Wanderfound

New from our Exploration Range: the Kerbodyne Endeavour. The efficiency, range and capability to take on a wide variety of environments across the solar system, and the design polish to ensure that your Kerbals will enjoy themselves while doing so. Triple-mode propulsion. Effortless takeoffs. Stable enough for hands-off flight through the sound barrier at high levels of time acceleration. Use a shallow ascent profile. Activate the nuke once the RAPIERs start to run out of air... ...and ride the atom all the way 'round. Use the RAPIERs on closed cycle as boosters if desired, but minimising their use will enhance fuel efficiency. Exceptional runway-to-interplanetary range can be further enhanced through orbital refuelling. But what has it got in its pocketses? That looks suspiciously like a munlander to me. As well as a few goo pods, an atmospheric sensor and a couple of RCS tanks. Equipped with a full suite of scientific equipment. 170kN of well balanced low-grav VTOL. Exceptionally stable at extreme angles of attack, even at supersonic speeds. Wings reinforced to cope with high-g manoeuvres. Perfect high altitude dynamics. Exceptionally easy takeoffs. Price: √117,025 Weight: 30.272t wet, 15.372t dry Part count: 104 Action group key: 1: Toggle nuclear rocket. 2: Toggle RAPIERs. 3: Switch RAPIER mode. 5: Toggle intakes. 6: Toggle cargo bay doors. 7: Toggle solar panels. 8: Trigger all science equipment. 9: Toggle monoprop RCS. 0: Toggle Vernors. Easy handling all the way. Give it the usual 10°-20° ascent slope, build speed to Mach 4.5+ before departing the oxygenated altitudes, activate the nuke as soon as the RAPIERs switch to rocket mode and deactivate the RAPIERs whenever you can while still keeping your apoapsis ahead of you. The lander has sufficient fuel, but not a lot of slack. You can ease the fuel strain on the lander considerably by removing the bulk of orbital speed with the nuclear rocket on the main craft prior to lander deployment. Stop, drop, burn back up to speed and then switch control to the lander. Craft file available at https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hnfunulsiswu8y/Kerbodyne%20Endeavour.craft?dl=0

Lithobraking the target of a "rescue from orbit" contract seems to do it.

Working fine for me: As others have said, if you want planes to behave sensibly in KSP, you need FAR or NEAR.

While we're on the subject, are there any keyboard shortcuts for RPM MFDs?

Are the default DRE temperature tolerances for stock parts (e.g. RPM cameras) set by DRE or the other mod?

Powered by what? FAR cuts the thrust output of jets to essentially zero above Mach 5. A single-intake version of the plane I used would likely be a smidge faster, but that seems to be pretty much the limit without rocketry. Keeping it below 40,000m also cut the speed significantly: I can get a fair bit quicker if I use a succession of ballistic trajectories with peaks >40,000m.

Just managed my first all-IVA docking. Cool.

Active Texture Management is messing wth toolbars. And the navball readout and flight log g-meters have very little correlation with each other; it seems the flight log only registers sustained G's. No idea about the speed, though.

Now that everyone has recovered from the shock of 25, it's time to get this kicking again. Kerbodyne entry updated with the first 25-compliant entry.

So what are the limits? If I have a 2.5m Rockomax tank with a 1.25m docking port on top of it, is there any point in putting a little 1.25m nosecone on that? If I'm building a spaceplane with an open-air cargo bay, is there any way to at least partially shield the contents from drag?

Windows 64-bit is an unstable POS. Many mods are refusing to support it as more trouble than it's worth.

Fly higher. Climb steeply to 15,000 or so, then level off and crank it up on the way to 25,000. Once you're approaching hypersonic, try to hold it above 25,000. Kerbal Flight Data is very useful for temperature warnings.

The boys at the Kerbodyne skunkworks have got something good for you. It's not the fastest ship we've ever built, but in terms of pure aerodynamic polish, this thing is superb. But, despite its thoroughbred lines, the Kerbodyne Gull is no pampered showpony; this is a practical working vehicle, good for aerial delivery of substantial payloads and with wings tough enough to withstand heavy abuse. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0gikc0x1rq1l3h/Kerbodyne%20Gull%20Utility.craft?dl=0 Also available in crew transport versions, as both a 6-seater light cargo model and a 10-seater kerbalmover.

