Wanderfound

Depends on what seats you use...

This looks like fun; gonna have to see if I can get the Migration Aerotrain there and back.

Quite likely. I've had a few instances of flipping stationary planes onto their nose when I accidentally switch the RAPIERs to closed cycle.

Just brainstorming, but some other ideas for design challenge categories [1]: * Best non-space plane. * Best kerbal-from-orbit rescue plane. * Best Fine Print aerial survey plane. * Best satellite deployment plane. * Best vertical SSTO. * Best low-tech planes (i.e. science tier <5, tier 5, etc). * Best FAR trainer. * Best no-I-promise-this-isn't-a-bomber-honest. * Best use of Mk3 parts. [1] Kerbal overdose: I almost spelt that as "kategories" without noticing.

I used to work with some guys who ran experiments on the comet (neuroscience, looking at the effects of microgravity on the vestibular system and ocular reflexes). Apparently it's an absolute nightmare work situation, and not just because of the nausea factor; it costs a fortune, there's a long waiting list, and when you do finally get on you have to get your experiment running exactly on time and be prepared to hit the floor when necessary. Ain't no time for double-checking or "whoops, one last thing..." once the parabola starts.

I'd adore a few colour variation / negative / high contrast / dayglo / psychedelic versions of the Kerbodyne flag, too, if any of you arty types are feeling bored and generous.

Yay! Any chance of some Kaustralian themed jobbies? Blue Ensign: Eureka Flag: Australian Aboriginal: Torres Strait Islander: Sam Neill Flag:

Th stock contracts/funds/rep system is very much a bare-bones framework, but this is unsurprising; it was always going to be this way to start. It'll get better. As for how it'll get better, have a play with Fine Print for something with a bit more meat on the bones. Tons o'fun, and getting better as it goes.

Ooh, also: howzabout a speed related bonus prize? 10G at 100m/s is a bit different from 10G at Mach 5...

Apologies if I'm missing seeing this info somewhere, but: if I'm just after the aimable cameras to work with my existing SP+/RPM/MFD cockpit displays, but don't actually need the ALCOR lander can, which bits of the downloads do I need to install?

If you want to easily find KSC without having to mess with your atmosphere: plant flag at end of runway. Set flag as target. Instant nav beacon.

What are you using for your bom...aerially-deployed research probes?

Love love love this mod. Having an absolute hoot with the aerial survey contracts and deploying satellites via spaceplane. That said, though, on to the inevitable cries for more. * Raster Prop Monitor integration? It'd be great to be able to track the waypoints and contract details through my MFD screens (if this is already possible but I'm missing how, please let me know). * Larger font options? My eyes ain't great, and I'm struggling to read some of the text. * Contracts with a sense of urgency: "Spacecraft X is out of power and plummeting towards Kerbin! Intercept and rescue it before it crashes!". * More diversity in the atmospheric aircraft missions. The aerial surveys are great, but "there's a forest fire at location X! Fly over it at altitude Y and drop this tank of extinguishing foam onto it!" would be awesome. Pacifist bombing missions, basically. * "Sport" contracts. "You've been hired to compete in this year's Aeroracing Series: fly from X to Y between altitudes A and B in less than time Z".

And just to throw in a bit more of my usual spaceplane advocacy...a small, well-built, well-streamlined, and well-flown spaceplane can make it to orbit on a single turbojet and a weak sneeze's worth of rocketry. Mk 1 cockpit, probe core, mk 1 fuselage, a pair of swept wings and some control surfaces, a battery, landing gear, a radial intake, a turbojet, a small LFO tank and a few of the tiny Rockomax radial engines will let you collect Kerbals from orbit for the cost of a night at the pub. Satellite pods will get it done quicker, though.

If your sole criteria is "how much can it lift", then yes, bigger is generally better. But that isn't the only criteria. Cost, reliability, controllability, efficiency, utility...etc. Rockets run into a very steep wall of diminishing returns once they get big. Yes, another booster will give you more thrust, but most of that thrust is spent on lifting the booster itself. Once you're getting really chunky, it can reach the point where another fifty tons of booster only gets you an extra 10kg of payload. If you're looking to improve "how far can I go?" rather than "how much can I lift?", shaving a tiny amount of mass from the payload will let you dispense with a huge amount of mass in boosters. It's inevitably a bit subjective, but if you want a "good" rocket: payload as small as you can manage, boosters as big as you need. No more, no less.

In thrust we trust.

Repeated explosive failure is the True Kerbal Way. Looking forward to your next entry.

Y'might get some use from Goodspeed (TAC-FB but better, basically). Careful use of fuel lines and tweakables also allows you to make the tanks drain in whatever order you desire. But, if you'd rather not bother with all that, see Nathan's post above.

Alexander Pearce down here: http://youtu.be/OnNqxI5EdiI And, yes, not intended as a serious suggestion. Hence the wink.

Don't rule out the gear yet; as you pitch up, you increase the load on the rear gear, which can cause Bad Things to happen. I had a similar issue on one of my early heavy spaceplane designs (which had about a dozen sets of gear). It might be something else, but gear-related structural failure is still the first place I'd look.

Wow. I'd never seen that before, and I am immensely grateful that that sort of approach got binned. If KSP was anything like that outline, I wouldn't have any interest in playing the game. I doubt that people like Manley/Munroe/Ferdowski would have been drawn in, either. Praise be to Kerweh.

Or crew numbers. Kerbal Donner Party...

If you don't have FAR or NEAR in your mods folder, then you're flying in stock aero. As mentioned above, the most likely cause of the takeoff explosion is gear failure. Try sending it down the runway with your camera rotated to watch the landing gear from in front; you may see them start to wobble just before it all blows up.

You might be able to get that thing off the ground in stock aero. Trying it in FAR/NEAR is...ambitious. Might make for some good screenshots, though. NEAR doesn't include aerodynamic failure as FAR does, but it's still possible to just shake the thing to pieces the same as you could in stock. You may find adding a control surface or two to be helpful, BTW. 200m/s is a rather high takeoff speed. Carrying that much bulk at that speed, I wouldn't be surprised if your landing gear are failing. No bringing the fuel station with you to Minmus; the only thing allowed to leave Kerbin orbit is the racer, carrying no more or fewer parts than it had when it left KSC. Single Stage to Minmus. First time out of Kerbin SOI, introduction to spaceplane design...this may end up being an interesting learning experience for you. Perhaps try it with something a smidge less ambitious, then scale up once you've got that working?

The run looks legit; it would be nice to see proof that you can get that thing from KSC to LKO, though. And if you feel like trying to go faster, since you're playing with Hyperedit anyway: wanna teleport some audience into place as background scenery? Stylish wing-walking, BTW.