angeldust

Is there any possibility to have an orbital map as well? I remember a plugin for the Logitech G19 which showed orbital information and a simple orbital trajectory. Would love to have that

Thank you all for your help!! I am working on the designs with the tips you gave me and I think I can do it. I think the biggest problem was too much jet engines and the MK2 parts... working on an MK3 design... but I find the MK3 Parts sooooooooo ugly...

Hello everybody, I have stopped playing KSP for a long time and now have started again, specially, because I wanted to try out reentry and all that awesome stuff since 1.1. Now I'm trying to build an SSTO, but I can't do it! I don't know why all my designs are flawed, but I seem to be unable to build an efficient SSTO, which reaches Orbit and has some delta-v left over for maneuvering. I don't know if it is the design that is flawed, or if I am flying it completly wrong. Can someone help me to figure it out? I uploaded my most recent attempt and would love some feedback on where you think I could optimize the craft, or some pointers on how to fly that thing efficiently. Here is the craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8x7cpvq4zxc4ccp/KSSShuttle.craft?dl=0 Thank you ever so much! Angeldust

Hi! I would love to see that, too. I loved this plugin way long ago and refound it just today! Any News? Can I help in any way?

Try it! The sun almost set, the solar panels don't give an awful lot of electricity and the Ion Engines are hungry... won't work as easily as you thought

Challange accepted! Ok, here is my entry! I started 2 Minutes late, because I messed up the timewarp! Do I get Extra Points? For Points: Distance traveled: 86,4km = 8640 m =864 points Weight: 0,8 tonnes (does that mean I get 14 Points?) Additions: craft survived impact! 50 points ...makes: 928 But I will strife to get better Can someone check if I added the points correctly?

What about "streamlining" (i. e. ejecting parts of the wing) a spaceplane when reaching higher altitudes? Is that a good idea?

Hello everybody! Did you ever have the problem that your awesome (space-)plane technically flies like a flying saucer, but will not take off the runway until the end, where it falls off and the angle of attack becomes big enough? Well, I had it! So I thought about this: What do you think? Is that a good idea? The swept wings are ejected as soon as the plane is flying. They can not stay on, because the plane tips (too much lift on the nose). After a while I ejected the outer part of the main wing. Is that a good thing to do? I'm interested in your oppinions =)

Sorry, I had a big project going on and the challange kinda fell off my plate! I will update the rule to be more precise. No Engine on the main ship is to be fired would be better...

Here is my entry: 5362 m with Jeb! Here are the screens =) http://imgur.com/a/7Fkzb

That is right!

Well I know that. But it would be hardly a challange, if you'd circulize. The challange is in being fast enough with landing, starting and docking so that your rondevouz part isn't halfway to Kerbin when you landed. It is also about designing the craft to do it. If the craft left in the hyperbolic trajectory is just a girder with chutes then so be it, the challange stays the same

Soo it is time for me to post my very first challange! The inspiration came to me when I asked in the Q&A Forum if it was possible to get a free trajectory to the Mun, like the apollo missions did. It was established that it is quite possible (and easy) but not efficient and quite superfluous, as there are no failures in KSP (yet). Except that it is awesome, there is no "need" to do it, and, as Pecan put it: Haha! But what if! What if Jeb, the old swashbuckler had an awesome idea how to spend lots of money and kerbal lives on an essentially unneccessary but awesome mission? Jeb dares you to build a rocket with a lander and a docking port to do it "apollo style"* get to the Mun with a free return trajectory ** WITHOUT circulizing and after entering the Mun`s SOI: decouple, land the lander, get back up, rondevouz and dock before leaving Mun`s SOI, then come back to kerbin to be greeted as awesomest munlander of the year * By that I mean a Mun lander which is docked to another vessal and separates to land on the mun and come back whilst the other part stays in an (in this case hyperbolic) orbit around the Mun ** don't know what a free return trajectory is? here is a wonderful thread with videos and pictures to show you what it is and how to get it Rules Mods are allowed, as long as they are reasonably balanced after the trajectory is established no engines are to be fired on the main ship until redocking (the lander, of course, may fire its enging once decoupled to land and start on/off the moon) Post pictures at your own descretion, but at least one map view of the trajectory, one of the lander landed and one of the redocked vessel To get the medals and kudos please post pictures as proof Points There are no leaderboards, everyone who succeded wins 100 awesome-points to spend or eat at will (best consumed with hot awesome-sauce). But there will be a hall of fame for everyone who made it and some kudos (please feel free to suggest more, if you feel something is missing) Smallest ship (by weight). Minimalist record. Largest ship (by weight). Maximalist record. Fastest Mission (Mission timer). Speeder record Landing on KSC terrain. Pilot proficiency medal. Landing near Mun anomaly. Sight-seer medal. Have lander and orbiter both manned and no fatalities. Humanist medal. Hall of Fame [*]Kasuha Humanist medal edit: adapted the rule, entered Kasuha in Hall of Fame