Have you added anything yet to differentiate .24 craft from .25 models? Stock parts changed enough to trash some designs, and FAR changed wing weight enough to mess with almost all old designs.

The FAR flight assistance window has developed an unfortunate habit of launching itself every time I come within physics range of another vessel. Anyone else getting this?

Thanks, Pecan. Those new cockpits are fun to IVA from:

It sounds like you're just coming in too steep. Set periapsis to 30km, then use your control surfaces to hold yourself at that altitude until you've slowed enough to descend further.

How are folks doing with the wing strength tweakables? I'm finding 0.4 good for workhorse stuff, and 0.2 acceptable for more fragile speedsters. Anyone successfully made an ultralight work? Any opinions on what's the maximum beyond which extra strength is pointless?

Not sure where to put this one; part stock, part mod, part bug report, part request... 1) It appears that the screwy docking port alignments have carried over from SP+ into stock. If you've selected "control from here" on a Mk2 inline docking port, the navball markers are not properly aligned with the ports. Attempting to dock by navball will see you bumping the top of your fuselage into the receiving port about a metre off target. 2) Thinking that if I'm going to have to dock by eyeball all the time I may as well do it properly, I set up some RPM cameras in the edge of the port and go to do it from IVA. Problem: as soon as you switch to the IVA mode, control shifts away from the docking port and back to the cabin, throwing the navball markers off by a further 90 degrees. Sod. Anyone got a good solution for either of these?

Need a solid workhorse to get those Fine Print satellite deployment contracts done? Tired of having to stop and refuel in orbit all the time? Need something with the range to go direct from KSC to Kerbostationary Orbit? Or to use as an interplanetary science explorer if you do refuel it? Meet the Kerbodyne Nova. Combined jet/rocket/nuclear propulsion renders fine performance and exceptional fuel efficiency. Ride the jets to Mach 5 and 30,000m, flick the RAPIERs to oxidising for a few seconds to kick you into the hypersonic then ride the nuke all the way to orbit. Keep the Vernors on above 30,000m for stability; toggle off the monoprop RCS while doing so. Officially endorsed by the L.R.M.A.C.P. (League of Radioactive Mutants Against Carbon Pollution). Fine balance. Clean lines. Smooth, stall-free performance. Combines very nicely with RPM. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/4tzahlydlj0fynv/Kerbodyne%20Nova.craft?dl=0

I heartily endorse this product and/or service. GregroxMun has it right.

The first step in improving the handling would be to sharply reduce the size of the chines. Use strakes, not structural pieces, and don't go for 360° coverage. I'd also try losing the reverse dihedral on the tailfins. Post stability analysis screens with temp 0, density 0.5 and speed 0.8 and we'll see what's up. You may want to have a poke at the third post in the Kerbodyne thread linked below.

Fun with DRE: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/95562-fastest-jet-in-ksp?p=1486399#post1486399

Okay, let's see what a FAR/DRE jet can do... Just a quick little something I threw together. Up. Supersonic in the vertical climb. Time to level off. Getting warm. And finally into the hypersonic. Top speed during the climb. That's the top, time for a bounce. Negligible thrust at this speed, the air is going through the intakes too fast for the turbojet to handle. Getting some speed up... Note the speeds in the previous two pics: the first is 1794.4m/s and Mach 5.67, while the second is 1792.0m/s and Mach 5.69. The first is faster in m/s, the second is faster in Mach. This is because Mach varies with altitude, while m/s does not. Which gives me an idea... Speed in m/s peaks here, at 1787.9m/s. Getting a bit on the toasty side. Peak mach, 5.77. Oops. This might hurt. Nup, all good. So: 1794.4m/s or Mach 5.77, your choice.

Is the altitude limit just at time of screenshot, or is it intended to be a ceiling for the entire flight? I'll see if I can get a FAR/DRE entry up for you. A bit below mach 6 is probably the limit in FAR, though.