Razorforce7

@ZooNamedGames I agree with your aproach to realism. Everything to that end and you get a thumbs up. Since I'm full of critique on this one, you'll get a half thumb up for the aproach you seem to be having. But that is it xd. Your idea or that of the OP is impossible. What values are going to be used concerning ionospheric aerodynamics? Even the mods like FAR do not have a completely accurate aerodynamics model (although definitely the closest) How are the physics of aerodynamics and atmosphere being applied? Vessels are usually on rails in ksp above 70km. And if Kerbin is going to have a upper ionosphere stretching beyond 70km then good luck on the physics. You'll have to find them physics experts first or a modder that is knowledged with the physics of orbital decay or I don't even want this. Like I said earlier, vessels are on rails, this is how the game engine works and how it is programmed. I know you know this You don't want them to be on rails? So they're active or deleted? Right?????? So every vessel in orbit around Kerbin (or wherever) is not on rails and thus active, right?????? (meaning we would have drastically lowered framerates xd) I know this is not your idea, but hey, what is? On a more specific level I mean. Oh, and like AlamoVampires said, this is ksp which is a 1/10th scale of the real solar system. Orbiting 70km around Kerbin is, euh, I don't know exactly, but based on eyeballed horizontal circumerference I would say that is 500km altitude on Earth? So 70km over Kerbin is let's say 500km above Earth. But both planets are based on the same aerodynamic properties? Obviously the answer to my previous question is YES. If you want to use the same atmospheric properties as a exact value compared to Earth then all that remains to be asked is how much atmosphere by weight/volume should be around Kerbin in relation to Earth. I think squad already did a good job at this. However, eventually you will end up with a extended version of Kerbins atmosphere which is unrealistic. Or, you create a new atmosphere that is likely even more unrealistic. And by likely I mean certainly. Because Kerbins atmosphere is unrealistic to begin with. Expanding it with additional properties like orbital decay is only going to expand the already unrealistic properties we are already experiencieng. That said ^^^^^ It will be a experience of a noticeably different and unrealistic experience that is going to be extremely annoying for anyone doing multiple launches to Eeloo or other far of places while struggling to maintain the orbits of all your other 100+ sattelites. Or find out later that you would have to correct the courses of all my sattelites around Kerbin and/or elsewhere as they drifted over the years. A good realistic idea this is in the essence of which. But since Kerbal spaceprogram isn't realistic to the ends that are required it still isn't a good idea.

Solution: Drain all you vehicles fuel tanks in the VAB *cough* SPH until they match the total vessel weight when landed at Vall (or any destination) Spawn your vehicle @ the ksc whether it be the runway or launchpad in the emptied tank configuration (the one that mimics the total vessel weight when landed at your destination, i.e. Vall) Use the gravity cheat and change the total Kerbin gravity to 24 out of 100 (24%) Does your vessel takeoff at Kerbin in this gravity configuration? If yes, then it will do the same at Vall in the exact same way (albeit it terrificaly slow since valls gravity is about exactly 1/4th that of kerbin) If it does takeoff but slowly, then, you will need more Nervas. Eventually I have to join with Urses and recommend a two stage aproach. Even for ssto designs launched from Kerbin it will eventually be more efficient to use a 2nd stage for landing and takeoff at Joolian destinations. This obvious and necessary aproach achieves all Jool 5 missions reported. And besides some Laythe and Bop missions nobody directly launched to both places and returned in a single stage.

I got one, and it was a 2 day ago event. I am playing career with custom settings. These setting involve that I do not respawn my crew! I landed 3 crew at Duna. It involved Valentina, bill and Bob.| I'm landing at Duna and all seems well. I do my exeriments, bob takes the experiments and keeps them and I move on. Moving on: Meaning getting back to Kerbin. While entering Kerbins atmosphere when I'm checking everything I see I forgot to pack my parachutes...... DAMN!. Quiksave! No!! What!?!? apparently I last quiksaved during launch (30 in real life minutes away) Trying to save Bill but he burned during re-entry Result: Valentina, bill and bob all completely and utterly dead. Trying to quikload and all but only send me back to launch. GAME OVER! Pros of this mission: Jebediah survived.

