Wanderfound

A lot of the initial reaction was due to the misleading wording of the original post. A lot of readers (myself included) interpreted the OP as saying "I asked Ferram if it was okay, he said no, but I'm gonna do it anyway". Fortunately, that turned out not to be the case, but I don't think the original reaction was unreasonable based on the information given. As for the broader issue...the modders were getting a lot of hassle from clueless x64 users. So, in order to filter out the clueless, several of them put locks on their mods that were deliberately designed to be easy for a clueful user to circumvent. However, then some folks came along and started handing out copies of the keys, defeating the original purpose of the lock. The obvious next step for the annoyed modders is to put on a lock that isn't easy to circumvent. This is not a good outcome.

Swapping some tank capacity on the radial boosters for a ring of SRBs would probably bring the price down a fair way.

Try this: * Stock parts only. * No debug menu cheats. * Must leave the ground from the runway or launchpad and not touch it again before impacting KSC. * No decouplers or other detachable parts: the craft must impact the KSC in a single piece that includes everything it launched with. That should restrict it to flying impactors rather than missile launchers. You probably also want to put a part-count limit on it (200?) to prevent colony drop tactics.

Reentry can be done fast, but it's risky and takes some fuel. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94343-Spaceplane-Speed-Challenge-IV-Up-and-Down for examples.

BD is a bit too much mod for a one-off challenge; it's more of a piloting skill test than a serious "these targets must be destroyed!" thing, anyway. Is there any blast effect at all? Enough to, for example, blow off one of the solar panels on the targets after a near-miss? It's okay if not; I'm still having fun missing things. So close...

Give me a few days; having a bash at it now. I am finding AJE a much greater impediment than RSS, BTW. Upscaling is just a matter of more fuel, but thirsty jets and overheating intakes require a complete revision of flight tactics

SM3 Terrain Shaders were enabled; pics as shown. Making a copy of that install and removing RSS without changing anything else flipped the visuals back to the better version.

That appears to be a fairly basic pseudo-spaceplane with a staged boost on the HOTOL launch; no reason why not. I'd start by building some simple atmospheric planes and basic spaceplanes to get the hang of aerodynamic design first, though. Walk, then run.

No idea if it applies in this case, but when I had similar issues it turned out to be due to non-zero trim settings. Try hitting alt-X to cancel trim and see if that sorts it.

I've just started playing with 6.4x, and it's lotsa fun; thanks. However, the one downside is that it appears to be sharply reducing the terrain graphics quality around KSC. This is my normal KSC lawn: And this is the 6.4x version: Is this expected behaviour? And should I be asking such questions here or at the RSS thread?

If this challenge is revived, you may need to reset the FAR leaderboard. With the current engine nerfing, a FAR jet is very unlikely to break 2,000m/s.

...or just grab RPM and do it by eyeball. Cruisy.

Haven't hit anything accidentally yet. A few non-accidents, though:

While I also endorse the lights, the diagonal thing is easily sorted now. Plant your flag or park your rover at the far (eastern) end of the runway. Set it as a target. If you're heading for the target, then you're heading for the runway, but if you're not on a bearing of 90° at the time then you're coming in at an angle. Fly to the side until the target is at 90°, then fly to it. So long as both heading and target are at 90°, you're guaranteed to be coming in straight. - - - Updated - - - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/41435-0-23-Runway-PAPI-array-Version-0-3-2

Nifty, thanks. I've been considering messing around with upscaling, but I like my mods to be as plug&play as possible. Sorted.

Yay for DRE updates, with the caveat that hopefully it won't slow down spaceplane reentry too much; it's already a fairly drawn-out process. As well as not wanting RCS units to burn off, I'd also like to keep my hardpoints intact; the limitations of stock landing gear result in a lot of planes on stilts.

BTW, just as an example of how flat an ascent you can get away with:

Decent idea. You can already approximate this in Fine Print: the Munbase contracts typically require a docking port, antenna and space for half a dozen Kerbals landed on the Mun. But they don't say that it has to stay there. I've been sending up a little six-seater spaceplane on Munar sightseeing trips, and knocking off Munbase contracts while doing so.

