GoSlash27

The headline of this thread isn't supported by the link in the OP. I'm personally inclined to believe that it's hokey at best and a scam at worst, but the article doesn't prove that it is. Best, -Slashy

I decided to try messing around with time- based orbits to simplify astronavigation and ran into a weird problem. According to my math, an orbit at 147,319m of should have a period of 36 minutes on the dot. I orbited a ship at exactly this altitude and timed my passage over KSC. It actually takes precisely 40 minutes according to the UTC clock. This has to be confusion on my part about sidereal vs. solar time, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. Why am I missing 4 minutes per orbit?? *scratches head*... Anyone run into this problem or have any ideas? Best, -Slashy

Aye. The stock lumberwagon aero multiplies by the mass of both the intake itself and the air it contains at the moment. But again, this is stock rather than FAR... Best, -Slashy

Aero overhaul, bug fixing, and balance. Thanks, -Slashy

Minor diversion: Did you know that you can actually get more DV out of less efficient and lighter engines if your payload is less than 10 tonnes? It's true! Best, -Slashy

Derp! Nevermind my last. I missed the part where you said you were running FAR. Apologies, -Slashy

jarmund, The XM-G50 is the best radial- mount intake. The Ram air intake is the best stack mount intake. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106114-Stock-KSP-90-intake-comparo-for-SSTO-turbojets As taki said, you don't actually need a whole lot of intakes to achieve acceptable performance so long as you design and fly it correctly. I'm running 4 xm-G50s on an 18 tonne single engine transport and my engine stays lit long enough to get me completely out of the atmosphere. The less mass you're pushing, the less intakes you need. Best, -Slashy

*edit* After re-reading your OP, according to my math he would have made the periapsis 1,225,554 m. This would make an eccentric orbit with a period of exactly 4 hours. period(secs)=sqrt(4pi^2r(meters)^3/std gravity) simplifying, r= cube root(p^2*K) Since our keosynchronous radius is 3,468,750m and the period is 6 hrs, we know that our constant (K) must be 1.159355E+18. so a transfer orbit with a period of 4 hours would have a semimajor axis of 2,647,152 m. Since the apoapsis is 821,598m higher than the semimajor axis, the periapsis must necessarily be the same amount less than the semimajor axis, or 1,825,554m. Subtracting Kerbin's sea level gives an altitude of 1,225,554m. Best, -Slashy

^ What he said. Limit your climb rate to 200m/sec up to 20 km altitude. Limit your climb rate to 100 m/sec up to 32 km altitude. Limit your climb rate to 10m/sec up to 36 km altitude. The idea is to let your turbojet do all the work and build speed. So long as you can hit 2,175m/sec ground speed at 36km, you will establish an apoapsis in space just from the speed. Circularizing from there doesn't take much. This little guy demonstrates how little is needed to make it work. These monsters are more practical examples of the same thing. Best, -Slashy

No problem. Mk3 designs are kind of a pain because (as you said) the proper parts don't really exist yet. This will all change when 1.0 comes out. Then we'll all be back to square one. Best, -Slashy

Yeah, I'll second that. The characters were not compelling and the plot had holes big enough to distract me from the story. Chappie himself was wonderful. Good acting, personality, and special effects. It was everything else about the movie that was wrong. Best, -Slashy

Jake9039, Here's a good starting point: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/102182-So-you-want-to-build-a-space-plane-%28-25-stock%29 Still applies to .90. Hit me up if you have any questions. Best, -Slashy

Zerik0, Not a problem. That's what we're here for My older designs are kinda lost to the sands of time, but I think there's still some pics floating around. This would be an example of an older typical Mk2 design. It could orbit cargo at about $43/ tonne. These are examples of where I've gone since then. They are running about $27/ tonne. As you can see, they're really just bigger planes running on the same engine as before. re-tweaking the lift/weight allows me to run a little cleaner in the 32-36km range, so I can push more mass. Reducing the intake area doesn't actually help any, but it's surprising how little intake area you can get by with. Best, -Slashy

I may or may not have seen an episode or two I can't really pick out a favorite. Best, -Slashy

I have no problem hyperediting for test flights in sandbox. Why mess around hauling a contraption to another planet that may or may not work? I look at it like running a simulation. Best, -Slashy

The moral of the story is always check the proposed orbit in the tracking station before committing to it and the little lights show the direction. I hope this doesn't sour you on doing satellite contracts. They're quick, easy (once you get the hang of it), and highly profitable. Best, -Slashy