@HebaruSan You obviously didn't read, which I understand... Or you don't care, ok, I don't care either then. Your source? Tell me how yours is valid? That is the point of what I am saying by the way. How do you know you source is right? How does a protestor know his source is right? Is having a source a validation for having a argument? If true, then everybodies argument is wrong per definition unless they supply a source. So what is this, blind faith in litterature? I'm all for sources of information. But If I have to show with pictures starving people around the world or in a degradative state compared to the affluent wealth of europeans or americans then I start eating cotton and shave my head bald.

@Elthy Wrong, I'm from the Netherlands. But good try And even if I were from the United states, I'd be someone involved past the level of political participation which level is the idolized glamour ensuring empty promises that is a american election. Oh, and you describe politics as it is very well. The thing is, the more years I'm alive and watching the events take place, the more I see a failed system. We ksp players and supposedly rocket enthusiasts want interstellar travel. I do! Do you? But the irony is that I think the departments of mankind that needs most attention is the social and political spectrum. Now, I don't sollicitate people on this forum to look that way. Keep yourself to thrusters and plasma drivers and what not. But being not within any social or political department I do hope that considering the seriousness of the topic that local fellas which includes voters have a broad dynamic viewpoint on the social and political events. And not just "knowing" them but accurately defining these department to which end they are succesfull or.... failing! And when I see the news the latter is the case. And protests or otherwise said 'marches' are not going to contribute much to your cause. Then I recommend you to read another science book. It will serve you better, trust me. @HebaruSanhuh, what? NO!!! Well, they could be fake, you tell me. First of all, what is your interpretation of poverty? When I talk about poverty I mean it in a slightly different way. I actually mean inequality. Meaning that some citizens of this world have a wider variety of foods or equipment at their disposal then other people in this world. As for your data stating 10times more wealth opposed to poverty. Does that article which states that mentions the definition of poverty? What is theirs? What is yours? Care to know mine? As long as they can stand and work right? I heard that one before. There is a whole wealth of industry and consumables at the disposal of me, other europeans and many americans. But it is not available for many others. Which covers most other countries around the world. You want sources say you? Many pictures of people having alot less then I do? You'll get them, dont worry. I make a good collection for you, just say the word. Anyway, my philosophy concerning equality is that I can get everything that others can get, or vice versa. Some people in this world don't even get a single chance.

