glad to know I was wrong on that bit. However, there is a difference between the two types of Advanced Nose Cones. The description of Type B (the slanted one) implies that it would work better on a side booster than Type A. This isn't the case, and I know I'm not just pulling this info from the outdated wiki this time, since I actually tested this myself. While it's not a huge difference, it still means Type B is worse in every case I can conceive. Personally, I feel like reducing the drag of Type B so that it's slightly lower than Type A (and keep the asymmetric drag so it's not ideal to use on the center booster) might be a good idea.

One thing I'd like to see done in addition to a lot that's suggested here is a rebalance of the nose cones in general. You would think the pointy Advanced Nose Cones would be less draggy than the rounded Aerodynamic Nose Cone, right? Despite what the in-game descriptions say, that's not the case. I mean, the Advanced Nose Cones are really aesthetically pleasing, in my opinion. I'd love it if I could stick Type A on top of something or Type B on top of side boosters without having to sacrifice efficiency.

I will admit, this probably wasn't the most "scientific" experiment ever, if only out of laziness on my part. The only reason I did 3 tests for each nose cone and rocket type was because I realized there was some variance, but I didn't want to spend half the day doing 20+ launches for everything. Unfortunately, trying to plug these values into an online standard deviation calculator (because I can't for the life of me remember the formula) gives me multiple values, and I'm not quite sure which one I'm looking for. I really should have paid more attention when I was learning about this in my college courses... But taking a quick look at the data, the maximum altitude values never varied by more than 100 m (the differences between the two nose cones was about 500 m), and the maximum speed never varied by more than a single meter per second. Effectively, while the differences in drag between the nosecones are small, the margin of error between the two never overlapped.

For crying out loud, I was satisfying my own curiosity about if that slanted nose cone did anything to benefit a rocket at all like its description implied. No need to be condescending about it. The reason I didn't test it in FAR is because I don't use FAR. Simple as that. You're more than free to test it yourself, though. I'm not going to stop you.

This I agree with. Hopefully this gets enough attention that Squad rebalances this part so it's at least on par with the Type A Advanced Nosecone.

Background: As I was designing rockets, a thought about the two different Advanced Nose Cones came to me. Is there really a difference between the two at all? The description of the Advanced Nose Cone Type B implies that the slanted nature of it will cause less drag on radial boosters than an Advanced Nose Cone Type A, but was this really true? Question: Does the Advanced Nose Cone Type B offer any advantage over the Advanced Nose Cone Type A? Process: Two Thumper SRBs were attached radially to an empty core stage with a Mainsail attached. The SRBs were not thrust limited, and had the Advanced Nose Cones attached at the top of them depending on the test. The rocket was held by launch clamps to avoid any tipping before launch. SAS was activated, throttle was set to max (not that it should have made any difference if it was or not), and the rocket was launched. No manual control input was used, and the SRBs lifted the rocket until burnout. The maximum height and speed was recorded through the F3 screen. This process was repeated 3 times for each nose Cone type. No mods aside from KER were used, and these experiments were performed in stock 1.0.4 Aerodynamics. Experiment A: The SRBs were attached to the central tank with a radial decoupler and struts, simulating a typical rocket that is flown with detachable radial boosters. Results of Experiment A: Nose Cone A: Average Maximum Altitude: 22,184 m Average Maximum Speed: 532 m/s Nose Cone B: Average Maximum Altitude: 21,560 m Average Maximum Speed: 524 m/s ​ Experiment B: The SRBs were directly attached to the central fuel tank. No radial decouplers or struts were used. This simulates a typical SSTO rocket where the radial boosters do not detach. Results of Experiment B: Nose Cone A: Average Maximum Altitude: 24,579 m Average Maximum Speed: 559 m/s ​ Nose Cone B: Average Maximum Altitude: 23,908 m Average Maximum Speed: 551 m/s ​ Overall Conclusion: The Advanced Nose Cone Type B offers no obvious benefit over the Advanced Nose Cone Type A in stock aerodynamics. All vessels that had the Advanced Nose Cone Type A equipped flew faster and higher than vessels that had the Advanced Nose Cone Type B equipped. tl;dr: The Advanced Nose Cone Type B creates more drag that its Type A counterpart in all obvious cases in stock aerodynamics. It is a completely useless part in terms of efficiency. (Squad, can you at least rebalance this part so it's at least on par with its Type A counterpart? It looks pretty damn cool on some designs, so it'd be nice to not have to sacrifice efficiency for aesthetics!)

