GoSlash27

Laie, Is there some reason why you need to do a highly eccentric orbit besides saving DV? I haven't run the numbers, but it seems to me that it'd be cheaper to circ into the gate orbit instead of doing it this way. Best, -Slashy

*ears perk* Goofball- scale engines?? PLEASE let this be a thing!

I actually disable yaw response completely on my rudders unless I happen to be building an aerobatics plane. Most planes fly better without it. Elevators respond only to pitch and ailerons respond only to roll. Best, -Slashy

IIRC, my "cheep36" lifter used 1.2 t/w off the pad. Having an all- solid first stage means there's no throttling through that portion of the flight. Even with tapering the thrust, the T/W gets a little hot which makes it difficult to follow a proper gravity turn. The larger stages used parallel boosters, allowing for a little more aggressive T/W off the pad in the region of 1.6. RIC is correct about cost and t/w. While high t/w allows for lower DV to orbit, this comes with a price of "moar boosters" and more aero/ reaction wheels required to fly an efficient course. The additional mass of high t/w designs also brings about a curiously paradoxical situation where you wind up expending more fuel, even though the DV expenditure is less. When chasing efficiency, using "DV expenditure" as a guide can be highly misleading. Best, -Slashy

haha I bet @Andrew Ridgely got a whole lot more answers than he was anticipating! Best, -Slashy

^True. I've seen your bulk lift space planes in action before. I believe you're the resident expert in that field Me personally... I don't invest the time and effort into designing a space plane unless I'm going to get a lot of use out of it. I don't envision having enough missions for such a design to justify building it. I just stick to tankers and personnel transports. Best, -Slashy

FWIW, I've found good luck circularizing at 43 km in level flight, whether using space planes or rockets. This seems to get me to orbit with the least expenditure of propellant. Best, -Slashy

Rryk, You just answered your own question As a freebie... you should split up your lifter into 2 stages. The upper stage producing 1,700 m/sec and 0.7g vacuum and the lower stage producing 1,800 m/sec (1/2 atm) and 1.4G (1 atm) with all aero control surfaces and streamlining. It'll make your life easier. Best, -Slashy

The thing about space planes is that their air breathing Isp is so crazy- high that atmospheric drag is a relative non- issue. I tend to dwell for a while around 20km before engaging the rockets... so long as my airframe can handle the heat. Again, this is an example of DV not being a good mark of the efficiency of a vehicle. Space planes expend a whole lot more DV getting their payloads to orbit than comparable rockets. They just do it at higher payload fractions and much lower operating cost. Best, -Slashy

The_Rocketeer, You'd win that bet, and you're absolutely right. Ultimately, what's worth doing is whatever the individual player enjoys doing. Space planes are a challenge on a whole 'nother level from rockets. Some people like them, while others hate them. Me personally... I've gotten crotchety in my old age. Space planes are just a means to an end for me, 'cuz I've got spacing to do. But I *do* still find them to be more fun than rockets Best, -Slashy

DV= 9.81*Isp*ln(Mw/Md). Ways to increase your DV basically boil down to a) increasing the efficiency (Isp) of your engine, reducing the mass of your rocket that is not fuel, and staging. Reducing the mass that is not fuel can be further sub-divided into reducing payload and eliminating unnecessary mass in your lifter. Staging is basically chucking engines and empty tanks once they are no longer needed, thus reducing the mass of your vehicle part of the way through the flight. I generally stage my lifters mid-way through the flight in order to take advantage of the optimized nature of the parts. The first 1,800 m/sec DV is essentially atmospheric flight. Engines that excel in this regime have relatively high atmospheric Isp and low vacuum Isp. They are light, powerful engines. This regime also requires aerodynamic streamlining and control surfaces. This stage has the bulk of the fuel tanks. Beyond the halfway point, you get into the opposite. Efficient, weak engines, small fuel supply, no aerodynamics necessary. It makes sense to stage at this point because there's so much dead weight to shed and the optimal engines are so different. So here's what I do... Instead of trying to "add DV" to an existing design, I design each stage to have the DV and t/w it needs from the outset and *then* build it. If you have MechJeb, this is straightforward. Minimum 0.7g t/w and 1,700 m/sec DV in vacuum for the upper stage and 1.4g t/w (1 atm) and 1,800 m/sec (1/2 atm) for the lower stage. If you don't have a mod to calculate this for you, you will have to calculate it yourself. Best, -Slashy