Putting it into code again. But if anybody replies to it I promise to move it to personal messaging, as this is apparently a touchy subject. And from where does the blinded faith come from? I mean, if it isn't faith then give me facts. The blinded faith that believes in his own government with heart and soul without question is rampant in society. For the record: I do not! But don't worry, I don't have a tinfoil on my head, I am in no physical and or mental stress. I feel fine. Just saying to prevent comments otherwise expected. And I still don't know all political facts, I'm open to them and the developments that currently take place. And I love you, and you and your opinions. Just putting that out there so we can be clear about that one. In the meanwhile. Got a answer to my question? Because if it isn't faith but knowledge that makes you say what you did I wanna know. There are whole history books of human evolution that details events from thousands of years ago up to now that is littered with corruption and national and international conflicts all the way up to world war. We often even discuss history for its wealth of information, the interest of itself and the facts also. And many history books have their own version, which proves my point because there can only be one (the one as it has happened) so someone is lying since history knows both official and alternative stories. And obviously from the academic correct viewpoint the alternative ones must be wrong. Which you can't prove, you are just trusting all details from your history book, right...? Who has proven the acadamic history to be right? And the non acadamic history to be wrong? And if you can name a few guys, how do you know they are right? This isn't pessisism! This is just a clear question. How do you know your history book is right? But ofcourse the official one must be right because it is you having read it and how can you be wrong? And all your classmates who read it also. I mean you can't possibly be wrong, right, your all knowing? (sarcasm) Your argument is that "my media" shouldn't be wrong if it is correct. How do you determine a media to be correct? Is there a system that monitors them? Is there a system that monitors the one that does the monitoring? How do we know that they who investigate them has the honest national and international truth? You don't, I don't! Hence the healthiness of attempting to challenge the validity of that system. Rather then defending it by saying that it is true. Man, that's like a religious person holding on to their read truth. Don't tell me this works the same in scientific litterature. And I am not a scientist by the way, but I know many of you are. My point is, you can't prove the media other then trusting it. Which is wrong, one should be able to verify things not trust in them blindly because they're being re broadcasted every night. The news anchors are dolls. They're pretty males/females to sugar coat the message. No proven truth is present in the media. Only the words that the anchors read out loud, written by somebody else you probably don't even know to begin with. Tell me, what do you mean by "maybe in some countries?" Which ones? All other countries but yours? Selective maybe... A whole history book of countries that do wrong, but oh no, not the states of narnia (meaning your country), hell no. (sarcasm to the max) But lets take the good ol united states, which ironically has it's presidents get trophies for, what do they call it? nobel peace prizes hahaha. While any of the last united states presidents waged more wars then any other leader in the world. That's kinda hypocrite and wrong. I even think "Evil" opposed to "peace" is the right word since it involves death of people and the lack of open honesty for a presidents action while holding up to that peace trophy. Do know that it is the media who broadcasts these hypocritical prize ceremonies, that apparently issues prizes to some people of which I'm always confused as to why they get them. Oftenly they didn't do anything heroic that would grant such prizes, but heck they get them regardless. To validate the issuing of these prizes it is often argumented that the president in question has done major work by instigating another conflict to ease another. They did this for Obama. And my initial point was, that rivalism or 2 party conflicts lead to more problems. The same is for instigating wars (that apparently offers peace prizes to those that instigate them) And the same goes for simple protests. But yeah spare me the comments about that a government is solid and says the truth when it says something. Delusional when you think that is your own country. There are more people in poverty on this planet (counting 6-7billion) then there are those that do not? Great track record, not! But maybe I'm just a lost duck in a den of alligators. Maybe I should stand upright and ready to serve and say what my tv says blindly and disregard eventual misschiefs that a government may act on, Completely ignoring the tinfoil guy in all it's irony since there is a world burning to the ground (see the news) While all this while my media and my government were correct. @Elthy Oh, and please. Don't take this personally. Your probably a very nice guy irl. But as you have noted by now, this subject gets me upset. And honestly it is the very basic correct defensive political answers that you give that make me also upset. Alot of people think like you do. But it is very conservative. And you probably are that politicaly. And I cannot understand how you can be conservative in a dynamic universe that constantly changes. This includes the world you live in. The very definition of the word conservatism goes against what global progression should be. No, I'm not putting words in 'your' mouth, but to everyone else that feels addressed I certainly do. The media portrays one vision. Put into various forms of drama by the anchor to depict 1 viewpoint on it. This is often guided by the emotion of the anchor and the way they put the news into words. It goes against It suffers the dynamic viewpoints and criticism of the news and many people are victim to it. Some things that "be" must change. The media is definitely one of them.

@EladDv Purely speculative here but I think Squad once thought by themselves... meaning many, lets say 4+ years ago "we can't have it that parts ever sink below the ocean otherwise people will complain about recovery issues" SQUAD STAFF: Let's just make the water very dense so nearly nothing will sink below it. Present day: And now we are debating to get it more realistic Critically speaking I think "realistic" is never going to work. Only if a specialized hydrophysics team is going to join the table at the Squad headquarters is it ever going to be as such. Or close to it. But obviously I like more then a few parts to float for shipbuilding purposes so it could use some tweaks, theres no doubt about that.

