Describe your "standard" Kerbin re-entry profile...

[XLjedi]

My re-entry method for spaceplanes is pretty uniform:

1. Set equatorial orbit at 75km
2. When the spaceplane is over the Dessert Base, fire retrograde
   • If Mk2 spaceplane, then arch should terminate at the KSC
   • If Mk3 spaceplane, then arch should terminate west of mountains near the coastline (to account for skipping on the atmosphere)
3. At 55km set attitude to 10-20°
4. Land the plane

 

My re-entry method for rockets is also very standardized:

1. Prior to launch, ask myself "Why are you using a rocket?" 
2. Press ESC key and get a spaceplane

[Hotel26]

19 hours ago, XLjedi said:

"Why are you using a rocket?"

Perfect!  Thanks for the humor!

 

 

OK, here it is:

Everyone will no doubt find that this machine has heaps of personality to challenge your ability to bring it home.

I am very keen to hear how people do it!!  Please don't be shy, but have a go...

[Dirkidirk]

20 hours ago, XLjedi said:

"Why are you using a rocket?"

Why are you using a plane?

[XLjedi]

58 minutes ago, Dirkidirk said:

Why are you using a plane?

Well... if you really want to know.  It's far easier, cheaper, and faster for me to put things in orbit with space planes.

The only valid reasons not to use one would be:

1. Can't figure out how to build one
2. No good at intercept and docking
3. A strange preference for rocket roll-play

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by XLjedi

[Superfluous J]

44 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

Well... if you really want to know.  It's far easier, cheaper, and faster for me to put things in orbit with space planes.

The only valid reasons not to use one would be:

1. Can't figure out how to build one
2. No good at intercept and docking
3. A strange preference for rocket roll-play

 

1. Check.
2. Not sure why this is more important for spaceplanes. I dock rocket ships to each other all the time.
3. Check. Though I find the desire to fly planes in a rocket game the strange preference

 

[Dirkidirk]

54 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

Well... if you really want to know.  It's far easier, cheaper, and faster for me to put things in orbit with space planes.

The only valid reasons not to use one would be:

1. Can't figure out how to build one
2. No good at intercept and docking
3. A strange preference for rocket roll-play

 

1. no, but it very hard for me to build one that actually goes up when I want it to, and space shuttles replicas are very tedious to build and fly.

2. while I could It would be very hard for me to dock a spaceplane, unless the docking port is on the front.

3. no. I do build ssto spaceplanes to bring up small and medium sized payloads and to land on minmus, but for long, high delta-V missions, launching large payloads or flights to lumpy rocks, rockets and vertical landers are the wey.

[adsii1970]

Whichever entry works... It's all trial and error until you find the one that:

• Your craft can handle. Each type of craft has slight (or drastic) differences which will contribute to its own most effective reentry profile.
• You feel most comfortable doing/ease of task. I've learned this the hard way.
  • Sometimes it's easier to tweak the "ideal" reentry profile and settle for something less efficient if it makes it easier to operate the craft.
  • Please note, capsules don't have much you can tweak. They are essentially a rock made of steel with parachutes hurling towards the surface.
  • An SSTO or shuttle doesn't operate (normally) like a capsule. It is more controllable and its reentry profile is fluid depending on a variety of factors.

So, the reentry profile I use for an empty shuttle is a little different than one which is bringing a payload back. And that profile is totally different than the ones I use for capsules...

Please keep in mind, I am posting this entry with only one cup of coffee consumed. If it does not make sense, it's because of lack of coffee, not because I am stupid.

[Mikenike]

3 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Please keep in mind, I am posting this entry with only one cup of coffee consumed. If it does not make sense, it's because of lack of coffee, not because I am stupid.

Hahaha. Good idea. For me, I use Capsules more often, I just get pe at about 50 (to aerobrake a little), and point my capsule 35 degrees from retrograde, and let gravity and atmosphere take me home.

[XLjedi]

44 minutes ago, Dirkidirk said:

1. no, but it very hard for me to build one that actually goes up when I want it to, and space shuttles replicas are very tedious to build and fly.

2. while I could It would be very hard for me to dock a spaceplane, unless the docking port is on the front.

3. no. I do build ssto spaceplanes to bring up small and medium sized payloads and to land on minmus, but for long, high delta-V missions, launching large payloads or flights to lumpy rocks, rockets and vertical landers are the wey.