So from the looks of it, my huge problem was I was overbuilding with a Skipper. I was so hell bent on using Kickbacks that I would stick way too much fuel above a Skipper just to get that part of the rocket about as tall as a Kickback. This effectively made the rocket overbuilt, and it was way more expensive than it should be. I took a two-stage Mun lander of mine (including a Science Jr. and a Service Bay), stuck it on top of a Skipper, an orange tank, and a structural adapter (this was something I made for early career, so no fuel tank adapters for me), and even without a pair of Thumpers I was able to get it out of the atmosphere and still have fuel to help circularize. So yeah, thanks for all the helpful tips, everyone!

I honestly can't seem to figure out how to make good use of the Skipper. Before unlocking the Mainsail, I've tried pairing it with SRBs to make a decent lifter. But the amount of fuel you have to use to effectively pair it with some Kickbacks causes the TWR to drop too low once the SRBs run out. Heck, I've even found it cheaper to just use the Kickbacks with a Swivel to get a Mun lander into orbit. And then, of course, once the Mainsail gets unlocked, the Skipper gets completely outclassed. Is there any effective use for this engine at all?

I can't say I've ever experimented with non-Rapier SSTOs, so any advice I might be able to give may be sketchy at best. One of the biggest roadblocks to any winged SSTO is drag. One big source of drag comes from having a high angle of attack, because a lot of air will be hitting the underside of your plane. Increasing the angle of incidence (basically rotating the wing or canard so the front is higher than the back) on all of the wings and canards can help decrease your needed AoA to around zero once you get up to speed, greatly decreasing drag. You probably don't need more wing than you already have. As long as you can lift off the runway reasonably enough, you should be fine. Adding additional and unneeded lift will only increase drag. Beyond that, the only thing I can think of is adding more fuel and/or bigger non-airbreathing engines. Until you do unlock Rapiers, the fuel-efficiency of a spaceplane won't be as high as it could possibly be.

I must admit, I didn't try to keep altitude low while building speed. I didn't even think it mattered, so while I kept pitch low, I was climbing to around 1500 m before even thinking about pitching down. Is that what makes all the difference? The only clipping I can think of is from the front Canard or the RCS Thrusters, and that wasn't even intentional. I'll have to take another look and maybe relocate the cargo bay if necessary. But hey, glad to know my design wasn't as bad as I thought! I assume 400 m/s is plenty of dV to rendezvous and dock in LKO then land back at KSC. Thanks a lot to everyone for all the input!

How exactly would more lift help in this case? Even with the pitiful TWR this craft starts out with, it can still fly off the ground just fine. I feel like adding more lift would increase drag, which would only make things worse. Or am I missing something here? On another note, I've noticed the front of this craft likes to wobble quite a bit. I'm not sure if that's because of excessive reaction wheel control or weak joints, but I have to wonder if that's causing some of the problems with this craft.

First of all, it's only 20 Kerbals (5 crew cabins that hold 4 Kerbals each). Second, yes, I'd like to be able to launch 20 Kerbals at a time. The station I have in orbit holds that many, and it would be nice to fill it up all in one launch.

I'm trying to design a 20 Kerbal SSTO that's meant to rendezvous and dock with a station in a 100 km orbit. I get the feeling this craft has the fuel to do that, but it's so excruciatingly difficult to fly efficiently that I haven't even been able to get it out of the atmosphere (And the few times I've been able to get the Apoapsis above 70 km, I'll do a Physics warp to get out of the atmosphere, and the drone core will spontaneously explode), even when I do fly the proper ascent profile. Here's the SSTO in question: Craft File: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nq58lvkhwysad81/Starchaser%20Mk2.craft?dl=0 The biggest thing that's driving me crazy is how hard it is to break 400 m/s with this craft. I know I need to do so in order to get the massive amounts of thrust Rapiers are capable of, but I'm finding it difficult to do this efficiently or without splashing into the ocean. I'm honestly not quite sure where I can cut down on drag, and I really don't want to add another engine or two. If I could figure this out, I might be able to save enough Jet Fuel that I don't risk running out of it before I'm ready to switch to rocket mode. Another thing I've noticed is that under 400 m/s, this craft can fly directly into the prograde marker. Yet as soon as I break 400 m/s, its natural tendency is to fly below the prograde marker. Pressing F12 seems to indicate there's negative lift coming from the fuselage itself. What's up with that? So obviously I suck at designing and flying SSTOs, but I really do want to get this to work in order to minimize costs to take Kerbals to a station in LKO. Think you guys can give advice on how to improve this design?