Look, I don't want to bother people to much with my detailed view on it. And since it alteast partially includes a political viewpoint I decided to put it into code. But to put it in a nutshell for you. Viva la sciencia! Dejar de Protestar! I'm totally against marches. Marches are just another way to divide people with the intent to cause good. The values of one group is often promoted because one side has more money, agents and/or media coverage. And the latter is always lateral because the media promotes the side that is deemed just by the state. The same goes for the united states as it is for North Korea. Albeit it in a more severe inhumane state for one of both countries. (your guess is very good lmao) I'm not necessarily talking about the big global events here, just the minor one group against another group calamities. There is deliberate division through protesting by agents promoting the cause of 1 side. The instigation of division through protesting is done by they who do the dividing. Which isn't always the protestor. That can be on one end or either end. Usually this is to serve 1 end of both groups doing the protests. And in case that works it upsets the other side, which creates division. I understand that most people on this forum choose a politicaly correct spectrum, and they would argue that protests are part of democracy. Democracy is in part the freedom to share your opinions to form debate which leads to answers. Atleast, that is the idea. But as current developments show, most debates don't lead to answers. It almost always lead to division. Which all can be blamed on human aspects. But I think those aspects (call it personal traits) are trained a.k.a. raised since childhood (and yes that has multiple reasons including the genetics part) I think many parents do a poor job at that. That's not my prejudiced opinion, just the rates of kidnap, homicide/suicide, slavery, sex slavery rates around the world confirm that. Everyone wants everything for themselves. I do to! However, I'm a very emphatic, caring and sharing person. But I'll be honest, I want everything there is to gain. But I want it all in 2nd place. Some people don't. Some of those people want all for themselves in the 1st place and give nothing. Many of these guys/gals are doing protests around the world. And yes, also those that do not. Division creates more need for otherwise unneeded security and unneeded rules and regulations that is usually conducted through politics. And all that politics does is create more problems. I'm against a authoritarian system, let's then keep democracy. But is democracy good? And please before you answer that. Drop the eventual patriotic bull that makes you answer that question with unwavering "yes" and be honest with yourself and be for once, politicaly critical rather then correct. Just like there's a class of people brainstorming on improving rocket designs (meaning you), so is there a class of people thinking about how to improve social aspects of mankind. I believe in something called social engineering (use Google) or better said the antonym of the word. That is because I don't intend social engineering to be used to serve manipulation. I intend it as a antonym and would intend social engineering for the collective social improvement. Social engineering seems to spiral down to a collective degradative state of living as it is currently. Yet the practice of social engineering or the antonym of which (since it lacks a official term) is given little attention. It's like a social, international and political free for all. And while it is cute I don't think the having a free and outspoken global diversity of opinions is going to get us somewhere, no matter how much value each opinion has. And while the current systems hold upright that house of cards shows all signs that it is about to fail. What do we end up with? A large group of space enthusiasts in a world full of other minded people that are not going to change their ways because we want them to. The other way around, or both? I do not decide the following, and I never will even when I get the chance. But there must be a system based on consent. A system that doesn't rule what you may think or say. But a system that decides what decisions are fruitfull and logical. Millions of people are voting. Voting is nothing more then to have individual power over national or international activities and direction. Instead of voting you have a dedicated and trained collective council that consists out of various groups of people. Both ethnically and professionaly. Everyone may give their opinion, but there are only specific ways in which a counsil of some sort (call it government) decides based on public opinion which routes will be taken. Let's stop creating a whole political mayhem about the rights of certain brown colored individuals occupying this world. Which mayhem itself are all fueled by protests, ironicaly (by certain people, yes, I understand, spare me) And please tell me the logic about marches ASAP. You have a problem that you want solving, so what do you do? Parading down the streets with like minded individuals, and expecting others to change? Do you really think this collective ritual is going to make the local residents change their ways? Ritual? YES RITUAL!. Because that is all what protesting is and all it will ever be good for. The argument that is "what else can I do besides protesting?" holds zero value. Whether there is a alternative to this or not, protesting doesn't help, so stop doing it. How often has it happened that you ragingly protest for something and the non like minded people (those your attempting to convert) suddenly change their ways to make room for your interests and opinions? How many times did this happen? yes, exactly, you got it, ZERO times. So screw marches. You scientists with your mathematical equations should know that it only leads to more pre calculated division and more of the same news broadcasts. Unless you think that division is a good thing. Unification is good, division is Evil. News broadcasts like those that involve marches either involve messages of stagnation and usually degredation. By now you might be thinking, why tell me this. I don't care. You do because you read up to this point xd The reason you do care is because the people that are often promoters of science have their opposed protesters. These are usually the religious, flat earthers and yes, atleast semi morons. But even semi morons deserve a blanket and much love. All people have gifts and values that are promoting humankind. Even the semi morons. Someone that isn't into Science could commit themselves to better social issues. This could be a religious fanatic or a denouncer of Science itself. Yet, a asset to humankind for all else he/she does right. It are often protests of 2 groups with completely inverted ideas from one another trying to convey their opinions to those other peeps expecting them to see another angle for a supposed collective cause. History showed us that protests never unite 2 groups of opposing values and ideas. So my question is, why keep doing it?

