rhoark

The X-37 began at NASA as part of the Space Launch Initiative to prototype technology for a shuttle successor following the Challenger disaster. In particular, X-37 was a demonstrator for improved thermal tiles and the avionics/autopilot. At some point, NASA decided it wasn't a priority for them, whereupon it was transferred to DARPA, and then the Air Force. There's no indication X-37A or X-37B did anything other than test thermal tiles and/or autopilot software; however, Boeing announced plans for a version large enough for crew or cargo. If that gets built maybe we'll see what kind of mission the AF really has in mind for the concept.

Vertically launching a winged vehicle is tricky, whether on top or on the side. A rule of thumb that's working for me with the vertical stack is whatever wings are on top, bigger wings go on the bottom. That helps the stability a lot. I'm planning to try a side mount soon by attaching engines radially to the core underneath the orbiter.

Radial liquid boosters are quite realistic, just not asparagus staging.

It's easy to bash the STS design in hindsight, but it was very well suited to its design objectives: 1. Make-work to keep Thiokol's ICBM production capability online 2. Return and recover the main engines in a useable state 3. Capture satellites on-orbit, secure them in a cargo bay, and land with them in the continental US #1 demanded solid rocket boosters #2 and #3 demanded a winged vehicle A winged vehicle on top of the stack will try to turn upside down, so its easier placed on the side Things its not so great for are: Aborting launches Cheap, regular deliveries to the ISS Lofting parts of a space station in the first place (could have been done with fewer, Skylab size pieces on Saturn Vs) Missions beyond LEO So its not what we need anymore, but its certainly what we needed in the 1980s - not a totally wasteful digression from the glories of the 1960s as some would paint it. Some will certainly decry the political/military design parameters existing at all, but they forget before the fall of the Soviets it was genuinely serious business, and something Apollo was hardly immune to. There would not be a space program without military objectives. However, why we would still subsidize ICBM-derived boosters post-2000 as with Constellation and SLS is mystifying. Let's all root for the F1b.

I've stopped asparagusing due to the hassle of preparing the staging (and the unrealism doesn't endear it to me, either.) Part of the efficiency is having lots of TWR at the pad but shedding engine weight and surplus thrust quickly (well before max Q), which can be replicated with SRBs, a short serial first stage, throttle control, or jettisoning some engines in an action group.

I was working on some complicated Duna rovers that weren't working right, getting frustrated, and losing interest, so I decided to make a new install folder and play from square one with some new mods and house rules to shake things up. A cornerstone of this new program is the B9 pack and its nice IVA interiors, because all Kerbaled flights will be done 100% IVA. (Also keeping KSPX but dropping KW and KerbX to unclutter the parts list) I was previously doing almost exclusively probes, but starting to use RemoteTech now a lot more flights will be Kerbaled (and therefore 100% IVA). No MechJeb, just Flight Engineer and the SmartASS-like functionality in RemoteTech (without which probes missions would be near impossible to execute with signal delay, though I'm not above using it also when not experiencing delay). Possibly some further automation with ProgCom, a challenge in itself. Carrying over from my previous play, Ferram - and a self-imposed rule to limit payload dimensions to some kind of fairing or cargo bay. (Might have to selectively bring back in just the fairings from KW) Finally, a general RP directive to re-use in space or safely land as much hardware as feasible (especially LVNs) After a couple of days familiarizing myself with the new mods and how to accomplish things effectively in IVA, I got my first comm relay satellite deployed at 200x200. Next up is a STS-style vehicle to carry two sats to synchronous orbit. Once I have full communication coverage, I can start writing for ProgCom. (Debugging that Kerbaled would be a meat grinder for sure.) Anyone else have interesting experiences with house rules, or wiping the slate (without being forced to by a patch)?

If Ferram weren't available, I'd say aerodynamics - flight is really the core of the game, so its important to get it right. Ferram is available, though. Long term I'm looking forward to planet discovery as something to motivate end-game play, but first we need more things to do on existing planets, like resource harvesting. Career mode will certainly be a game-changer, but considering the difference between that and sandbox has a lot to do with resource management, gotta have harvesting to do it right I think. Given the above, I voted for resources.

For those who didn't catch it before the forum problem, what is this?

KSPX has a 1.25m ion engine that performs exactly like two stock probe-size ions. You really can't do better in terms of getting a larger ion with stock looks and balance.

I'm happy to mix parts - it feels like coloring outside the lines. I've been working on a launcher using stock, KSPX, KW, and KerbX parts.

It sometimes does make the orbit lines large and fuzzy if you activate the telescope view in map mode. Just don't do that.