Wanderfound

How far up the tech tree are you?

Solar panels for the Mun lander, then race to the RAPIERs.

Stock it is, then. Shame, though: this is what I'd whipped up. Just needs final detailing to be done. 24 Kerbal capacity (12 in economy class; convert to a cargo bay for an express courier), better than 170kN of VTOL thrust for the Mun, able to beat Mach 5 on Kerbin.

Do you absolutely need stock, or is Spaceplane Plus okay? It's about to be stock anyway, you may as well install it now if you haven't already. FAR, NEAR or stock aero? - - - Updated - - - How many passengers is too many?

I can make you something that will carry as many Kerbals as you want and do unrefuelled return trips to Minmus and back with a VTOL landing for some ice skating on the flats. Give me half an hour. That do?

And one more... Take your favourite spaceplane [1]. Fly it to Minmus (refuelling in Kerbin orbit allowed if there's a docking port or EVA fuel hose). Then see how fast you can ice skate on Minmus. Start from the ground or do it touch-and-go from orbit; either is fine. But you need two screenshots: one showing your current speed while in contact with the surface of one of the Minmus flats (so careful screenshot timing is a factor as well; video is an obvious advantage), and one showing your craft intact [2] afterwards, stationary on one of the Minmus flats. Get your Kerbal out on the wing to wave for the victory picture. Show off your best unplanned disassemblies. Bring whatever spaceplane you like, whatever mods you like, whatever engines you like. Must touch down with normal landing wheels, not girders or a sacrificial tyre on a stick. FAR, NEAR and stock all welcome. See http://www.fraps.com for one free video cap option. [1] Or vertical SSTO if it can land on wheels. All craft, spaceplane or not, must be single stage to Minmus. Refuelling is allowed, deliberately dropping parts is not. [2] Intact-ish. Honourable mention if you destroy your landing gear but survive to complete the challenge, but the ultimate prize is for the fastest intact spacecraft. This is a precision piloting challenge. Put those career mode part-testing skills to use. [TABLE=class: outer_border, width: 500, align: center] [TR] [TD] Best time from a flying start [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Kasuha: 819.7m/s[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE=class: outer_border, width: 500, align: center] [TR] [TD] Best time from a ground start[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Sensi: 520m/s[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Kasuha: 94m/s[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Wingblaze: 64.2m/s[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Batz_10K: 59.4m/s[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE=class: outer_border, width: 500, align: center] [TR] [TD] Best time in a practical, non-optimised spaceplane[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Kasuha: 819.7m/s[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Batz_10K: 59.4m/s[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE=class: outer_border, width: 500, align: center] [TR] [TD] Best time overall[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Kasuha: 819.7m/s[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Sensi: 520m/s[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Wingblaze: 64.2m/s [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Batz_10K: 59.4m/s[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE=class: outer_border, width: 500, align: center] [TR] [TD] Craziest contraption (community vote)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE=class: outer_border, width: 500, align: center] [TR] [TD] Best looking plane (community vote)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE=class: outer_border, width: 500, align: center] [TR] [TD] Best audience (community vote) [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE=class: outer_border, width: 500, align: center] [TR] [TD] Best audience carnage screenshot (community vote)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE=class: outer_border, width: 500, align: center] [TR] [TD] Highest debris apoapsis[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Sensi: (escape velocity? Got a m/s?)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE=class: outer_border, width: 500, align: center] [TR] [TD]Best exploding screenshot (community vote)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Sensi: (candidate)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Wingblaze: (candidate)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Wanderfound: (candidate)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

I've been posting some screenshot narratives to my assorted challenge threads (speed up, speed down, economy). A lot of them involve fairly extreme shock-heating hijinks. Have a look at the data windows in the shots; it'll give you an idea of just how low and fast is survivable. S-turns are nice in theory, but often more trouble than they're worth. Get to 20,000m, zero your climb rate, wait. Descend as you slow, as fast as you dare.

Again? Coming in less steep than last time. Still a bit steep, though. Possible a little too steep, even. But no biggie; she still flies pretty well. More streamlined now, too. Got her flattened out... Just need to lift the nose a whisker to get over the mountains. Bit harder than usual without the canards. Oops... It still flies! I wonder if we can get over the mountains? Maybe... Nope.

