GoSlash27

Agreed, but I don't use spaceplanes for that. If I'm sending an expedition to Mars, it's going to be in a ship assembled in orbit with landers designed for use on Mars. I put it in orbit in sections on vertical rockets, assemble it in place with tugs, and fuel/ staff it using spaceplanes. I look at expeditions as a big jigsaw puzzle. Spaceplanes are a good fit for their piece of the puzzle, but not much good anywhere else. Best, -Slashy

mknote, I just checked out the shuttle itself. I disabled the inboard elevons, the rudder, and the engine gimbaling. It flies much nicer that way. Try that and see how it goes. *edit* It's too nose- heavy also. The thrust of the engines help raise the nose, but it drops as soon as the power's off. Wings need to come forward a bit. Best, -Slashy

I darn near killed all of 'em tonight. I'm tweaking my shuttle and right now it's too nose-heavy to land safely. Put it up in orbit and made the mistake of switching my view to the tank. When I returned to the shuttle, the option to revert to launch was gone. All of my orange suits in orbit in a highly dangerous machine! I pressed ahead and hoped my latest adjustment was good enough. Reentry went without a hitch and I elected to go for water instead of land. The sink rate was just good enough to keep the main fuselage intact and save all the kerbals. *WHEW*! A series of bad decisions... Best, -Slashy

Ooo... I'd love to help you out, but I don't do mediafire. Could you post it using wikisend? Maybe post a few pics? I'm tweaking my own stock shuttle tonight, so this would be a good time to help with yours. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - http://wikisend.com/download/313262/Shuttle Kourageous.craft This is the download for my shuttle as it sits right now. It does everything fine... up 'til touchdown. I'm trying to tweak out the descent rate on final approach. Other than that, it does everything it's supposed to do. You can even launch it into orbit without RCS engaged if you're careful. Action group 1 toggles lights, doors, and radiators. Action group 2 toggles the solar panels. Other than that, it's all staging. * SME ignition * SRB ignition * Launch clamp release * SRB Jettison * Tank jettison and OMS engage Caution: Don't try to land it without deploying the cargo! Best, -Slashy

MaverickSawyer, Both of those spaceplanes look underpowered to me. You should keep your takeoff weight under 20t per turbojet and under 17t per rapier. Your wing loading looks fine, but I'd recommend not using deltas as your primary lifting surface. their parasitic drag is higher than average. Try the swept wing type b. If you have them unlocked, the shuttle wings are excellent. Plus you can store LF in them, which kills 2 birds with 1 stone. Best, -Slashy

I'm fully on board the spaceplane hype- train. They're a whole lot more economical, reliable, and safe than rockets. Great for orbiting kerbals and consumables. For everything else, I use rockets. Best, -Slashy

FancyMouse, Really, it's just a case of KER not giving an accurate DV estimate in the VAB. Not that I blame them; it's a difficult estimate to pull off. I didn't fill the tanks completely on this example. I put in enough for it to hold it's speed immediately after dumping the SRBs. I just designed it to put a big ol' tank in orbit with no debris and any extra fuel I had leftover was a bonus. The landing legs for munar surface use adds another wrinkle, as does keeping the engine to return to Munar orbit. Neither obstacle is insurmountable with this approach, but now you're not talking about a "tank" as payload, but rather a "tanker". That makes this a different problem; a vehicle as payload rather than a tank. The Rhino nearly matches the Poodle for efficiency and is capable of lifting a whole lot more mass, so I'd probably stick with it as a single stage. Why incur the waste and complexity of staging just to save 10s of Isp when you already have something that works in a single stage from the pad? How you plan to get the fuel *into* the tanker.... I dunno. I'd think about setting it down sideways with tiny lift rockets. More capacity, less headaches. *edit* I tried my example design as a sideways munar lander. Close, but no cigar. The addition of lift rockets suitable to lift it when fully-loaded cost just enough DV to where a zero descent rate munar approach was required. I'm assuming that if you want a tanker to bring fuel from the munar surface to orbit, you want to set it down in a precise spot. The ZDR approach is terrible for that. It could probably be tweaked to do that job (it's only the first landing where this would be a problem), but if it were me I'd leave it as a munar orbital depot and have smaller dedicated tankers to fuel it from the surface. Best, -Slashy

