Wanderfound

Kerbpaint: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/50008-0-23-KerbPaint-Paint-layering-for-parts-(September-23rd)-(Same-Old-Still-Works!) It's unmaintained zombieware (although there are folks committed to doing paintjobs for the new .25 parts ASAP), but it works fairly smoothly. Just be sure to dig out and delete the archaic copy of ModuleManager that it has buried in a subfolder.

BTW: as seen in the pic I posted upthread, Oscar-B's (and FL-R10's) are useful for slimming down payload diameter to make room for radial items such as landing struts.

The Wedgetail is a specialist fuel tanker: the fuel is the cargo. The "cargo bay" is just the service compartment, used for hiding unaerodynamic bits from the airflow. For bulk solid cargo, you want something like Brutus: ...or Albatross: If it's too chunky to fit in an SP+ bay, then you'd go the open-bay option like this (the orange Rockomax is the payload in this case): I use the soon-to-be-stock SP+ bits because they're prettier and allow me to reduce part counts, but the performance is comparable to stock. You can hoick just as much without SP+. For example, the all-retro-stock equivalent of the Wedgetail, the Pteranodon:

Seemed like a good opportunity to use the unloved inline cockpit, and it suits the weird insectoid aesthetics of the thing. And it gives me full-size attachment nodes on both sides.

If the option is available, sure. But it doesn't always work: radially attachable parts (e.g. Standard Clamp-o-trons) generally don't snap to nodes. Non-radially attachable things (like the shielded ports) will, though. The other option is to build from the port down: the port doesn't auto-snap to the stack node on a tank, but the tank will auto-snap to the node on the port.

Lexx answer: have the undead assassin personally soak up the heat (while singing the Brunen-G song). In the meantime, the rest of the cast do weird semi-sexual things with bits of the ship. Including the decapitated robot.

Sounds like you need the symmetry trick while building. To centre a docking port, engage symmetry. Wiggle the port about until the multiple ports overlap into a single image, then disengage symmetry and place. Docking ports frequently need strut reinforcement for launch, but they should be fine after that so long as you don't throw multi-G thrust at them.

Inconsistently, forgotten about whenever the plot demands it, and with implications that shatter the logic of the setting entirely if considered in any depth. The Star Wars answer would be to turn a dumping-the-waste-heat scene into a very bad videogame tie-in. Blake's 7 would have just let everyone cook to death. Except Avon, of course; he'd figure out a way to focus the heat onto his crewmates, leaving himself untouched.

Keep snagging your lander legs on the cargo bay floor? Sick of having to KAS strut everything whenever it comes back to the mothership? We've got you covered. From Kerbodyne Payload Solutions, we have the Kerbodyne Microlander. Designed to ship in two sections for unstrutted stability, this little gem can be easily reassembled in orbit and has enough juice to land and re-orbit from the Mun. No mods required. The canopy will clip through cargo bay doors without a problem, but be sure to arrange it so that it doesn't poke through the floor of the bay. Craft files at https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3aofobg1oqc00x/Lander%201.craft?dl=0 and https://www.dropbox.com/s/liap2aym5cw3xrt/Lander%202.craft?dl=0

Payload needs a bit more oomph, but don't have the room for a Kerbodyne Microbus? Then you need a Kerbodyne Miniboost, the latest in compact space technology from Kerbodyne Payload Solutions. 4,000 m/s of ÃŽâ€V tucked into a package small enough to fit inside a single normal length cargo bay, and light enough to be carried without strutting. Plenty enough grunt to take a compact lander to the Mun and back, or to boost a probe into Kerbol orbit. File at https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wyjyflraemcjms/Kerbodyne%20Miniboost.craft?dl=0 No mods required.

Without going for huge Whackjobbian sillyness? About 100 ton. Doing it in a few launches and assembling in orbit is usually simpler, though. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90337-Economic-Fuel-to-Oribit/page5?p=1361984#post1361984 for an example.

They're big enough to take a Munar lander, an interplanetary transit stage or a dozen small satellites. As usual, y'just gotta build 'em right. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90747-Kerbodyne-SSTO-Division-Omnibus-Thread?p=1431743&viewfull=1#post1431743 and:

Most likely, I'll spend a great deal of time explaining to folks new to SP+ that just because you can get the cargo to go in there while in the SPH, doesn't mean that you'll be able to get it out again in orbit. Do not allow your cargo to clip through the bottom of the bay, unless you want it as a permanent feature of the craft.

Also keep in mind: once .25 drops, stock fuselages will have lifting body properties. This substantially decreases the amount of wing required. If you really want single-piece huge wings, Procedural Wings will do the job for you. But it's not necessary; you can make big jigsaw wings that work just fine.

Depends on your priorities. My tech-tree progression usually begins with getting solar panels, then it's a straight race to turbojets and the small gear bay. Once you've got those, you can reliably lift cargo to orbit for under √5,000.

