Cirocco

Ooooooooooooh eve return landers always intrigue me. What's the weight of your lander?

Nothing spectacular today (or rather, yesterday). Just messed around in the spaceplane hangar a little making a relatively simple atmosphere-only plane inspired on my SSTDuna spaceplane design. Designing the atmosphere-only plane made me realise a few improvements I could make to the original SSTDuna plane. I also realised that with the updates to the RAPIER and nacelles a while back, I could probably vastly improve its performance with some pretty simple design revisions. Might work on that tonight, would be pretty cool if I could transform my SSTDuna into an SSTLaythe. Especially since I have actually never been to the Jool system. It would be kinda funny if the very first ship to make it out there would be an SSTO spaceplane

Haha, I acutally noticed that a few times already when zooming in on my kerbals in game, but I always though it was a perception trick or just my imagination

I have actually tried building something like that when I made one of my fist attempts at a heavy refuel SSTO plane. Basically I was going for something like a Hercules C-130 which could go into space (though granted, a hercules would be much, MUCH smaller than the monstrosity you're showing there). I gave up after a while because in stock, the wings get so wobbly you can never fly straight. I've learned a few new tricks sice then though, might give it another bash. Also, I don't think I actually have designs for purely atmospheric planes. I'll see what I can whip up in the next few days.

Hehe, I actually kinda like the MkIII parts, I make it a point to use them where I can (especially the cockpit) because they really don't get enough love. But I fully inderstand you point of view. The attachment node not being in line with the CoM, the fact that they don't easily attach to any other kind of parts, the worse fuel-dry weight ratio than MkII parts, ... all these things make them hard to work with.

You'll have to be a bit more specific than "ultimate plane" I'm afraid. Do you mean purely atmospheric or spaceplane? What constitutes "ultimate"? Does that mean speed? manouverability? Climbing capability? max height? etc. There are many different definitions of a "good" plane. Mostly it depends on what you want said plane to do. I'm quite the spaceplane fan myself and would happily share some of my designs, but I'd need to know which ones you'd like to see. for example: I have an orbital bus that looks pretty nice and transports 11 kerbals to LKO with a very comfortable fuel margin (with the latest upgrades to rapier engines it probably performs a lot better now) but it wouldn't ever get to the Mun. On the other hand, I also have a design that does runway - Duna surface - runway without refuel or staging, but which only carries 3 kerbals. I've been meaning to make a fuel hauler for LKO refuel runs too, but that might be put on hold until 0.25 depending on how impatient I get. What makes a good plane depends on what criteria you set for it.

This. So much this. I've been longing for a MkII (and MkIII) to 2.5m adapter ever since I built my first spaceplane.

yeah I do the same: scoop up a sample, plant flag, look around a bit and get back in the craft to timewarp to the launch window. All happens within a minute or two. That being said i've promised myself to start putting rovers and bases on other planets this career run. With contracts and my promise to myself to keep loading/reverting to a minimum as well as trying to keep all my kerbals safe, I'm now sending out much more unmanned missions. So prior to sending the 2-minute lasting manned missions, I'll now probably be sending a rover first. I really hope biomes for multiple planets get added in the not too distant future though. That would already give more incentive to ground-based stuff I think.

maybe not the first, but since 0.24 I'm pretty sure we've tossed a LOT of spacerocks around. or do those not count?

wow I totally missed that. Yeah, that pretty much confirms it for me. SP+ it will be.

I disagree. Yes, Hugo worked on spaceplane parts all summer, but that doesn't mean they can't add more. Besides, who says he hasn't been working on integrating SP+ parts too? Adding more pats doesn't mean you throw old ones out the window. ... Actually, it might. Wasn't there talk about scrapping the MkIII line? I'd say they need something to replace those...

