BubbaWilkins

Well, that depends entirely on how hardcore you want to be about it. With a few more mods, you could make a service vehicle which can refuel your craft as well as another which can place a payload. You could go even further hardcore and do a 100% Kethane based system (no free fuel once your kethane operation is running).

While your at it, check the S2 Wide body intake. It's not generating any intake air.

Odd. Now I'm going to have to find what mod it was that did it. Thought the only thing I deleted was tweakscale once I found it didn't work here.

Is it just me or where there some additional command modules in the pre-release that are no longer present in the official?

I'll have to check later, but I believe I'm running 6.3.4 with B9 with no problems.

Is it possible to direct the ray cast diagonally at the ground so that it's projecting out/ahead a short distance?

Sweet! The only request I would have would be an active sweep wing part, preferably 1 in an F-14 size and another in a B1 size. I'm thinking like an integrated base/hinge and animated wing with control surfaces.

Hard to make more NASA easter eggs when there isn't really that many things NASA has left on the Moon or on other planets.

Depends on how fast the craft is intended to go, or how much the CoM is going to change due to fuel consumption. Also, if you're using B9 wheels, it helps to edit the config files and change the sideways stiffness to .01 or .001. Check the B9 thread for the correct answer. There is also separate B9 correction thread that might help. Other tips, - wing and structural flex com into play. If your craft is heavy, its going to flex when on the landing gear deflecting them slightly. Either make your structure stiffer or add more wheels. - if you have a negative angle of attack while sitting on your gear, this just adds more downforce pressure the faster you go. Craft should be level or nose up for best results. - related to the flex thing, but heavy craft will also tend to flex the wings as the load is shifted from the wheels to them. Sometimes the wheels don't like this. - rear wheel placement should be just barely behind your CoM so that minimal control force is required to force the nose up. If your gear is too far behind it, it may take forward canards and other control surfaces to get you airborne. - Check your control surfaces! Don't let wing flaps have pitch authority (unless its a rear delta wing configuration).

This is not an official entry since I have not landed it and did not break the current non-fairing record....but I'll get there! I do have TV Pizza and Aerospace, so this might actually go a lot faster if I remove that.

There are two reasons to use more engines: 1) When total DeltaV is not a factor, but mission duration is. 2) When you need a minimum thrust level to escape a gravity well. If we had life support concerns to also account for, then #1 becomes a much more prominent issue to deal with.

That's the inherent genius of the challenge! No easy mode. How about a ruling on TV Pizza and Aerospace? The scramjets would be a nice addition. They have no thrust to speak of below 1200 m/s.

Correct on both accounts, however I was actually referencing the Princess Bride duel scene. Apparently the site I used to look it up had most of it spelled wrong.

I expected you to trot out Cappa Fero, but seeing as Thibault cancels that out unless you've studied Itsa Glippa, we'll stick with Bonetti's defense. I suppose you aren't left handed either. In all seriousness, this is a very ambitious project. I look forward to see it's development progress.

With 1000's of hours of gamplay under my belt, I find that I prefer the Rapiers in most of my craft. If that makes me a newb, then so be it. Many also refer to grenade launchers in 1st person shooters as newb tubes. 1 on 1 sure, but if you manage to wipe out 2-3 in one hit, that is the proper and efficient application of ordinance. The Rapier is easy to use, but I think it's niche extend well beyond that point. Agreed, it's not the best choice in all instances, but it's also not the worst.

you and others also keep bringing up this same argument, but the math doesn't support it either. (1) Rapier: 190 Thrust in Air 175 Thrust in Vac 1.75 Mass (1) Turbo Jet and (6) 48.7s 200 Thrust in Air 180 Thrust in Vac 1.8 Mass I(1) Turbo Jet and (4) LV-909 200 Thrust in Air 200 Thrust in Vac 3.2 Mass (1) Turbo Jet and (3) LV-N 's 200 Thrust in Air 180 Thrust in Vac 7.95 Mass In each of those combinations, the non rapier combo weighs more than the rapier for near comparable results. You would have to compare fuel consumption rates, ISP curves, etc to really get into the nuts and bolts and declare a true winner. The upside is that smaller craft like most of those posted in this thread don't need to match the thrust in Vac of the Rapier, so it makes more sense to just use a few smaller engines. But, on those larger craft where you need the higher thrust of the Rapier, those smaller engine combo's with (2) 48-7S's and such just don't have enough punch to move the craft. This is where the Rapier shines. Now what would be interesting is to see if you throttled a Rapier to match the thrust of the smaller engine combo's in VAC if it actually out performs them as well. Perhaps I'll give this a try.

It may be the difference between FAR and stock, or perhaps due to the craft mass and TWR. My smallest craft still tend to be much larger than those I see other people using. I've never really had much luck with minimalist designs. I thought it was interesting that the ISP for a Rapier spiked as early as it did. I'd be curious to see how it responded to other atmospheres other than Kerbin. Sadly, I have no easy way to test this.

I'll concede that my ascent methods might not work on smaller/lighter craft. In my mind they should, but clearly what I have experienced is not universal as demonstrated by others in this thread. I am using B9, FAR, Firespitter after all. So it is far from the same experience if I was playing full stock. For most of my designs, the initial TWR is too low to manage anything greater than 45degs at low altitude and still accelerate. Anything steeper slowly bleeds velocity until it stabilizes or stalls. All in all, a great indicator of just how deep the gameplay really is.

