Wanderfound

Things that are exciting in real science: * Getting to play with insanely expensive high-tech toys. * Using materials that will kill you (and maybe everyone else nearby as well) if you're careless. * Experiments where months of work can be messed up by bumping a test tube at the wrong moment, or leaving something on the hotplate for a few seconds more than you should have. * Occasionally realising that you know something that no-one else in the world knows about. * Discovering that other people are taking what you found and doing cool stuff with it.

"The"? Three and three: Josefina, Belinda and Roberta.

The twin-SRB version needs to climb a bit less steeply than you'd normally expect for something that small, but it accelerates fine once it's got some altitude. And, yeah: once the SRB has done its thing, you're pretty much left with a structural fuselage segment. The main trick with them is just to put the SRBs close to CoM, to avoid disrupting the balance once they're burnt. Getting them to space is easy, getting them to a circular orbit requires a bit of piloting. To use these as more than novelty ships, probably the best setup would be a single SRB hull flanked by a pair of RAPIERs. Best of both worlds.

Kerbodyne Komet R. To orbit, in a hurry, on a budget. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/xhnpe0kndvdlpcw/Kerbodyne%20Komet%20R%202015.craft?dl=0 - - - Updated - - - There were some bomber-launched parasite fighters, but the Me-162 wasn't one of them. The whole point of the insanely overpowered rocket in the original Komet was so that they could get from runway to bomber height as rapidly as possible. And, yeah, obviously inspired by.

A fun little toy... Kerbodyne Komet 2015 Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/uxfmb9pnz3pqfvg/Kerbodyne%20Komet%202015.craft?dl=0

Flight test on the Labrys:

The Retro Future mod has 'em.

Okay; that should be enough entries that people can start voting as well as submitting. Remember that you can't vote for yourself, you must vote for someone, and you can change your vote whenever you like. For a Kerbodyne entry, we have the Stratos N... Proof of function: Another view: ...and since I can't vote for myself, my vote for the moment goes to MajorJim's Eagle.

Yeah, why not; I think AJE would mostly be a disadvantage rather than an advantage. I'll put a note on your times to show that they were AJE-affected in case anyone is bothered. Still stock engines only, though.

You can get away with extreme rearset gear on some designs, however: Light weight and a hefty amount of pitch authority helps (but, yeah, usually best off with gear adjacent to CoM).

Happens in real life, too; the introduction of Harriers to the US fleet necessitated some flight deck reinforcing. If you want a fireproof Kerbal carrier to play with, see the Kerbinside mod: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82785-0-90-Kerbin-Side-v0-41-Go-For-Multi-Launch!

Part 1 of the interplanetary flight:

As per the title: post a pic of the prettiest/hottest/meanest/coolest/sleekest/baddest spaceplane you can build. However, a few rules: * Stock parts only. Modpacks make it too easy. * Must be functional. Post a couple of pics demonstrating that it can make orbit. - As for judging...when you post your pic, also post a vote for any design that isn't yours. You can go back and edit your vote later; it's okay for the first few entries to cast no vote until some competition appears. Exactly how to define "spaceplane" is entirely up to the voters. The plane with the most votes wins a golden apple.

For trivia value: Wanderfound's (AKA Dr Motbey) previous video appearance: - - - Updated - - - BTW: I have lots of people who pop in to this thread to say that they like my designs, and that's really awesome. Thank you all for dropping by to say nice things. What I don't have, however, is a lot of people to fly against. When I put up a challenge, I usually get a lot of stock flyers, but barely any of the FARisti. I'm more of a designer than a pilot; my times aren't that hard to beat. And beating the times isn't the point, anyway; I try to design my challenges as things that are fun to try even if you aren't that fast. I also try to design them as things that provide good piloting training. So, if you like my ships, see if you can help out the Kerbodyne brand by showing what they can do. Or bring your own; it's always nice to see other people's ideas. Challenges open: Touch & Go Racing http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107682-Kerbodyne-Touch-Go-Racing-League Loop and Land http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107547-The-Kerbodyne-Loop-Land-Sprint Upgoers http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90354-Spaceplane-speed-challenge-shortest-elapsed-time-from-runway-to-orbit Cratermakers http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/91511-Spaceplane-Speed-Challenge-2-Fastest-time-from-orbit-to-runway Up & Down http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94343-Spaceplane-Speed-Challenge-IV-Up-and-Down Aerobatics http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106723-Kerbodyne-Aerobatics-Championships

I'd assume that would be covered under Wheaton's Law, but to clarify just in case: folks, no sneaking down the runway. If you're not sure if something is legit, ask.

RL; I know it works in FAR.

Kerbal Flight Data should be made stock, yes. What do you mean by efficient air use, though? Apart from "point your intakes at the wind" and "faster equals more air, higher equals less air" and "throttle down before you flame out", there's not much to it.

A new build video, shorter this time: - - - Updated - - - The shuttle is on the list. I might do one on symmetrical vertical SSTOs first, though. I've already started a Duna run; the first leg's video is on the laptop, awaiting commentary.

It has been known to happen...

Yes to all of the above. I was more wondering about the practicality of the leading edge slat controls; the AoA thing is just the AoA setting working as it should.

Gah; I was on schedule for a three-thirty run on FAR/F1/Race1, then blew the plane up on the final turn towards the runway...

I blame the clouds.

Yeah, I realise they run on a bit. The ones I'm doing today are getting edited down; I recorded an hour-long commentary, then realised that it sucked, so I cut the vid down to 30 minutes and I'm about to redo the voiceover. I'm new to the whole DIY video thing; the last time I recorded video involved a TV crew. Glad y'all are liking them, though. What's better: building, flying, or building then flying? - - - Updated - - - Yup, clamp = scalar. I'd try kp's of 5000 for pitch and 3000 for roll, BTW. KPA has a glitch that switches the preset values around occasionally. The Kerbotrainer​ is particularly bad at ground braking. There are only two braked wheels, and there's barely any weight on them. I left it that way on purpose to encourage people to learn to hit the start of the runway rather than midway down. To improve its ground braking: * Reenable the front brakes. You need to be careful not to overdo it and dig the nose in if you do this, though. or * Set the inner ailerons as spoilers linked to the brakes. or * Stick a pair of Monoprop engines pointing forwards at the wing roots. Set an action group to toggle them. Make sure that the cockpit has its monoprop supply full. - - - Updated - - - There are only a few big tankers here, and they're all fairly high tech. But if you take a Wedgetail and swap the engines for a mix of Turbojets and LV-T45's, it might work.

That doesn't seem to flip it. The problem is definitely still occuring, but I'm not sure what triggers it.

My first suspect would be the XBox controller, to be honest. KSP is notoriously finicky for joysticks. Lowering the max deflection on the control surfaces and beefing up your wing mass a bit may help.