GoSlash27

Brainlord Mesomorph, I'm having a hard time picturing a 350t Mk2 design. Could you post some pics? Best, -Slashy

I think of SSTO spaceplanes as being "delivery vans" or the old WWII "deuce- and- a- half". Perfect for shuttling personnel or delivering supplies, but not a good hauler for outsized/ bulky cargo or long distances. That's how I use them... If it's a mission that I have to run routinely and it involves moving between KSC and LKO with something that transfers through a docking port, then I have a spaceplane to do that job because it does it cheaply, reliably, and safely. If, OTOH, I have a mission that I rarely need to do involving a large mass or odd shape, then I use a vertical lifter for that job because it's not worth the effort or initial expense to design a spaceplane. Less economical, but quicker and easier. As always, your mileage may vary and there's no wrong way to approach the problem. Best, -Slashy

This was what was running through my mind this morning on my way to work. Correlation <> causation, yada yada. When relating historical material, it's totally natural to express the logical chain of historical events in an eerily similar fashion. Did she get that train of thought from this article, or did they both get the same train of thought from a third common source? How on Earth would anybody know that? It seems likely to me that either she had drawn heavily from this article or else the material it was based on and came to the same conclusions, *but* her story follows a sufficiently different path from theirs to lead me to think that it wasn't merely a cut 'n' paste hack job. So IMO screw it. Her storytelling is fun and engaging while theirs is dry and academic. If they ever happen to cobble together a cheesy rocket in KSP and launch it in order to recreate an obscure piece of space history, I'll be sure to watch it. Best, -Slashy

#1 cause of this is poor aerodynamics. You really need to streamline your rockets these days to keep them stable in the transsonic region. If that's not enough to keep it pointed in the right direction, add some fins in the back. Best, -Slashy

Funny... I ran across this comment on one of the articles: So there's that. Make of it what you will... Best, -Slashy

Step#1: Figure out the payload and DV budget Step#2: Go into the VAB and assemble the payload, check it's mass. Step#3: Plug the values and desired performance into my handy-dandy spreadsheet, which analyzes each engine simultaneously to tell me how many engines and tanks I would need and the projected cost. Step#4: Pick my preferred option and build it. Step#5: Revert to Step 2 for the preceding stage. Step#6: Repeat until I'm all the way back to the pad. Best, -Slashy

Jouni, As I said, this is true in the abstract, but as a *practical* matter neither of us actually operate that way IRL or in- game. It's all well and good to postulate that "money is just bits in a computer", but the guy at the gas station ain't tryin' to hear that when you need to fill up your car. You don't get gas unless he gets paid. Our ability to do what we wish is limited by how much money we have. We can spend less time earning money and more time accomplishing our personal goals by operating more cost- effectively. Therefore cost- effectiveness is a perfectly valid measure of efficiency. Now that we've both restated our position on the matter, I'm confident that we're not going to wind up in agreement about this. Rather than belaboring it, I'll happily bow out on this subject. Best, -Slashy

^ I gotta go along with this. Whatever the objective is, I'm pretty sure it's not "spend as little time as possible playing KSP". Best, -Slashy

I have regular 'senior moments', but when I go into the SPH or VAB I have a very clear idea of what I'm trying to accomplish. I know what parts are needed to accomplish the goal, the DV budget for the entire mission, and exactly how each stage needs to be constructed. I never design for cool factor, just practicality and efficiency. But because I'm old, I often forget what I'm supposed to be doing in the middle of doing it Best, -Slashy

Jouni, I disagree with this reasoning. "Funds" are indeed unlimited by your definition in KSP career, but by the same token they're equally "unlimited" IRL. We are all millionaires in that sense, it's just a matter of time and effort to get those funds into our bank accounts. This does *not* mean that financial constraints are irrelevant to our lives, nor are they immaterial to our fictional space programs. You cannot launch what you cannot afford to build and you have to "grind" to earn money just like real life. Therefore it *does* matter. The more efficiently you handle the money you have, the less time you have to waste grinding for funds. and ultimately eddiew has a point I'm inclined to agree with; spaceflight is spaceflight no matter where you're doing it. Docking a spaceplane in LKO is the same thing as a precision landing on Moho AFA gameplay is concerned. What matters is achieving the goals you wish to achieve instead of grinding contracts for cash. Of course all this goes out the window if you're playing sandbox. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - ^ Also this.