Well darn it... I knocked together a design to illustrate the concept. Then I found out I had the wrong concept... http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/OrbitalTank I suppose this could make lunar orbit or even the lunar surface. It has plenty of DV remaining. But of course you wouldn't make a recoverable lift stage to do that... I'll check and see. *edit* yeah, it's got plenty of DV to reach Munar orbit, or the surface. Over 2km/sec. No need to 2-stage it since the Rhino has excellent Isp in vacuum. If it's going to the munar surface, does it really *need* a detachable booster? Best, -Slashy

If my objective is to simply have an empty fuel tank in orbit, I'd design it to hold the fuel required to get it there. Put a disposable nose cone on top and a detachable engine unit underneath with a small reserve tank for deorbit. Best, -Slashy

Hmm... except for one thing: Best, -Slashy

Same here. Rendezvous and docking is definitely more difficult under caveman conditions, but not prohibitively so. All of my missions that returned science from the munar surface used it. Kind of an added bonus of this challenge; you learn that you can actually accomplish a whole heckuva lot with low mass and part counts. It teaches you how to make do with less, which is a good mindset to have when doing rocket science IMO. When a design isn't quite meeting the mission goal, the normal reaction is to ask "what can I add to make it work". The proper question is actually "what can I do without in order to make it more efficient". If you can do that, there's pretty much nothing you can't accomplish in KSP. Best, -Slashy

Cannon, Aerodynamics are a lot more realistic now. The old kerbal-ish lifter designs wind up being draggy and unstable. Just design your stuff to resemble RL lifters and you should be fine. Watch the t/w ratio, avoid sharp diameter transitions, and beware draggy parts in the nose. Also, the old "climb to 10k and hang a right" ascent profile is no good any more. Rockets don't like radical pitch changes now. Good luck! -Slashy

jackal40, I have an overview of the process here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/125893-Kerbal-Rocketeering-101-By-Professor-Lynch-1-0-2?p=2038270&viewfull=1#post2038270 Basically, I plan out the mission in reverse. Each stage is calculated from it's payload, DV requirement, and minimum t/w ratio using a reverse rocket equation I do this for every engine type using a spreadsheet and then pick the ideal solution for that stage. Rinse and repeat (subsequent stage is payload) until I'm all the way back down to the pad. Best, -Slashy

"Resolution" <> "accuracy". KSP accepts orbits that I wouldn't personally consider close. Best, -Slashy

Raptor, Nope, wasn't me! You might've been thinking of the 1.0 thread where I had everyone share tips and tricks for coping with the changes rather than complaining about them... My design philosophy is very simple: work out mathematically the lightest and/ or cheapest solution to each stage of a mission and then build exactly to the results with the simplest, most efficient, and cheapest parts at hand. This usually yields designs that look too small or simple to do what they do. If anything I build ever happens to look "pretty", it's only because form has followed function in that case and it's completely incidental. My stuff usually looks primitive. I also try to analyze the config files and mathematically compare parts in order to predict which ones give me an edge and which ones are best avoided. All parts are not created equal. I'm rambling a bit, but I guess my #1 trick isn't a specific technique, but rather a philosophy: a design isn't perfect when you can't add any more to it, but rather when you can't take any more away from it. Example... Best, -Slashy

55Delta, You've hit on the crux of the matter. People won't live and work in space unless they're paid handsomely to do it. That money doesn't come from nowhere. There has to be an economic cash cow up there; something that's valuable here and worth the risk and expense. Sadly, I don't know what that might be... Best, -Slashy