Mach 1 equals roughly 350m/s, but, as you know, varies with pressure. Both FAR and Kerbal Flight Data display speed in Mach, and it's usually FAR flyers that I'm writing for. "Mach 5" is easier to write and understand than "about 1,700m/s" for me. And, for the stock flyers, it doesn't hurt to encourage them to look up Mach numbers and realise that 400m/s is not as slow as they usually think it is.

You need enough jets to get off the runway and reach Mach 4.5; you need enough oxidising thrust to maintain acceleration above 30,000m. Anything more than that is a luxury. OTOH, I like my spaceplanes luxurious a lot of the time.

You need to lead the plane, don't try and force it. Every time you move the nose away from prograde, do it by 10° or so, then give the prograde marker a chance to catch up with your new heading; it should only take a second or two to get back to an angle of attack of 5° or so, then you can do it again. If you need to turn a lot, you just need to keep leading it. You can get away with much larger AoA in certain situations, but it takes a bit of experience to recognise when you can do that. After you've read the illustrated aircraft tutorial, have a poke at posts #2 & #3 in the Kerbodyne thread in my sig. Then, build or borrow a simple aerobatic trainer (e.g. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90747-Kerbodyne-SSTO-Division-Omnibus-Thread?p=1515356&viewfull=1#post1515356) and put in some flying time while you learn the limits.

As posted on the DRE thread: 1) Make your deorbit burn. If you're coming in fast, keep it shallow; if you've got enough DV to scrub most of your orbital speed in advance, you can get away with something steeper. 2) Your first job is to halt the initial drop. Forget about ditching speed or anything else, just pull the nose up so you can level out again. Pull up too hard and you'll flip out of control and/or break your wings, but too slow and you'll cook. I usually keep an AoA of 15° or so throughout the process, gradually pulling up as I go (actual recommended AoA varies based on aircraft, altitude and speed; you need to experiment for yourself). Aim to have it levelled out by 30,000m. 3) Now, watch the VSI and your temperature gauges (DaMichel's Kerbal Flight Data is very good for temperature monitoring). Gradually descend until the temperature is just shy of lethal (usually around 1,300°C on my planes), then hold that altitude until it cools. Once the temperature drops, drop with it. Stay alert and be ready to pull the nose up quickly if the temperature spikes; there's a fair lag between lifting the nose and stopping the heating, so if you leave it too late you're toast. 4) You'll probably find that you need to stay above 25,000m until you get down to Mach 5 or so. Decelerating above 25,000m is slow; decelerating below 25,000m is fast. As well as greater drag, the lower air provides enough grip to get some useful S-turns happening. If you can get your reentry speed below hypersonic and avoid the initial high-altitude cooling phase, reentry and landing is a much faster process.

The over 30,000m ascent path I use depends on TWR. On a low TWR ship (nukes, mostly) I use a very flat ascent that ends up with the plane shutting off thrust while climbing ~50m/s at 50,000m on the way to a 70k apoapsis / 40K periapsis. On a high TWR ship (RAPIERs, Aerospikes) I'll use a steeper final ascent and a longer circularisation burn. Use the flatter ascent with quick ships like these and you end up losing too much speed to drag after engine shutdown. In either case though, it starts with a jet-powered climb to a minimum of Mach 4.5 / 30,000m. When possible, Mach 5.5 and 40,000m is even better. That's just the basic starting line for a spaceplane ascent. Get to 20,000m however you like, then flatten out and build speed as you slowly climb until you're approaching Mach 5 and 30,000m. There are several ways to get there (smooth climb, arc and bounce, etc), but the need to build that speed is unavoidable.

Basic construction utilities: RCS Build Aid Part Angle Display Editor Extensions Flight utilities: Kerbal Flight Data (lets you see speed/altitude/apoapsis/heat/etc in flight without having to switch to the map screen or clutter up your view with other mod's info windows) Kerbal Flight Indicators (projects horizon, bearing and prograde markers into the view; means you don't have to watch the navball all the time) Gameplay enhancers: Ferram's Aerospace Research (realistic aerodynamics) Deadly Reentry (reentry heating) Fine Print (expanded contracts, soon to be stock) Raster Prop Monitor (essential for IVA flying, makes the in-cockpit data screens work) Demonstrating Kerbal Flight Data: Demonstrating Raster Prop Monitor:

Have you scratched 'em entirely, or are there still some fun mountain-scraping survey contracts in there?