GoSlash27

*edit* Round 2 cleanup Softened up the controls as described earlier. No active controls except the forward canards and no active rudders. Drained the monoprop to leave 15 units. Drained 100 units of LF. Arrived in 75x75 orbit with 444 m/sec DV and another 100 units of excess fuel. Still more cleanup to go, but this is plenty capable of doing whatever you want in LKO. This is already more DV than I design mine to have for ferry duties. By way of comparison, here's my high- efficiency low tech spaceplane: This illustrates how little is actually necessary to do this job. Best, -Slashy

A single terrier is kinda dicey for a ship of this size. I'd personally go with a Poodle or 2 Terriers. Not really necessary though. It makes orbit as- is. Just get rid of the struts and you'll be good to go. Also, you should ditch the monoprop. You don't need all that just to dock. I usually run about 15 units on a ship of this size. You've got like 350. Finally, you've got about 150 more units of LF than you need. You could rebalance (or just ditch it) and save more overall DV. And again, thin the herd on the active control surfaces. It flies much better without so much authority. This should set you straight. Nice design! Best, -Slashy

DarkMechanic, This looks like a really good revision! The reason you're having stability issues is because you've got too much active control surface. A proper spaceplane should fly like a sled, not a fighter. Twitchiness is bad. Try disabling all aft control surfaces (especially the rudders), have roll and pitch on the canards and see if it flies better. If it's a little too heavy that way, try disabling roll on the canards and enabling it on the elevons. I pitch my ram intakes down a bit because I'm usually flying with 5° angle of attack by the time I hit 20km altitude and that gives me a little more air. Still not happy with the rocket engine. You don't need that much rocket thrust for that sized plane and the Isp isn't very good. Still... it looks to my tired eyes like this plane should do the job as it sits. I think your ascent profile may need fine- tuning. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - *Edit* Just downloaded it and played around with it. #1 too many struts. Struts kill your coefficient of drag. *edit2* Yeah, that's your problem. I yanked off all the struts and it took off like a raped ape. Got to orbit no problem. 147 m/sec DV on orbit, where before it was about 400 m/sec short.

I don't think planes are getting more emphasis. The gameplay in science and career modes still require rockets almost exclusively and pretty much everything that's worth doing beyond LKO is easier to do with rockets. It's just that airplanes have been getting most of the new parts. Why? Because PorkJet is making them and he's primarily an airplane guy. He's not obligated to make anything at all, so rather than complaining, I'm going to be thankful for the new toys he's bestowed upon us. This is not to say that I wouldn't appreciate new and upgraded rocket parts. Perhaps if they enlist the help of a rocket guy/ gal to complement PorkJet... Best, -Slashy

It will definitely be useful when the new update drops. We had a challenge a few months ago to accomplish this very thing. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/121635-KASA-Preferred-Vendor-challenge-2-is-up! The way I did it definitely took some mathing. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Vendor%20challenge%201 1) Launch the satellite into a convenient periodic parking orbit*. 2) Track the satellite from the ground at KSC and mark the time of it's passage overhead. 3) The satellite's longitude is now a function of time. 4) Compute the transit time between the parking orbit and KSO. 5) Compute the transfer window backwards. 5a) Compute how far Kerbin will rotate in the transit time 5b) Compute the satellite's longitude at transfer (180°-rotation) 5c) Compute the time to initiate transfer 6) ??? 7) Profit! This can be put into a spreadsheet once you've got the process sorted out. *periodic parking orbit: An orbit that passes overhead KSC an integer number of times per day. I used 10 times per day (once every 36 minutes) so that the math was easier. Best, -Slashy *Edit* very simple procedure for parking a kerbostationary sat directly overhead KSC: 1) Launch into a parking orbit at 101,306m altitude 2) Mark the time that it passes overhead KSC from a guidance unit on the ground. 3) Burn for transfer to KSO 26m 23s later. Ap 2,868,723m , maneuver costs 650 m/sec 4) circularize at Ap. Maneuver costs 424 m/sec.

FancyMouse, IME it's possible to hit any orbit cheaply, even if the desired orbit is perpendicular at the start. Just burn at the intercept to get a CPA at the An or Dn, then burn retro at Pe just enough to get capture. Once you're slung out to Ap, the burn required to match the plane is peanuts. Best, -Slashy

Tazin, I'd calculate it the same way as a standard equatorial orbit for Ike. It doesn't actually take any more DV to set the inclination at Ike if you do it early. Hit up Duna for the aerobrake and prograde/ radial to get the intercept. Once you've got that, the difference between equatorial and polar is trivial. 1100 m/sec for an Ike intercept from LKO using aerobraking at Duna, then another 200 m/sec to circularize at Ike. Plus whatever percentage safety margin you like. Good luck! -Slashy

DarkMechanic, Judging by the looks, not a lot wrong here. I would get rid of the structural intakes; intake spamming is no longer helpful. You might consider replacing the Swivels with a single Aerospike. Also, what's up with the odd- looking circular intakes? Your main problem seems to be the ascent profile. You should be well over 1km/sec and 20 km altitude before you switch to rockets. Best, -Slashy

kookoo_gr, Congratulations and welcome to the clan! Yes, there's still some room on the cave wall for you! Cake99, Welcome aboard and good luck! Best, -Slashy /I think we're gonna need a bigger cave...

