Wanderfound

An early-career survey aircraft that might be of use to some: Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihkwtlb2u737stw/Kerboflyer.craft?dl=0

Just empty out the oxidiser; think of it as early aircraft designers not having mastered the art of lightweight fuel plumbing yet. That empty oxidiser capacity can be useful for ballast placement, though.

Good speed and range available to early-career aircraft: Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihkwtlb2u737stw/Kerboflyer.craft?dl=0

New heavy-lift challenge: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/122243-Heavy-Lift-Economy-Challenge

You might lose it if you're pulling extreme stunts with a spaceplane, but a rocket should be pointed near-prograde and climbing into the stratosphere rapidly; there just isn't that much stress on it. And if you do blow it off, it's more likely to be through overheating than aero strain. I wouldn't rely on the nose-spike antenna as your only source of comms, though.

1) Pull the lower tailfins as low as you can get them. 2) Antenna on the nose, with the antenna extended. It makes a surprisingly large difference. - - - Updated - - - No and none, looks to me; the only first stage control authority I can see is the capsule torque. It can be done, but it is going the hard way.

This is for FAR, but something similar should work in stock: Process the ore tank into LF and you should have enough to hit Minmus for a full refuel.

1) No sudden changes in cross-sectional area, especially near the nose 2) Gimballed engines. That's it. Launch TWR was something like 1.7, throttle was wide open the whole way up. Not so much as a wobble; I deliberately flew a rough large-AoA profile to test it, and it was perfectly stable even at 20° off prograde. - - - Updated - - - You should see some flames, but there's a long time between visible flames and melted wings. Reentry demo:

Anything in particular? Build the lander-in-cargo-bay first. With the lander, concentrate as much mass as possible down low. As well as aiding balance during landing, it also keeps it aerodynamically stable flying engine-first while aerobraking. The engines serve as heat shields, and everything else is tucked away safely. The airbrakes help with keeping it online, too; they're set as control surfaces as well as drag brakes. To fit in the bay, it will need to be skinny. Vertically-flipped radial tanks are useful, as are Oskar B's. Chunky legs help compensate for a narrow footprint. The ability of scientists to reset goo and sci jr's means that you don't need more than one. The lander instruments mean that the mothership can do without an integral science suite, too (although you might want one for simultaneous operations). The mothership is basically just a large LF fuselage and a large cargo bay with four nukes strapped on back. The bits of oxidiser in the assorted adaptors act as fuel reserve for the lander. The boosters are a quartet of streamlined asparagused Mammoths.

The intercooler is similar to the nacelle in that it has a bit of LF and a bit of intake, but it's also a very good heat sink (the nacelle might be too, I haven't checked). The nacelles now have a radial attachment pylon included as well.

In which universe did I say anything like that? To quote: "in stock or FAR, you don't need a huge amount of engine". Single-engine stock SSTO:

In need of practice, perhaps. It's basically just "climb until the air thins, level off to break the sound barrier, then climb as slowly as your heating limits allow until rocket time". And in stock or FAR, you don't need a huge amount of engine:

This sort of formulaic approach to aircraft design simply doesn't work. It's all about balance and compromises and the right tool for the job. You need enough TWR to reach takeoff speed before the end of the runway. How much that is will depend a lot on the takeoff speed of your ship. This will, in turn, depend a lot on your lift (and is therefore related to your wing loading). But those wings generate drag and are dead weight in space... How much wing always depends on what you plan to do. Heavy loads call for bigger wings, high speeds call for smaller wings. Straight-line speed wants high wing loading, high-G aerobatics wants low wing loading. Big wings aid low-speed fuel efficiency and stability, and make it a lot easier to land. But they waste more oxidiser when the rockets are burning, reducing ÃŽâ€V in orbit. "What's the best" is always "best for what?". You don't need a lot of engine if you can get your drag under control:

Nothing has changed in the game that stops anyone from building unrealistic "cool" ships. What has changed is that there is now an efficiency price to be paid for aesthetics. Or, to put it another way, there is now an efficiency bonus for building with an eye towards practical engineering. You can have a highly effective realistic craft, or a pretty-but-inefficient Starship Enterprise. Ain't nothing wrong with that. If you want your Enterprise replica to fly like the TV version, well, the SF mods are over that way.

Droptanks have uses besides fuel storage; without the tail tank installed, this one has twice the drag in FAR. Streamlined on the way up, draggy on the way down.

BTW: due to frustration with this sort of nonsense: ...I'm now building everything with Kerbal Joint Reinforcement installed.

RAPIER: No RAPIER: About a 300m/s advantage to the RAPIER.

Which is what Ferram has been telling y'all: if you want to fly finless, you need some gimbal.

I don't have any action shots for you yet, but...

Large-payload finless FAR rocketry still very much doable:

"Can't fly rockets without fins any more". What are you people on about?

Here's the challenge: * Build a basic space station segment. Orange Rockomax tank, Snr docking port on each end, four radial standard ports, probe core, solar, RCS. * Lift it to orbit (70 x 70 minimum) however you like. * Cargo must be delivered fully fuelled. * Stock parts only, no performance-enhancing mods, if in doubt, ask. Informational mods, Mechjeb and KJR are okay. * Land any recoverable bits back on Kerbin. * Score is cost after recovery, not counting the cost of the cargo. * Separate leaderboards for stock aero vs FAR. Demo run: LF √0.8 x 5731 = √4584.8 O √0.18 x 5539 = √997.02 MP √1.2 x 4 = √4.8 Total cost = √5586.62 Obviously still some optimising to be done. Leaderboards Stock t3hJimmer, √9,438 Norcalplanner, √17,009.4 (vertical rocket SSTO) FAR Van Disaster, √5288 Wanderfound, √6356.3

Five starting levels: Wright, Goddard, Sputnik, Apollo, SpaceX. Starting contracts: low level flight, high level flight, unkerballed exploration, kerballed exploration, tourism/satellites.

The all-in-one option can work: That's more about refuelling itself than providing fuel for others, though.

Short tracks would be good; the less time taken per attempt the better. Minimal mods are also good. And allow aero trickery like active control surfaces.