Yes Rockets: Low development time. Easy to design. Quick flights. Handle bulky cargo. Space planes: low, low operating costs. Improved safety/ reliability. I use space planes for transfer of crew and fuel between KSC and LKO. For everything else, I use rockets. As far as whether you *should* use space planes, that's a matter of personal judgment. Space planes take a lot more skill to develop and fly, and flight times to orbit and back are longer and demand more attention. Since the development of space planes is expensive in terms of play time, I never design them for missions I'm only going to fly once. Instead, I integrate them into a logistics network where they will be used routinely. Best, -Slashy

First orbital rendezvous in KSP 0.18.3 demo, followed shortly thereafter by... One small step for a Kerbal... I bought the game the next day (v0.23), and the rest is history. Best, -Slashy

juvilado, It doesn't improve your aerodynamics in KSP 1.1.3 to close the intakes, so I usually leave them open. OTOH... it doesn't hurt anything to close them.... Best, -Slashy

I always find myself wishing for a simple autopilot with altitude and heading hold. Long distance flights to the poles and badlands suck when you have to hand-fly them at 1x warp.

You'll find me traveling in style and luxury aboard the Hyper Chief!

I stand corrected -Slashy

CobraA1, A design for less than 2km/ sec DV is actually lighter if you use the LV-909 instead of the LV-N, so I'm not surprised. And as RIC pointed out, oxidizer is dead weight when using LV-Ns. Best, -Slashy

^ This. I do my engineering work on spreadsheets and my design work on paper. This allows me to plan entire missions (and occasionally entire programs) without being anywhere near my home computer. Best, -Slashy

I know it's not much, but here's an idea: Use landing gear as actuators. I installed i-beams in the cargo bay as guides, but it's still a very touchy mechanism even with them. Best, -Slashy *edit* I got it to work reliably after some tinkering. Here's the craft file: http://wikisend.com/download/689560/NOSEDOOR2.craft After you separate the halves, press 1 to extend/ retract the cockpit. It should dock upon closing.

In addition to the above, I'm a big fan of rescue contracts. You're basically getting paid handsomely to add experienced kerbals to your roster. I'm also big on satellite contracts, but always read the fine print before accepting them.

I think it's more accurate to say that all the difficult bits of "rocket science" have already been done for you in KSP, No mucking about with the difficulties of special alloys or fabrication techniques. No worrying about turbopumps and diffuser plates. No careful formulation and storage of specialized rocket fuels, and nothing ever fails. Given all this, how could one *not* succeed in getting to space?? It's just "click a tank on a controller and an engine on a tank" and kaphoomph... you have a rocket. When someone hands you the building blocks that comprise a rocket, it's easy to make a rocket out of them. Pointy end up, hot end down. When someone hands you the pieces that comprise an airplane, making an airplane out of them is a much more difficult task. You still have to arrange all the parts in such a way that all the forces are in balance so it flies properly. TL/DR; Airplanes are, necessarily, more complex beasts than rockets. That's not KSP's fault.

I tend to do the opposite. If I want a lot of science in minimal real time, I tend to go for orbit early. If, OTOH, I want to get lots of science in minimal "in- game" time, I hoover up all the science I can get from Kerbin itself. KSC science yields lots of tech nodes and doesn't actually take a lot of time or effort if you use a jet cart. getting all of Kerbin's biomes isn't all that difficult or time- consuming once you have the early jet aircraft tech. If you're trying to catch the first Duna transfer to scour Ike, it's worth it to develop lots of tech at home in the early going. Mun is a (roughly) 3 day round trip and there's nothing on Kerbin that takes 3 days to get to. Best, -Slashy

Reminds me of my first run through back in .18 demo where I changed my names to kerbalized variations of the historical names. For instance, my first suborbital launcher was "Moho Bluerock" instead of "Mercury Redstone"

I dunno, as the rules aren't clearly stated on the matter. I ditched my docking port on the pad on the second run. Didn't think about using the GOAP method. Best, -Slashy Oh, I bet I know what's wrong: 3 RCS quads instead of 4. That makes docking a real PITA. Best, -Slashy