mystik

You mean the TWR is not good enough, right? I wish I had a table to understand how much weight is recommended for one engine. I can add a few more engines to balance stuff out but I don't want to overdo it. The nukes are for interplanetary travel mostly as I plan to save some fuel for the engines to do quick slowdown burns while landing. I know you can calculate TWR and stuff but it would help to have some fixed values. Very useful reply. I am not sure about vernors as I have never used them. I see what you mean, and adding these should allow me to drop RCS completely, getting rid of the RCS thrusters and replacing them with a few of these as they have higher power for movement and stuff. That would mean 2.5 tonnes shaved and less control parts. I like the idea and will look into it. I would however like to add a small tank with crossfeed disabled for emergency usage only (these engines and for ISRU). In case I mess up and really need to use them. I would like to have about 2 minutes of full control without stopping so I will do some math and see how much fuel I need for this to work. I currently run with 5 reaction wheels but I think it can run with 3 just fine. That shaves some weight as well and reduces the need for cargo space. This may also make the whole thing smaller. No sure about the radiators. I think the current config is better than fixed radiators but I will look into this. Definitely fixed ones are more durable. I do plan on taking the engineer with me, but how stupid would it be to drop the large ISRU and go with the small one, is it going to make things unbearable slow and inefficient? AIRBRAKES are only used for slowing down when in the atmosphere. If you think these are useless I can give them up and add more parachutes for stopping faster after landed. I added them to help me not miss the runway when returning. Thank you for your answers.

Hi, Sorry for not getting back sooner, I had a fever the past week and didn't feel like working on it too much. I have modified the plane more and reseated parts and now it goes straight. I do get some left yaw when pulling upwards, so I will take a look at the control surfaces to see what's wrong. I am almost done with the design, but now that I look at it, I wonder how this will actually work. I mean, Taking off and landing on Kerbin is fine, even if the actual stopping is difficult. I have added two parachutes and 6 AIRBRAKES to help slowing down, as well as increasing the braking strength to 200 on all wheels. It does stop well enough without crashing as it lands at about 100m/s but it takes a while. I have not tested the parachutes yet so I am hoping this will help stopping. But my real question is how do you land such a thing on a planet with no atmosphere? I worry that I won't be able to slow down a 250 tonne plane with only 4 atomic engines to land. I don't know what else to do to lose weight but the following options remain: - clip like crazy to reduce the length of the cargo bays and maybe save 3 tonnes (but I don't like this idea too much) - use only one science instrument instead of two (but that seems a waste since they are so light and creates a convenience to have some of them double in case you pass through two areas in flight and have not collected the science already). - use the small ISRU, but I wonder, if this is a good idea, because while I would lose 2.75 tonnes, I wonder how much efficiency I lose as well. - reducing the large radiator to a smaller one since the ISRU and drills no longer produce as much heat and saving 0.75 tonnes, but I wonder what happens if I try to land on Moho and start mining to refuel, would that create overheating. - use only one large drill instead of two, not interested in using the small one since it won't touch the ground and is very bad to mine where resources are below a certain level, saving an extra 1.25 tonnes. - replace the small holding tank with one small radial tank for the ore, saving another 0.37 tonnes, because I am not interested in storing ore, just converting it. - remove one fuel cell, saving another 0.24 tonnes, since the small ISRU and single drill only require about 45 energy to work and with 3 I can generate about 54, plus I can plug in the rover for extra power needs if I want to transmit a lot of data or keep lights on around the ship during night. - reduce the amount of doubled science instruments, batteries on the rover I carry and the amount of RTGs, completely dropping the solar panels and only use my front wheels for driving and disabling the back wheels so that less energy is required, even though the weight saving is small for the plane, it does make the rover light as well. - reducing all the above means I can drop some control surfaces as well, improving aero and looking more weight, meaning less needed fuel or more delta V remaining. - less weight means I can carry less RCS and that means I can use about 500 units instead of the big 1000 unit I have now, saving another 2.41 tonnes by dropping the mk3 tank for two R25 internal tanks (should give me a total 600 units with the mk3 cockpit). As you can see reducing some weight usually means you can reduce more supporting weight. I wish I could bring it under 200 tonnes full but I doubt I can shave that much weight from a design. I will post some pictures so that people can understand better what I am making. With the savings above I can shave about 10 tonnes, without counting the removal of the additional control surfaces, which means less fuel needed. I would like to know your opinion about the items, if it is worth it or not to change those things, or if it is just better to add more engines instead. Sorry for providing so much info and asking so many questions. I am struggling with efficiency but I want to make a ship that can travel almost everywhere instead of constantly wasting time returning and launching new rockets. Anyways, thank you for your help so far. Promise to post pictures soon, still wanting to tweak more before I submit it to analysis and review.

