GoSlash27

panzer1b, Spaceplanes are actually easier than they were before. The intakes have been completely changed and now we need a lot less of them to keep an engine lit. If you want to keep your old designs as they are, try doing your speed runs higher up. Best, -Slashy

sardia, This one would cost $170 per passenger. Pretty cheap, but a better spaceplane can get under $100. Best, -Slashy

The Wheesley is a bit underwhelming now... except for how the tech tree is structured. It may have some application during career progression, but really there's only so much science you can collect with low speed jets. Best, -Slashy

(apologies for the poor pic quality) Tech level 6 spaceplanes are now possible thanks to the Panther and Mk.1 Crew cabins. Unfortunately, the Mk.1 docking port doesn't arrive until level 7, so it'll only be useful for EVA transfers. Release the hounds! -Slashy

Peder, This is neither "for" or "against" a stock DV calculator, but you didn't have to resort to trial and error merely because you didn't have a built-in calculator. You could've done the math on the side or even (the way I do it) used the math to design the ship. Best, -Slashy

To help Dres feel loved, I humbly submit a picture of a kitten hugging a potato. Best, -Slashy

1) Testbeds to evaluate the new engines 2) Panther/ Terrier spaceplane using the new Mk1 parts 3) A B-58 Hustler:) Best, -Slashy

Alshain, According to Scott Manley's video, the gimbal range can be adjusted or even locked. We're still left with a rocket that looks to be overpowered and too efficient. If they don't rebalance it, it will break the game. Best, -Slashy

I'd recommend going the other way. These engines are way overpowered for a full scale KSP shuttle. If their thrust is reduced drastically and their Isp is shaved a little, 3 of them will be perfect for a shuttle. As the stats stand now a full scale shuttle would only need 2. Best, -Slashy

royying, My current shuttle replica uses 2 SRBs and 3 Skipper engines that have a lot lower thrust and worse Isp. It's not hampered by this. 60% of the thrust and 15 seconds lower Isp is still enough for a full scale shuttle. The Vector could be bludgeoned with a nerf- bat and still do the job just fine. Best, -Slashy

I would agree with that. Make it so expensive that it has to be recovered in order to be economically feasible. But even then, I think it needs some nerfing. It's stats are better than the current aerospike at sea level. No way that should be happening. Best, -Slashy

uncle_jew, Best, -Slashy

The KrakBadger. A combination infiniglider and kraken drive that could shuttle between KSC and other atmospheric planets under constant acceleration/ deceleration without using any fuel. The DoubleDipper. It could make 3 round trip runs between KSC and a station in LKO with cargo without refueling. LifterCeption could orbit more than it's own mass. Voyager3. One of the first ion gliders to achieve orbit without resorting to infiniglide. Kondor1. My first munar lander in the 18.2 demo. Best, -Slashy

A core sample drill, automated surface sample scoop, atmospheric sample duct, mass spectrometer, and of course a telescope. It would be cool to have a science setup that restricts the available info about a body until you actually discover it. Best, -Slashy

I Zaprudered Scott Manley's video in HD and came up with some interesting info: - The new "Vector" LF&O engine looks to have 937kN of thrust and an Isp of 295s at sea level. This would make it one of the best boosters in the game. -The new form of the Wheesly will get an efficiency bump and thrust reverser. -The Panther will basically be a toggle-able combo of the current Wheesly and Whiplash, which will make it an excellent spaceplane engine *if* it tops out like the current Whiplash. - The Goliath will feature a very high efficiency (about 30% over the current Wheesly) and, of course, thrust reversing. I didn't get any new info on the Juno or Whiplash Of course... this all assumes that we get the same engine stats that Scott Manley was using. Best, -Slashy

Wait... you have the scanner but *not* the 1.25m procedural fairing?? How is that possible? The fairing is tech level 5 and the scanner is tech level 7. *Scratches head* Best, -Slashy

Hmm... according to Scott Manley's video (I Zapruder'd it in HD), the Vector is going to be a bit overpowered for a stock shuttle. I use 3 Skippers on mine (569 kN surface) and that's just about perfect. The Vector in his video gets 937 kN and 295s Isp on the surface. Other goodies I picked up: The Goliath gets 12,600s Isp. *very* economical. The new Wheesly gets a 10% bump in Isp to 10,500s and also has a thrust reverser. The Panther gets 9,000s and 72kN dry at low speed/ alt and 4,000s and 123 kN in afterburner. It's performance in afterburner is virtually identical to the current Whiplash and about like the current Wheesly dry, so it could make an excellent spaceplane engine *if* it can stay lit to a good altitude and speed. Best, -Slashy

M-Industries, Sadly, there isn't a simple equation for answering that question. Your speed is affected by drag and your drag is affected by speed. It's like a snake eating it's tail and there's no way to get a handle on it. You have to run a multi- iterative simulation (essentially the same thing as "launch it and see"). Sorry! -Slashy

Synergy25, Welcome to KSP! First off, this question should really be in the gameplay questions and tutorials section. In your case, the problem is that you're launching too steeply vertical, and so you're reentering too steeply vertical as a result. This means the thinner atmosphere at high altitude doesn't have the time to slow you down before you smack into denser air at crazy- high speed and overheat like a meteor. Try gently curving your flight path horizontal during launch. Best, -Slashy

Kagame, This thread is excellent: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/132178-how-to-make-space-shuttle If you wait a few days you'll have the new "vector" engine and it will make all of this much easier. Best, -Slashy

It's gonna be fun working out the new engines. Smaller hyper- efficient spaceplanes sound like a good deal.

The AlphaSim CH-53 was capable of flying into space due to a design bug that created negative drag during pitchovers. Best, -Slashy

numerobis, You can handle it. Best, -Slashy

FlyingPete, You can make SSTOs out of most of the engines in the game. Anything that doesn't have horrible Isp at sea level will do it. If you don't want to do the math, just pile on fuel until it's t/w is down to 1.4 at launch and go. Whatever fuel mass is left when you reach orbit is how much payload it can handle. The reason for SSTOs is cheap operating cost due to recovery of the vehicle, so if that's gonna be an issue it's better to just go with a disposable 2 stager. Best, -Slashy

Alshain, Oh yeah. I know. It's just that you stated that they would be painful to fly and you'd never get a proper gravity turn out of them and neither statement is factually accurate. Or at least neither statement is factually accurate for anybody but you. They actually fly just fine and have no problems executing a proper gravity turn so long as they're properly designed. All I'm saying is what I said earlier: They are much cheaper for disposable booster stages than LFO, and dramatically reduce launch costs for multistage boosters. The fact that you *choose* not to use them is a completely different issue and doesn't make it any less true. Best, -Slashy