RedDwarfIV

My orbital spaceplane, the Vulcan, has an engine set-out comprising of two high-altitude jets, and two NERVA engines on either side. Of these, all the high altitude jets are on Tri-couplers, and two of the NERVAs take up the remaining spaces on the tri-couplers. The other two NERVAs sit on fuel pods positioned so they don\'t overbalance the craft. I usually have it so that the NavCon highest efficiency marker [yellow circle] is at 45*. This ensures fast climb, whilst still using the wings for lift. However, it is not the most efficient flight profile.

I got an orbiter to mobile verti-launch. Uploading video soon.

Welcome to the Jeremy Clarkson school of engineering. POWERRRRR. Well that failed.

Thanks Capt\'n Skunky.

Exactly. My \'Ibis X2 Disaster Mission\' thread is a perfect example. I posted a thread about Veto Aerospace\'s response to the loss of an Ibis X-class, which I took screenshots of, which RPers then talked about in character. That\'s what an In Character Discussion/Single-Side Role Play would be.

Earlier today I sent a message to Ascensiam asking if something I call \'In Character Discussion\' was still allowed. I recieved no reply, but I take the following sentance to mean that he followed my advice to amend what the rule banning RP outside the closed RP forum meant [iE, forms of RPing that do not include wars and politics stay banned, but projects involving nations and corps may continue]: The quote recommends the Spacecraft Exchange. However, for some topics this may not be the best forum. For instance, my Ibis X2 disaster thread was posted in General Discussion, as the topic was a disaster involving a spaceplane, not the spaceplane itself. The definition of In Character Discussion is this: -A topic is set for the discussion. This may be a disaster, a project, or simply an informative text. Should be something that happened in KSP, or be about something you are doing/going to do in KSP. Should not be war/politics based. -Users proceed to discuss the topic In Character, hence the name. Characters straight from RP can be used, although the conflicts of RP should not be mentioned. This is to prevent competition between users - this is what I view to be the primary cause of RP\'s problems. That people couldn\'t make the distinction between IC and OOC was the issue, but that would have been much harder to solve. OOC should be kept to explanations about what you have said, or are not saying because, for instance your character doesn\'t know it. Again, should not be war/politics based. -As Ascensiam\'s post says, 'the failure to unite and agree is the main cause,' so ICDs should be about altruism and working toward the common goal - the Kerbal Space Program. To be discussed in this thread: Whether ICD is actually a better alternative to RP as we knew it. Its potential effectiveness for providing RP that is flaming-free. Whether my interpretation of the rules is correct or misguided. Whether, if my interpretation is misguided, ICD should go ahead. What should not be said/mentioned/reffered to in ICD in order to prevent competition between users. Whether ICD threads should be tagged with \'[iCD]\' for easier reference, and to make it easier for the mods to locate these threads. RP has had trouble, and simply my saying \'don\'t do it\' here won\'t stop people. Obviously this means ICD threads would be more prone to RP arguments, even if that is not my intention in putting the idea forward, and such arguments would need to be stopped before they develop into flame wars. The distinction between an argument and a debate. Whether, if seeing as topics regarding war are banned in ICDs, a Spacecraft Exchange thread about a warcraft your corp made would be ICD or just normal RP. It would be set out the same way, after all. Your general opinions on In Character Discussion. RedDwarfIV

I don\'t see how your fuel lines could get to the next stage. They would just connect to the decoupler, which does not allow fuel through. Welcome to the forums.

I guess its a matter of opinion. I prefer having the music on. I have often gotton bored of KSP videos when they don\'t have background music.

SAS.

The stupid music fits the silliness of the designs as they fail spectacularly.

How big is it? My SSTO Vulcan is classified as a \'Heavy\' spaceplane. It has a Mk3 C7 cockpit, and most of the fuselage is Mk3 too.

I\'m trying to figure out if it would be a good idea to have the command pod upside down at the bottom of the orbiter section, and then have the claw on top.

Wow. Also, I may design a version of Seahawk Rescue as a helicopter. I had been trying to construct a VTOL plane version, but it was just too massive. Especially considering this version had a passenger cabin for rescuing survivors.

Manned VA flights to Minmus have been suspended pending further investigations and planning on how best to conduct a safe mission. However, probes and rovers and such could be sent. Also, rockets are much more tried-and-tested when it comes to landings, and they can also be fairly cheap. That sort of system could be used to search the crash site. However, VA does not expect to find anything of interest, since the camera drone\'s footage showed almost total annihilation of the vessel.

