Helmetman

@Azimech You'r an artist, you do know that right? I hope to get some inspiration with this, thanks for sharing

As long as popularity and publicity doesn't make him the new astro Justin Bieber afterwards I'm fine with it. If they do I'm going to live on Venus. Not lacking any sentiment here but I care more for the adventurous nature this kiddo gets to experience then for the possible dangers. Being smart and protective at a young age is good. I have the same sentiment to young people but I wouldn't be that type of daddy that would protect my kid from said adventure if I'm honest. People that includes children die by the masses each year, and nobody talks about that much hypocritically, because it's not your country or taboo or something I guess. Also people have sacrificed themselves for much more, Aztec savagery among other things. Atleast now it's for a developing cause rather then some bogus south american cult festival. A step in the right direction if you ask me. The chances he/she lives is still greater then the potential of death.

@Bill Phil Yeah I know that, but it wouldn't it deliver at all? Is that the bottom line? Short topic with short answer then

I've seen a grand tour by someone on youtube who got his sample from eve by landing on eves highest peak. 8Km + or something. If you don't have cloud mods you should pinpoint that location easily from space. With some quiksaving and loading one could get it to land there requiring something like a 15-20ton rocket if you build one efficiently. For that I would simply browse the forums, reddit and youtube for some well build eve ascent rocket designs. If you can't land there properly try to attach some detachable wings to the rocket so it can glide controllably if you can get it atleast near the proper spot. I would go there first and leave your mothership in a high elliptical orbit around Eve. This saves you much Delta V to get elsewhere. Then I would use one of the other ships on the main vessel (the lightest) to rendesvouz in low Eve orbit so you save as much fuel getting your kerbal back to the mothership.

I know the engine nozzles are under extremely high vibrations and temperatures and need to cool properly. It's probably the reason why this is no modern application as it is probably to hard to get done properly. Or not, you tell me? While not the draggiest of shapes engine nozzles are quite the most draggiest parts on a rocket. Assuming one doesn't look like a brick. What am I getting at? [v] This [v] This doesn't work in KSP obviously. It doesn't calculate aerodynamics with the complexity to simulate any effect. This does look cool IMO. Shouldn't such a design create more aerodynamic efficiency? Is it doable engineering wise? Are there sufficient cooling techniques? Or is it to dangerous? Would it save Delta V to orbit considering the extra weight? Maybe one could decouple them from the fuselage once pretty high up there? Or is the gain from such a design to minimal to care about? I haven't seen such encapsulated nozzles, yet! So there's probably a clear straight answer as to why not. Probably the ones I already given. Maybe there's viable discussion about cooling and vibration absorbers. Ofcourse this will get harder with multiple engines or ones with high swivel. Maybe it's just not worth it for current rocket designs out there. It would probably save to little in the end. This was just one of those intriguing questions from the top of my head.

@steedcrugeon Kind of. If there are i.e. helios wing parts with integrated solar panels somewhere buried online then I'm satisfied. Or solar panels that integrate well into a surface of a lower width wing without sticking out. As long as the weight, dimensions and EC parameters are similar to stock per sq inch of solar panel and it won't stick out after moving it to integrate with the attached surface it would be sufficient.

@SpaceMouse That isn't a problem. I can use the 'move' tool in the VAB/SPH to drag the solar panel up so the texture fits correctly. A few millimeters elevation above the wing surface isn't that troublesome. That is rather acceptable. I wish you GL with it if your getting at it

Kerbal turd in a test tube me thinks. It would answer the difference between low and high orbit readings. There's less electro magnetic radiation higher around a planet. There's a lot of testing being done on bacterial growth and behaviour through exposure by electro magnetic radiation at different levels. I believe a turd is consistent of much of those pesky things. This makes turd a viable sample for biological testing based on differentiating electro magnetic exposure between high and lower orbits. It would also supply a onboard container for Kerbals turd to be collected since I can't find any hatches that releases it. This means it's stored onboard.

@SpaceMouse Awesome if your willing to do this. The mounting brackets is my greater annoyance. That was kind of the first I wanted gone and is a must. @HebaruSan As for option one: Yes, great idea. I'm willing to mention that I'd prefer the leading and trailing edges of the wing to remain a stock aluminum appearance. So there should be a option toggle to turn any or multiple sides into a edge like appearance. Whatever side that is considering how your allowed to rotate it. I'm not sure if that's a hassle. This option is great in any other way without such a toggle of different texture prints. It could do without it but it would be more neat. As for option two: Greater secondary idea. Again I'd advice to deform it with some left over space for the wing edges to make it look neat. I would prefer this idea since it auto fits the wing part and would lower part count. People could use native large wing parts though so I hope someone puts some thought in the texture size.

@StelumYou did know that apart from one other GeForce rev the gtx 1060 is one of the best? Or did you bought the computer with blind knowledge? The fact that you can name the hardware pieces by name indicates you kind of know what ya got, getting warm? Not even the highest end games need 16gb ram to run properly. And the Ryzen 5 is one of the best AMD cpu for gaming out there. If people play KSP with RSS + so many mods on machines years older then ^ that ^ then what kind of answer do you expect to get? Like we're gonna say NO! this is the worst investment ever! Put it in the bin! buy a new computer ASAP! I'm not 'trying' to be jerky lol If your just enthusiastic and want validation you'll get mine and the machine is a beast I think performance wise especially into part count it is your use of texture sizes for whatever your using, mod collection and more specifically what your dream idea of a fully modded game actually is. I get the idea reading these forums that people go quite far to get the best out of their KSP setup through re-tweaking and configuring. On that note it is usually more rewarding knowing how to set things up properly on the software side of things rather then having a cpu that is a few clock ticks faster if you catch my drift.