my bet is also on SP+ it's likely Squad would go for a popular mod. It's much less of a risk to go with a mod that is widely used (and therefore pretty well tested) and widely liked. Therefore I think the big candidates are KER, SP+, FAR/NEAR, DRE, EVE and MechJeb (I might be missing a few but those are the names I've seen most often here on the forums). Now let's look at the individual mods. Ferram has already stated that he knows nothing about FAR or NEAR being added to the game. While there is a very small chance that this was said as part of a non-disclose agreement (NDA) it is far more likely that he’s just telling the truth, so we’ll scratch that one from the list. It is likely that if they’re buying/integrating a mod into stock, it means it’s something that is hard or time consuming for the team to put it in themselves. Note that while I am an engineer in real life, my knowledge of programming is limited so I could be spouting complete bull-manure here First up, Kerbal Engineer Redux. KER is very handy, but for the most part it is a visualization of calculations that are already done by the game. I think that this is something that Squad could implement themselves. They also voiced objections to adding such numbers as TWR and Delta-V in the past. MechJeb: MJ is widely used and can be very handy. I estimate it is of medium difficulty to program (it uses the calculations already in the game like KER, but does a lot more with them) but would take a lot of time to program. However, the biggest argument I see against MJ being incorporated into stock is that it is still somewhat controversial. A lot of people love it others brand it as the work of the devil. While undeniably a very fine piece of work (like just about all mods out there) adding something that is disliked by a large portion of the community as stock is probably not the best move. Again, objections to adding auto-pilot into the stock game have also been raised by Squad in the past. DRE: Deadly Re-Entry is widely used and Squad have already mentioned in the past that they want to implement re-entry heat into the game. Because re-entry is not yet in the game (other than the visual effects) coding it would probably take considerable time and effort. It would be far simpler to just buy DRE and adjust it to fit stock. So probability points for DRE right there. SP+: new parts! Squad does seem to like them new parts and spaceplanes really need some love. New parts I would imagine take considerable time and effort (being visual as in addition to simply calculations they would require hitboxes, art, etc.) so buying and integrating them would be a big timesaver. Squad also are in the process of improving spaceplanes, so it would make sense to add a spaceplane mod to stock. Also probability points right there. EVE: Prettier planets! Would probably take considerable time and effort, has (relatively) high impact on the game for relatively low risk (who doesn't want a prettier game?). Squad has voiced no real opinion on this matter as far as I know, but I would imagine every dev wants his/her game to be prettier. However, I don't think visuals are high on the priority list right now. Normally you first try to ge tthe mechanics and stuff right before you start polishing. Priority-wise, I don't think this will be it. So in conclusion: I would guess it’s either DRE or SP+. Both have arguments going for them, but the fact that the team currently seems to be working on spaceplanes, I think SP+ is just slightly more likely. Next speculator please!

I have never built or used a rover, a base or anything else ground-related. I'll do spaceplanes, docking, SSTO's, spacestations, ... but anything ground-related just does not seem to come naturally to me. The only thing I ever put on the soil of kerbin or any other celestial ody that did not go up again is a flag.

I've never skipped out on a burn. Never had any last longer than 7 or so minutes and I just timewarp those and sit them out. But I do keep tabs one the navball because my ships have a tendency to drift away from the node point. So watching the screen like a hawk and making small adjustments is the name of the game for me. I don't pack too much additional delta-V so I NEED that burn to be on point.

Up to this day, my completely stock runway-Duna surface-runway SSTDuna takes the prize for me. One spaceplane, three kerbals, no refuel. After literally weeks of constantly pushing my SSTO designs further, testing and running simulations (read: using hyperedit and quickload to test landing and performance on Duna) I ran the actual mission. Upon my return, I came in on the nightside of Kerbin and had to spend all my fuel, monopropellant and even all my electricity during re-entry and approach flight. Only the single emergency backup RTG was keeping the plane responding to commands while I attempted to glide through the last few kilometers down to the KSC. Add to that that the plane was INCREDIBLY tail-heavy at this point because of all the empty fuel tanks and heavy (nuclear) engines in the back, and you can imagine that the last few minutes of this trip were the most nerve-wracking of my entire KSP career. When that plane made a full stop on the runway I felt like I had just won the olympics. full story and mission report is here (shameless self-plug): http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83711-To-Duna-and-back!-in-a-spaceplane!-without-refuel!?p=1224245#post1224245

You can't do it in KSP since space potatoes don't actually have gravity. They're considered ship parts rather than celestial bodies, so sadly I think a true orbit isn't possible. Halo orbit also won't work because of the way patch conics works. I know! Rendezvous date is today! I can't watch right now cause I'm at work but I swear as soon as I get home I'm checking the ESA website for news and video.

