GoSlash27

I used to assume that the church was responsible for the loss of all the scientific knowledge during the dark ages. It turns out that it was really the fall of the Roman Empire that caused it. The entire infrastructure of European society collapsed and people had to live through generations of feudal wars, barbarian attacks, plagues, famines, etc. They focused on what they needed to get by and didn't worry about minor concerns like "science" or "literacy". I think people are still like that today; they simply don't care about petty issues like this because it has no bearing on them. They focus on the things that matter to them. What I take away from these polls: I'm thankful that I live in a society that allows me the luxury of knowing the correct answer. Best, -Slashy

A good summary. A couple minor points to throw in: DV is expressed in m/sec. We would not say "it takes 5000 DV", we would say "it takes 5km/sec DV". Isp is shorthand for "specific impulse" and represents the ratio of thrust to fuel consumption. It is expressed in seconds; the Terrier has a sea level Isp of 85s. Best, -Slashy

This about a thousand. If we'd all just picture a 2.5m tank butt on the Vector, we wouldn't be mistaking it for some kind of wonder- engine. It's not an OP 1.25m engine, it's just a 2.5m engine minus the wide base. Best, -Slashy

Stupid space bears!

I'm fine with the Panther at tier 6. I'd really like to see the entire game reshuffled so that ground vehicles and airplanes are actually useful in career mode. As it stands now, there's no need for them. Best, -Slashy

Schpaget, Wasn't me. The map is filling in nicely Best, -Slashy

JackBush, You're bound to get into trouble when you start adding stuff to an existing design. The design should ideally be built to the mission spec in the first place. Step 1 is to figure out how much total mass one of your engines can lift at your desired t/w ratio. Step 2 is to figure out how much of your total vehicle needs to be fuel in order to meet the DV requirement. You also need to figure in the tank mass, which is 1/8 of the fuel mass. Total mass minus engine,fuel, and tank mass= payload. Once you have that, it's a simple matter to scale the design linearly for your payload requirement. See here for more info: Best, -Slashy

ForScience6686, I recommend 2 Terriers for each Panther or 1 Poodle per pair of Panthers. Both should already be unlocked by the time you get the Panther. Best, -Slashy

You've probably got something outside that wasn't perfectly mirrored in symmetry. Happens all the time, unfortunately. Best, -Slashy

I'm pretty sure the focus on spaceplanes is for a much more mundane reason; PorkJet's stuff is 1) free and 2) easy to incorporate. And PorkJet is a spaceplane guy. If we had somebody donating rocket parts of the same caliber, I'm pretty sure we'd have more rocket content. I'm a spaceplane guy myself, and I have to admit that spaceplanes and aviation in general have only marginal utility at best in a stock career. This is a game balance issue that probably needs to be addressed at some point. We have a vast selection of airplane parts, but no practical reason to make airplanes. The paltry amount of science available in far- flung biomes simply doesn't justify the time and effort required to collect it. Best, -Slashy

Machinosaure, The Mk.0 fuel tank attaches radially pretty much anywhere. If you attach a couple tanks with mirror symmetry, you can put intakes on the front and engines on the back. Best, -Slashy

CosmicCharlie, Looking at your pic, the SRBs are mounted too high in relation to the core and too high on the decouplers. Either will cause collisions. Not related to your collision problem... aerodynamics matters now. You'll have better results with a series stack design instead of a pancake design. It will lose less DV to drag and also be more stable. In addition (okay, so it *is* sorta related to your collision problem).. series stacking would eliminate the potential for collisions because the jettisoned stages are behind you instead of next to you. Finally... it appears to me that you don't need SRBs at all in this design. Your core stage seems to be able to easily lift itself. SRBs should really only be used for 1) adding thrust to get a weak core off the pad and moving or 2) acting as a cheap disposable first stage. You'd have better luck adding fuel rather than boosters. This would also eliminate the collision problem, since there would be no SRBs to collide with. Best, -Slashy

Nope, no dice. I tried putting on an under-loaded circularization stage to bring the mass up to exactly 18 tonnes. Not good enough. If it can be done, it will have to be by somebody other than me. Best, -Slashy

Yeah, I tried it a few times. I don't think fleas can do the job in 18 tonnes. I can try 1 more thing... Best, -Slashy

CosmicCharlie, Your SRBs colliding with your ship is a result of how you have them attached to your stack, not the flight profile. We would need to see some pics in order to help you troubleshoot your problem. Best, -Slashy

All of the above. If the only intake you have access to is the small circular intake, then you haven't unlocked enough tech to make a practical SSTO spaceplane. Wait until tech level 6 at the very least and tech level 8 if you haven't built and flown an SSTO spaceplane before. They are expensive and difficult to get right and will tank your entire career if you don't have experience with them. Best, -Slashy

The best advice I can give you: You don't need to build "bigger" to reach further. You just need to build more efficiently. You can run missions all the way out to Eeloo and back complete with labs and landers without resorting to huge part counts and struts. If you just want to build big, I definitely recommend launching them in chunks and assembling them in orbit with the 2.5m docking ports. Finally... If you need to strut, don't just add a bunch of struts across a weak point as band- aids. Use them so that they complete a triangle. Where you add struts counts for a lot more than how many. Hth's -Slashy

Under 6 tonnes. Outstanding!

Don't give up on hard mode! You can do it without cheating. Best, -Slashy

Pecan, I took the OP to mean that he's working a rescue in career and hasn't upgraded the tracking station or mission control yet. Best, -Slashy

Mister Spock, You can still target visually like you attempted to do, but you'll need to get closer than that. If memory serves, 2km is the cutoff. Best, -Slashy

cephalo, It works, but not what I'd call "well". My first 1.05 spaceplane design was a Panther/ Terrier. It only gets 2t payload per engine, which is pretty dismal. The Whiplash can get 8 and the RAPIER over 10. It's the "almost as fast" part that shoots it in the leg. You have to make up the speed/ altitude difference on rocket power and that means a lot more fuel and oxidizer than the other designs. But as I said, it does work. Best, -Slashy

The Panther and LV-909 make practical spaceplanes workable. Nowhere near the payload fraction you can get from the Whiplash, but still good enough to get the job done. Best, -Slashy

Kokanee, I circularized before TMI. I also used the TMI stage for munar circularization and deorbit burn. I used the lander stage for landing, return to Munar orbit, and TKI. And yeah, Photobucket has it all jumbled and it's frustrating. I'll have to try imgur. Best, -Slashy

steuben, If you're at tier 3, then air breathing really isn't practical. I'd recommend sticking with rocket power. Vertical takeoff is more efficient. You can build a practical SSTO using any of the engines you've unlocked thus far. I think you may have overheating problems with the landing gear on reentry. The fixed ones have low temperature tolerance. Good luck! -Slashy