GoSlash27

This is the technique I use: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104638-Reverse-gravity-turn-landing-technique-for-airless-bodies Best, -Slashy

Hot off the presses! This is carrying way more cargo to LKO than a single RAPIER would normally do. wing Cl/ mass is a little under 1/2 on this one. Best, -Slashy

I'll see your Stingray and raise you a "President Camacho". http://wikisend.com/download/987652/Camacho.craft Development cost $0. I haven't taken it out of the SPH, but I'm pretty sure it'll work. I stumbled upon an odd principle and decided to post it here before I fly it. If it works, it should rack up quite a score. Procedures: Pretty vague, so you'll have to wing it. -It looks like it sits pretty low, so I wouldn't risk rotating it on takeoff. -It should gradually build speed and barely get through Mach 1 at around 10km. Keep the AoA at 3° and cross your fingers. -If it's like the others, you should be able to hit at least 1,400 m/sec before going closed cycle. -I havent set up any action groups. Toggle the mode manually. -Reentry: I haven't the foggiest idea. I'd expect it to be very aerodynamically clean. Airbrakes are available, so go with your best guess. Best, -Slashy /now to try it and see if it flies... - - - Updated - - - I won't provide any impressions or recommended adjustments so this flight doesn't incur a development cost, but it does work. Best, -Slashy

This is the conventional wisdom. *however*... A single RAPIER can accomplish more than most would assume. The key is to use *more* wing, not less. The Mk2 fuselage makes more drag at 5° incidence than the parasitic drag of the wings required to get the incidence down to 3° at the same airspeed and altitude, so you make *less* net drag when you add more wings. Therefore the correct wing loading (at least by my testing so far) is closer to 1:1. Of course, this assumes that you're actually flying to orbit rather than following a gravity turn. Best, -Slashy

*Update* At least 20 tonnes per RAPIER, looks like.

Interesting! It appears that if you increase the lift by adding wings, you can accelerate more mass supersonic and beyond than you could otherwise do. This is a single RAPIER pushing 14.4t to beyond 1.5km/sec ground speed. It acts more like a TJ than a RAPIER (notice I didn't have to stop my climb to go supersonic). The standard right now is mass/10 is how much Cl you should have, but this is at m/2. Apparently the increase in parasitic drag is more than made up for by the reduction of induced drag from the Mk2 fuselage sections. Using more wing means that you can fly at a lower angle of attack, thus reducing overall drag. I wonder how far I can take this... Best, -Slashy

ogolommi, I can't tell what's going on from the pic (too many mods), but perhaps the problem is your rocket is *too* stable to work on Eve. If you have too many tailfins with too much area and they're too far back, it'll lawn- dart on Kerbin. Something that works fine on Kerbin would be expected to be too stable for Eve. Good luck! -Slashy

ajburges, The burn time formula I posted would model the thrust over time. It would not predict the effect of cosine losses, which is what I think you're after. Using the model I provided would tell you precisely when to start a low twr burn. It just won't tell you what happens as a result of starting it so early or which way to point. Best, -Slashy

I thought this had been dispelled a long time ago as a hoax? Best, -Slashy

All keyboard for me too. I have a very pimpin' Saitek X-55 and rudder pedals I got for Flight Sim X and Superbug, but even after all this time I've never bothered reconfiguring for KSP. Best, -Slashy

My "kid" (he's 22) is the one who introduced me to KSP. Best, -Slashy

Han shot first, like any proper stuck up half- witted scruffy looking nerf herder would do. Best, -Slashy

haha noob everybody knows it's L shift-O Seriously... how awesome would an Android port be? I may as well just give up on real life at that point... Best, -Slashy

That just gave me a thought (as the thread wanders off course as though it's being navigated by bolted- on preschoolers...) Graybeards have a whole lot more patience than their younger counterparts, so we don't mind the time and frustration involved in tinkering. We are, however more apt to forget what it was we were trying to accomplish in the first place... Best, -Slashy

I can vouch that MoeslyArmlis definitely knows how to kick off a career efficiently Is voltronning together overweight ships on the pad "cheating"? No. But if I were involved in coding, exceeding the mass limit of the pad would result in it's destruction, requiring funds to rebuild it. FWIW, I don't think that building overweight ships is really useful for avoiding the grindiness of early career. Fun, but not really helpful. As we have established in the Caveman challenge, the early career objectives can all be met within the weight limit of tier zero facilities. We can get science from the Munar surface and even transmit from the surface of Duna without upgrading any facilities or exceeding the limits. So while this is cool and even gives capabilities that can't be achieved with bone- stock facilities... I don't think doing this will allow players to spin up their careers any quicker. Best, -Slashy

ajburges, I'd think you could fairly easily compute that with a simple spreadsheet without having to integrate. The mass is going to decrease linearly over time and the force is constant. Therefore the acceleration will increase linearly over time. The mean acceleration will be the same as the integrated acceleration, so finding time is straightforward. t= DV/Am Am= (A1+A2)/2 A1= T/M1 A2= T/M2 M2= M1/Rwd Rwd= e^(DV/9.81Isp) where t= time in seconds DV= delta vee in m/sec Am= mean acceleration in m/sec^2 A1= initial acceleration in m/sec^2 T= thrust in kilonewtons M1= initial mass in kg A2= ending acceleration in m/sec^2 M2= ending mass in kg e= Euler's number; approx. 2.718 Isp= specific impulse in seconds. I just realized I totally misunderstood what you were after! I thought you wanted a precise burn time calculation. Sorry! Best, -Slashy (please correct any errors if you spot them!)

