GoSlash27

I use plane parts for my SSTOs. I occasionally use plane parts on my rockets for stabilization. I use plane parts for planes. I occasionally use plane parts for other purposes. Basically, I use plane parts wherever they prove useful. I have no problem with having more of them made available to me. Best, -Slashy

This is true, but the unfired propellant isn't eco-friendly or less hazardous. Best, -Slashy

True, but it is necessary. You can't build a crooked rocket without having crooked thrust. You've got all the fuel on one side and all the engines on the other. You ain't goin' to space if you don't account for that fact. Best, -Slashy

Umm... If it's intended to be fired in space, then it doesn't matter how "eco- friendly" the exhaust is. Best, -Slashy

Amy Teitel is a steely-eyed missile woman and she really knows her stuff when it comes to space history. I'd get all worked up about it, but I'm too old for such foolishness Best, -Slashy

Cannon, Shuttles are hard. *Seriously* hard. There are a lot of weird design tricks to making them, but you will figure them out on your own. The #1 most important thing to burn into your brain is this: Your engines must not thrust "forward". They must thrust through the center of mass. As you have already noticed, failure to do this will make shuttles that tumble and crash. Find your center of mass. Find where it will be when you're full on the pad and where it is when you're empty just short of orbit. Track where it moves throughout the flight. Design accordingly so that your center of thrust is always pointing through it in every stage of the flight. Not only do you have to design so that your engines thrust through the center of mass, but you also have to design so that your center of mass moves in a straight line towards the engines as the fuel drains. If you sort this out, the rest is easy.... sorta. Shuttles are difficult to fly even when they're perfectly balanced. Study the first pic: The engines are all splayed out instead of pointed the same way. They converge at the center of mass. They must *always* converge at the center of mass. Everything pushing through center of mass The SRBs were offset a hair inboard, so even without them the SSMEs are still pushing through center of mass. The center of mass travelled inboard and aft throughout the flight, so even with the empty tank the engines kept alignment. But... Without the tank, the center of mass shifts way inboard. Accordingly, the OMS engines must be aligned through the new center of mass. Success! The center of mass is everything in shuttles. Good luck! -Slashy / have I mentioned the center of mass?

I'm gonna have mine set up so that not only are they perfectly-spaced, but also pass over KSC at the same times every day down to the second so that I can periodically measure and correct drift. Best, -Slashy

"Simple" would be a payload, guidance, engine, and fuel tanks (probably some passive fins to keep it stable) The idea is to get used to the mechanics and math before you start trying to pull off complicated beasts. Best, -Slashy

Mathematically, I'd expect you to hit the Munar surface at 775m/sec from that orbit without a burn. The absolute minimum DV to arrest to a safe landing that way would also be 775 m/sec, assuming infinite thrust and no weight penalty for generating the thrust. This does *not* mean that more thrust is the way to go about it, though. As others have said, you really need to operate your lander from a low circular orbit. If you're in a 10km circular orbit, you're orbiting at 557m/sec. Doing a zero descent rate approach from there would require 2 burns: Burn #1 to set Pe just above the surface (6.8 m/sec) Burn #2 to arrest lateral velocity (578 m/sec) Total DV 584 m/sec. Again, this is a theoretical absolute minimum, but it's clearly preferable to 775 m/sec. Now... this figure will go up with the approach method you're using. If you're using the "stop 'n' drop" method, it'll cost 578 m/sec to arrest your lateral velocity and then another 181 m/sec to arrest your freefall velocity at the surface for a total of 759 m/sec. Using an intermediate method will yield somewhere in between, but even this is preferable to bombing in from a 2 million meter apoapsis. And here's where it gets weird: Raising the t/w very quickly yields diminishing returns, and soon adds no measurable benefit. Running a lower t/w will generate higher DV losses from gravity, *but* these losses may be offset by the reduced mass, structure, and fuel consumption attendant with carrying less engines. Each engine has an ideal t/w for a given body fir high mass efficiency, and it's usually in the range of 1.2-1.6 for launches and *less than* 1 for landing. We devoted way more time and energy to studying this than is probably healthy Best, -Slashy

I have played with satellite spacing for fun 'n' profit, and this is how I did it. Of course, not using this particular tool, but same method. We're all going to have to learn how to do this with the next update. Best, -Slashy

I don't bother upgrading my VAB or pad beyond level 2 in career because level 2 is way more mass and parts than I could ever imagine needing. Six *hundred* parts?!? Wow! O_o I have a pretty good gaming setup, and that would reduce it to an oil painting. Best, -Slashy

Taiber, I follow the same philosophy that you do, except I don't use KER. Instead, I mathematically model each engine in a scenario simultaneously, exactly how much fuel and how many engines it needs, and then determine which configuration is the most efficient. This eliminates all trial- and- error in the VAB. I have put together a spreadsheet for this purpose, so I can design an entire vehicle wherever I happen to be. Best, -Slashy

Bring them up so that the center of thrust is in line with the center of mass. A standard nose cone will work fine. An advanced nose cone will work better. A single shock cone intake will work even better still, but looks kinda dorky. Best, -Slashy

Also a classic Another song that's appropriate to this audience: Best, -Slashy

No, no. Delete the 2 in the back and keep the 4 under the wings. Yessir. Best, -Slashy

^ I second Capi's advice; 4 is more than plenty.

davidpsummers, I'll see if I can help you with the design you've created, rather than giving one of mine. *First of all, I'd recommend ditching the fuselage-mounted RAPIERs, replacing the adapter you've got them mounted to with a Mk1 adapter, and tapering it down to a cone. *Ditch the XM-G50 radial scoops, and (assuming you have them) replace the ram air intakes with shock cones. *Also, it won't weigh very much when empty. You should thin the herd on the parachutes. * All that RCS monoprop is overkill and dead weight. You should get rid of it. *As a "handling" thing, you should relocate the main gear so they're not angled goofy. It'll track better. Try that and let me know how it goes. Best, -Slashy

haha "too much hello" / best KSP Caveman narrative ever! -Slashy

Astrobond: A caveman with a brain full of ideas! Welcome to the clan! Congratulations! -Slashy

The black 'n' white paint makes perfect sense. The gray, not so much... Best, -Slashy

Sharpy, Glad you like it. As a rule, I never make any concessions to aesthetics. I'm all about utility and efficiency, so my spaceplanes are about as exciting as a Maytag washer. FWIW if I were to design an SSTO from the ground up to do this job (which I wouldn't), it wouldn't look like this design. I was trying to stay faithful to the original intent. Best, -Slashy

You do, but not if the Ap is in the wrong place WRT your desired ejection angle, which it almost certainly will be. Best, -Slashy

Brainlord, I don't put anything in an orbit of another body without a precise plan. If it's a mothership, it will have to be docked with, so same situation applies as with Kerbin. If it's a lander, I have a specific place I want to land it, and a circular orbit simplifies the problem. After I'm done, I'll want an efficient ejection angle. I can do that best from a circular orbit. Best, -Slashy

Well... in most cases, anything I put into orbit is going to dock with something else I put into orbit. Keeping everything in a circular orbit simplifies my rendezvous and gives me maximum flexibility for my launch windows. Best, -Slashy

https://youtu.be/UIKGV2cTgqA?t=77 Tom Lehrer is kinda out of date now, but still funny. You can't take 3 from 2. 2 is less than 3 so you look at the 4 in the tens place. Now, that's really four tens so you make 3 tens, regroup, and you change the 10 to 10 ones then you add it to the 2 to get 12 and then you take away the 3 that's 9.... Best, -Slashy