- Boost your boosters with a little boost. - I don't always spend hours designing a ship that can return, but when I do, it fails to reach orbit the first 10 launches. - Ha! Some idiot got stranded in orbit again. Let's go rescue him. LAUNCH. Ship name: Munar orbit rescue rescue rescue ship. - I'll just hop only a few m/s for some extra science points before we leave, I should have enough fuel to return to orbit... *A MINUTE LATER* -> *GOES TO SPACE CENTER* -> Create new ship "Rescue Mission 99999". - Attaches satellite to top of the craft with jr docking port and no fairing or struts. 15 seconds after launch, the first rocket powered dildo takes flight for all public to see. Science.

Depends. If you just wish to poodle and moan, or request some feature, you can use the forums. If you wish to report a bug as the industry does it, you need to report it at http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/projects/ksp but you need an account. Tips: Report the issue, inclide the steps to reproduce and also mention what the normal behavior should be. Programmers aren't always hard core gamers and will need as much info as possible. Screenshots are recommended.

I thought a few minutes about this. It's not practical. You need tocking ports. Even if you have a few docking ports to connect the wings you still have wobbly surfaces. That is bad for reentry. The last thing you want is for your control surface to wiggle and to potentially snap during reentry. Plus, you're saving s small weight, but you'll waste fuel and RCS to dock with it.

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Biome Duna has more biomes, plus if you have an atmosphere measuring tool and parachutes (extra build cost), you will get to use those on Duna and won't be useless weight. Duna has a spiritual feel to it. Ike is just dark. A cold rock in space with difficult steep terrain that can mess your rover. I'd go for Duna. It's like Mars and you have gravity to keep your rover from tipping easily.

LOL, DAT NAME, you win the Top Internets Award!

I am playing around with my SSTO and replaced all intakes with shock cones. Would not go past 375m/s. Replaced some with ramp intakes and now the thing maxes out at 1350m/s. Well, I stop there because the claw starts to melt, at which point I point it towards the sky and it whooshes out of the atmosphere. This is weird. Seems that the shock cone does not have enough power to get the thing up to the critical speed on it's own. It's a heavy beast at 400t, but still, having half ramps seems to change the flight significantly. I don't understand. If all intakes are left as ramps the engines cut off on the runway. It has 6x2 rapiers, 5 whips, struggles to reach orbit since the ship had over 18 rapiers in it's original config but had a weight of over 500t.

Hit a wall. Unfortunately the plane seems to shift left gently and I went and checked all parts to make sure everything is aligned. I have no idea what could be causing it. I only place things with snap activated and symmetry. I see these planes that go straight as an arrow but when ever I make something it always ends up drifting sideways.

Awesome, so I will reduce the drills to 2 and will keep note of the examples posted, should help reduce the weight and part numbers on the ship.

Thank you for the feedback. Should I stick to 2 drills instead? I imagined that more drills decrease extraction time. 2 by 50% and 3 by 66%. Is this not the case?

Hi all, Having spent the past days reading on aerodynamics and stuff I started to build a large SSTO capable for planet hopping. What I have done is started with the Midgard B16M by Korsakovski. Thank you for the base vehicle. The model is available here: https://kerbalx.com/Korsakovski/Midgard-B16M I chose this one because I see it is fairly large and has most of the setup already made and is very well designed. That being said, I have made modifications and looking for additional ideas and help. What I changed: - Removed all but one passenger cabin to convert to cargo holding and science; - Replaced the front docking port with the claw for more utility; - Replaced the Ramp intakes with shock cones (previously the engines would cut out when all were started, now the flameout is no longer present, have not tested high speeds); - Added extra drill (raising the total number to 3); - Added science cargo and 5 large reaction wheels for extra maneuverability and 5 large batteries; What I want to ask: The ship comes with two large ore tanks. I was wondering if it would be better to exchange them for small ore tanks since I am not interested in doing ore transports; I'm looking to replace the end with a cargo loading bay for rovers. Should I attach rovers with a docking port? Is it possible to attach a rover using two docking ports at the same time (one forward and one underneath)? What would you recommend as max electric charge to store? 5000? 10000? At which point is storing extra electric charge becomes useless? That's it for now. I will get back with additional questions as I continue work. Thank you for any help. Edit 9.01.2017, finally added the design, sorry for the delay http://kerbalx.com/mystik/Thoth-III

What type of engines used?

