Wanderfound

I usually try to get down to ~100m and ~150m/s while I'm still a couple of kilometres short of the strip. Can't stand the fine controls, either; with normal controls, a tap is a tap is a tap, but with the fine controls you have to hold the buttons down and it goes "nothing, nothing, tiny bit, lots!". Each to their own, though; there is no one true way. -- Edited to add: hey, I recognise that plane... Tried having a go at the speed challenge yet?

Looks like solid boosters are the best bet for density. Half a dozen S1 SRB-KD25k's it is, then.

Anybody got any ideas on what is the highest density stock part that will fit in an SP+ cargo bay, then? My limiting factor is going to be bulk, not mass. Or even ones that won't fit in a cargo bay. It's not that hard to build a medium SSTO that can lift more mass than a Rockomax 64. Alternately, what's your view on splitting the payload between multiple cargo bays? ETA: never mind, just saw rule #7.

Something worth keeping in mind for career mode, BTW: if you do end up missing the runway, you can taxi back onto it before recovery for 100% funds.

I'd prefer it if you actually had to walk there in IVA. Probably too much to ask for, though.

The latest update to FAR nerfed the power output of RAPIERs and Turbojets by 50% and sharply chopped the top end of the speed/thrust curve. They've still got plenty enough power to get you to orbit, but it's no longer as easy to brute-force your way past flawed aerodynamic design.

Incidentally, if you're reading the forums on an iWhatever, you can set a keyboard shortcut easily. Whenever I type sqrt it automatically converts to √; whenever I type dlt it converts to ÃŽâ€. It is a good idea to add it to the emoticons, though.

Make the pics in the SPH, from top and side, with CoM/CoL/CoT indicators on. However, most likely suspects: * Too much drag. * Insufficient pitch authority. Drag increases and shifts backwards once you've gone supersonic; this tends to pull the nose down. Conventional control surfaces also lose much of their effectiveness. It tends to be worse on large planes, because they have more drag and lack the agility or TWR to overcome it. All-moving surfaces (AV-R8's, canards etc.) near the nose may help, as may a general streamlining overhaul. As a last-ditch brute-force measure, a few Vernors under the nose may also come in handy.

Big announcement yesterday: Squad bought Spaceplane Plus. It's being integrated into the stock game.

Vernors work like linear RCS ports: they jet straight out only. The Vernors on the underside are for VTOL landings on low-gravity moons; the ones on the nose are to help you recover if you lose control by pitching up too steeply. They're toggled on and off by an action group. You don't want Vernors on while docking; they're too powerful for fine control. There are a pair of linear RCS ports on each facing of the plane, balanced around CoM to avoid imparting spin-torque. dCoM is dry centre of mass, yes. You can check it by right-clicking and emptying all the tanks, but the easier way is to install the RCS Build Aid mod. As well as helping you balance your RCS ports, it also lets you view Com and dCom at the same time and measures the distance between the two.

Nah, just crash lots. That way, when you send up your rescue missions, it doesn't matter where you land: there'll always be a stranded Kerbal nearby. I think I had over twenty of them up there by the time I got the hang of it...

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90337-Economic-Fuel-to-Oribit/page5?p=1361984#post1361984 Wet cost: √149322 Recovered: √143321.7 LF delivered: 3727.9 O delivered: 4186.4 Cost: √6000.3

Okay; got something good for y'all. Now you can fly with the technology of tomorrow today. The Kerbodyne Epinephrine represents the pinnacle of modern-day SSTO multipurpose spaceplane design. Featuring a superbly balanced combination of cutting-edge parts, the Epinephrines's sleek, lifting body airframe and substantial bank of high-performance engines delivers speed more normally associated with specialist interceptor aircraft. And yet, the Epinephrine is also a capable workhorse, able to deliver substantial loads of cargo to a wide variety of terrain and destination. Low-gravity VTOL capability, substantial fuel capacity, refueling ability and high-efficiency Aerospike propulsion make the Epinephrine the spaceplane of choice for any first-rate space program. Don’t be fooled into false economy; the Epinephrine remains exceptionally cheap to operate. This is a spacecraft that will more than return your investment, in both practical use and sheer piloting enjoyment. Kerbodyne. Quality you can fly. Available at all of the best spaceplane dealerships, prices starting from √102,301. For the discerning pilot. Kerbodyne Epinephrine tech specs: * Four RAPIERs, two Aerospikes. * Very fast: maximum TWR 2.22 wet, 4.36 dry. * Able to reach orbit with tanks 2/3rds full. * Radio and ample space for scientific equipment. * Large cargo bay, right on top of CoM so that it doesn't disturb the flight balance. * Capable of lifting up to a 20 ton payload. * Distance between CoM and dCoM is 0.06m. * Well-balanced RCS: below 0.3kNm of torque in all directions, easily cancelled by SAS. * Ventral Vernors sufficient for VTOL landings on the Mun or Minmus. * Nose-mounted Vernors for stall recovery. * Docking port, illuminated by a spotlight in the secondary cargo bay. * Two seater, pilot and co-pilot. * Front tank and drone core battery configured as dedicated emergency reserves; isolated from the fuel system by default. Access through right-click menu. * Drone core for remote piloting. * Easy to fly, stable handling. * Very strong airframe. * Aesthetics...judge for yourself: Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/4xh410nyk6mjmhr/Kerbodyne%20Epinephrine.craft Requires Spaceplane Plus and FAR/NEAR.

