GoSlash27

We are all aware of that. You're not using actual logic, either. Absolutely correct, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. False. From what I calculate, there should be many people who have had this happen. False and false. Anything "could" be argued but not every argument is correct. Now... I (and everyone else here) have attempted to set you straight and it's abundantly clear that you'd rather argue than listen. I'm happy to help you understand whatever you request (assuming I know it), but I have absolutely no interest in arguing with you. Carry on, -Slashy

Nicholander, It really varies widely now with t/w, drag, and air breathing engine type. I build my SSTOs to rely on aerodynamic efficiency rather than raw thrust, so I have never pitched up to 45° during my ascents. Step 1 is to build enough speed to get the angle of attack (difference between pitch and prograde vector) down below 5° Step 2, I climb as rapidly as I can while steadily increasing speed. Step 3, get your speed above 360m/sec Step 4, See step 2. Step 5, reduce your climb rate as engine thrust diminishes until you have hit max speed and altitude for your engine. This might be 13km and 800m/sec for a Panther or 25km and 1600 m/sec for a RAPIER. Step 6, engage rockets and *gently* increase pitch up to about 20° to climb out of the atmosphere, or as much as you can get while still accelerating. Finally, gradually reduce pitch to prograde as the air thins. HTHs, -Slashy

ForScience, Oh, no hostility intended. I'm simply pointing out that your math and reasoning are 100% dead wrong and explaining why. The smart man does not take correction of his mistaken beliefs as a personal attack, but rather an opportunity to learn something new. No educated man ever got that way from being right all the time Best, -Slashy

ForScience6686, Going by your logic, there are 2 possibilities: Getting 7 scientists in a row or not getting 7 scientists in a row. Since it's 50/50, there's no reason that this would be odd and therefore no reason for you to wonder if all rescued kerbals are scientists. But you did find it odd or else you wouldn't have asked. You have disproven your own argument. Your math is flat- out wrong and you would be wise to listen to these folks. They know more about this than you do. Best, -Slashy

Way back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, I didn't know that the brakes could be locked. After having this happen a few times, I would actually retract the landing gear to keep the aircraft from rolling away. Best, -Slashy

Gooru, What's your reentry technique? Where do you set your periapsis during deorbit? Best, -Slashy

Technion, You definitely want that tech node! Run, do not walk to click on that node. Not just because you can build a plane and study other biomes, but more importantly you can build a jet powered science car and collect the science from all the biomes at KSC. You can get like 15 science per area at KSC for materials study, goo observation, crew report, and EVA report. There's 10 biomes on KSC grounds you can just roll up to and collect science with very little time and effort, so that 45 science investment will pay back 150 science points pretty much instantly. 5th Horseman demonstrating: Best, -Slashy

TheGamer211, I use a combination of airbrakes and s-turns. KSP is definitely pickier about reentry techniques these days. Best, -Slashy

If anything's underpowered, I'd say it's the Mk1-2 capsule (4 tonnes, 3 crew) and the Mk2 lander can. (2.5t, 2 crew), I have found no use for the things. Best, -Slashy

Johould, The tailcone has more drag at subsonic speeds but much lower drag at Mach 1 and above. This is the critical part in spaceplanes. Best, -Slashy

Caveman challenge for 1.05 complete in 90 days. It's still doable. In fact... it seemed *easier* this time. Maybe because I've been through it once before.... Anywho, I took the "world first" low hanging fruit, science from the pad and runway, and then went to orbit. That unlocks a bunch of stuff. Then I recovered science from orbit and did the KSC tour. Somewhere along the way Val got me a crew report on a Mun flyby. After that, it was just recovering science from space (high Kerbin/ low+high Mun, low+high Minmus) followed by transmissions from surface probes (2 on Minmus and 3 on Mun). I never needed to farm science on Kerbin, take any contracts, or dock so it wasn't a grind at all. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - All, I won't be maintaining a cave wall or administering this challenge, but I'll leave the sig badge up on the honor system. http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g13/GoSlash27/KSP/Caveman%20challenge/Captain_CavemanII_zpsnnfdjuwr.jpg Good luck and have fun! -Slashy