Thanks for the videos. So, shock cone is the thing that is needed for SSTO, and one is enough to feed 3 rapiers. This gives me an idea involving the tri coupler and fairings to hide the drag the coupler has. I will experiment a bit with this design. I also saw that launching with the activated claw actually is better. That will also assist in my attempt since I intend to use that claw on my interplanetary miner cargo SSTO. If this thing ever is completed I will make sure to upload it to the forum and credit everyone involved in the research and anybody that posted links. I will surely not be able to create it being able to land on Eve or Tylo but I will create some add-on disposable lander for it that will assist with that. Expect long late night testing times before anything usable appears.

This. Sorry to quote you again, but this creates visibility, maybe the devs see it.

Yes, would like to have a science lab on a SSTO, but could we make it shorter to fit one kerbal and stuff?

1000 hours in KSP is to me more like, dude, you're awesome. I only have somewhere under 100, but I've been playing for about a month or so. Funny enough, I think I have gotten dumber with my designs since I started playing. I used to make cool things, now I make lame ass stuff, that can't even get off the ground. I landed on the Mun and even made a rescue crane to recover the lander. Now I can't even launch a recovery ship anymore.

I'll experiment a bit with several configurations to see if things are still up to date, will probably try flying one engine at a time with little wings attached at ridiculous speeds and altitudes to see the limits and come back if I find anything worth adding to this. Thanks, M

lol, useless, but funny.

Hi, Thanks for getting back to the thread to clear some of the points. I almost always stick a precooler for my engines, but I do find them that they are bulky and I often wonder if all this is really needed. I know that they have better intake based on the description, but it does make the whole ship building harder. Do you know if one intake is enough for 3+ engines, based on your previous tests? I know that for 2 engines one will work, but I am not certain if adding 3 or more is pushing the limit. The issue is that the game always displays "requirements 100% met" but that tells me nothing in real terms. I wish it told me how much over the 100% requirements I am meeting so that I can better plan things. I am only asking since I understood that when it comes to planes you know a lot. Does adding the cone to the top of it affect its performance or just adds to it? What about sticking these things behind the plane in order to hide them from drag? I know in real life that would be dumb, but KSP isn't entirely realistic, so I'm curious about performance. I'm not very familiar with drag and I've recently looked more into the supersonic drag issues. I'm looking to build an advanced SSTO and it's kinda been a... drag. *BA-DUM-TSSSS* Thanks, M

I used mods in games before. What I found is that, if these are not graphic related, they tend to ruin the original experience. I play with stock parts as a preference. I like the vanilla feel of the game. That being said, I don't care if someone uses mods, but I look for designs that are stock only. Not elitism, just more vanilla, to the basics. Using Warp Drive to Kerbol is cute, but using ION engines is so hard, which is challenging. I am currently trying to design a SSTO with rover and mining capabilities and it's really hard. Two weeks later and still I have no working model. And I play for hours a day trying to design that plane. With stock parts. Why? Because I think it can still be done and when I do complete it I will be recognized as the grand master of all KSP game. All will bow to my geeky awesomeness. I'm still studying graphs and aerodynamics because "adding more rockets" seems to only get you so far. I know the rocket equation but I think that SSTO is also about landing so adding more mass will not help with that.

This graph helps in my quest for a universal miner and rover carrying SSTO that can reach other planets. I was using the Engine pre-cooler with the shock cone in front of it. Does this affect the performance of the engine? Should I use only one intake? Does the pre-cooler reduce performance when paired with another intake?

Hi, when you come back, could you please provide a few comparrison screenshots between low med and high settings for this mod? I see there are 3 versions and I'm using the medium. But there is no indicator of what's different or on how much ram is required for each version.

Good mod, but do you have any performance statistics that show the difference between this mod and standard SVE for example? Since you claim that this is better for low specs, but would be interesting to see how much better. I ask because my PC is neither a brick nor a spaceship and it would be interesting to see what gain there is in using your mod.

Good read. I like these great stories. Got any more?