GoSlash27

Interesting... A lot of the information we've been operating with is incorrect. The Y+ direction is towards the attachment point, not necessarily forward. Several parts have different drag coefficients than are shown on this forum. For example, the structural intakes are actually *very* aerodynamic. I'm going to have to compile a new list. Best, -Slashy

Outstanding! This is exactly what I needed to know! "Depth, bounds center, and bounds extent" I don't quite get. I assume they have something to do with stacked occlusion... This is enough for me to start with. Thanks, -Slashy

All, From what I see, each part has 24 values to define it's drag box for each state (deployed/ retracted and so on) I notice a definite pattern in the values that makes me think they're grouped in 3s. This suggests a group of spline curves to me, but I can't reconcile 8 curves for 3 axes or 6 faces. OTOH, they might be in an order that's more useful for the game engine, or something else entirely *shrug* Does anybody know the definition for the values in a drag box by position? Thanks, -Slashy

To settle this once and for all... Also, this rig hits over 1000 m/sec with the gear retracted and 870 with them deployed. So yes, retracting the gear does reduce drag. Best, -Slashy

It looks like your rear airliner wing was cocked up at high incidence while the front ones weren't. That would cause some very odd behavior. Best, -Slashy

Best, -Slashy

Starman, If it were me, I'd definitely take the loss on the failed contract. I have no idea if it's possible on that mod, but I bet you can't do it for less than what the contract pays plus the failure penalty. Best, -Slashy

Do they point and laugh at the screen while substituting their own snarky dialogue? 'Cuz that sounds like it'd make a really funny TV show... Best, -Slashy

From the drag cube files: It *does* make a difference. There are also differences for the larger retractable gear. Best, -Slashy

The sig is deceiving; I taught myself to use slide- rules about 10 years ago. Still pretty old, tho'. Best, -Slashy

Kerbals are 2 consciousnesses in one body. This allows them to play "rock paper scissors" for centuries on end without ever getting bored.

srpadget, This seems to be what you're looking for... yes, believe it or not, this would actually make orbit back then. As would the individual rovers. Flying cars, yo! These ones went to Eve (hence the parachute packs). This is from way back in "souposphere" aerodynamics. You could do something similar now with a shroud. Just lift the rovers in a stack, transfer them to the mass mover as payload, and detach/ deorbit them at the destination. The "Tylo rover" concept was an all-in-one descent stage, tanker, hauler, bulldozer, exploration vehicle, and ascent stage. Best, -Slashy

^ Agreed. Dating myself, but there are no options here that I can click. Best, -Slashy

Actually, I did mean to return and I did. Remember, this was .18 demo. The RCS thrusters were my engines and I had to rendezvous and EVA to get back aboard my return capsule. There was no electrical drain in the demo, so solar panels/ etc weren't needed. Also, no docking ports in the .18 demo. And yeah, those landing gear were stock back then. In fact, they were the only ones available. A lot's changed since then... Best, -Slashy

That brings back some memories! My learning curve from back in the .18 demo. I followed NASA's progression as I learned how it all worked and every milestone felt like an awesome achievement. First spaceflight, orbit, rendezvous... The king of them all was when I first set foot on the Mun ^ Still have the pic. carneyvich, you have some serious "awesome" in your future -Slashy

haha it's like a baby picture I understand how you feel, and congrats! -Slashy /the first orbit is the best orbit

^ I second this. As much of a fan as I am of spaceplanes, I never use spaceplanes to orbit "things", only "stuff". Physical objects like space station segments are really best handled by vertical lifters while supplies and kerbals (basically anything that can pass through a docking port) is a good mission for spaceplanes. The reason for this is twofold: 1) You don't want to spend the time and energy to design and develop a spaceplane that you hardly ever use. Personnel transport and supply runs are flights that are done pretty often, while you will hardly ever need to orbit a chunk of space station. 2) Spaceplanes limit the size and shape of what they carry, which hampers your construction in orbit. Vertical lifters give you a way to lift whatever you want without limitations on mass, size, or shape. Good luck! -Slashy

passinglurker, I've had my share of suggestions that never gained traction, from hobbling the thrust of the RAPIER and TRJ so they're useless as vertical lifters to including a pure ramjet (doesn't work at all below Mach 1 but gets up to nearly orbital speed). They can't all be winners. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - Camaron, Yeah, but it has to be that way. Engines that good in KSP would break the game. I have a working shuttle orbiter for 1.04 and it's really pretty useless beyond the experience gained from making it. Vertical staged rockets can get the payload up there cheaper and spaceplanes are much more efficient, cheaper, and easier to make. Best, -Slashy

Typo. I've fixed it... Best, -Slashy

Destroyer, ^ This. Also... Your center of lift is too far behind your center of mass, so your elevators have insufficient leverage to get the nose up. Your fuel supply is too far back as well as too little to get you to orbit and your payload is too far forward. When you get to orbit and jettison the payload, your spaceplane will probably be unflyable on reentry. For a rough guide, check out this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/133668-simple-rule-to-build-spaceplanes Also, there are lots of good threads and tutorials on spaceplane design and construction. Also check the challenges, especially "Pro SSTO" and K-Prize. Lots of good starting points and ideas in there. Best, -Slashy

passinglurker, Thanks, but I've heard your rationale for this proposal before. I'm just not on board with it. That, or we just don't regard the proposal as highly as you do. *shrug* Best, -Slashy

^ This. I would much rather have electric props or internal combustion props that run on rocket fuel. Nothing that allows orbit or supersonic flight, just something that can be used to biome- hop or study the atmosphere. *edit* that's what fuel cells are for... Best, -Slashy

passinglurker, Thanks, but I'm not interested in non- airbreathing jets and I only play 100% stock installs. Best, -Slashy

Well... the Panther is cool and so are the airliner/ cargo plane parts... but I fail to see the utility of them in career or science mode. Unless you just happen to like building airliners and fighter planes (which... nuthin' wrong with that), I don't see how they give us anything that improves gameplay. That is... unless we are going to need to haul lots of kerbals and/or cargo long distance for science or maybe set up tracking stations. And even then... fighters? *scratches head*.. I'd really like to see more development in other areas, personally (although I do loves me some spaceplanes)... but I'd love to have electric props, hydrogen bags for blimps, pontoons, automatic part recovery for boosters/ etc. Best, -Slashy

Hmm... I wonder what the utility is going to be for airliners/ cargo planes or fighters. It's cool that we can build those, but I don't see how they're going to be useful in career or science mode. Best, -Slashy