After being told several times that they are much easier to design and fly than a spaceplane SSTO, I decided to give a try at making a rocket SSTO! Problem is, I'm not exactly familiar with designing these, so I'm not entirely certain how to make one that can lift the payloads I need, but minimize the fuel costs. For one thing, I'm not sure what engines are ideal for the task, particularly since it's not as simple as slapping on Rapiers and calling it good. Is it more efficient to use a bunch of lifter engines (Mainsails, Mammoths, etc.), or should those be used along with more efficient engines (Poodles, Rhinos, etc.)? Having the more efficient engines would be great once you got out of the atmosphere since they have high ISP, but then your lifter engines become dead weight. When it comes to parachutes, how many do you tend to need? Same goes with drouge chutes and airbrakes, which I assume you'll need in order to slow the craft enough for the main chutes to safely deploy. Are radial chutes more ideal, or is it better to stick some on top of the side tanks? Oh, and fairings. Are they even worth using in most cases? Particularly if payloads are often fuel tanks with docking ports on the sides and maybe a Cupola module on the top. Then there's the issue with wobbly payloads inside the fairing, since the only connection between my payload and the rocket is often a docking port (A decoupler would just add velocity to the payload and screw up a rendezvous, I would assume). There any way to deal with that at all? I appreciate any advice you guys are able to give me!

Unlike regular chutes, drogue chutes won't cut themselves until your velocity reaches 0, rather than the instant you touch the ground. This can be useful for large spaceplanes, as you can use them like the Space Shuttle's parachute to slow down and stop a vehicle on the runway if airbrakes and wheel brakes aren't enough.

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing something like this. Whenever I'm taking cargo up to LKO, I'll often have it attached to a docking port, and then enclose it in a fairing. Obviously, without some wonky strutting, this is a very flimsy connection, and I've lost track of how many times I've lost a ship because it wobbled and the cargo clipped through the fairing and caused the whole thing to fall apart.

Well color me surprised. The Engineer's Report always warned me of "Unused Liquid Fuel/Oxidizer Resources" whenever I attached stuff radially, so I always assumed I needed fuel lines to even make them work. Glad to know I was wrong! Yeah... it might help if I actually read stuff around here... Oops... I had a feeling that might be the case. I'm quite bad at judging how much oxidizer I need to bring for a SSTO... Back to the drawing board I go!

So I had the brilliant idea of making a space station in LKO, and that I would bring the rather large pieces up with a SSTO. Problem is, I literally have no idea how to properly make one that can reach orbit, and I'm having problems with the one I did try to make. Craft File: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xmlozrqo44ova71/Starlifter%20Mk3.craft?dl=0 Some things to note about this thing: - It has a lot of clipped fuel lines. I know those cause drag, but I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to get the fuel from the wings to the engines without directly attaching the engines to them. - The center of lift seems to be a bit high compared to the center of mass. Is that why I'm having difficulty pitching up? - I'm not sure if I have enough engines, or if I went overkill with them. Same with the wings and control surfaces. - The Mk3 Cockpit is likely redundant with the probe core, I'm aware. It's mostly an aesthetic thing. - Yes, I need Solar Panels. I didn't exactly get around to putting those on somewhere. You guys happen to have any advice?

I really only use them as adaptors between 1.25 m tanks and a Spark engine for things like Mun landers and the like that need a lot of fuel but don't need a high TWR.

So I decided to try and make a Space Shuttle rip-off, because I want to be able to get 2.5m parts into orbit with at least some reusability once I get to that point in Career Mode. Unfortunately for me, Mk3 SSTO's seem impossible to properly design for me, especially with how much harder it is to make SSTO's in general since 1.0. And I happen to like designing things that look somewhat realistic, rather than stuff that look ugly and/or rely on clipping excessive amounts of parts into each other. So I decided to try and build something of a Space Shuttle to ferry 2.5m parts to orbit! The problem for me, however, is getting a ship like that into orbit. I've designed the actual shuttle part where the crew and cargo go, but I can't seem to make anything that can carry it to orbit. You guys happen to have any tips for getting it to orbit? Here's a pic of it and the craft file, if that helps somehow. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xmlozrqo44ova71/Starlifter%20Mk3.craft?dl=0 Do keep in mind, I may want to try an add more monopropellant to this design, because I'm not sure it has enough for an orbital insertion burn, rendezvous with a station in a 150 km orbit, docking, and re-entry.

I think I may have not brought enough fuel. Or remembered how to land properly...

Honestly, the chutes open slowly enough now that it's really not safe to have them open much below 500 meters.