Another trick I used for landing 2 boosters is to use docking ports on the boosters that connect them rather then decouplers. This way you can undock both boosters @ 70km or anywhere you might detach them and land it as one. Obviously you need some skill in docking to manage it since you have about a minute window (depending on your ascent profile obviously) Or, you do the same but you put a 3rd stage beneath the center engine of the 2nd stage. Then you attach side boosters/tanks/engines to the sides and when you decouple they detach as one. You might need some crash obsorbing parts in between the center tank and the outer tanks (boosters) or they might hit against one another during staging.

@AeroGav Thanks. I'm a little new here or else I'd probably read your guide already. I never use Mk 2 so I can't say much about it. It is either Mk 1 or Mk 3, because I can adhere to the drag of Mk 2 fuselages. < That much I can say. Now you were spot on about the negative AoA. I tackled this by slowing down initially to lower the prograde marker. Good to know what is causing this now. Thinking about this. Maybe if I fly upside down into space I get positive AoA and a better ascent profile I would only have to finetune the incline to get balance right for my specific ascent profile if it's the only thing causing this. Gonna test this now Wish I thought of this before...

I like to build planes with incidence. But I don't like to build spaceplanes with wing incidence. The thing is, when I go really really fast, inclined wings will somehow create a lot of drag, while it should reduce it right? Simple planes (15km and below under Mach 1.0) have increased speed and range due to minimized drag. But when at full speed @ Mach 3+ they start to act like airbrakes. Planes that once could reach orbit now get limited to a lower top airspeed in the upper atmosphere. My brain tells me it is the increased lift of the fuselage at speed. The fuselage has increased lift at higher speed I think it is the incidence + additional AoA which is usually high in the upper atmosphere that increases the drag at greater speed where it would not with 0 degree inclined wings. Yet, people still create spaceplanes with inclined wings right? How do you manage? And where do I fail?

@SpaceMouse Hehe I did more of a search myself last night and can only conclude there's not much available for what I want. Sad things are sad. I'm probably going to make a few vessels as an example to advertise the potential need for this when using surface and air vehicles. Then I'll ask and post some of the examples in NFP or PP if that's the best place to request this if this ends on the 2nd page.

It's possible that he might not. But I'm still in the process of verifying whether there are some obscure not so popular mods out there that have one of more preferred solar panels for my design choice. But I would personally request more of them panels anyway, because the current selection is one handful of fixed panels. I hope this thread clarifies whether something like this exist in the haystack of all mods. If not I probably request this in the procedural parts or NFP release page.

Full album :http://imgur.com/a/ZsU6l I created this solar powered electric plane using... This airplane will weigh about 533 KG (1170 Lb) with all the necessary solar panels attached. It is intended to be very light, highly maneuverable and cover distance through Duna's atmosphere. 1:Remodel or add to annoying fixed stock photovoltaic panels! Why haven't I installed all of them panels yet? Well, take a look at the album then at the 1st and 2nd picture. On the first picture the fixed stock solar panel is dropped on, and I didn't use move tool in the SPH. It sticks out due to the beam guards/raisers that raises the panel surface above the wing. So much so that if I would cover the thing it would look like a biplane due to the dimensional size. If I drag them down they stick out down the bottom which the 2nd pic shows. Now they actually look like beam guards protecting the wing seen on the 2nd pic. I'm not sure if they function like one, but the bottom line is that I'd rather not see those beams stick out. Is this a great problem? NO! But it is still annoying. So, are there any panels out there that match my design that are tweakscalable albeit with some config changes which you'll have to instruct me as I don't know how to. The thing is, there is cosmetic design in this and should look at such. Solar panels sticking out certainly don't contribute to that criteria. Just saying before someone tells me to deal with it, which I obviously have to in case of disappointment:p Are there any fixed solar panels that do not have grip handles or beam guards, surface attachers, raisers or anything structural sticking out? They 'must' work with tweakscale unless they're coincidentally the correct size which is unlikely. Why are the stock panels modelled with those beam fixed surface attachers anyway? Many photovoltaic panels are just integrated surfaces irl. Which is exactly what I want! Give me a few options please. Only fixed ones work in the atmosphere. I know it's far more likely in KSP for somebody to go into space with great interplanetary vessels. Rather then making a miniature carbon fibre replica of a home build 1 seater cabrio aircraft. So I can't complain if theres no applications for what I need. I would want to ask the modding community if they can focus a little bit more attention on the availability in terms of size, shapes for fixed solar panels. Unless I'm the only character that wants this. Maybe Nertea can add more fixed solar panels in a new version of NFP? The ones it got I already like, they're just useless in this design. Even with tweakscale! The shapes and the sticking out of things just don't match. 2:Procedural panels? I've been browsing forum.ksp.com occasionally and am aware of the negligence towards the request of this and that it has been requested before. Why is this? I'm not expecting everyone to turn their heads around. Launching spaceships is far more interesting then something more infantile as this. But if you can create procedural wings (procedural dynamics) then can't someone model something similar for a fixed solar panel object? I'm a blank man in the programming world otherwise I would have cracked it. Ultimately I can understand why there isn't such a thing yet. In stock ION's don't work well enough in the atmosphere (where you'll need fixed panels) And as a large scale powerplant you'll probably only need it when your using the electric propeller from KAX. Otherwise you'll use reactors from different mods. Which are a little bit to heavy in this design even when tweakscaled. In all other scenarios your in outer space where you don't require fixed panels. So I understand why this part may be neglected both in stock and in the modding community. But I'm sure I explained well enough why I really want/need it. If you can make me happy in the future with some of these photovoltaic parts then I'm a really happy guy.