Alias72

I would like to point out that I wasn't making a prediction for the near future. I stated that I do not believe their will; be another evolutionary leap in the rocket market, and it would take a new market for that to happen. Space structures being the next market that I think will appear. I never suggested SpaceX will build structures, nor did I suggest the next SpaceX exists today. I will say the conditions for the next SpaceX don't exist today and likely for the foreseeable future.

Oh NO! Can't you guys see!? North Korea is FINALLY ENTERING THE 60's! Pretty soon they will have colour television and microwave ovens! Within the next 50 years they will invent the computer and then we will have to listen to their government on adds before youtube videos!

With a minor modification you could ask KSP what your velocity at a future point is. So long as there are no SOI changes the process is simple. SOI changes make it only slightly harder. Just use energy. Eg = mgh and Ek = 1/2 mv^2. hover over a point on the orbit and it would give you altitude. From that and your current altitude and velocity the new velocity could be calculated. SOI changes require iteration at the point where the change occurs but is still doable.

We have the ability to defend Earth from alien control right now! it's called scorched earth or more accurately Nuke it from orbit. its the only way to be sure. We vaporize and irradiate the planet until the aliens go home. Aside from that we have inadequate context to answer your question. - - - Updated - - - We have: Fission Power Plants Nuclear Weapons Nuclear engines Lasers We could build: a casabawa howitzer on a nuclear powered nuclear rocket. It would be every 1950's air force generals dream. It would likely be ineffective. For more details about what the near future might hold check out attack vector tactical.

The next major space innovator won't be building missiles. SpaceX has been revolutionary for two reasons: SpaceX has drastically increased the rate of innovation by attempting revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary changes SpaceX has a unique management culture that will accept reduced profits if it meets their longer term goals which means that SpaceX has brought launch costs down closer to breakeven then usual. What this means is that any new company will not have the same thunder as SpaceX in the field of launch service. This does, however, open up the other area for revolutionary change, space structures. SpaceX's attempts to reduce launch costs WILL create a new market for permanent structures in space. This will take time, but eventually there will be new companies entering into this new market.

proceed along the DV chart adding values as you go. From bop low to Pol low. 900 + 220 +160 + 820 = 2100 m/s This is the minimum DV to transfer. It uses Hohmann transfers. Hohmann transfers require very specific windows that may occur only once in a year or two. If you need to leave now then you can spend DV for time with a less efficient transfer. A shuttle for Munar travel would need 2(310+860) = 2340 m/s so I would go for 2500m/s for a shuttle

RAPIER is based on SABRE. Both are high altitude and speed engines. Neither will work well in airbreathing mode at low speeds.

That's bodylift for you. the MK II parts in particular are designed as lifting surfaces and will glide nicely.

Hey guys look what I made! Oh wait... No rapiers.... Did I break some sort of rule? I hope I don't get in trouble....

well if your still on your escape trajectory from kerbin then technically you could just wait for your orbits to intersect again in a couple of centuries...

With enough horsepower behind a brick.... Nice pod racer BTW

if it means you can keep a very low AoA and therefore get the best thrust out of your engines. Flightplan for this plane was get to 12km asap, then aim horizontal until 400m/s, then pull up. And it was that easy.Wing drag in nuStock? Not as significant as we were (I was?) led to believe. They increased Body drag but wing drag was slightly lowered. More wing area is actually better so long as you get a benefit out of it (like reducing AoA)

Notice how increasing altitude decreases thrust faster than increasing speed. That means that flying higher will generally produce less thrust. You can go faster to counteract that but you will eventually run out of air to shove through your engine. What you are actually banking on is the loss in drag resulting from lower airpressure. Unfortunately the same thing that decreases drag decreases engine thrust. the normal jet engine is rated neither for high speeds or altitudes. On the other hand the ram air intake is rated for VERY high speeds. The result is that you are losing thrust from an inefficient inlet, and then you are losing more thrust from the wrong engine. Not all engines are made equal. Engines are optimized for a specific altitude and speed regime. deviating from that decreases performance. Your engine is good for mach 1.2 @ 6-8km IF it has adequate airflow. You have half the inlets and they are the wrong type. try 2 of the simple circular intakes instead and you should go much faster.

