cantab

A road?

Litter?

20 km is fairly high, some aircraft might feel "floaty" on the controls there. During re-entry I find I want plenty of RCS or reaction wheel control authority, because the aerodynamic forces are strong enough to be noticeable but not strong enough for control surfaces to work well.

Fuel?

I think the F-teen range have the biggest reputation, but they're a bit old now. The F-35 isn't in service yet. So I'd say for an American aircraft the F-22, arguably the pinnacle of fighter development, or for a European aircraft the Typhoon, I reckon it looks good and it can dogfight with the best of them; those of a more cynical persuasion might also see it as epitomising government beurocracy. (I especially love that the left and right wings of a Eurofighter are built by two different companies ) Really, though, air warfare in the 21st century isn't represented by any of those fighter jets, but by this:

Rubbish. I sometimes have trouble reading my *own* writing.

31 (-)

Bigger vertical stabiliser, aka tailfin, at the back to stabilise the plane when it slips sideways. If you're using FAR, you could also be having the centre of lift shift around with Mach number. Usually it will shift backwards at supersonic speeds which makes your plane more stable but might cause a nosedive, but it's possible an unusual design would have the centre of lift shift forward destabilising the aircraft.

KSP's performance is usually limited by the speed of its single physics thread which means that single-threaded performance is what counts. A Haswell Pentium, Core i3, Core i5, and Core i7 all running at the same clock speed will all do about the same on KSP. An overclocked i5 or i7 will be the best thing, but whether it's a 4-core 4690K or an 8-core + hyperthreading 5960X won't really matter. And any modern fast-clocked Intel processor will outperform old Intels like Core 2's and first-gen Core i7's, the old AMD Phenom IIs, and even the modern AMD FX range.

I think it's also rigged to not accept any parts other than the stock ones.

28 (-)

Sounds like a neat idea. Should be easy enough with Kopernicus. I think what I'd do is make Laythe's atmosphere akin to Eve's, give Vall oceans and an atmo with no oxygen, not sure about the others.

I'm in two minds. On the one hand the lab can get you a lot of "bonus" sciencr points. On the other hand the operation of my Mun station involved half a dozen launches from Kerbin, three or four Mun landings, countless rendezvous and dockings, and one rescue mission. So maybe the 2000 science wasn't unreasonable with the work I put in.

Moho and Eeloo in one mission. Because why not?

To avoid any doubt: As of 2 minutes ago "Build Fly Dream" remains accessible on Youtube from the UK.

26 (-)

EVA a Kerbal up to the asteroid and right-click it to take an asteroid sample. Each asteroid counts as a unique science experiment. They work the same as any other science experiment in terms of situations and multipliers, so you can get more by pushing them to interesting locations.

22 (-) Happy Halloween!

22 (-) You think?

Well I think the only IRL "turboramjet" engine is the Pratt & Whitney J58 that powered the SR-71 spyplane. And that adopts a relatively simple approach where the "ramjet" is just the turbojet's afterburner. That's not I think something that would translate to scramjet operation. Another challenge is there's a gap between the upper end of turbojet and the lower end of scramjet ability. That means you need to support (subsonic) ramjet as well as scramjet propulsion, making things even more difficult. And however you lay things out - as one engine like the J58, as two separate engines, or partly combined like the picture above, you've still got the weight and complexity of turbojet machinery to lug about. Depending on the application other propulsion might be better used to get up to speed.

12 (-)

Got my latest spaceplane into orbit, but the handling was a little obnoxious, I need to improve its roll stability a bit. Probably angling the outer part of the wings up a shade will do.

Down to 14

16 (-)

I reckon one satellite in an inclined high Kerbin orbit will do the job, provided it can link to the rest of your Kerbin satellite network in RT, or to Kerbin itself in AR. The chance of Kerbin getting in the way is small, but if it bothers you add a second with an orbit 90 degree rotated from the first. The Mun causing trouble is even less likely, especially if you also have relay sats at the Mun. The bigger problem I think will be the Sun getting in the way, and the only way round that is going to be a relay in deep space.