Oh, yeah! A probe transmitting from the surface of Minmus will yield 116 science. I only have one more launch to go. *edit* well... maybe two. I'm going back to the Mun to replace my surface probe. It's battery capacity is woefully inadequate. Best, -Slashy

All, Just for kicks, I decided to start out 1.05 Caveman style. It's a bit tougher due to the atmospheric adjustments, and I'm concerned about attempting to return science to the surface for fear the tasty science will go all 'splodey. Nevertheless, I have 225 science points left to unlock everything. If transmitting from the surface gets grindy, I'll risk a return. Best, -Slashy

well... the hitch hiker is intended for long duration stays. A cabin has just enough room to sit. I don't think it's underpowered, I just think they need a way to discourage the use of cabins as long term accommodations. Best, -Slashy

According to my math, a "unit" is defined by mass, not volume. It's convenient that 90 "units" of fuel plus 110 "units" of oxidizer weigh precisely 1 metric ton. 1 unit of fuel is 5kg. 1 unit of oxidizer is 5kg. 1 unit of monopropellant is 4kg. 1 unit of xenon is 100g. 1 unit of solid rocket propellant is 7.5kg. Best, -Slashy

Pawelk, Congratulations! Jeb was my first Kerbal in orbit in 1.05 and Val was my first to visit the Mun (flyby). I personally make no allowances for gender. They are all qualified kerbonauts and I treat them as such. It is, however, important that I keep all of my kerbonauts in rotation in the early going so that they will be experienced for the later missions. As for your ship design and piloting: Excellent job on the gravity turn. It's textbook as far as I can tell. I personally would not stage just to activate another copy of the same engine. In my experience, SSTO is lighter than that approach. My early orbital flights had a SRB first stage and a Reliant upper. Best, -Slashy

Panzer1b, As you are no doubt aware, this sort of thing happens every time KSP is updated. In response, we collaborate and work out the new rules. We did it with the death of intake spamming, unified lift/ drag ratios, and exaggerated heat effects. We'll overcome this just like we always do. We'll adapt. Best, -Slashy

Batmanpuncher, Thanks for the effort you put into this. Scientifically- minded program managers are always welcome! Problem #1: This procedure assumes no payload. Payload fraction is paramount for stage design. Especially for upper stages. Problem #2: This procedure doesn't take into account t/w ratio. DV means nothing if it can't be applied efficiently. Problem #3: DV by itself isn't actually a useful measurement of efficiency from a design standpoint. What rocket designers need to know is which stage is lightest or cheapest. We have some good mathematicians and scientists working this problem and your approach and organization would be a benefit to the cause. Welcome aboard! -Slashy

Right, After fiddling with the numbers and empirical testing, I have come up with a recommended list of engine/ intake combos for minimum drag. Tech level 6: Panther, 1 Nacelle per, and Tailcone A as required. Tech level 7: Panther, 2 variable ramp inlet (radial mount) per Tech level 8: Whiplash, 1 Precooler, and Tailcone A as required. Tech level 9: RAPIER, 1 Precooler, and Tailcone A (better heat dissipation and lower drag) as required *or* 1 Shock cone inlet (better heat tolerance and lighter weight). Best, -Slashy

^This. When you run a mathematical analysis for mass and cost efficiency, you quickly find that the aerospike is almost never the best option. Best, -Slashy

Brainlord, Actually, it's not. It's always been like that. Cheers, -Slashy

Brainlord, Yeah, you'll have that. The orbital track is for orbital velocity, not surface. It doesn't compensate for Kerbin's sidereal rotation. Best, Slashy

Brainlord, Yeah, I'm aware of that. I have launched rockets before, ya know? I just deployed them to take a picture for you. Best, -Slashy

For example, a shuttle split tail speedbrake. Best, -Slashy

Brainlord, That's for using them as flaps or speedbrakes. You can set up an action group for deploying them, manually reverse their deployment direction, and manually toggle their initial state at launch. Hths, -Slashy