GoSlash27

You're very welcome, and don't sweat it; lots of people have made that mistake. As a freebie, you're going to want to stuff a few hundred more m/sec DV into your launch vehicle for the westward launch. Good luck! -Slashy

Miggello, You're going backwards. The spots rotate in the direction they want you to orbit. Best, -Slashy

I do a lot of design exercises away from the game using spreadsheets. Probably not what you're looking for, though... Best, -Slashy

Agreed. Even setting aside the "realism" angle, there's the "balance" angle to consider also. The turbojet is so good that in most cases it's silly to use anything else, even rockets. Best, -Slashy

Prophet, One important thing: The SR-71 tops out at about the same speed that the basic jet does; Mach 3. This is why I say the "basic jet" is a good approximation of a high performance afterburning turbojet and the "turbojet" has unrealistic performance. Best, -Slashy

The OP in it's current form is pretty busy, so all apologies, etc... but TLDR. The main source of the conflict in my mind is that KSP is not intended to be a game, not a simulator. If the realism is ramped up too far, the skill and knowledge required to play it will be out of the reach of the casual player. In the context of the original discussion, however... the stock aerodynamic model is unrealistic to the point of frustration for new players, and that doesn't serve anybody's interest and isn't much "fun" for anyone. Ideally, people should be able to make airplanes that work because they *look* like airplanes and have them work out reasonably well. No wonky exceptions because of game engine peculiarities or anything like that. But OTOH it should not be so correct that the engineering required is beyond the abilities of the casual player to achieve. Gotta strike that balance. Best, -Slashy

Ya know what? I put a lot of effort and hours into figuring out the stock aerodynamic model and the engineering guidelines that work within it. My entire fleet is based on those principles and works great as-is. My opinion? I say trash it. It's a broken system. We figured out the stock aerodynamics, so I have no doubt we'll sort out a better model with little fuss. Besides, we invariably end up redesigning our fleets with each new release anyway regardless of backwards compatibility. Best, -Slashy

It is. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - Not really. It's specs are actually pretty vanilla. It's just easier to attach more of them because they're radial mount. The reason they do so well in these tests is simply because there are two of them in use. Best, -Slashy

Unfortunately, this fix would cause drag instability issues. The drag coefficient of the engine is fixed, while the drag coefficient of the intake is not (and also dependent on mass). At high speeds, the pressure center would shift forward, making the plane highly unstable. Changing this behavior would mean rewriting how intakes generate drag. Best, -Slashy

Kesa, Both categories are about delivering cargo to a space station in orbit. "Bargain basement" scores them by cost to build, while "cheap hauler" scores them by cost to operate. The first entry would be disqualified on the grounds of infinigliding, but it certainly looks like it could be upgraded to fit within the rules. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - bhauth, I like the minimalist approach you've taken here Remember, it needs to be able to dock with a station in orbit and deliver cargo. Best, -Slashy

The stock "turbojet" shouldn't exist. The basic jet does a good job of simulating a high performance turbojet, while the turbojet is ridiculously good. I would reconfigure the turbojet as a "ramjet". Works the same at supersonic speeds, but won't work at all at subsonic speeds. Best, -Slashy

Cirocco, The best thing to put in the cargo bay in that case would be "nothing". The CoM needs to be centered in the fuel tanks to keep it from shifting during flight, and adding/ removing payload in an unbalanced configuration will aggravate that. If you have a payload bay at one end of a ship that you've added for balance, you should either leave it empty or leave it full. If you want useful cargo bays, their weight moment needs to balance around the CoM both when they're full and when they're empty. Best, -Slashy

Well... it's not necessarily that you want "less" control surfaces, just that they be balanced front to back so that you're not generating funky drag when they're moving. Having too much control surface forward or aft can make the plane very unstable at high speeds. If it looks balanced without the control surfaces attached, you're good to go. The intakes use weird math for calculating drag. The mass of the entire part is figured into the drag coefficient, so the fuselage type intakes generate horrendous drag. The XM-G50 is a pretty good intake for this duty. About 4 total should do fine for this job (2 per engine). Just mount them as far back as you can get them. They act like tiny parachutes at high speed, so having them in the back will aid stability. The asymmetric flameout deal... I have a write-up on that in my old spaceplane tutorial. Gimme a sec and I'll post a link. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/102182-So-you-want-to-build-a-space-plane-%28-25-stock%29 Check the section on "multiengine spaceplanes". Best, -Slashy