So go full thrust. You're not going too fast until things start tearing off your ship or exploding. The more speed you carry to 20,000m, the more speed you'll have at 30,000m. Experiment. Spaceplanes can take quite a bit of toasting before they blow up, and the first thing to go is usually something small and expendable anyway. I just melted the canards off something, but that was caused by sustained 10,000m Mach 5. And the plane is still flying. What they can't take is aerodynamic failure; if you've got your flame suit on, don't even think about turning. At most, carefully shift your nose to the teensiest distance outside of the prograde circle. For the most fuel efficient ascent, you usually want a very flat one, building as much lateral speed as possible, climbing just enough to gain altitude at a rate that prevents your plane from getting eaten by the low altitude soup. What you lose to drag you make up in less rocket / more jet time. For the quickest ascent, you want as steep as you can, but topped off with a smooth curve that zeroes your climb rate just before your last jet engine dies. For the "I can't be arsed thinking about this" ascent, just stick the nose at 35° after takeoff and leave it there until engine shutoff time (exact angle may vary depending on aircraft).

Current modlist here. Bold ones strongly recommended. Italicised ones essential for spaceplaners: Action Group Manager Active Texture Management Extended Trim EVE DR Editor Extensions Enhanced Navball FAR Mechjeb Hot Rockets Navball Docking Alignment Indicator Final Frontier NRAP Part Angle Display Part Highlighter Procedural Fairings / Wings RCS Build Aid Smokescreen Spaceplane Plus TAC-FB TAC-LS Kerbal Alarm Clock EVA Parachutes

As you found out, while 20km is an okay braking height, it still takes quite a while to slow down a streamlined plane. And vigorous manoeuvres at high Mach numbers just aren't an option. Aim well short of KSC, try to get down to 20,000m quickly and level off there until you're below Mach 2. If you're feeling daring, you can push considerably lower, but you'll blow up a few planes as you learn the limits. The lower you go the faster you slow, though. Landing a hypersonic spaceplane on a sloping paddock is supposed to be hard. Learn to hit the runway. I don't normally use them much. My planes are usually stable enough that SAS is sufficient unless things are getting so extreme that the FAS toggles won't do the job either. And I find that when they get overwhelmed, they often make the situation worse by unsettling the plane. DCA is useful on some of the crazier ships at high speed, though. Traditionally what I would use for reentry and long-haul flights when I was lazy was the Surface mode on Mechjeb's Smart A.S.S. Set Heading to 90, Roll to 0, Pitch to 4, etc. etc. Just a basic 3-axis autopilot, and also handy for setting a bearing and then turning it off. You still need to be ready to take control if things get lively because it's not as good as a real pilot, but it's a major chore-saver when you want to just keep something level while you're slowly bleeding off bulk reentry speed under time acceleration. When it's working, you can fly a good plane to orbit by doing nothing but changing the pitch settings when appropriate. However, ever since the last update Smart A.S.S. has been useless for planes, because it isn't accounting for gimballing roll. So, I've been doing most everything manual lately. The Smart A.S.S. issue should be sorted in a week or so, though.

Are all you folks using B9 in your designs aware that the new pack may be out in a few days? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/73621-B9-5-0-pre-release-updates/page49

It's a stealth ship?

Nice to see SP+ getting some good creative non-spaceplane use.

A first attempt to kick us off: Samke Kerman, Chief Financial Officer of Kerbodyne SSTO Division, had decided to make a point to the spendthrift test pilots who were forever tearing the wings off their planes just outside the windows of his office. He was sure they did it there on purpose to taunt him. CFO Samkie normally flies a desk, but he still remembers flight school. It's his first time in a Benchmark, though. "It certainly accelerates briskly", he thinks. "Flies alright, too", remarks Samke. "Time to pull up a bit", Samke decides. "Climbs well, too", he thinks. "Quite a brisk ride, actually", mutters Samke to himself. "Certainly no lack of high altitude stability", Samke considers. "And look at this; we could save a fortune on our fuel bills if we could just convince those hotshot pilots to fly sensibly like I do", thinks Samke. 759 Liquid Fuel Remaining, 556 Oxidiser, for a score of 1,315. FAR and Deadly Reentry installed. Mechjeb used for flight data purposes.

All of my stuff is well-tuned high performance rather than ultra-forgiving trainer. However, of mine, the one I'd normally recommend as a trainer is the Benchmark. It was designed as a trainer, but as a high performance trainer: it's a very quick, very agile plane that will do exactly what you tell it to. However, that means that if you tell it to kill you, it will. If you look at the things I've posted about how to fly the Benchmark and how to fly in general and do what they say then you shouldn't have much trouble. The Goblin is probably the "easiest" to get to orbit, but it's basically a hand grenade at low altitude if you open the throttle all the way. As with the Benchmark, if you tell it to kill you it will be happy to obey. If anybody else thinks that a different one of mine would be more suitable though, please let me know. - Edited to add: actually, for the simplest way to orbit, do this instead. Get yourself in an Epinephrine, engage SAS, crank the throttle to full, take off, pitch the nose to 25°, level the wings, hands off the controls and have a sip of tea, turn the Vernors and Aerospikes on when the RAPIERs switch to closed cycle, have some more tea, shut down when apoapsis hits 70,000m. Watch the pitch while you're drinking your tea and gently tap it back online if it starts to wander. The Vernors should keep it tight, though. It's not the most fuel efficient way to fly it, but it'll work. Expect to see some "reentry" flames on the way up. The Benchmark is probably the better trainer, though. The Epinephrine is a bit too polished for the purpose; the Benchmark might teach better.

