RedDwarfIV

The way an orbit works is by moving fast, so as you fall towards a planet, you just miss it. So the faster you are, the more you miss it, and the higher your orbit. Basically, a certain orbital height, say 100Km, might require you to be going 2400 m/s. A 200Km orbit might require 3600 m/s. The two are proportional. As one rises, the other must too. My advice is to ignore the speed, and focus on getting a circular orbit at the altitude required for geosync.

Now you get it! That\'s exactly right. Although really, thrusting in either direction will make it eliptical. Ap and Pe are the most efficient points to burn at for changing your orbit.

Spaceglider. However, a glider is by definition a \'plane\'. So its lack of engines should not affect its status as a \'spaceplane\'. However, I can accept that a glider and a self-propelled spaceplane can be two different achievements.

Hah. I know this one. The difference between my early Harrier aircarrier, which was supposed to put a spaceplane into near-orbit, and the current Harrier, is that I used the same wing configuration as one of my early triumphs, the Ibis Munar space plane. Let me get this straight - these are BIG craft. So at first, I used the biggest wings I could on the Harrier. You know, the really long ones. It just flips, goes crazy, and falls out of the sky. With Ibis configuration - having the wings close to the spaceplane, covering as much of the length of the spaceplane as possible - you get the same, if not more lift, and it makes it a lot more controllable. So do this: P C F C WFW WFW WFW WWFWW Rather than this: P C F C WWWFWWW WWWFWWW C F C P - Pod C - Canard W- Wing F - Fuselage The second thing. In the upper atmosphere, your control surfaces will lose their effectiveness. At that altitude, you need RCS to keep you stable.

That reference.

You call that roving? I rove with spaceplanes. And it only exploded because I left the SAS on whilst trying to get to orbit.

Here\'s a visual representation.

You have an orbit. It has, say, an Ap of 100 km, and a Pe of 80 km. Depending on whether you want a 100 km orbit or an 80 km orbit, you respectively burn at Apogee facing the direction your orbital path will take you [prograde] [the yellow circle on your Nav-Con], you burn at Perigee facing the way you came from [retrograde] [the yellow circle with an X through it on your Nav-Con.] That is as simple as I can put it. In Map Mode [M key to open in-game], you will be shown your orbit, and it will tell you how high Ap and Pe are.

The intakes! They do nothing!

Veto Aerospace Ibis Version 2 has made touchdown on Minmus. I believe is is the first C7 Mk3 cockpit vessel to do so. 00:54 Saturday 19 May. There is potentially fuel for return. I will be attempting to do so. Also, I think the testers should have their own achievements thread. Though that\'s only really if the testers had an unfair advantage - say, if 0.15X was only released to a group of people rather than the public.

Basically, this is a stock version of that inverted tri-coupler mod someone made a while ago.

Use QWEASD. It\'s strange now that its not automatic, but it does make way for... something.

HELL SODDING YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Veto Aerospace Ibis Version 2 has made touchdown on Minmus. I believe is is the first C7 Mk3 cockpit vessel to do so. 00:54 Saturday 19 May. There is potentially fuel for return. I will be attempting to do so.

Veto\'s specialty always was large spaceplanes. I WILL LAND THE FIRST Mk3 COCKPIT VESSEL ON LANDING GEAR!

I knew there would be one.

Veto Aerospace, once upon a time, built a spaceplane. They called it the Ibis. It was compact, compared to the Kestrel, it was lighter than the Kestrel, it was more controllable in atmosphere than the Kestrel and it was an all-round badass spaceplane. However, all of them have since been decommisioned, destroyed through mission failure, or destroyed by Atlaniego\'s sodding nukes. Well, it\'s time for Round 2. VA\'s new Ibis has a similar design to the previous incarnation, but utilises the latest technology and engineering techniques. It\'s landing gear has moving wheels, which are also retractable, it\'s engines include both space and atmospheric to allow for greater maneuvrability in atmosphere [and so it doesn\'t have to rely on a single sodding-great-big-twin-bell-engine. It has ASAS, unlike its predecessor, and it also has the latest in Veto Aerospace\'s badass styling, which gives it a similar look to a jet fighter. Takeoff. Orbit. It was wheelying like this for a full 40 seconds. Finally getting the bird down. It landed fine.

Space Shuttles didn\'t land under their own power. Though you make a good point. Spaceglider then. The point is, if it can land without needing parachutes [unless they a drogues] because it has wings, then it is some form of plane.

First Minmus spaceplane: What_The with this spacecraft: EDIT: Read earlier that \'the other guy failed\'. I\'d guess this What_The is who he was talking about. Nevertheless, the spaceplane landed there.

I don\'t like the styling. Doesn\'t mean your idea was bad.

I have something similar. But with an actual spaceplane. Also, it has MORE WINGS.

An Albatross is a seagoing bird with a very wide wingspan.

I normally reserve the names of large birds for large craft.

... I\'m sad now. You landed the first spaceplane on it. I was going to do that. Still, when I do, IT WILL LAND ON ITS OWN LANDING GEAR! MWAHAHAHA!

Bluehawk-Harrier version 2. The Harrier now has space engines, and the Bluejay comes with external tanks. This should allow space maneuvering. Version 3. Now with thinner wings inspired by VA\'s Ibis, a Munar spaceplane which was far more controllable in space than its predecessor the Kestrel which used a different wing design. This does make takeoff more difficult. Version 5. Engines reconfigured, Globe SRBs swapped for two sets of smaller boosters. A lot of stage reconfiguration. RCS prevents overbalancing, twin space engines provide the thrust for the carrier, before separation at about 12 000 m/s. The spaceplane then burns into orbit. The spaceplane would appear to retain the fuel and RCS required for a Minmus landing, which was in fact the goal of the mission.