Not sure about stock air, but in FAR at least the basic jets top out at about Mach 1 and 20,000m. They're purely for atmospheric use; good for VTOL and low altitude aircraft. OTOH, it's fairly simple to build a spaceplane without RAPIERs. For example:

99% of my flying is with FAR, and it looks you're using stock aero, so BYO grain of salt. I started spaceplaning in stock before I switched to FAR, but that was some time ago. However: By the looks of it, the setup there is a central RAPIER flanked by turbos, yes? The plane could use a touch of polishing (ditch at least one ASAS unit, to start with) but it looks as if it should be orbit-capable. The first bit of advice would be to turn off the automatic mode-switching on the RAPIER and set an action group to toggle modes instead. You don't want it to start burning oxidiser until the last possible moment. Once the air runs low, shut down the lateral engines and run on the central one alone (thereby dropping your intake air requirement by 2/3rds, as well as avoiding all chance of an asymmetric flameout). Once that one starts to choke, gradually throttle down to extend it further. A single-turbojet basic plane can get over 2,000m/s and 35,000m altitude in stock aero if flown right. Your plane above should easily manage 30,000m and 1,500m/s. You'd be better with a 1 turbo / 2 RAPIER arrangement; that way, you can leave the central turbo running in conjunction with the RAPIERs during final ascent. On your current setup, trying to do that would be a near-guaranteed flameout-induced spin. Have a play with the stock aero version of the Benchmark: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbnz9s8k9h7gwgb/Kerbodyne%20Benchmark%20StockAir.craft?dl=0 That one can certainly reach orbit with ease. If you struggle with the Benchmark, then yeah: you need to work on your piloting. Make sure to check the action groups before you go; none of my planes are designed to use staging. Have you read through the piloting guide in the second post of this thread?

Mach varies with pressure, so there isn't a simple all-altitude conversion. Roughly speaking though, Mach 1 is about 350m/s. Both FAR and Kerbal Flight Data will give you your speed in Mach numbers. To go to space, you want to get fast before you light the rockets. 1,000m/s is a bare minimum, 1,500m/s is better, 2,000m/s is excellent.

BTW, once the SP+ parts are in: That wasn't actually intended to be Thunderbird-ish at all (I was trying to make a wing-snap proofed aerobatics ship), but I'm sure you can see the resemblance...

Just to make clear: I think that the mission stuff is the most important part of this. As the pics show, you can already make pretty good Thunderbirds replicas in KSP. What we're lacking isn't so much the aircraft as the International Rescue. Fine Print aerial survey and satellite deployment contracts are already fun; just a little tweaking and they could turn into something awesome. Varied ontracts all over Kerbin and in space as well, that have a sense of urgency and danger to them. And there's no reason why all this can't work in parallel with a conventional space exploration programme. "International Rescue" could even be one of the new admin strategies. Ties in nicely with destructible buildings, too.

Waiting on the update release so as to use the new spaceplane bits.