I see a few potential problems here. #1 is your lift centered on the mass when you remove the control surfaces? Having longitudinally unbalanced control surfaces can make a plane tumble at high speeds. #2 Your intakes are by far the draggiest part of the plane. Having the intakes so far forward (especially the intakes you're using) can easily make your plane want to fly backwards at high speed. #3 Did you build in sequence so that your engines don't suffer asymmetric flameout? Best, -Slashy

I agree with all the others here; A properly designed spaceplane won't have the CoM shift over the course of the flight. I understand that you are correcting for a self-imposed condition for aesthetic purposes, but you should remember that you are "crutching" a poor design (from an engineering standpoint), so your results may vary depending on fuel state and flight regime. KSP aerodynamics is weird. Best, -Slashy

#1 You're not missing anything, they're just clunky like that. #2a for approaches to touchdown, I always align my ship so that it's pointed retrograde and rolled inverted according to the navball. Then I place the camera behind the ship (looking forward at the top.) That way the controls will respond as expected throughout the approach. #2b for docking, I place the camera behind my ship, disable RCS, and yaw back and forth to find my alignment. Then I roll the ship so it reacts as expected. #3 I set the initial intercept to smack into the planet. Once I'm halfway there, I'll focus my view on the planet and it shows my trajectory. I am then able to fine-tune my encounter normal/antinormal and radial/antiradial. HTHs, -Slashy

There ya go! It's only difficult the first time Just out of curiosity, what was the problem before? Congrats, -Slashy

Oh, heavens no! I can't take credit for that. I did make a kraken drive infiniglider, but that was heavier and I had a lot of help. The winglet-on-a-strut was around long before I ever came on the scene. Best, -Slashy

No, Sir While the Tylo Rover *is* IMHO an awesome tool, it's not really relevant to this discussion. At least not in *that* way. Laziness is the mother of invention, and I am a very lazy man. I'm all about using whatever designs will make the job easiest, and each of these designs makes specific jobs ridiculously easy. SSTO spaceplanes are great for getting supplies and kerbals into LKO. Vertical SSTOs are awesome for heavy loads and bulky structures. And yes, Tylo rovers are awesome for constructing bases on other bodies. About all you'll get out of me -Slashy - - - Updated - - - Speak for yourself I use spaceplanes because of their practicality and ease. They are really the best thing going... *for the job that they are best at*. The engineering and piloting ramps up a bit for them, but it's really not beyond the abilities of most KSP players to attain. Best, -Slashy

30 parts, including an antenna, KER module, Battery, 3 Solar Panels, and Thermostat. Congrats! Once you get the first one sorted out, the rest come easier. Having said that... don't think "mass" for balance, think "leverage". Not only is mass "mass", it's also drag. Best, -Slashy

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this yet:

You *definitely* need more than one circular intake per engine, and you also definitely want your engines as far inboard as you can get them. To minimize part count you're going to want to stick with one engine anyway, so you may as well stick with the in-line arrangement. You could hang tanks off-center, but it'll take a higher part count to make that happen. Best, -Slashy

Neither. You're just not building according to the requirements. There are a lot of specialized engineering principles involved in SSTOs (especially spaceplanes) and a lot of specialized piloting principles (especially jet powered VTVL). They are not difficult to master, but you have to follow them if you want a successful SSTO. As Pecan said, there are lots of tutorials around. Best, -Slashy

Yeah, I might be able to tell, but can't make anything out in that pic. Can you take a clearer one? Best, -Slashy

You would expect it to; that's a function of the initial capacity number in the intake config file. example from the XM-G50: The intake starts with an initial amount of .5 sitting still at sea level regardless of any other considerations. But more importantly, it has absolutely no bearing on flameout altitude/airspeed. All that matters there is the intake area, airspeed (ground),angle of attack, and atmospheric pressure. If the air collected is >= the air consumed at the throttle setting/ Isp, the engine will stay lit. Note that I did not say "thrust produced"; that is completely independent of these factors and is set by a different atmospheric curve. This is all from the KSP script here Best, -Slashy