I fired up KSP again yesterday after a week or two of breaktime shortly after the 0.24 launch. Rescued my first kerbal - Danry Kerman - stuck in an LKO orbit. I first read his name as Danny Kerman, to which my immediate reaction was "Danny?! Well I'm not surprised YOU got stuck in orbit." I must admit I was slightly disappointed when I correctly re-read the name Also did a few simple test contracts and sent my first probe of this career save to Mun. And crashed it. But hey! we learned something! we learned that full solid rocket fuel first stages are very much a thing (if a bit hard to steer) and we learned that the stayputnik probe has absolutely *+%!ty torque, which means landing on even the shallowest of slopes is an absolute pain in more than one part of the body.

Don't feel too bad about that one. I can build spaceplanes without issue but I have never gone further out than Duna/Eve and I never did a manned landing on anything outside of Kerbin's SOI other than Duna and Ike.

Looks nice! Have you tested that lander though? It looks like it would be cutting it quite close if you land it in Eve's lowlands. EDIT: also, I'm totally stealing some of the design features on your transfer vehicle, hope you don't mind. Looks a lot sleeker than most of mine.

I know you can assemple with docking ports in space, but that doesn't really work for things like asteroid or planet-based stations. It's not really feasible to assemble things like an observation tower or a vehicle hangar/refuel station with docking ports on a planet or moon surface. EDIT: also, this

I actually have gone back to stock after FAR, yes (this was in 0.23 for those interested). I already posted at length about why in some other thread, but the bottom line is that I just find the stock aero model to be more fun. Why? because I get to launch big space station modules and huge interplanetary motherships that FAR would never allow. Normally such things would be constructed on site in space, but seeing as that's not a thing (yet?) I'll stick to hauling them up there in one piece. Also, I actually like flying planes in the stock model. Don't ask me why, I guess I like the challenge of needing more delta-V of getting to orbit? Also, insane-o manouvers are funny Finally there's one big reason why I want to (at least for a little while longer) continue using stock aero and that is Eve. That planet is a purple ball of death and I want to conquer it in stock dammit! I have a return lander ready to go, weighing in at 160 tons and capable of getting to orbit from Eve sea level, but I don't have a transfer vehicle or launch vehicle yet so I haven't yet flown the actual mission. Until I do and prove I can conquer the purple tartarus, I'll fly stock. So yeah, as I stated before in my posts: I like both FAR and stock. Each has their own challenges and each has their own limitations. FAR is great. It's realistic, presents you with new and more realistic challenges and obviously Ferram has pourted huge amounts of time and work into it. My hat off to you good sir. Stock on the other hand, while being totally unrealistic has had me laughing my butt off because of hilarious and totally insane launches and flights, as well as allowing me to put large, solid modules into space in one go. Both have their merits and limitations, even if the stock aero model is only a placeholder. Finally, I actually find all the different tweaking options and such in FAR a bit intimidating. Everybody seems to say "oh just tweak the parts until you find your comfort zone" but I can't seem to figure out how to decently do so EDIT: I have to include this because it pretty much encompasses my point almost perfectly: it pretty much is. And I find the joke to be funny I can totally understand people wanting a more realistic experience of course, but I just read this bit of your post and it made me chuckle

yeah I think Umbralraptor has it right. It seems your exhaust is hitting the horizontal winglets, causing the game to think there should be no effective thrust. Try removing the back horizontal winglets and try again.

wait, RAPIERS were updated? when did that happen? I seem to have missed this one. Damn, with RAPIER updates, nacelle updates and all the other stuff I'm going to have to completely re-design just about all of my spaceplanes, half their parts got updated...

while I haven't disbaled the quicksave/quickload function, I have also vowed to not use it anymore except in circumstances that go FUBAR and are beyond my control. It really does make the game more engaging and it does indeed give probes a purpose: you really want to test your stuff before sending kerbals up there. Most notably, I recently had a rocket go wildly out of control just off the launchpad due to staging error. My first instinct was to immediately hit the "revert to hangar" button, but I stopped just in time to remind myself that I now build in abort mechanisms for a reason. Decoupled command pod, flew clear of explosions, parachuted safely down. Rocket was lost (thankfully it was a simple orbiter, not even Mun capable and therefore not too expensive) and Jeb went through a few very scary seconds but came out none the worse for wear.

How in the name of the kraken did you get something weighing near 2000 tons (mostly) intact to Eve surface? Powered landing?