Cirocco

how do you mean? Just layering them one on the other and slightly clipping them into one another with the gizmo's? I must admit I've been considering doing things like that. Enveloping the entire plane tructure in a big delta wing was another idea I was toying around with.

I only tested one configuration for landing. I'm focusing more on take-off at the moment. as for the one "landing" I did do... well let's just say that at least it was quick and accompanied by very pretty explosions.

well that has to be the most awesome thing I've seen today

hmmm, from most posters here it seems the problem with the new parts is not so much the fact that they're heavy but the fact that we're lacking large wings. I did some testing yesterday evening and it turns out that while you do need several turbojets for a spaceplane, it's actually far less than I initially thought. Insufficient wing surface seems to be a bigger problem. I'll see if I can figure out a way to aesthetically add more surfaces and larger wings. Thanks again guys

I'm using stock aero for now

A turbojet may have a theoretical max thrust of 225, but it's a hell of a lot less at launch, so unless I want to do RATO/JATO, I'll need more. Though the wing surface is definitely a problem. I've been racking my brain trying to come up with aesthetically pleasing ways to add more lift surfaces without clipping like crazy. Have one or two ideas I plan to test this evening. thanks for the replies anyways guys, quite a few things here that sparked my imagination.

"No this isn't revenge for the whole snacks-and-rocket-fuel incident,we swear! We just don't have a decent launch window for the next couple ... you know... decades" thank you I forget rule 8 far too often in the frustration of watching yet another test go boom.

Huh, good point. Up to now, all my planes have always had canards, but i'd like to build some without, which is why I tried moving the pitch control to the wings since I can fit a lot more there. But you are correct: nearer to the CoM they'll have far less control authority. Guess I should go with either tailless planes with canards or pitch control near the tail. Ugh. I love aerodynamics and the accompanying engineering challenges, but I swear sometimes they make me feel like such a moron >.<

huh. Do you rely almost purely on rocket engines to get to orbit then? I always figured that if you're going to use rocket engines on a plane, you might as well take off the wings and convert your craft into a rocket. The Mk III parts do indeed make for some very cool looking spaceships, but I'm looking for something that can basically take off from the KSC, go interplanetary (Duna is the current goal, might hit up Laythe later), land and return to KSC, all on one tank of gas. It seems like an air-breather would be most efficient for that seeing as I'll be expending about 30-50% of the fuel supply just getting into Kerbin orbit.

25-100. I *always* forget to take screenshots unless I'm deliberately planning to post up a mission report. And even tehn I tend to forget

1. No one dies, no one is left behind*. 2. Always plan and pack enough fuel for a return trip. 3. Quickload and revert to hangar/launch is only acceptable to avoid bugs 4. Hyperedit is a perfectly acceptable tool if you use it for "simulations" (read: teleporting to the intended destination to test equipment on site and reverting once test is completed) 4a. Rule 3 also applies for simulations. 5. Re-usability should be high on the priority list, space debris should always be minimised. 5a. SSTO spaceplanes are awesome. 6. Spacecraft should look at least halfway believable. Asparagus staging with more than 2 steps should be avoided unless designing an Eve ascent vehicle. 7. There is no such things as a mission that is too difficult. (I have regretted this rule on many occasions but I'm too damn stubborn to let things go ) 8. Never forget to just sit back and admire the view once every so often. 9. Space is pretty. 10. Spaceflight is really cool. 11. Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace.... *note: being stranded for indefinite amounts of time is okay as long as you intend to at some point in time pick up a stranded kerbal.

Hello all, so I've come back to KSP after a few months of dry spell and as I always do when I'm given new spaceplane parts, I immediately went to work on heavy-duty, interplanetary SSTO spaceplanes. A ton of people have used the Mk III parts for space shuttles (and I don't blame them, space shuttles look awesome), but I haven't seen many people using them for air-breathing SSTO spaceplanes. And then I found out why. The new Mk III parts are REALLY heavy when compared to the Mk II parts. That also means that in comparison, turbojet thrust is REALLY low. Seriously, even small Mk III spaceplanes immediately go over 80 tons and require 8 or more turbojets. So I'm wondering: what have you guys built in terms of the heavy and super-heavy (90 tons and up) air-breathing spaceplanes? Also: that bug that reverses the pitch on control surfaces placed near the CoM of a plane is really annoying. Anyone know any fix to that?

