DunaRocketeer

Also never heard of Bob Fitch until this thread. Just checking out the first episode of his Project Odyssey right now, and I'm really liking it so far!

Right now I'm just enjoying messing around in Kerbin's SOI, doing satellite contracts as cheaply as possible.

Outstanding.

Roflcopterkklol, your rocket looks like it works because you've got much more weight towards the bottom of your rocket (fuel tanks) compared to the OP. A fairings mod really is a good idea.

The designs that worked were triple core - the outboard engines may have provided extra control leverage.

Perhaps it will be necessary to do re-entry burns with a periapsis on the order of 30-35km to maximise the time spent in the upper atmosphere, avoiding the worst heating.

I'm imagining that heatshields aren't posible for spaceplanes - we're just going to have to be careful about re-entering slowly.

But wouldn't a steep ascent mean that I don't accumulate much speed on the jets, and have to rely on the less efficient rockets more? I get what you're saying about achieving a high apoapsis on the jets 'for free', but my spaceplane doesn't have that capability - it flames out with an apoapsis still in the upper atmosphere.

I'm away from my pc for the time being so can't test this out. I'm wondering what is the most efficient way of getting into orbit for a spaceplane. Say my target orbit is 150kmx150km. During the initial climb into space, if I aim for an apoapsis of 71km, then I'm minimising the amount of time my plane is unpowered and slowing down. However, the lower your altitude, the higher your orbital velocity, so I might have a longer circularisation burn to perform. On the other hand if I shoot for an initial 150km apoapsis on the initial climb, I'm losing a lot of speed coasting up to that height, but it might be partly offset by the lower orbital speeds at the higher altitude. My instinct is to shoot up to an initial 71km apo, then do an orbital burn that results in an apoapsis of 150km and circularise from there. Thoughts?

It'll be interesting to see how these figures change with the new aero coming up.

^ I think you've got it: Different dimension = 2d diagrams It's related to -your- ingame creations. = Kronal Vessel Viewer is applied to your own ships.

Yesterday, I earnt a lot of money for my space centre improvements. I wish earning money in real life came as easily to me

Hellblazer, that looks like that Proton rocket failure from a year or two back

Can't wait to launch missions with more diverse crews. Sending a mission up with a mix of males and females feels more realistic and I reckon I'll be more invested in their flights as a result.

I finished my Eve/Gilly survey mission - 3 unmanned surface probes to investigate Eves atmosphere and surface, and a manned gilly lander packed with science instruments, I found it was a very efficient way of gathering Science. Once that was done I continued development of my spaceplane. It's still got a few rough edges (intakes look messy) and I need to place rcs thrusters in a balanced fashion so it can do station missions as well as satellite piggybacking deployments, but all in all it's shaping up to being one of my better designs:

this.

Begun a process of building stations and bases on/around Kerbin and Mun. The Mun base is shaping up to be interesting - it's a train of two modules mounted on wheels, the biggest surface base I've yet made!

I haven't seen people being criticized for their use of engines, is this common? My latest spaceplane uses 2x turbojets 1x RAPIER and 2x aerospikes, which gives a decent pwr for all phases of flight. I'd dislike having to defend a design choice that was mine to make.

My first Mun lander of .90 was Bob's Bright Idea.

I converted my mach 3 jet into a rather nice spaceplane. Right now it's perfect as a small satellite launcher

I unlocked the higher performance jet engines last night, and made this. Really pleased with it!

Paired down to the minimum, I love this aircraft

There are a few ships that I have a strong atachment to due to the number of times I've flown those designs. Science expeditions to Duna were very ably accomlished with this little lander. I like it because it is so optimised for the Duna mission and can accomplish a lot for its small size, which also makes it very easy to send out there in one launch. The second is a more capable design for missions later in the the careeer, I've taken it all over the Kerbol system and has proved a very good ship to fly. The orange tank is routinely dumped mid mission, but the rest always comes back, so it feels like a veteran vehicle after you take it to the edge of the system a few times. It can land and take off from anywhere except Eve, Kerbin, Laythe and Tylo. The third is my only SSTO to date and serves as my surface to space station shuttle. I really like the sense of routine flights that this one brings to my gameplay: These vehicles get refueled and re-crewed without needing to recover the vessel, so I get a very strong attachment to them. This one is 'Challenger'. Oh there's also my long endurance Kerbin plane - little slow but great for taking in the sights. Plus there are also a few launchers that I have a sentimental attachment for

I strongly think that a 1.0 release can do without any of these options listed, the only thing that needs to be added in addition to the already confirmed 1.0 features is clouds. The planet just looks incomplete without them.

My money's on it standing for 'Valentina'.