Reposted from my design thread: Wanderfound's Piloting Guide (written for FAR, but close enough for stock aero) 1) Get to 20,000m however you like. Especially with larger planes, a shallow ascent path (vertical speed kept to about 100m/s the whole way up) is most efficient, but fast overpowered sport things can often get away with a vertical climb to 20,000m. The more horizontal speed you have at 20,000m, the easier you'll find things above 20,000m. 2) When you get to 20,000m, level off and build some speed. You want to pile on as much horizontal velocity as possible while you make your ascent to 30,000m. Keep your angle of attack (the angle between where your nose is pointing and the direction in which the plane is actually moving, shown by the prograde marker when in surface mode) and climb rate low; by the time you hit 30,000m, they should both be around 10 or so. A low angle of attack reduces drag and helps your intakes work better. The low angle makes you climb slower, but that's okay; you need that time to get up to speed. As you go faster, the angle of attack required to maintain a given climb rate reduces, but as you go higher, the thinner air means that the angle of attack required to maintain a given climb rate increases. If you do it right, these two factors will roughly balance each other out and you should gain the necessary speed and altitude in a single smooth climb. However, a plane with some aerodynamic or piloting flaws may need to bounce up and down between 20,000 and 30,000m a couple of times while building speed before the final push. 3) Somewhere between 20,000m and 35,000m (exactly when depends on both plane and piloting), you'll start to run short of air. Don't switch to rockets immediately. If you've got multiple engines going, shut some down to concentrate the available oxygen into the ones you keep running. If you've already shut down as many as you can, throttle back a bit. You can dramatically increase your jet-only altitude by doing this, and once you get up to serious height the thin atmosphere means that you only need a tiny amount of thrust to accelerate. 4) Keep this going for as long as your plane and your patience can tolerate. A well-built and -flown plane should be able to get over Mach 4.5 and 30,000m in a single attempt on jets alone. Once you've wrung as much speed and altitude out of the jets as possible (you want at least Mach 4 and 30,000m), light the rockets. If you have both jets and rockets, don't shut down the jets immediately; the thrust of the rockets will drive a ram-air effect that kicks the jets back into life for a while. Keep the rockets burning until your apoapsis exceeds 70,000m, then shut off and coast until it's time to circularise. Point prograde and close your intakes while coasting to minimise drag. 4a) If you've got nuclear rockets, shut down all other rockets above 35,000m as soon as your apoapsis is a comfortable time margin ahead of you. Reengage boost rocketry if necessary to stop the apoapsis being passed, but otherwise fly on nuclear alone. A good plane and pilot should be able to get the apoapsis to 70,000m with less than a minute of rocket power. Done properly, it requires very little fuel. But if you try to brute-force it from lower speeds and altitudes, the atmospheric drag is going to drain your oxidiser tanks before you get anywhere near orbit. If you're having trouble with design rather than piloting, give http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90747-Kerbodyne-SSTO-Division-Omnibus-Thread?p=1434926&viewfull=1#post1434926 a try in NEAR/FAR, or https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbnz9s8k9h7gwgb/Kerbodyne%20Benchmark%20StockAir.craft?dl=0 in stock. * Send a Kerbal to the beach at the east end of the runway. Plant a flag. You now have a landing beacon. Set this flag as a target. * Burn retrograde until your trajectory intersects the ground on the west side of the KSC home continent. * As you descend, keep your nose within 10° of prograde and immediately correct any stall. You can afford a much larger AoA at higher altitudes, but you should still avoid stalls and close to prograde as soon as you start to feel the atmosphere through your controls. * Pull up as sharply as you dare. Aim to level out at ~25,000m. * Check your distance to KSC. If it's over 200km, slowly descend in order to hit 6,000m at the mountains west of KSC (which are about 5,000m tall). If it's within 200km, begin S-turns to wash off speed and altitude. * S-turns. First, decide how urgent the turn is and whether you also want to drop altitude. If the turn is urgent or you want to drop, stand the plane on its wingtip, keep the nose on the horizon and pitch up (carefully). If less urgent or you want to maintain altitude, roll to ~45° and pitch/yaw the nose around, monitoring climb rate and controlling it with pitch as you go. * Make sure the flag is still set as target. If your prograde and target markers coincide, you're heading for the end of the runway. If they aren't on a bearing of 90° while you're doing this, you're coming in at an angle. Fly to the side until the target indicator is at 90°. Then fly towards it. * Get lined up, low and slow as soon as possible. As soon as you're over the mountains, start doing S-turns and drop to the deck. Pull it down to <150m/s and <500m altitude, then point at the runway and level your wings. The shallower the approach the better. Keep engines on minimal throttle to hold speed constant. * Avoid any drastic manoeuvres over the runway. You'll probably overdo it and make things worse. * Watch your VSI (vertical speed, to the right of the altitude meter) and keep it to 5m/s or so. Triggering spoilers will increase it; balance the spoilers will gentle pitch-up. * Don't be afraid to wave off and go around again if it gets messy. Also remember that the paddock beside the runway is an easier landing strip than the runway itself. * Be ready to hit the brakes and do some delicate steering as soon as you land. Stick to the middle of the runway if you're using it. Trigger RCS and Vernors and use the "N" key for retro thrust.

BTW, landers at the other ends of the spectrum: Designed to fit in SP+ cargo bays. More stable than it looks. Exactly as unstable as it looks. You can land nearly anything with sufficient fuel and patience.

Looks okay, although there's a bit that could be polished if you wanted. * Lose the ladders, just EVA in. Anywhere with enough gravity to stop that will have too much gravity for this lander anyway. * It looks like you decouple the engine and tank just prior to reentry? Those are expensive; if you care about √, you could get them back down with you fairly easily. You've probably got enough parachutes on there already. * Not seeing any RCS. You certainly don't need it, but it does make landing and docking a lot easier, and comes in handy as emergency backup thrusters occasionally. Four thruster blocks and a small RCS tank don't weigh much. If you do stay RCS-free, make sure you empty the RCS fuel supply from the command pod to save weight. * Your lander legs could be mounted lower. As it is, a hard landing will probably cause enough leg flex to destroy the engine. * You've got at least twice as much as you need in the way of solar panels and batteries. * The reaction wheel is overkill. The capsule torque alone is more than enough to spin a lander around. * Losing the decoupler and reaction wheel will substantially reduce your height. Changing the Rockomax tank for several FLT-200's attached radially around the materials bay would chop is still further, while giving you an even wider base. * A downward pointing light or two is handy for providing visual altitude cues. Worked for the Dambusters... EDIT: just saw the revised version. Looks like you're already there... This is more of a FAR/DRE issue, but I always like to have at least one chute directly attached to the crew capsule. That way, if the ship breaks up during reentry, you've usually still got something to land with.

From a "will this craft work?" POV, FAR and NEAR are almost identical. Pretty much anything designed in FAR should fly in NEAR and vice-versa. I wouldn't worry too much about picking the difference.