Nich, Thanks, it's just a case of form following function. It looks that way because it pretty much has to in order to work I didn't check to see the max orbit it can attain, but it can't be much. It's only got 100 m/sec or so spare DV to play with, and that's if you fly it just right. As for the linkies, it's done like this: (replace the squiggly brackets with normal ones)... {url=www.insertpagehere.com}whatever text you want here {/url} Best, -Slashy

Okay, just for fun... http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/SRB%20Challenge This is a bare-bones SRB launcher to orbit a satellite. Difficulty: The booster and circularization stages are completely unguided and ballistic. No active fins, no reaction wheels. I do have RCS only in the injection stage (impossible to point prograde in a vacuum without *something*), and it only gives pitch and yaw. *edit* oh, yeah... and I accomplished the launch without using map view I tried to make it as "light the fuse and stand back" as I could. I total it up to be 240 points the hard way. Best, -Slashy

Cannon, The aerodynamics are completely different now. Rockets can flip for a number of reasons, but the common ones are too much drag in the nose, maneuvering too aggressively, and accelerating too rapidly. Rockets behave better when streamlined, and even better with fins in the tail. And of course... don't taunt happy fun rocket. For reentry, I recommend a periapsis of around 30 km if you have an ablative heat shield and around 45 km if you don't. Falling straight down can easily blow you up. Best, -Slashy

Okay, it's ready for whoever wants to try it. Total expenditures during testing was $2,906. I've checked it out during all phases and it flies great, but it's draggier than I'd like during the ascent. I attribute that to the circular intakes. This one is built to rotate out kerbals at a station in LKO. Takeoff at half throttle, rotate at 80 m/sec. Climbout 15° pitch and full throttle Transsonic needs to occur during 10km altitude at 10° pitch. Hypersonic transition to rockets begins at 16 km altitude and ends at 20km, 5° pitch. You should be faster than 1 km/sec when you kick in the rockets. Go for 10° climb initial and taper it down to 5° as you approach 2300 m/sec. Reentry: Shoot for 45km periapsis over KSC with speed brakes deployed (parking brake). Handling is absolutely awesome; nice and stable with no vices. It pretty much flies itself. *edit* Upload link finally available. http://wikisend.com/download/100740/ProBuilder1_0.craft Good luck! -Slashy

I have been excited about participating in this challenge, but I had already designed and tweaked out all my designs. Thankfully, I have found a niche requirement that I don't currently have a design for. I will design and do the preliminary testing for a new spec: -Tier 7 or lower parts so users can jump into it the moment they've unlocked the Whiplash. -low passenger count (4-6) delivery to a station in orbit; generally adequate to staff a single expedition. -simple, robust, and economical to operate -exceedingly easy to fly -low buy-in cost and cheap to operate I will track the expenditures during the runups. Best, -Slashy

lugge, I'm glad you found it helpful! Landing sites that are offset normal to the lander's trajectory are tricky to get right for the reasons you mentioned. In addition, you're viewing your trajectory from the side and it's hard to see if you've corrected your landing spot sufficiently due to the poor resolution. I recommend placing your lander in an orbit with enough inclination to ensure that it passes close overhead the target. After the initial retroburn, you will want to do a normal/ antinormal burn to "bend" your landing point to hit the target. After that, you proceed as you normally would, with adjustments left or right as necessary. Once the picture gets too small to work from map view, transition to normal view. You should be close enough at that point to finish the rendezvous visually. I prefer to put my bases directly on the equator on bodies with short days and on a pole for bodies that are tidally locked. Best, -Slashy

killakrust,ttnarg and diofantos, Congratulations on completing the Caveman Challenge! The secret is to keep banging those rocks together! Best, -Slashy

Nich, About this close. Best, -Slashy

I wouldn't use that specific design for Minmus; it's way too big for that job. It's just to show what I'm talking about when I say "fuel tank as the chassis". Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - Sharpy, We're getting off-subject. This was a .90 design from back when a solar panel was fine on Tylo. The docking ports were for carrying and manipulating loads. I'm not suggesting festooning a Minmus lander with docking ports, I'm just showing what a tank- as- chassis design looks like. Best, -Slashy