There are other threads which would indicate otherwise. Given that the results were drawn using identical methodology, I have no complaints. Well done. I would say as point from my recent SSTO experiences with Rapiers, that the early ascent to 10k-15k is as much a factor in performance as anything else. I think too many people just go nose up at 45deg's a call it good. The problem with this is that the gravity and drag losses are much greater resulting in slower ascent times to these first keystone altitudes. It seems counter intuitive, but an angle of 20-30 deg's on the initial ascent allows you to build up more velocity resulting in a slightly faster rate of ascent. But the key difference is that you will be travelling 2x-3x and thus be much deeper in the "powerband" of most of the normally aspirated engines. This results in much harder acceleration through the upper altitudes and an overall shorter time to orbit. End result is less DeltaV wasted in the atmosphere. For reference: Here is one of my crafts which made 100k orbit with Rapiers in 8:24. It's ISP and Thrust are both effected by altitude and velocity. On the runaway, just starting out in air mode. standing still, ISP:830, Thrust:19.9kn at 200m/s, 400m Alt, ISP:1100, Thrust:105kn at 330m/s, 5000m Alt, ISP:2500, Thrust: 119kn at 540m/s, 10km Alt, ISP: 1800, Thrust: 132kn at 745m/s, 15km Alt, ISP: 1400, Thrust: 175kn at 991m/s, 20km Alt, ISP: 1280, Thrust: 183kn I leveled out there, reached 1800 m/s, 20km, ISP: 1303, Thrust: 105 So it appears that the ISP sweet spot is around 330m/s, but thrust doesn't really hit until 15km (as noted above by Captain). Pretty decent numbers considering the dual mode functionality.

Simple rule for KAS. In order to transfer fuel using KAS, all fuel flow is backwards through components and fuel lines.

In retort, I present a craft that has more mass, less fuel, and only Rapiers. I've tried multi engine type combinations, but the mass hit kills it. Notice the time stamp here. What you fail to realize is that travelling faster at a shallower angle than you were results in a FASTER climb rate. My craft beat yours to 10,000km by almost 10 seconds. My craft is also taking in more air with only 4 intakes than yours is resulting in only -.01 due to altitude (or half of your loss rate). Now look at the timestamp here. I made a circular 100km orbit in 8:24. Yours took 22 assuming you took the screenshot when you got there. Obviously I have less Delta V than you do, but then my craft is heavier and carries even less fuel. So wo points: 1) Your ascent method is actually slower, therefore less efficient. 2) This was just a quick run and I didn't really maximize my performance. EDIT: Much better run. So I reached orbit with 42% of my oxidizer left. I could probably improve that even further. But I think the results clearly show that Rapiers are viable. I don't know if they beat the other configurations shown in the thread, but I think this clearly shows that the perceived ascent profile is not ideal. I also see now a slight mechjeb failure with a low peri. oh well.

1) unless you pay the modders, all mods are gifts and should be treated as such. 2) "Why not give status updates?" is a loaded topic. The majority of people are going to think there is no acceptable reason, thus you are a bad person if you don't. 3) The mod is mostly functional as is, and can be made 100% with only 3 small steps. - Update Firepitter.dll - Update Exurgent.dll - Optional (change the sideways flex stat on the landing gear to .02 or some such) Bottom line is that Bac9 has posted that he has new parts in the pipeline and gave us a sneak peak. He also said that it would be some weeks before the update was ready. Hopefully he is able to do so, but if not...then the 100's of hours he's already provided me in entertainment will have to be enough. If you take nothing from the above, then focus on line one. Mods are gifts, treat them as such.

This isn't the military, so his name would still just be Jeb.

I think the results above are flawed due to an overly aggressive ascent profile and general lack of velocity at lower altitude. You should be pushing 400-600 m/s by the time you reach 10k. With as many intakes as you have, 1600-1800 near 20km. The difference is you have to gradually build up speed in and not just brute force punch into space. If the 45deg angle of attack at 10km didn't give it away, the fact that you burnt any oxidizer at all before 10km did. With all those intakes and the relatively small mass of that craft, you should be pushing 1800m/s in near level flight at 20km on intake air alone. All your comparisons above are also flawed in that the thrust performance is nearly 50% that of the Rapier craft in space. granted, your crafts are relatively small and can get away with it. The Rapier engines are clearly superior to any combination of other engines with similar performance. EDIT: It just occurred to me that you might have adjusted the oxidizer load. Fair enough, but the ascent angle is still too steep and relative velocities too low.

Editing symmetrical parts after they have been assigned to action groups breaks the action group assignment and only applies to the root part. 1) All intakes contribute to the air pool and all engines draw from the pool. If you have an issue where only one engine is running, than you only have enough air to run one engine. 2) Intake air is a function of velocity as much as anything. you don't just climb to 20k meters and then run flat out. You level out between 10-15 and let your velocity increase as you slowly climb higher. I have many craft with only 1:1 intake/engine setups which can get above 20k without flaming out, but they are usually travelling 1500m/s before I get that high. 3) CoM and CoL are both dynamic. what works at takeoff and low altitude may not work all that well at high speed and high altitude. Even mass lost to just fuel burn can throw a craft out of balance. 4) Remember that control surfaces lose their control authority in the higher/thinner atmosphere. Make sure you have reaction wheels or RCS.