@The Raging Sandwich Out of the box, yes. The thing with Orbiter is that it is bare bone naked, without something that covers it to make it look dressed up. Calling it a flat pancake is another way of putting it. Playing orbiter out of the box is like playing ksp 0.15 without mods. Although the comparison is not completely accurate since ksp 0.15 had no other planets. You get my point, hopefully. If you want to enjoy Orbiter you will have to download stuff. There are however alot of good looking real life replicas. There are other stock orbiter inspired spaceplanes that are similar to the stock Delta glider. I think they're from a place called Alteaaerospace or something. These are deltaglider inspired craft but can do more or go further. Navigation can be expanded with futuristic MFD's that suit the cockpit of your Deltaglider. But most of your Orbiter simulatons will be that, "simulations" and there will be little flying. Because these will be real life replicas with automated launch programs. Orbiter is much more oriented at the simulation of spaceflight. Atleast it goes as far as to replicate spaceflight simulations, that targets especially the piloting part of it. And when I mean simulation I mean that thouroughly. There is for example a dedicated Apollo 11 install called "NASSP" which comes clean with all the 100+ missions steps from launch to splash down that the crew had to follow during the actual mission. From a pure gameplay perspective KSP wins hands down. But Orbiter can be fun to if you know what kinda game it is and how to use it. KSP is a fun game, and orbiter can be but isn't after a fresh install. It is obvious why KSP is more popular then orbiter if you ask me.

I would indeed recommend Mk2 for hot re-entries. But only when going interplanetary (meaning hot) Most spaceplanes have lot's of aerobraking drag because of the wings. I always use Mk 1 cockpits and crew cabin on missions to Mun and Minmus. With a good aerobraking maneuver I can circularize on Kerbin after dropping down from Minmus orbit. Admittedly it gets the heat gauge a pixel away from blowing up, but it works. The aerodynamics and ascent profile largely decide how fast you'll be going and whether you can maintain that speed of ~1200m/s all the way up to 20+ km or there below. I personally play on the keyboard. And I find that tapping (S) to pitch the nose up helps in avoiding excessive speed losses. In addition I would also lower the control surface pitch authority while in high seed flight to a much lower setting. This way you'll be very gently raising your nose, avoiding sudden and abrupt losses of speed due to drag caused by control inputs.

The first order of business is you giving a screenshot of the vessel. In the SPH preferably with a good complete view of all the attached parts. A spaceplane SSTO design for beginners is usually a design with a combination of jet engines and rocket engines. You need both in order to get to orbit. Although you can also do it with jet engines and LV/N's. The rapier engine has both a jet and rocket mode. So it might be a good idea to use the rapier engine. It's usually a little easier to design ssto's with rapiers. I think the screenshot will tell us more about what to tweak. But based on what you say it seems you have to much aerodynamic drag. I'm unsure about what jet engine your using. But the recommended jet engine for ssto's besides the rapier is the whiplash. You should be able to get to about 1200m/s at around 19km altitude. This is where you'll want to change to rocket engines and start pitching up. The jet engines themselves are not supposed to get your Apoapsis above the atmosphere. Although I'm sure there are some designs where this is the case. The most important thing is horizontal velocity.

Space ships don't accelerate when they're undocked. It is just you. Either something is causing the acceleration (like having engines on without realizing it) Or something triggers the acceleration state, which can be part clipped objects like urses says. One thing is for sure, it is not a game breaking glitch and is likely triggered by something. The proper thing to do is troubleshooting for the cause. Only if it has no detectable trigger I would report it as a official glitch. Is this only on one vessel? If 'yes' then try to reassemble it in the VAB and make sure nothing clips and see if it keeps happening.

