Magma

Disclaimer: This bug occured with a craft using stock parts but since I have mods (KAS, KIS & Mechjeb) I'm posting it here. Version: Windows 1.0.2 Issue: Kerbals that get knocked out of an EVA seat become debris, making them uncontrollable. Reproduction: Build a craft with an EVA seat. Board the seat. Knock the kerbal out of it by flipping the craft causing the seat to slide over terrain. Visual proof:

i'm amazed the rocked didn't tip over

power is usually supplied by the payload as the center engine is usually returned into the atmosphere, hence the probe on the center engine... i'll make the above mentioned modifications and try it again... Edit: added RCS, additional struts, clamps and wings. only reached 22km. https://www.dropbox.com/s/qx7dgu8grgo8k7r/Heavy%20Lifter%202.craft here's a lifter with a lunar rover payload. though before launching, make sure you switch control to the lifter's probe as the payload is upside down. https://www.dropbox.com/s/s99h8v37qxxd9v7/Lunar%20Rover.craft

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jngomfnnf7pmmy8/Heavy%20Lifter.craft this is the lifter without a payload... it only uses stock parts.

KAS, Kethane, Mechjeb, Editor Extensions,... mostly new parts i also have procedural fairings and wings, but i didn't use these parts on the lifter nor payloads.

Before career mode and science, I've been using the same heavy lifter for most of my missions (7 orange tanks in asparagus, dropping 3 tanks at a time. Mainsails on the outer tanks and a skipper in the center) which I've been fine tuning for heavier loads. now in 0.23, that same lifter can't seem to get into any orbits anymore, no matter the payload. I've tested this by trying to launch an old, pre-career rover + lander (which landed on the Mun). a second attempt with the same craft can't even make it beyond the 20 km mark! Were there changes with the parts in 0.23 that caused the lifter to preform worse?

oops, double post

hmm... Rapier only has a Thrust/Weight ratio of ~3? talking about underpowered '

Okay, I've taken this to the test with the following results: Turbo-hawk left the runway at 122.3 m/s, with a thrust of 117.0kN and a specific impulse of 840.4s no problems occurred during take-off and handling was comparable to Basic jets. the specific impulse of the Turbojet and RAPIER are more or less equal, though the thrust generated by the RAPIER during takeoff is way less that comfortable

0.23 came with the rapier jet engine, a hybrid engine of a jet engine and a rocket engine. I tested the new rapier on one of my aircraft (project Hawk). The results were not as spectacular as i'd hope. The first 2 pictures shows Hawk with jet engines. At the end of the runway, this version reached a speed of 130m/s, a thrust of 138.6kN and a specific impulse of 1995.8s. the version with rapier engines only reached a speed of 87.7m/s, a thrust of 97kN and a specific impulse of 832.5s. in both instances the breaks were off and both dropped their tail from the runway. though Jet-Hawk preformed much better then Rapier-Hawk, who nearly crashed because of a stall. My question: Why is the specific impulse of a rapier jet engine so low?

the one was lost in a time-space continuum...

and electronic barf bags

not fair, how am i supposed to ban a Moderator?

whatever floats your boat...

isn't this what the 'crew report' does?