(Depends on whether I can get a moderator go-ahead. I mean, these are pretty one-way things. I tell you what VA is doing or has failed spectacularly to do. It\'s all in KSP, so there\'s no godmodding, and there\'s no interaction with other RPers except for the discussion about what the OP says. So there\'s no reason I can see why flaming or any other problem from RP should occur. But in the end, it is still RolePlay, and so its a moderator decision whether it is allowed to happen.)

(As I said, it\'s something I would have done on General Discussion before the RP boards were put up. Or thought about. VA existed pretty much as soon as I decided to start building bigger rockets. Also, I understand now that RP is to discontinue, so yeah, this will be VA\'s last RP post until such time as the RP boards reopen.)

(I should not that this is the sort of thing I would have posted on General Discussion before the RP boards were put up. This thread should not result in flaming or elitism or such. However, I just read the Announcements page regarding continuation of RP in other boards. This may well be VA\'s last RP announcement for some time.) This is actually a Veto Aerospace funded program, predominantly to raise awareness of our corporation and so increase sales. Unfortunately, that kind of publicity \'stunt\' [for lack of a more accurate word] can heavily backfire, such as how the corporation has lost the cost of two Ibis Xs from its own profits, and the loss of the astronauts is bad PR, as well as a social disaster. Log timings indicate the explosion followed seconds after the loss of the vessel\'s primary engines. Destruction was total. If the cockpit was anywhere approaching intact, the mayday beacon would have been broadcasting.

(Yes, it is RPing, but it\'s not politics or war. I can\'t envisage it causing the problems the RP board had. Besides, I would probably forget about it if I didn\'t post it now.)

In one of Veto Aerospace\'s worst space disasters of its history, Ibis X2 was destroyed attempting to return to Kerbin orbit after suffering heavy damage. Likely, the vessel would have had to have been repaired in space or it would not have survived reentry, having lost a large section of wing and its nosecone. Below are excepts from the mission log. VA FLIGHT LOG - INDIA X-RAY TWO Veto Aerospace has notified the families of the three brave astronauts. May Navigator Siglin, Commander Nedmy and Pilot Rondrin rest peacefully in the great Vehicle Assembly Building in the sky. Issues have been raised over the safety of the Ibis X class, given both spacecraft to make Minmus landings were destroyed in the process of returning to Minmus orbit, and whether Ibis X3 should be sent back to Kerbin - the craft is still currently orbiting the smaller ice moon, awaiting commands from Mission Control. IX2 seemed to be in a better position to land at the time, though no ice lakes were below the daylight side of its orbit. VA would like to assure all interested parties that the Ibis X is not an inherently unsafe spacecraft. The Ibis X1\'s destruction was caused by pilot error, as Pilot Bobvis Kerman failed to deactivate the SAS - something that could happen for any spacecraft, although admittedly not a problem for most rockets.The Ibis, being a spaceplane, has a different set of takeoff protocols. The loss of X2 was caused by its landing on the rocky and steep slopes of Minmus\' mountains. Its mission was crippled as soon as it touched down and lost a wing, though the loss of the nose cone and with it the RADAR did nothing to help. Future VA missions to Minmus will be strictly controlled to prevent landings over mountainous regions. Takeoffs may use mountains as launch ramps, but launches should not be attempted from mountain summits.

Is the OP going to be modified now we have agree first spaceplane is an achievement?

So many designs I had never even considered.

Thanks.

Uploaded. You\'ll need C7 Flight Pack and the NERVA engine [i think it\'s NovaSilisko\'s], and the Veto Aerospace Flight Pack.

The Ibis is theoretically capable of doing so. However, whilst moving my old .craft files into the new VVAB Ships folder, I told it to copy and replace. This meant that I lost the new Ibis model because the old one replaced it. I have since rebuilt the Ibis X-class. However, the orbital ascent stage is difficult to handle, when it previously wasn\'t. Nevertheless, I will soon be attempting an Ibis X Minmus return with glide, and hopefully to KSC if I have fuel. I probably won\'t be landing on the runway for two reasons. One, I find it difficult to land on it with much better handling aircraft. Two, the Ibis does not like atmospheric flight without ASAS. Once I\'m locked on during reentry, that\'s pretty much the last say I have in things until it\'s time to pull up for glide landing, or engage engines for a powered one.