EDIT: Entry changed. The original was the best I'd ever built, but then I surpassed myself. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86202-Better-SSTO-Spaceplane-Challenge-%280-23-5-0-24%29-Extended?p=1372294&viewfull=1#post1372294 for the updated presentation. Okay; got something good for y'all. The Kerbodyne Epinephrine: * Four RAPIERs, two Aerospikes. * Very fast: maximum TWR 2.22 wet, 4.36 dry. * Able to reach orbit with tanks 2/3rds full. * Radio and ample space for scientific equipment. * Large cargo bay, right on top of CoM so that it doesn't disturb the flight balance. * Capable of lifting up to a 20 ton payload. * Distance between CoM and dCoM is 0.06m. * Well-balanced RCS: below 0.3kNm of torque in all directions, easily cancelled by SAS. * Ventral Vernors sufficient for VTOL landings on the Mun or Minmus. * Nose-mounted Vernors for stall recovery. * Docking port, illuminated by a spotlight in the secondary cargo bay. * Two seater, pilot and co-pilot. * Drone core for remote piloting. * Front tank and drone core battery configured as dedicated emergency reserves; isolated from the fuel system by default. Access through right-click menu. * Easy to fly, stable handling. * Very strong airframe. * Aesthetics...judge for yourself: Action groups: 1: Inner RAPIERs toggle 2: Outer RAPIERs toggle 3: Aerospikes toggle 4: Inner RAPIERs switch mode 5: Outer RAPIERs switch mode 6: Toggle nacelle intakes 7: Toggle shock cone intakes 8: Toggle cargo bay doors 9: Toggle solar panels 10: Toggle Vernors Part count: 128 Wet weight: 34.407 ton Dry weight: 17.102 ton Price: √102,301 Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/4xh410nyk6mjmhr/Kerbodyne%20Epinephrine.craft Requires Spaceplane Plus (soon to be stock! ) and FAR/NEAR (due to tuned control surfaces).

And really: ditch the LVN's. They're high-efficiency space engines, but they're very heavy and have lousy thrust. Turbojets, RAPIERs and aerospikes. You can do it without using any of those, but it's more difficult. Save the advanced tricks for after you've got the basics down. Have a go with the plane I linked above, then take it into the SPH to tear it apart and see how it's built. Pay particular attention to the relationship between CoL and CoM. I'd also recommend getting the RCS Build Aid mod. As well as helping with RCS placement, it also allows you to view CoM and dCoM (dry centre of mass, i.e. after the fuel is gone) at the same time. If the distance between the two is more than 1m, you want to rearrange your fuel tanks. The CoL should be overlapping but not in front of the rearmost of the two CoM's.

Put it in the SPH and turn the CoL/CoM indicators on. If CoL is in front of CoM, then yes, it's going to flip.

I endorse the part count limit, BTW. Anyone can build a Whackjob-style monster; you have to know what you're doing to lift serious weight with something sensible.

Can we use NRAP for the payload? It will allow heavy loads to be placed in SP+ sized cargo bays. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76231-0-24-x-Kerbal-NRAP-Procedural-test-weights!-v1-5-0-1-03-08-14

The definition of science is always going to be a contested thing (Popper was wrong, Kuhn was close but not quite, Feyerabend was a troll), but one of the better versions I've heard was this: Science is our only defence against common sense.

Nah, if you're gonna put a ridiculously oversized engine on a spaceplane, you want it on the smallest plane possible. It's not like you're going to be using it for anything sensible. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/91229-Kerbodyne-Dementia-Porkjet-Memorial-Edition for some shots of the Dementia in action. The last three designs were amusing to build, but I'm going back to building practical things now. Got something good in the works; about to take it for a test spin to Minmus. (edit: just noticed that you were talking about body parts not engines. My bad)

Stock aero, FAR or NEAR? The following guide was written with FAR in mind, but the technique is basically the same in stock. How to fly a spaceplane to orbit 1) Get to 20,000m however you like. Around a 45 degree climb is probably most fuel efficient, but jet engines use so little fuel that it doesn't matter much. If the plane has enough power, I usually climb at 75 degrees or so just to get it done quickly. 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 a slow 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), force the nose up to 45 degrees and 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. 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. You don't need part-clipping and you don't need air-hogging; these are just ways of compensating for poor piloting and design. If you're having trouble with design rather than piloting, give http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90747-Kerbodyne-SSTO-Division-Omnibus-Thread?p=1357777&viewfull=1#post1357777 a try.

Remarkably sturdy airframe, though:

TAC-LS, presumably? I'm not sure, but I think they'll be okay. TAC-LS adds a couple of days of life support supplies to each capsule. You'll want to get a resupply mission up there pronto, though.

Testing out the spaceplane I made to celebrate Porkjet's triumph: Quite a lot of thrust: Possibly a bit too much thrust: Craft file at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90747-Kerbodyne-SSTO-Division-Omnibus-Thread?p=1360602&viewfull=1#post1360602

So when can we expect the Porkjet versions of the Mk1 sized stuff?