Yup. This is another difference. Some people find the act of assembling infrastructure and missions in orbit tedious while others actually enjoy it. If you're in the former group then you have no use for spaceplanes. If you're in the latter, then they're indispensable. Again, to each his own. Best, -Slashy

jmp470, Yes. I think this is the main difference between players who value spaceplanes and those that don't; the ones who are into efficiency and cost-effectiveness tend to use spaceplanes. The ones who aren't don't. Which is fine. To each his own... Best, -Slashy

Jouni, This isn't an advantage of rockets IMO. I use rockets to lift cargo exclusively, but that has more to do with bulk and scarcity of cargo missions rather than spaceplanes' inability to do them. What really perplexes me is the idea that the ability to lift 450t to orbit is apparently an important criteria. What on Kerbin are you folks putting into orbit that weighs 450t?? It's like the old Jerry Seinfeld comment about razor disposal containers in airliner bathrooms; I can't imagine actually shaving in an airplane bathroom let alone shaving so much that I'm wearing out blades... Best, -Slashy

Johnny Wishbone, I'm not worked up about it, I just don't care. Had Scott Manley committed international wire fraud, I wouldn't particularly care about that either. The videos are still just as entertaining and informative. Best, -Slashy

Cloudless Echoes, Launching a rocket in KSP and talking about an old obscure research progran isn't "journalism", so nope... still don't care. It will matter to me if I'm ever running a publication and she submits an article. The_Rocketeer, You can't be. She said she was no good at KSP. Best, -Slashy

^ Seriously. She's not a rocket scientist and never claimed to be. She's just an entertaining space buff who makes fun educational videos. AFAIK she never claimed to have done all the legwork herself. A lot of people on this forum "plagiarize" techniques that *I* pioneered and everything that I have ever done in KSP is based on the work of others who I almost never properly credit. This is the accepted price of making tutorials or videos. They recognize their own handiwork in others' creations just as I recognize mine. And we don't sit around complaining about "proper attribution". The idea is to further understanding and progress, not seek recognition. This all sounds asinine to me. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - xtoro, Well, that's where we differ I suppose. I don't subscribe to her channel, but I watch her space history videos and I enjoy them. If somebody else did a "I'm going to tell you about the Albert flights while recreating one in KSP" video, I'm not aware of it and I bet it wasn't as good as hers. Best, -Slashy

sardia, No particular reason, honestly It just seemed like the thing to do. It'd probably work fine without the adapter. I just ran the math and slapped it together. My method of slapping it together was "I'm stepping down from 2.5m to 1.25m, so adapter, booster, etc." Best, -Slashy

I personally don't care about the plagiarism. She took the opportunity to use KSP to educate us about an early moment in America's space program. I never knew about "Blossom rockets" or the Albert flights before. I always find Amy's space history videos fascinating. Best, -Slashy

xebx, Same thing everyone else said. The question was "What is the benefit of spaceplanes in KSP". Not in real life, but in KSP. In KSP, spaceplanes (or at least well- designed spaceplanes) are much more economical than rockets. They are also safer, more reliable, and have more divert options should something go wrong during the launch. Best, -Slashy

As I understand it, no. Not originally. The "home world" was to be a cold dead hidden planet with cities all over it. But none of that was ever implemented, so Kerbin is the home world now. Best, -Slashy

OhioBob, I'll have to verify it after work, but iirc the center booster is set to 100%, 2 radials are set to 75% and the remaining 2 radials are set to 60% *edit* Just checked. The center is set to 100. One pair is at 75 and the last pair is at 50. http://wikisend.com/download/311120/22t test.craft Best, -Slashy

If memory serves, the beings in the pic were, in fact, Kerbals. It was supposed to be a clue in the quest to find the Kerbal home world. Best, -Slashy

sardia, I attached the adapter to the stack decoupler, then the center booster to the adapter. After that, I attached the remaining boosters to the center booster. I'd need to see a pic of your setup before I could tell you why it's flimsy. Best, -Slashy

If you want to transport Kerbals and supplies to a station in LKO as cheaply and safely as possible, SSTO spaceplanes are the best way to do it. If these aren't your priorities than there's no reason for you to use them. Best, -Slashy

*raises hand*