@The_RocketeerOfcourse everyone should play it the way they like it. I build boats myself. And trains seems a fun one I have yet to do. The general consensus I claim to exist is based on the parts that the developers have thus far modelled. So the more accurate way of putting it is that it is the recorded direction that the developers seem to take. The existing parts are all airplane or space related parts. That consensus about this subject is different among others is apparently the case. Apparently that is why people do suggestions such as this. But maybe I shouldn't call it 'general' consensus then, since you apparently don't agree with that. I'm also open to all other viewpoints. I just don't think ksp is ever going to model anything besides those 2 categories. Expanding with things unrelated to those categories with a already vast part list seems illogical.

When we hear a Thud you mean (This >) Since it would be obviously Kerbals and they are visiting, well, me, I assume they do the introductions. If not I'll stare at them until they make a move. Sure I can hug them. And while I'm a brave man it would be bravely stupid. They could have diseases, have ill intentions or kidnap me when being to assertively aproached by me. I would probably look for a way to communicate properly first, then perhaps look for a physical aproach.

The consensus concerning ksp is that it targets aeronautical and astronautical vessels. Everything else isn't part of what fits in ksp. And theres no arguing about that with me or anybody else so hold your breath. Because this is the way the devs have chosen ksp to be. There is this mod though (v) But if you want to do it stock. Get yourself the larger ore tanks. You must fill them with ore in the VAB. This will make it denser then water. You will need alot of them in relation to the other buoyant parts. But it will get you to the ocean floor. EDIT: Physics update for water? Don't get me wrong as I would like this to. However, a realistic physics element concerning hydrodynamics should involve a dedicated professional team that not only understands these physics but knows how to program them in a game. It would require quite a few scholared professionals on the ksp developers side. And it won't be profitable since it would serve a 0.01% interest for the few dedicated to ship/submarine building. But maybe a new title like Kerbal Marine Program is in order.

@Moh1336 Your very correct, I give you that. Although in the context of the calamity people refer to the design cheat. If that is not the reason but a personal sense of being deceived then it is peoples torn ego willing to punish the guy for being fooled. Which is a good thing to do, but not after 1 error in 1 video in where he even admitted he did it. Think back to shool, there was usually atleast 1 warning. People deceive/lie all the time, albeit it about unimportant things like whether you stole the last of moms freshly baked cookies. Things like this are from a similar nature. I just can't lay awake because of this, I hope nobody does.

@Cpt KerbalkrunchYeah, lots of info because I thought you wanted to know all possible uses of the airbrakes. I'm sure there are more still. Like I said, airbrakes work well for descending rocket stages upright and controlled. But only in the lower atmosphere. But you could use drogue chutes for that aswell, which I do because aibrakes is usually more parts. What I can't tell from your post is whether your stuck at aerobraking and want help or want information about airbrakes? You say you have trouble at eve, but your specific question is about airbrakes. Does your vessel survive re-entry or not, with or without airbrakes? If not, do you neccessarily want to do it with airbrakes? I think airbrakes and Eve don't go well together, some might disagree. You say your vessel flips upside down. You have a heatshield only on one end? If yes, that side will have the most drag so the unshielded side will tumble in the wind. Especially if it is the inflatable one If you still got questions, screenshots will help alot more then the white of my forum background EDIT: I won't use elevons if it is a rocket, only on spaceplanes. It is the combined use of having wings + control surfaces that make it effective for spaceplanes. Elevon's by themselves on a rocket stage will do far worse then airbrakes.