Want it NOOOOOOOOOW!!!! Might need some swing-wings for the orbital SSTO aircraft carriers. May be time to reinstall Infernal Robotics...

My laptop struggles with one KSP, unfortunately.

Thanks for having a go, BTW. I'll leave the call on the rules for the majority vote of the stock-aero flyers after a few more of you show up. It may not be too much of a problem if you guys are using slightly modified versions, so long as it doesn't turn into everybody rebuilding the plane until it becomes something entirely different. If there's an obviously superior version from amongst the three stock aero options so far presented, the best flyers should rapidly converge on it. FAR and NEAR pilots, however: original rules still stand. Don't fiddle with the plane apart from tuning the control surfaces to taste. We want this to be a piloting challenge, not engineering.

I think there might have been something wrong with the file; when I downloaded, I couldn't access any craft in the SPH until I removed it from my save. I've replaced the download link with a new version that is definitely fine, and definitely has the turbojet assigned to action group 1. I've also put together a version of the Benchmark retuned for stock aero the way I would do it. https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbnz9s8k9h7gwgb/Kerbodyne%20Benchmark%20StockAir.craft?dl=0

Is there any way to quickly toggle on and off the effects of FAR on the CoM/CoL indicators while in the SPH? It would be handy when designing to be able to quickly check that the aerodynamic balance is acceptable for both FAR and stock aero.

I prefer not to use LV-N's, not because I think it's "cheating" but because they make it a bit too easy for me (and just me; y'all have fun however you like). I'd probably change on that if they gave the LV-N its own fuel type and attendant hassles.

I took O-Doc's Robin 1.0 for a spin in FAR. It's a fun little plane. It climbs easily and well. It is very fast on final ascent; note the Periapsis. It's light, solid and stable enough to come in fairly hot. Although possibly I came in a touch too hot. Kept flying, though. Tough little bird. The one handling flaw obvious was a tendency to develop an oscillating pitch instability at low-altitude supersonic speeds. This can rapidly explode into a disastrous situation if not controlled. Enjoyable aesthetics. It's a sweet and stylish little sportscar of a plane. So, what do I think? It's a fun little plane. I'd happily have one in the shed. It's fast, well balanced, solidly and carefully built. There are nice little touches of quality; for example, the perfectly balanced RCS. The handling issues could probably be resolved by something as simple as reducing the control authority on the front winglets. The pitch authority is rather extreme; precision handling is recommended at low altitude. As much as I like the Robin, I don't think it will be getting my vote. It is much easier to build this sort of performance into a small pleasure craft then it is to make something that is both high performance and practically useful. As some others have indicated, my vote is most likely to go to an all-rounder that excels in all of its functions. For a pure sportster to win, it would have to be flawless. The Robin is a lovely little plane, but it isn't quite up to perfection. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86202-Better-SSTO-Spaceplane-Challenge-%280-23-5-0-24%29-Extended?p=1302838&viewfull=1#post1302838

Getting into seismic research? Got an old space station that you don't want any more, but can't deorbit because its batteries are dead and it lost its solar panels in that unfortunate incident involving the Fast Crew Transport System and the exhaustion of your keyboard batteries? Need to clean up some random debris lying around KSC? You need a Kerbodyne Impactor. Eight RT10's help power a rapid launch, while the quad LV-45 main engine provides lengthy cruise range. Line up your target, separate the impactor, light the final boost stage and we promise that your problem will go away. https://www.dropbox.com/s/voklzl20o7m5azc/Kerbodyne%20Impactor.craft?dl=0 Requires the NRAP mod. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76231-0-24-x-Kerbal-NRAP-Procedural-test-weights!-v1-5-0-1-03-08-14

You'd probably be better off leaving the canards where they were and removing the winglets entirely. It's not short of pitch authority. After you've taken it to orbit, stability will increase further; all the fast-burning oxidiser is up the back. It's always a matter of subjective opinion of course, but to me "easy to fly" doesn't mean "impossible to crash". I tested the landing gear by taking it for a 50m/s grounded spin around the paddock, turned in a circle and popped over the berm onto the runway at 25m/s. Not a wobble. Action key 1 does toggle the turbojet on my version. Is there something scrambled with the download?