My Mk3 spaceplanes use the nose-mounted shielded docking port.  I don't consider the space shuttle a space plane; it's a vertical launch glider abomination.

What do you consider medium and large payloads?

What do you consider high delta-V?

I don't land planes on moons with no atmosphere.  I have orbital carriers that move payloads and landers between planets.  I don't take "wings" with me; they are for traversing atmospheres only.  For instance, my favorite lander reminds me a lot of the Eagle from Space 1999 and fits in a 4-place Mk3 Cargo bay.  It "flies" on Minmus and the Mun more like a plane and I use BG directional servos to tilt the thruster vertical/horizontal.  I find it very difficult to "fly" traditional vertical landers, unless just going straight up/down.  I tend to easily lose my frame of reference for attitude control.

The only reason for me to use rockets would be as boosters to carry an orbital command vessel into orbit.  Aside from that, there is no reason for me to ever use a rocket to get payload into orbit. 

I'm willing to listen and modify my play style if someone can show me a rocket that is more efficient in some way, or can carry some payload that I find useful and can't otherwise get from ground-to-orbit.

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by XLjedi

[Mikenike]

1 hour ago, XLjedi said:

Well... if you really want to know.  It's far easier, cheaper, and faster for me to put things in orbit with space planes.

The only valid reasons not to use one would be:

1. Can't figure out how to build one
2. No good at intercept and docking
3. A strange preference for rocket roll-play

 

1. Cannot to save my life.

2. Same as above

3. No, just don’t wanna tackle it.

[Dirkidirk]

34 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

My Mk3 spaceplanes use the nose-mounted shielded docking port.  I don't consider the space shuttle a space plane; it's a vertical launch glider abomination.

What do you consider medium and large payloads?

What do you consider high delta-V?

ok.

medium is are something about 10-50 ton (like a space station module), large is are like 60+ ton. what is in between 50 and 60 ton I don't know.`

when a trip to the planet and back is over 5203 delta-V, like moho. of course I'm dumb and forgot about the existence of pretty much any high efficiency engine

34 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

I don't land planes on moons with no atmosphere.  I have orbital carriers that move payloads and landers between planets.  I don't take "wings" with me; they are for traversing atmospheres only.  For instance, my favorite lander reminds me a lot of the Eagle from Space 1999 and fits in a 4-place Mk3 Cargo bay.  It "flies" on Minmus and the Mun more like a plane and I use BG directional servos to tilt the thruster vertical/horizontal.  I find it very difficult to "fly" traditional vertical landers, unless just going straight up/down.  I tend to easily lose my frame of reference for attitude control.

The only reason for me to use rockets would be as boosters to carry an orbital command vessel into orbit.  Aside from that, there is no reason for me to ever use a rocket to get payload into orbit. 

nice

34 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

I'm willing to listen and modify my play style if someone can show me a rocket that is more efficient in some way, or can carry some payload that I find useful and can't otherwise get from ground-to-orbit.

well I can't. I only use rockets instead of planes because planes are harder (for me) and I just think rockets look cooler. 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Dirkidirk

[Hotel26]

I guess I am ambithrusterous(?).

I want that Eagle. 

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Hotel26

[XLjedi]

12 minutes ago, Dirkidirk said:

well I can't. I only use rockets instead of planes because planes are harder (for me) and I just think rockets look cooler. 

I can't argue against "Coolness Factor" it drives most of my gameplay enjoyment.

This is my spaceplane for carrying 60t payloads...

https://kerbalx.com/XLjedi/SC-33-Crescent-Eagle

It can deliver 10,000 units of fuel to orbit at a cost of $9k per trip, which completely refuels my OCV carriers in a single trip. OASys Station in the video is actually something that can be built and carried to space by the SC-33.  Would take like 20 missions to assemble it, but it is IMHO an unusually large station.

I will probably be posting the OCV-125 Aquarius light carrier in the near future.  I'll be posting the little space 1999 style lander sometime soon as well.  I'd like to build a bigger version of an Eagle One style lander that can deliver larger-sized base parts and fuel to/from the surface. 

 

 

[XLjedi]

@Hotel26  That video is going to be my method for delivery of fuel and equipment to the surface of moons.  Right now I have the junior version that fits in a Mk3 hangar, and supports away teams of 5 for science gathering.  I may have to go bigger for the mooncrane version.  No need for the big engines on the back though.  Where the landing leg pylons are... those would be my rotating engine blocks, and landing gear wheels are an extremely efficient form of travel on Minmus surface.