I really have no catalog on how much this guy "cheated" ("......." for lack of a better term) But like Gargamel says, it's what you define to be "cheating" If he cheats, I don't care. No tear, no smile, no contemplating no restlessness and/or heart attack, nothing. I couldn't give a decomposed rats butt. While hazard-ish doesn't seem to do the following I do care if somebody hypes and popularizes his own videos by doing something more then is actually possible and then gets away with it by never mentioning it. In this case atleast he admits it was for this specific vessel. And if I recall correctly it is his proof of concept. He wanted to make a tilt wing vessel that worked, and when it did he shared that concept in action without regard for the other realism aspects. I have no problem with that. If people make a problem out of that, then they shouldn't because there are more pressing matters in life. And it's his choice, period. I also don't get the impression that he makes a habit of his cheating besides this video. His vessels are atleast very advanced construction wise. Even if they were cheated it is still a feat worthy of youtube and the ksp forums. I also want to refer people to the actual definition of the word "cheating" referenced by your local dictionary. It is having a "unfair advantage" There is only something like having a advantage when there are rules to the game. There is no winning objective in ksp much less any rules. So where does the cheating part fit in? If you think somebody is cheating in ksp due to rules, then hold a mirror in front of yourself. Start realizing that it are your rules only and that no youtube channel is to bow down for your stupid rules. I also don't like the invitation of bunking his videos. Just because someone does something different to the rules you thought were universal does't mean you should invite things like this. Building something in KSP is usually a art. It is always worthy to be viewed and liked, even if you clipped 10 fuel tanks into one, it still isn't a argument to bunk, dislike someones videos, much less invite a whole forum to do so.

I really don't see their value on spaceplanes. When you build spaceplanes the proper way like many on this forum do you use the whole body of your spaceplane including your elevons as an airbrake by facing the incoming air on a pitched up attitude (like the spaceshuttle) So you basically want to keep the nose high relative to the horizon (as much as possible for the greatest stopping power) With the proper heat tolerant parts this should work everywhere (also on Eve) This decceleration method works both by aerobraking and when you want to deccelerate at lower altitudes. Although don't be to aggressive on lower altitudes or your plane might brake apart. Airbrakes are good to quikly deccelerate when your flying in a straight line. However, it would be useless to you, because in ksp you won't give a rats butt to slow down more quikly in a straight line. Unless it's a way for you to show off. They can be usefull when guiding rockets back to land when your center of mass is to far near the top. Or the top of your stage is aerodynamicaly susceptible to tumble face down into the ground. Airbrakes at the top will keep the engine parts down and allow you to steer the body somewhat to have a little guidance. If your rocket want to tumble during descent it will likely happen high up in the atmosphere, which is the part where your airbrakes will melt. So it will only fullfill this function if you manage to get to the lower atmosphere. They won't be very good at simulating grid fins either. Although that might be better explained due to the hard management to guide pitch and yaw control of a cillindrical stage. Something that is very hard to do in real life and requires computers in order to hit a barge at sea. That^ is a landing accuracy challenge that cannot be fullfiled routinely through player repetition (Although I'm sure you'll be successfull atleast once if you try long enough) With the inability to land that accurate it's far better to use a parachute (1 part) and land under engine thrust. Logical right? if all you wanna do is hit land. I think Airbrakes is a design choice. I mean, let's be honest, they look good. And sure, they can be usefull in the lower atmosphere. But essentially all it simulates is semi controllable spoiler. That could aswell be a Big-S Elevon control surface that is inverted and extended as a spoiler. Which has more surface area then a airbrake, and can be used for alot more purposes and creates probably as much drag as a series of airbrakes. Airbrakes do give more drag individually, but more elevons do the same. Elevons do give more lift, and more drag when not extended. But they are part of your planes wing surfaces to begin with. So you'd have them on your spaceplane regardless. Again, my question, why add more airbrakes to them? So having control surfaces on my spaceplanes I see no reason to add any airbrakes to them. Only if it is a rocket I would think about it. And only on some specific stage designs. My final conclusion is that you can create the aerodynamic stability and stopping power without airbrakes at all. I would even recommend to never combine spaceplanes and aibrakes. They cause more limitations then usefull applications. Oh, I'm just one man. I'm sure I left out alternative method(s) for the aibrakes. I like to hear about them.

These revelations make me wonder if Hazard-ish has atleast some way of cheating on all of his videos. I mean, if you go that far, you can go all the way. Not that I have proof. But if you lie atleast once your probably lying all the time. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy his videos. Most of his missions look like they haven't been cheated. But like I said, since hes lying atleast once, it's safe to guess he has already done it on his earlier videos.