NathanKell, It is actually vectored and you will get dihedral effects, but only if the inclined panels are outboard to give them leverage. All lift and drag are generated at the attachment point, so if you have (for example) a parasol wing with anhedral you won't notice any effect beyond the loss of lift. Bonus: If you add dihedral to outboard panels and set them behind the center of mass, they will also add yaw stability. Best, -Slashy

Zerik0, The principles are the same for Mk3 spaceplanes as they are for Mk2, but the techniques have to be adapted because Mk3 airframes are too big for the available components. For example, your delta wings. Deltas are the most convenient for large structures, but they're also the least efficient part for the job. The most efficient parts are strakes, structural d, and swept (in that order), but using them results in floppy wings and high part counts. Refer to this chart for wing panel performance by type: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/105090-KSP-90-Spaceplane-wing-comparo I have run 1.0 lift coefficient per tonne of spaceplane previously with good results, but lately I've upped that. Now I'm running about 1.5. This cuts down on the induced drag,loss of intake air, and loss of horizontal thrust in the 32-36km region. A Mk3 spaceplane will still be using turbojet/ OMS rocket combos for maximum efficiency, but it will require multiple engines and multiple intakes to feed them. You will need to design and build to minimize asymmetric air starvation to keep this from ruining your day. Lots of tutorials out there on this subject. Intakes, like wings, are not all created equal. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106114-Stock-KSP-90-intake-comparo-for-SSTO-turbojets Generally, one turbojet per 15 tonnes and .015 m^2 of intake area per engine are recommended, but I've been pushing those boundaries lately. My most efficient designs are using 1 engine per 18 tonnes with .01m^2 of intake per tonne. This gives you just enough turbojet to make 70km apoapsis on jet thrust if you nurse it, with a tiny rocket boost to circularize. Other than that, basic spaceplane construction techniques still apply. Intakes behind the center of mass, canards instead of elevators, lift/thrust/ mass all in line, yadayada. You just have to scale it and get a little creative. HTHs, -Slashy

In stock KSP, it will add a natural tendency to roll wings level if they're tilted up. If tilted down, they will create a roll instability, increasing maneuverability. Other than that, it reduces the overall lift. Best, -Slashy

A novel and useful approach! Like any action, it has a few uncomfortable wrinkles that need ironed out. The illegal rainforest logging is primarily carried out by the poorest of the poor. Half of the timber cut down is used for fuel, and for the people who are doing it it is their only possible source of income. This means that stopping the activity will likely create a major humanitarian crisis unless it's replaced with something else. Certainly not condoning chopping down rainforests for fun 'n' profit, mind you. Just pointing out that the problem is thornier than it appears at first glance. Best, -Slashy

My back of the envelope calculation (from outside Kerbin's SoI): Transfer burn to Eeloo's aphelion 113M km: 3,080 m/sec Burn at aphelion to arrest eastward orbit: 3,200m/sec Burn at aphelion to set perihelion to 4.9 million km: 2,260M/sec Burn at perihelion to set aphelion to 66.9 million km: 309M/sec Total approx. 8,800 m/sec. And remember you have to add in the launch DV as well, so this is pretty much as big a project as launching from Eve's surface into orbit. This isn't counting the inclination change, which is pretty negligible. You could shave some from this by using the Oberth effect at launch and slingshotting around the system, but don't expect to save much. I also didn't compare different aphelion altitudes to see which gives you the best result, so this estimate is probably a bit high. I still definitely don't recommend attempting this contract. I don't think you can afford the mission cost anyway. Best, -Slashy

Yeah, it probably isn't going to be worth it. To reverse your orbit, you're going to have to increase the apoapsis as far as you can, then burn retrograde at the apoapsis. That's going to take some serious DV; I'm sure more than you bargained for. My advice is to just leave the contract active but don't attempt to complete it. By the time it expires, the penalty will be chump change. Best, -Slashy

Low gravity landers. Best, -Slashy

Rule#1: Do not kill or strand kerbals (forces me to do my homework before launching) Rule#2: Do not ignite the LV-N in Kerbin's atmosphere Rule#3: LV-N engines and PB-NUCs must never return to Kerbin. (Arbitrary political rules to temper the use of nukes) Rule#4: No getting all explodey over land. (arbitrary political rule) Rule#5: No physics exploits, no intake spamming (arbitrary realism rule to avoid making it too easy) Additional rules: -No exoatmospheric or supersonic flights with command chairs -Kerballed flights must have a kerbal in command. -Long-term missions must have living quarters for the crew Best, -Slashy

Old man advice (take it for what it's worth), but IMO if you're not getting rejected every once in a while, you're not trying hard enough. If she's not interested, then she's not the one. Best, -Slashy