[Fireheart318]

I like to slow down near the large crater to the left of the desert and have the blue line disappear somewhere around the island runway. This brings me back to the KSC reliably enough to land an SSTO.

If location doesn’t matter, I just go as fast as possible.

Edited March 12, 2020 by Fireheart318

[XLjedi]

@Fireheart318 does that work for both Mk2 and Mk3 designs?  I may have to try it... shallower approach.

[CBase]

My SSTO descend retrograde with some control surfaces at both ends deployed and AoA of roughly -15°. PE at deorbit is arund 10km, deorbit point choosen so that Trajectories prediction is at or slightly east of KSC.

For return capsules always try how hard and deep can I set PE without blowing up. Usually it is around 25km and I hardly use dedicated heatshields, but rather burn off any transfer stages and land with parachutes. Actually retrograde burns do help as well as kind of heat shield beyond reducing speed, so I am throttling up any remaining fuel once KER shows 80%+ temperature on my critical part.

Just as Snark I do not care about landing spot for mission returns: whatever comes back is usually not worth enough to make a difference in credits and I do not have to get into LKO to time for KSC.

[Hotel26]

2 hours ago, CBase said:

I do not care about landing spot

Others too have touched on this and also the wider issue of spaceplanes versus rockets.  Can't recall anyone mentioning Fun yet.

I say, "Spaceplanes are Fun.  Landing at KSC is a challenge.  Challenges build skill.  And using skill is Fun.   We play KSP for Fun.  Quod est demonstrandum.  Each to one's own..." 

[CBase]

3 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

Each to one's own

Exactly  

And my first stages do land near KSC for maximizing funds, although after some successful landings on the runway I don't consider it fun enough to repeat. But the first time to land there: Unforgetable.

 

[Curveball Anders]

3 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

I say, "Spaceplanes are Fun.  Landing at KSC is a challenge.  Challenges build skill.  And using skill is Fun.   We play KSP for Fun.  Quod est demonstrandum.  Each to one's own..." 

I agree with ever point, but with an addition:

"Space planes are fun", but not in KSP

 

[Hotel26]

13 minutes ago, CBase said:

But the first time to land there: Unforgetable.

OK.  Now I have to try that.  It sounds like Fun! 

[XLjedi]

In my latest career I decided I would not recover anything unless it was sitting on one of the 3 Kerbin base locations for 100% recovery.  It's made for some very interesting rescue and recovery operations.

Spoiler

 

[Curveball Anders]

In career I tend to design standard return vehicles, normally called "Up Down Taxi" or "Soyuz".

It's rare for any other vehicle ever to attempt re-entry.

Kerbals, Science or other stuff are shuffled around while docked at ISS/KSS or similar.

 

[Hotel26]

31 minutes ago, Curveball Anders said:

to design standard return vehicles

I will say this about space planes: the world has far too many of them for its needs.  And very many of those are useless 1-seat wonders...    (But can we please think of this as a testament to how much fun they are!?)

I have to say I like the VLHR class too.  I spied someone's rocket with rather large tail fins and the owner's comment that it couldn't be landed horizontally:

So, some wheels and an aerodynamic tune-up...

This is my light-weight lifter.  It's designed for outlandings on the next continent east, too, after propelling loads near its max lifting capacity to apoapsis , but relying on those loads to finish their own circularization.

I guess this is my idea of how to bring a rocket back down on a runway.    It has a lot of Spunk for a bantam-weight lifter.

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Hotel26

[XLjedi]

On 3/11/2020 at 10:06 AM, Hotel26 said:

I guess I am ambithrusterous(?).

I want that Eagle. 

 

Initial testing of the OCV-130 Newlander has been quite promising!  Not quite the Eagle One, but it still has that Space 1999 look going for it.  Unless I come up with a better name for it...  it's just going to be my "New Lander" LOL.

Spoiler

Not quite the Eagle One, but I do like the look of the reinforced frame.  The tilt engines are a design feature from my other mini-lander that just works really well for me.

I was able to put it down on the Mun and return to orbit from a 400km initial orbit. Next will be testing to see how it does putting a rover and some moonbase equipment down with the claw it has on its belly.  Primary role for this one is sky-crane style delivery of rovers and base parts to moon surfaces and return to orbit.