Does this look like a sausage guys? I'm not sure.

Oh no! Spaceplanes... are broken.... In KSP 1.02! Honestly stock craft are poor indicators for performance. Also flight profile is everything. Finally saying "try this and you will see it is messed" is no counter argument to "here are the numbers you are using, here are what they are being compared to, your conclusions are wrong."

remember when the forum was filled with doom and gloom about how 1.0 aero would destroy spaceplane creativity... *looks at poll nuumbers*

1. Basic Jet engines are inadequate 2. Those intakes are also inadequate. Try sticking a small rocket booster on it.

I posted on the what did you do in KSP today thread. Also I refined the takeoff parameters for my SSTO. Turns out you can go much faster now.

My position has been somewhat hard to explain. Their is no creativity without rules. Engineering, therefore, is one of the most creative endeavors in existence. With unlimited resources nothing is possible. Rules such as physics do not BIND us, they DEFINE us. We cannot exist without them because we are, in part, the rules of the universe. Therefore finding innovative ways to use those rules is creativity. Staring at a canvas and deciding what to paint leaves one with many choices. Staring at a CAD program trying to design a wing that has to survive mach 5 air speeds leaves one with many challenges. I, therefore, contend that engineering is just as creative as art. Art is not the sole domain of imagination as I have seen propagandized. As for how that relates to this thread. I favor realism. But it is NOT realism vs Creativity. It is realism FOR THE SAKE OF creativity. I said this in the realism vs unbridled creativity thread. Because KSP is a game about creativity it applies here to gameplay.

I hope the next hotfix corrects these issues without adding new features. I can contend with rebalancing the aero system. It is clear they are testing that with us. But new features add bugs that we cannot correct for.

My position has been somewhat hard to explain. Their is no creativity without rules. Engineering, therefore, is one of the most creative endeavors in existence. With unlimited resources nothing is possible. Rules such as physics do not BIND us, they DEFINE us. We cannot exist without them because we are, in part, the rules of the universe. Therefore finding innovative ways to use those rules is creativity. Staring at a canvas and deciding what to paint leaves one with many choices. Staring at a CAD program trying to design a wing that has to survive mach 5 air speeds leaves one with many challenges. I, therefore, contend that engineering is just as creative as art. Art is not the sole domain of imagination as I have seen propagandized. As for how that relates to this thread. I favor realism. But it is NOT realism vs Creativity. It is realism FOR THE SAKE OF creativity.

The problem squad is having with heat is a response to the smaller kerbal system. They need a heating mechanic that will fry unprotected capsules but allow planes to blast at mach 3. They haven't hit the sweetspot yet.

I noticed with 1.02 that you can go faster without exploding at higher altitudes. DO IT! speed is king it gets you further out of the atmosphere and closer to orbit.

If you want to gun it you will need to start with a much lower TWR. Drop your TWR to about 1.1-1.2 and you won't over-accelerate.

Couple of things. 1. You're main wings have what is called anhedral. They are tilted downward. This places your center of lift below your center of mass and makes your plane want to fly upside down. Try dihedral (wings pointing up) instead. 2. The Intakes you're using (the silly rounded ones) are not designed for high speed and altitude. Also they are a source of unwanted drag. You should only need 1 good intake per engine and it should probably be the shock or ram intakes. A number of the smaller intakes that you have would also be fine. 3. Planes are even less forgiving then rockets with respect to drag. You NEED a good ascent profile. 1st get up to 10k. fly straightish until you get to 500m/s and pitch up between to around 15 degrees. Turn SAS on and let it fly. You're AoA will increase steadily as will your speed. You're aiming at around 850m/s at 25km. That is where you switch to rockets. Close your intakes and fly at about 10 degrees above your velocity marker (the yellow circle) until 35km and then just fly like a lawndart until your apoapse is 85km. It will fall until it reaches around 80km. wait until then and circularize. 4. If that doesn't work you wil likely need more fuel. I calculate you need 2500 m/s dv with rockets. I got that value from Kerbal Engineer Redux.