Brainlord Mesomorph

Really pushing the definition of "plane" here. I suspect there's plenty of craft that mostly fall under the category of "rocket" that could glide with body lift. really?

My planes have parachutes and often splashdown. (i'm too lazy to land them )

The Space Shuttle fails that definition. (Or are you considering dead-stick gliding as flying)

that

fine, fine. "airbreathing jet!" jeez

From wiki: A spaceplane is an aerospace vehicle that operates as an aircraft in Earth's atmosphere, as well as a spacecraft when it is in space.[1] It combines features of an aircraft and a spacecraft, which can be thought of as an aircraft that can endure and maneuver in the vacuum of space or likewise a spacecraft that can fly like an airplane. Typically, it takes the form of a spacecraft equipped with wings, although lifting bodies have been designed and tested as well. The propulsion to reach space may be purely rocket based or may use the assistance of airbreathing jet engines. The spaceflight is then followed by an unpowered glide return to landing. Five spaceplanes have successfully flown to date, having reentered Earth's atmosphere, returned to Earth, and safely landed — the North American X-15,Space Shuttle, Buran, SpaceShipOne, and Boeing X-37. All five are considered rocket gliders So in KSP: anything with wings Technically you're right (the best kind of right). Anything that carries its own propellent (as opposed to a jet) is a rocket. I was using the colloquial definition meaning vertical launch and no wings.

That is true. the difference is wings.

No. The Space Shuttle is a mutlistage orbital spaceplane that launches vertically with (like a) rocket. (but lands with wings) There are all kinds of combinations.

What's "Nuclear Safety"?

I'm not talking about a design. I'm talking about a method that will enable all of us to lift much larger payloads that we are now (even in fairings). I'm expecting you guys to design much better planes for this than I can. I have an 8 page tutorial done, I just need to get the pictures online.

BTW guys: I have figured out Heavy Lifter SSTO spaceplanes details soon. been working on this for years, finally have a solution,

and "Autostrut"?

"Ping Part Prefab"?? "Autostrut"?? What be they?

After the first Mun landings everything I send up is designed to be multi purpose/multi use. So for me always refuel. that said, if it was designed to be a single purpose disposable vehicle, then just get the crew (and the science)

There's an option of turning off the ground crew kerbals. That lightens the processor load a lot.

My ships defy classification. What do you call a single nuclear lightweight interplanetary tug and lander and rover? I call it a Minotaur: MMPiV Manned Multipurpose Interplanetary Vehicle

I STILL don't count KAC. (or the occasional hyperedit in my sandbox game) I consider that "stock"

welcome aboard!

@Kergarin Separate topic: I've been watching that video, you want to explain that throttle strategy to me? I was under the impression that short burns at full throttle were best, that isn't what you're doing. Do you know something I don't?

I still don't have a "final" goal. I was in the OP "toying w/ lander designs" But as a shuttle for a hypothetical "7K Base" my goals would be small (-er than this), strip out the ISRU and generally multi-use, multi purpose. (and no clipping) How about 1 w/ a Mk3 payload bay (or 2, for symmetry) ? then you could put a landercan in there nice and safe, plus science, or light ISRU, or ... (a docking port and add payload later) Some method of carrying other payload modules (docking ports) and dropping them by parachute near the landing site?? (i.e. base components) It might only carry payload DOWN, (and kerbals up) that would be OK. (edit: actually I just described the 3/4 scale version I was working on... I gave up on that one when I couldn't use parachutes)

that's the whole idea. If I'm going to pay to schelp something to Venus, I'd pay extra to land several times. Esp w/ a base. EDIT b/c my 1/6 and 1/8 scale versions where looking like I could support them w/ my existing interplanetary tugs and tankers. If I am burning all the fuel all the way down then my 3/4 scale build should work,

@GoSlash27 (not to thread-jack but were done here) And what, in your opinion is a "practical goal" in KSP?

@GoSlash27 I'm all about reusablity. I was hoping we could get down to about 5k which give you a few places to land, hopefully one is within driving distance of someplace interesting. A base is another idea (and that solves the fuel problem). And as I said in the OP, a ship that can do this could also do Tylo, is Kerbin SSTO etc. a single ship (ok two ship) Grand Tour mission. EDIT: exploring the entire planet w/ boats planes, rovers, hoppers, from "7K Base" where they have fuel and a lab (and regular shuttle service) how's that for a late-career plan?

It depends on you definition of "critically". I'm not talking about scientifically evaluating the results and learning, I'm saying the question "Should the taxpayer have paid for this? It was doomed!" is silly, because there is no way of knowing. (except in retrospect)

Hindsight is always 20/20. (watched the first 20 sec of the video) I know all about the STS. To critically examine ANY experimental cutting edge science project in retrospect is just stupid. the ones that worked were obviously the best ideas ever, the ones that didn't were obviously doomed to fail from the beginning. (and I'm not saying the STS was a failure at all) NASA had no idea what the problems were going to be. That was part of the project: to find out what the troubles were going to be. But wait: YOU ALL PLAY KSP! You people of all, should understand having the BEST idea for a spaceship and by the time you make all the comprises you need to to get to orbit.... its kinda meh. Indeed that's the lesson of KSP!