Sheesh, 5 pages and you folks are still arguing about this?? Squad isn't going to decide to implement this change based on who "wins" this argument, you know. Best, -Slashy

All due respect, but you're off into 100% political territory. I don't believe anybody actually wants a discussion about the pros and cons of maintaining a nuclear arsenal on this page. You clearly are passionate about your position and there are others who no doubt disagree just as passionately... but this ain't the place for it. Best, -Slashy

I knocked together a very crude demonstration of an offset lifter with no RCS, vernors, or reaction wheels. Not good for anything other than a learning aid. It will eventually flip out once the center of mass falls behind the center of lift, but it's reasonably stable to well over Mach 1. Download link to follow once Wikisend decides to act right. Best, -Slashy

Well... I wouldn't go quite that far, but I definitely disapprove of the idea. Making ICBMs that are needed is one thing. Making ICBMs that aren't wanted or needed and paid for with taxpayer money (or debt) as a jobs program... not so much. It's completely wayward thinking IMO. Heck... these wouldn't even make particularly good ICBMs. Best, -Slashy

selfish_meme, I'm not sure yet. They should be really good for early career exploring, roof hoppers, and marker drones. I'll see how they pan out when I have them. I'd really prefer to have props, but if I can't have those, these should work out better than the current basic jet. Best, -Slashy

This is true, but it's because PorkJet did them and PorkJet happens to be primarily a plane guy. They're basically incorporating his (freakin' awesome) airplane stuff wholesale because it's payware quality out of the box. If there's somebody out there who does this level of work with rockets and gets tapped for inclusion, we'll see new and more polished rocket parts. If there's one rocket part I'd put on my wish- list, it would be an engine to fill the gap between the Skipper and the Mainsail. I often find myself facing a design situation where the one is too weak and the other is overkill. Best, -Slashy

juanml, ruthless attention to efficiency, mostly. My spaceplanes are built to the bare minimum to do the job and flown in the most efficient profile, so the spiraling requirements for more engines fuel and structure are eliminated. It's surprising how little you actually need to put a payload in orbit! The key is to think in terms of "what do I need to get rid of" instead of "what do I need to add". Best, -Slashy

I make rockets and spacecraft too. A lot of them use plane parts. Some of them plane parts exclusively. Au contraire; While I might not find a use for some of these parts, I have ideas for most of them. I expect PorkJet to focus primarily on plane stuff. That's kinda his specialty. And I don't confuse "moar plane parts" with "less rocket parts". Ragging on planes does absolutely nothing for the development of rockets. I'm thankful for whatever goodies I get. While I do believe that we could use more and updated rocket parts, that's a case of "not enough" rockets rather than "too much" planes IMO. Best, -Slashy

I like everything that's going on in this album! I don't begrudge the focus on plane parts because 1) It's PorkJet and 2) atmospheric flight should be an integral part of early career. I'm taking this new inline cockpit and making a B-58 first chance I get. Best, -Slashy

You know... I had originally intended to do this as part of my career development before the tech tree was complete, but I soon realized that it just plain isn't worth it in terms of time and effort. It would take years to process enough data to unlock the tree, while simply retrieving enough science to Kerbin can be done in less than a month. I'm sure it'd be a different story once the tree is unlocked, when the idea is to generate operating funds. Best, -Slashy

Looks like it's coming along nicely. I'd recommend ditching the turbojet completely and replacing it with a nose cone. I don't think an aerospike is going to have the oomph to push that up to orbital velocity in time by itself, and it's thrust is low compared to the RAPIERs so you wouldn't improve the overall Isp very much. Now that you've achieved orbit, your next goal is to start trimming your spaceplane back. As you can see, it's way more spaceplane than is necessary for this job. Efficiency tends to build on itself, and it also allows you to build a more rigid and easier-to-fly vehicle. Good luck! -Slashy

Ideally, yes, but IRL there was a caveat that went ignored: except where it's cheaper not to. Another subject for another day... All true. STS/ Buran style launchers are pretty pointless in KSP. Vertical rockets can get the same payload into orbit much more cheaply even when you don't bother recovering the pieces. SSTOs easily outperform them in all ways and are 100% recoverable to boot Not to mention easier to make... The only reason to make one in KSP is the challenge of it. Best, -Slashy

davidpsummers, First of all, congratulations! Now... Struts are murderously draggy, so you want to avoid using them whenever possible. A lot of the time you can make the structure more rigid by reshuffling parts instead of adding struts. You wouldn't want a load traveling through multiple attach nodes. Instead of attaching the wings to the outer engine pod, why not attach the wing directly to the fuselage and have the pods directly above or below it? Or instead of having 2 pods on each side, just have 1 that is composed of Mk2-twin Mk1 adapters. That would eliminate an attachment node. Can we see a pic of what you have right now? Here are some examples of unorthodox construction techniques (not suggestions for specific design choices) Best, -Slashy

Some additional pics to show the alignment: SRBs and full tank. Red lines are the direction of thrust. Black & yellow sphere is center of mass. Full tank, SRB jettison Empty tank Tank jettison, OMS engines Reentry & landing, no payload Best, -Slashy

^ What RIC said. The SSMEs were pointed down because the center of mass was ahead of and below the orbiter during launch. Once the tank was jettisoned, the SSMEs were just along for the ride. The OMS engines weren't there to "balance" the SSMEs, they were the sole source of thrust for all orbital maneuvers, including retro burn. Accordingly, they were aimed through the orbiter's center of mass. Best, -Slashy

gmiddlemass, It's not pointless. It's a push poll. Best, -Slashy