I think that if time gives life then time should also take it away. Add this and we'll have infant Kerbals, but then we should also have elderly kerbals. Now I know we've all de-orbited kerbals before in their spacesuit and live to tell about it. But Kerbals are mortal, they will die one day.

I enjoyed this one alot. It's not officially working on ksp v1.2.2, but............ it is actually working. Read the last few pages on that thread for specific install procedures. You can also try...

What I think the TS is asking is to have current crew pods and allow them to work as probe cores also. Just like the uncrewed gemini launch among other launches. It's more a realism aspect. This suggests that the onboard systems of a crew capsule support both crewed and remote operations. This should allow for crew capsules (like the mk1 command pod) to do the same. Without crew there should ofcourse be a onboard antenna with range limitations as if it were a probe. Sure you can attach probe cores to it. But in early career you may not yet have the 1.25meter ones so it will look like crap with the smaller ones. And adding another part is adding another part. And with the 30part limitation in early career you'd want the functionality to be build in. And honestly, I have nothing against it. Is that a official statement? If yes, where did you get it from? People like to argue that it is because you first get the required rocket parts to get to orbit before getting batteries or solar panels. However that is so wrong. How do you think the KSC was build? With automative vehicles. Last time I checked such vehicles required a electric starter. And alot more electric systems also. I take it the cranes at the VAB are just pneumatic pumps and things are hoisted with pulleys that you'll have to pull under manual labor? I think not! And what about the cockpit gauges and MFD's. Is it just a kerbal lighting a candal behind the dashboard that makes all the buttons glow?

People are trying to discuss the romance of said relationship in much detail. But what if you all miss the point completely. What if there is no romance among kerbals. What if there is only hardcore instinctive physical attraction or desire. Maybe it's more like doing a quiky to whomever shares the spacecraft. It could aswell be Bob.| What if it is natural selection? Who do they choose? The guy *cough* kerbal next door? Or the number one supreme national space pilot ala Jebediah? When people use the words "hooking up" they usually mean for extended periods of time. You hooked up with someone because you stayed with him/her. I can tell something based on personal gameplay, and I'm sure everyone else can verify the same. And that is that Jebediah and Valentina are usually not at the same place. The very fact that they are both pilots means that they will be both expended at two different locations. You can surely bring both of them along for the ride. But that usually doesn't happen. And a relationship with 2 people seperated from one another is not really a relationship. Oh, and I might have joked around concerning my first reply to thirs thread. But there is actual seriousness concerning the comment that they are both pilots and occupy the same job. On Earth people doing the same job almost never hook up because company policies prevent it. A good rule I find by the way, as it can lead to unwanted circumstances.

VTOL in KSP is absolutely useless. Whether it's a ssto, msto or not even able to achieve orbit but just fly. But admittedly it is cool and I have made them on my own. It is good at one thing and that is to guide your vessel vertically to the ground. If it is originally a spaceplane design (or any vessel that lands horizontally) VTOL can be usefull to guide your vessel into very small craters. Or it can be usefull to land at the KSC helipad. Either on top of the VAB or the one near the astronaut complex. Besides, VTOL is absolutely wastefull. It requires alot of thrust to get of the ground. Do it with jet engines and you'll need many of them to lift of the ground (depending on which planet you will use it) If you want to use it on Kerbin or Laythe you will need alot of whiplashes to give the needed thrust. That is alot of dead weight, and thus wastefull to bring along only for a gimmicky feature. For places other then Kerbin or Laythe you will need rocket engines. But you will only want to use the rocket VTOL function briefly as to not burn through all your LF/O When you talk about efficiency and Delta-V it is far better to simply lithobrake. (A) You lose speed without using your engines. (B) You haven't brought vtol engines along so that makes it even more efficient. I do use VTOL however, alteast kind of. I have a reusable VTOL rocket powered tug which acts as a modular engine hub to which I can attach cargo in orbit. It can land attached cargo on the Mun and Minmus and then release the cargo and fly back to orbit. This is handy if you cargo has either no landing legs/gear or engines (things like bases and similar modules etc)