It's kinda unfair to not give the link after such an announcement =)

Hello everybody. I would like to do a free return trajectory, saving fuel and gaining awesomeness. But how do you go about that? Is there any way to calculate it in KSP? I would love to know!

well the concept of "why do I have to stick my engines at the bottom" in general seems like a good idea, until your craft starts lashing out like a psychopathic python. But maybe a mixture? Does anyone have experience with "normal" rockets, where a higher stage with radial engines fires along the big ones on the bottom? Does it have any advantages?

I think "pendulum staging" is really effective with landers. I sometimes build heavy landers with three stages. A deorbiting stage, a landing stage and a takeoff stage. The trick is to just give the takeoff stage the engines. So you won't carry extra weight in engines on the other stages. the deorbiting stage is essentially just a tank, which gets dropped before the final stage of descent, then the landing stage with landing gear and rover or some other fancy stuff + fuel, which gets left behind when taking off, so the takeoff stage is just capsule, tank and engines. I think this is rather effective and lots of fun to design

What about the super stylish fail-save magical-8-trajectory? Will that yield any extra-points?

I don't get it: shall I use one jet, or rockomax? A Kerbal in a seat or a cockpit/capsule? Is it optional? Which small wings are you reffering to? the structural wing? the delta wing? or the wing connector? Are the swept wings small wings too?

Hello fellow Kerbalnauts, I've read somewhere, that Mechjeb has a feature to display the time until my ship crashes into the planet. But I can't find it anywhere, although I would love to have it! I know Engineer Redux has the feature, but I don't want to install another mod! Can somebody help me?

Really? never seen it!

Thank you all for your wonderful craft designs! The Fly-er 2 is just too small for a 200 x 200 Orbit, at least with my flying skills. But I'm glad that, with some improvements, it can still make it to a decent orbit! The Fly-er 3 is my favourite, and it follows some of the same styles as the Fly-er 3, so I'm not mad! @thereaverofdarknes: Thank you for your criticism, I think I will notch down the RCS and consider packing less Batteries and Solar Panles... that will ensure a little bit more delta V, whitch is good because it always helps to have a little reserve. By the AV8 Winglets do you mean the double T- empennage ? Because I simply LOVE the style, it gives the craft much needed lift at the tail and huge control if you stick a control surface at the tail fin. It kinda is like the T-empennages on real airplanes, just a little overkillier The

oh...ok, then I will try out the align indicator

hello everybody. Does anyone else have this problem: When I try to dock with a docking port to a space station, then sometimes the pink target on the navball is WAY off. Here some pictures to illustrate: As you can see the docking-port is set as target (the other one on the spaceplane was on "control from here" and MechJeb is doing an automated docking. It shows almost zero deviation and sure enough it docked perfectly without any corrections. But the navball shows the target as way off. If I go strictly by navball, then I always miss the target (and normally collide with the space station). Then I have to painfully dock it by eyeballing it and moving the camera around like a freak to see how the ports are aligning. Any ideas?

I'd be flattered! Here it is: https://www.dropbox.com/s/h98cudaat726381/Fly-er%203.craft EDIT> does anyone know why it is that when I try to dock with the inline docking port and use "Control from here" and "Set as Target" the target on the navball is all wrong and I have to visually eyeball it, so that it will connect or control from the space station and move that big thing around, instead of the small plane?