GoSlash27

I try to suspend my disbelief and not nit- pick movies so I can enjoy them, but this one was so wonky I just wasn't able to do it. The changes in volume between the sound effects and dialogue were also highly distracting. It had a lot of breathtaking scenery and nifty special effects, but overall I didn't enjoy it much. Best, -Slashy

I hope they don't forget to nerf the turbojet into submission (or completely out of existence) Best, -Slashy

I am a meat popsicle.

I'm hoping that somebody who's more familiar with black holes can help me with this: Wouldn't the process of falling into a black hole make the universe appear exactly as it does to us now? If not, what would be the difference? 3 things that I can point to that I admittedly only have a fuzzy understanding of: #1 The red shift problem If you've crossed an event horizon, everything will appear to be moving away from you at C, which is what we observe. Couldn't this be explained by gravitational red shift rather than the universe having been initiated from a singularity? #2 The dark energy problem If you've crossed an event horizon, time will slow from your perspective, making it appear that everything's gradually *accelerating* away from you. We have observed this and attributed it to "dark energy". Could it not simply be gravitational time dilation? #3 The cosmological horizon If you've crossed an event horizon, you will see everything that has ever crossed it and everything that ever will cross it, but you will not see anything else. Could this explain the "Hubble horizon"? If we had not fallen into a black hole, how would we know for sure? Or the converse for that matter. Thanks, -Slashy

"II" out of 10. Looks like the sort of thing a coward would fly.

ajburges, I pulled the values directly from the part config files and calculated IAW the chunk of code from .18. It's not readily apparent from just looking at the numbers themselves, but my chart shows how they behave at speed. Also, not exactly Squad's fault. Porkjet configured it that way and Squad didn't catch the error. We have told them about it, but they haven't cleaned it up yet. Hopefully they'll get it in the rebalance for 1.0 Best, -Slashy

panzerb has mentioned the most common culprit; phantom acceleration forces due to part clipping. I've noticed it a lot more since .90. Best, -Slashy

Wow! I think I can do 30 tonnes for under $16/ tonne using turbojets! This should be fun... -Slashy

My entry for rocket power: http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Efficiency%20LFB 41.4 tonne payload $109,442 booster at launch, $80,971 recoverable (not counting the leftover fuel) $687.81/ tonne. AFAIK it's fully MechJeb compliant since it's launch profile is a standard gravity turn. It's also fully sustainable (nothing left in orbit but the payload). It's a start... Best, -Slashy *edit* Wikisend doesn't seem to be working. I trust you'll take my word for it... - - - Updated - - - Kerbals don't actually ride the mass- lifter. It's just used to put outsized and heavy payloads into orbit for assembly. My kerbals ride spaceplanes for safety. I just used hitchhiker pods for that lift to show there was no way to cheat. I'll rerun the launch to verify it this weekend. Best, -Slashy

Here's one that I made a while back for a different challenge: http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Lifter-Ception http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Lifter-Ception/Flight It ran $32 a tonne for a 20+ tonne payload, but I'll have to rerun the mission to make it legit. I also have a pure rocket SSTO I made to assist another member that completed this challenge. 41 tonne payload to 75x75 orbit at $580/ tonne. Sounds like I've got a lot of flying/ documenting to do this weekend! Best, -Slashy

It's both... and neither. It's a simulator in that it allows you to experiment with rocket science, but it's not because it isn't accurate enough to mimic real world behavior. It's a game in the sense that you can play it, but it's not because there's no way to win. I look at it as an extremely entertaining educational toy. Best, -Slashy

I have no opinion about clipping from an aesthetic standpoint, but I have seen several cases where clipping can generate phantom acceleration forces in orbit. I generally don't clip for that reason, but if clipping is necessary to get parts to fit a certain way, I'm not too proud to do it. Best, -Slashy

EoS, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/102182-So-you-want-to-build-a-space-plane-%28-25-stock%29 Shameless plug -Slashy