true, but the more indirect elements that *could* indicate life we find, the more plausible the possibility of life becomes. Occam's razor: if the options are that it's either a combination of several individual and different causes each leading to these specific results, or one single one that produces them all, then the more matching results you find, the more the probability that it's the one cause becomes bigger. It's still perfectly possible that the common cause is in reality not there, but it cannot be discounted. But again, the amount of indirect evidence is still very small and could perfectly be explained through other causes. But with the recent discoveries, the possiblity of martian life has (in my mind) been bumped from "extremely unlikely" to "erm... maybe? possibly? probably not but... you never know?"And that gets me excited

Hm... Well I kinda looked at the movie with two different viewpoints. One the one hand there was my inner science/strategy/lore nerd that was screaming about 80-90% of the movie that this **** made no ****ing sense, on the other there was my inner kid that grinned and marveled at the choreography, special effects and overall epicness (especially when enhanced by some pretty damn awesome music scores at times). Overall I liked it when I saw it, because it managed to again give me that stupid grin on my face that I also got when I first saw the battles at helm's deep and gondor. But sadly, it did go hand in hand with several cringe-moments. If you're just looking for the epic, bombastic feel of pure awesome battle, you'll definitely like it. If you're bothered by blatant breaking of the laws of physics, tactics and battle strategy that makes absolutely no real-life sense and a playing kinda fast and loose with the source material, you'll hate it. In short: are you just looking for epic feels and willing to suspend your disbelief? You'll like it. Looking for more? You'll probably hate it. At the time, I certainly liked it (I think mostly because Guillermo Del Toro's choreography saved it for me) but I'm not sure if I would like it should I watch it again when I'm in more critical mood.

Ooooh prettyyyyy... Though I can imagine the growing look of horror on the range safety officer as aaaallll those pretty boosters fly straight back towards the launchpad at high speed.

that's pretty neat! You are a true space geek, I tip my hat to you sir! Really? I wish I were born a few decades later. I always get the feeling that we're going to have some mind-blowing breakthroughs when I'll be like 50 years old, and I wish those would have happened back when I was in my teens/early twenties.

weeeeeeellll... The fact that organic molecules were found is indeed not super-surprising. But what captures my imagination is the fact that they also found methane spikes in the atmosphere. Methane only has a lifetime of roughly 300 years in martian atmosphere. That means that methane is being produced somehow. And currently, there's basically two ways that can happen: life or chemical reaction in the soil. organic molecules and methane means life is certainly possible (but not in any way shape or form proven, shouldn't get our hopes up just yet). And even if it isn't life: the chemical reaction that makes methane requires liquid water, which in turn would mean that mars has subsurface liquid water, probably not too deep either. And that makes colonization efforts a LOT easier.

staging errors, mostly. Most common being chutes and engines being in the same stage and launch clamps and main engines *not* being in the same stage

yeah, I was watching the stream too. No recovery attempt today. Ah well, patience is a virtue I guess.

Falcon 9's countdoown sequence was aborted about 1,5 mins prior to launch, so they won't be doing the recovery test today. Appearantly there was an issue with actuator drift in the vectorisation of the rocket's propulsion system (if I understood the NASA guys correctly). Next launch attempt is on friday. ah well, patience is a virtue I guess

3 million kilograms, 3000 tons I believe. Also, to answer your "how" question: I believe the current plan for the mars transfer vehicle includes a few seperate launches and a nuclear engine transfer stage. Solid core if I'm not mistaken.

so. many. times. I cannot begin to count.

if it makes you feel any better: that mistake has actually happened in real life as well. There's a video about it on the forums somewhere.

you have got to be ****ing kidding me. This is amazing. rooting even more for the falcon 9 recovery mission now. Go SpaceX!

well like I said, I don't work in aerospace so I don't know the details on how easy this mistake would be or what kind of failsafes are already in place, but you'd be surprised at how far people will go to make something fit. As a rule: any possible incorrect interpretation of instructions or rules will at one point in time happen, no matter how silly, trivial or minbogglingly insane it may seem. For example hammering parachutes into their housing to make them fit, resulting in the parachutes not being able to deploy; installing sensors upside down; using similar but different bolts in construction leading to structural failure, etc. oh absolutely, not denying that one I'll definitely admit it gave me a laugh when I saw it