I use it for all the early stuff where I need a controller. Once I have a better controller, I ditch it. Best, -Slashy

Actually, no (though good guess). It's a reference to Kordell "Slash" Stewart; the Pittsburgh Steelers' quarterback from the mid- 90s to early 2000s. I was 27 years old when I adopted it (roughly when dinosaurs ruled the Earth) and I've kept the same handle ever since. My nick is probably older than most members of this forum Best, -Slashy /get off my lawn!

Clipperride, I suppose it's just another example of "diff'rent strokes". I'm with you; the trial and error/ experimentation/ note taking/ failure/ eventual success and deeper understanding... For me, that's the *most fun* part of KSP. I always seem to enjoy it more when I'm in the laboratory fighting to understand than I do just managing missions I've already sorted out. I suppose this is just another part of KSP's broad appeal. Best, -Slashy

Greenfire32, Thanks! It's responses like this that make all the mucking about worthwhile. Go forth and space like a rockstar! Best, -Slashy

There's a huge supply of SSTO spaceplanes with TWR <1. We've got them in the K prize thread and pro builder challenge. I'm sure there's loads of them on the craft exchange also. The Mainway Adobe is a very low t/w SSTO with large payload fraction. Also low- tier tech. It weighs 36 tonnes and is powered by 2 Whiplashes, 18t per engine. sea level t/w .72. LTP II: Something I arrived at helping someone else optimize their spaceplane. 126 tonnes, powered by 6 Whiplashes. 21t per engine, sea level t/w .62. The easy way to do it is this: Build a spaceplane with nothing but fuel and oxidizer. Optimize the ascent profile to get it to your desired orbit with as much fuel and oxidizer left as possible. Whatever fuel and oxidizer is left can be considered "payload", so now build another one where you replace the leftovers with useful payload. As you do this, experimenting with ratios and parts, you will quickly work out rough guides of what you need to make a spaceplane for whatever payload. Best, -Slashy

Overall I found her to be very easy to fly. I had a bit of a learning curve since my craft tend to be a bit more responsive (I suppose some would say 'twitchy'). I struggled at first to get the feel, but found it in time to get her there and home again. If there's a category for 'made it by the skins of their teeth' this entry should be in it. That's only due to pilot error, though. Thanks for the challenge! Very happy landing! p.s. I'm hoping to try a builder entry shortly. Starhawk, Congrats on the flight! I never really designed that SSTO for 100km orbit, so I think you've gotten about all the performance out of that design that can be had. Best, -Slashy

Nothalogh, Different disagreement and parties, but same principle. I don't concern myself with what "should" be or "principle". I merely focus on what works and what doesn't and build accordingly. Objectively in KSP 1.04, precoolers aren't worth the mass, drag, or expense because they don't bring anything worthwhile to the table. You can make better SSTOs without them than you can with them. That, in itself, is enough reason for me to leave them on the shelf (though I agree that this means the game needs rebalancing) Best, -Slashy

JR, Ain't nuthin' wrong with that. I'm kinda the same way. The folks who have been around for a while know the "impossible" things I managed to accomplish in earlier iterations of KSP. It's just that I tend to go the opposite way when I find and demonstrate the loopholes. It's important that KSP be accessible to keep the frustration down, but it's equally important to avoid breaking the game by making certain techniques and parts too good or too bad in comparison to others. Whenever you buff one part or approach too much, you effectively nerf all others. This has to be done carefully to avoid obviating a large portion of the parts and/ or techniques, rendering the game one dimensional. Conversely, you don't want everything to be equivalent (different looking parts that are all equal) or else you destroy the challenge because it no longer matters how you go about it. All of this needs to be balanced to make a game that's engaging and educational without being too frustrating or too easy. I don't think we've perfected the balance yet, but I do think that 1.04 is the best I've seen so far. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - My opinion: Totally worthless. They were helpful in 1.02, but they don't seem to do squat these days. Intercoolers don't add any thrust whatsoever. They do help spaceplanes run cooler, but they don't overheat without them. All they add is mass, drag, and cost. Best, -Slashy

I'm known as a huge KSP SSTO guy, but here's my career Kerbal- fetcher: Reason: super- low tech, cheap, reliable, easy to operate. I don't like to wait for high tech parts to start collecting Kerbals. Best, -Slashy