Aye, but the drag values are not equal. They scaled the drag coefficients to size, and they should not have. As a result, an equal mass of smaller parts exhibits much less drag. This is also why short fuselage sections exhibit less drag than larger ones. 2:3 lift to mass is going to be problematic in the 25-32km altitude range. You can certainly overcome it given enough thrust, but you'll pay in efficiency and ultimately need to build a bigger spaceplane to achieve the same result. Certainly I'm not talking about generating part counts anywhere near a range that'll tax your system. The efficiency you gain from careful selection of parts and adherence to ideal ratios allows you to achieve the same payload capacity with a smaller spaceplane, which saves you parts in the end. Also, I think several folks here are way overestimating the thrust required to circularize a turbojet spaceplane. Once you're in the regime where it's time to shut down the turbojets (roughly 43km altitude and over 2200 m/sec velocity) there's virtually no drag and you're so close to orbit that your inertia is throwing you upwards. Even RCS thrusters are adequate to complete the job at that point. A pair of 48-7S engines is perfectly fine for OMS duties on a 30 tonne spaceplane, and 400 m/sec is plenty of DV to circularize, intercept, rendezvous, and deorbit. If you look at the twin engine example in my tutorial, it's orbiting a 14 tonne payload using a single LV-909. Best, -Slashy

This rocks! Have some rep. Thanks, -Slashy

Sounds like a winner. A couple tips to help you on your way: *Wings aren't all created equal. Smaller panels are more efficient than large ones, and some types outperform others. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/105090-KSP-90-Spaceplane-wing-comparo *Likewise, 2 short fuselage sections are less draggy than 1 long fuselage section. *If you're just going to a station in orbit and back, nukes aren't worth the mass and drag. Go with something light and weak, such as the 48-7S. *Basic proportions for turbojet SSTOs: At least 1.0 total lift coefficient per tonne of aircraft. At least 1 turbojet per 15 tonnes of aircraft. At least .018 m^2 intake area per turbojet. Good luck! -Slashy *edit* Of course, all of this is subject to change when KSP 1.0 comes out...

Yes, they're around. No, I'm not one of 'em. No, I'm not outing any of them. Best, -Slashy

I've been following the list of earth- analogue exoplanets, and it seems like every time I turn around there's new ones on the list. http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog I'd love to send probes to explore them, but the distances are way beyond our ability. Best, -Slashy

It would be worth your time. A few more km altitude will get you out of the region where the wonky aerodynamics affect your balance, leave you the pitch authority of your turbojets, and saves you fuel. Possibly. Especially with those big ram air intakes hanging out in the breeze like that. You made mention in the OP of it being borderline "starved" but in reality you've got more intake area than you actually need for the job. 3 ram airs and 3 radials is adequate to feed a 3 engine turbojet SSTO. Variations where you substitute 2 XM-G50 radials for 1 ram air would also suffice. The important part is to get the intakes as far aft as you can. Best, -Slashy

Brainlord, The SRBs aren't actually a "waste". They improve your mass ratio, which keeps cost down and simplifies recovery. lifting 40 tonnes without the boosters requires twice the stage mass, all of which must be recovered. As for the rest of it, it's a difference in philosophy rather than technical ability. I *could* build a bigger spaceplane or vertical lifter... I simply have no use for one. As a rule, I build things only as big as they need to be, which isn't very big. On docking ports... I haven't had a problem with wobble. A 200 tonne payload? Probably a failure of imagination on my part. I can't even imagine why I would ever need to lift something like that... although I'm keen to see you try to recover the 150 tonne empty lifter for it intact Best, -Slashy

I have one in my tutorial above. 13 tonnes and a single turbojet. But this isn't about how efficient the OP's spaceplane is, it's about helping to solve his pitch problem. Best, -Slashy

The first thing I notice is that all of your intakes are ahead of the CoM. That can make you tumble. You should set the radial intakes as far back as possible. Also, there's a fix for the asymmetrical flameout. Check out my tutorial here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/102182-So-you-want-to-build-a-space-plane-%28-25-stock%29 If you can fix the asymmetrical flameout problem, it'll be much easier to control when you finally switch to rockets (not to mention the fuel savings) Best, -Slashy

I was just off reviewing the menu. It is indeed max persistent debris. Maybe it doesn't just apply to debris? I've never had ships just disappear around any planet, so I'm just guessin'. Best, -Slashy

Wild guess: You've exceeded the default number of objects? Best, -Slashy

^This. If you're nervous about sending a manned mission, send an unmanned mission. Once you've worked out the kinks, you won't be nervous about doing it for real. Best, -Slashy