Gaarst

Am I the only one here that doesn't get his crafts broken at every single update ? Or that doesn't blame Squad if that happens ? I mean, even though I don't use planes that much, my shuttle designs are still flying in 1.0.5. Last time there was a big issue with an update was with 1.0 and loss of thrust with atmosphere; but no big deal: remove these Rhinos on the first stage, strap a few SRBs for additional thrust at launch and there you go. Same for heating: my main interplanetary craft (2 Kerbals to everywhere) is powered by a nuke. Doing 3500m/s ejection burns at Moho never caused any problem, even before nuke heat nerfing and radiators. Had a shuttle that couldn't reenter anymore in 1.0.4 due to heat: it did nothing but explode. Well, I dropped that shuttle and used rockets for putting things to orbit while I designed a new one suited for reentry. Most of the time, some very quick tweaks are more than enough to make my crafts adapted to a new release. Worst case scenario, I design a new one from scratch, but I don't get mad at the game for changing a few things: I adapt. My first real interplanetary rocket was made for Beta: it could land a Kerbal on every body of the Kerbal system (except Eve, Laythe and Tylo) and return him. I made countless improvements to this rocket, kept working on it for weeks, and so it was my first actual rocket that I ever [I]loved[/I] in KSP. Then 1.0 came out and it was not able to take off anymore, and the core stage exploded half the times after I corrected that first issue. I was a little disappointed at the beginning, but I built a new one from nothing and it still works perfectly. Even removed 500t on the pad compared to the old one! That old one will remain in my memory, and I take it out for a flight every so often whenever I feel nostalgic (still explodes though), same for other even older crafts that do not work anymore. Sure Saturn V was cool, but things have changed since the space race so it is not flown anymore, but it will remain as a great rocket. I don't know: is it just that I have a unique way of designing rockets that make them immune to the effects of time ? Or maybe because I don't use every version's particularities to push the game to its limits for magic optimisation ? EDIT: and Squad, feel free to break whatever you want for 1.1 as long as the update is good!

Kudos to Ferram for a simple yet efficient demonstration. Still, if no one has done it then, I will try direct aerocapture from a Kerbin-Eve transfer orbit, with a functional payload (rover, probe or capsule), tomorrow to show that even this is possible.

The fact you cannot reenter with this ship does not mean that Eve reentry is impossible. The fact you could reenter with [I]any[/I] ship would mean that Eve reentry is [I]not[/I] impossible, on the other side. Just a logic detail leading to a hasty conclusion. Give me (or anyone else) time to set up a reentring craft for Eve, and you'll be proven wrong.

[quote name='quyxkh']For another way of looking at the elephant, try this: Whatever the rocket's doing, it gets kinetic energy out and then splits the kinetic energy so half goes ← that way with the exhaust and the rest of the rocket goes → this way. But what the rocket's doing to split kinetic energy applies to [I]all[/I] the kinetic energy -- including any that's already there. That gets carried along with the rest. More energy getting thrown around, more acceleration.[/QUOTE] Be careful there, the energy is not evenly splitted across the ejected gases and the moving rocket. Momentum is, due to conservation of momentum laws. If you take m[SUB]gas[/SUB]*v[SUB]gas[/SUB] = m[SUB]rocket[/SUB]*v[SUB]rocket[/SUB], then the energy is not necessarily the same. Actually, as the ejected gas mass is often smaller than the rocket mass, its speed is higher, and therefore the kinetic energy of the ejected gas is greater than the kinetic energy of the rocket. That is in a reference frame where m[SUB]gas[/SUB]*v[SUB]gas[/SUB] = m[SUB]rocket[/SUB]*v[SUB]rocket[/SUB] at all points and times (or when both were static before burning the fuel). The conclusion of your post is correct, but I'm not so sure about the way to get to this conclusion.

Are you using the afterburner ? Subsonic jet engines (Juno, Wheelsey, Goliath, and Panther w/o afterburner) will lose all their thrust when approaching transsonic speeds. Even if you use engines designed for supersonic speeds (Rapier, Panther w/ afterburner and Whiplash), there is a very strong augmentation of drag when approaching the speed of sound (see [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_drag"]wave drag[/URL], I think this is the actual phenomenon). So, even with those enginesyou'll need a lot of thrust to pass Mach 1.

RSS for 1.0.5 ? I guess it is time to start playing 1.0.5 seriously !

This is good, really good: it has a lot of potential. Maybe we'll finally be able to make actual programs in career mode ! And even better: strategies might actually be useful for something ! I'm really looking forward the Celestial Bodies Programs for RSS, and the overall development of this mod.

Wouldn't there be a way so that, if the game detects a significant event* that may or may not happen due to fluctuations, it calculates the orbit with greater accuracy ? * e.g: change of SOI, especially going to Eeloo: the few times I've been there, I didn't know until more than halfway there if I needed a correction burn or not. Also, in my main save, using the Trajectories mod and RSS, these errors get extremely frustrating whenever I try to aerocapture at Earth when returning from the Moon: my orbit fluctuates from crashing into the Earth to an apoapsis at >1000km.

[quote name='SkyRex94']Hey everybody, I had the Idea to push the concept of a stratolauncher to the limit, and I am at a point where I have a promising Prototype. I already built a succesfull launcher for 2.5m rockets, but I thought I can go even bigger... Everything built with FAR and a 5x version of Kerbin (SKY-Pack). This is also my personal record for the biggest flyable plane I have ever built in ksp with FAR. -snip- Tell me ur opinions Cheers[/QUOTE] Launching a Saturn V from a plane ? That's plain genius ! Why hasn't anyone done this yet ? I would myself, if I knew how to make proper planes, and had a PC that could properly handle more than 150 parts. (Also, I'm not sure a plane capable of lifting 3000t would fit on the runway)

[quote name='ExplorerKlatt']Just to remind everyone, all the content in 1.0.5 was intended to be in the next major revision. I do believe they should have made it something like 1.0.8 or 1.0.9 to indicate it was a larger than normal minor revision. It got released as a minor revision because they realized that the major revision was going to take a fair bit longer than planned.[/QUOTE] This. Most, if not all, of the 1.0.5 features were supposed to be in 1.1, but it was decided to make a 1.0.5 version because the port to U5 was taking longer than expected. KSP 1.0.5 is [I]not[/I] a minor release, like it or not. And also, if your crafts do not work with a new version, just make new ones. KSP's goal is to make creative crafts, if the same rockets worked since 0.17.whatever there would be no point to the game anymore. About mods: it is the modders' job to adapt their mods to the game, not the opposite. I use a lot of mods but I just wait for them to be updated and play the previous version in the meantime.

[quote name='herbal space program'][SIZE=2][FONT=verdana][COLOR=windowtext]I’m wondering why folks are even bothering with the Vector engines. It seems like all Sepratrons, with a mean TWR of 31 vs. the Vector’s 21 with even a T100 tank, would be the way to go.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE] The Vector gives 1000kN of thrust against 18kN for the Separatron. It is easier to put one inline Vector than dozens of Separatrons. Also, due to the weak thrust of the Separatron you need a lot to reach a high enough TWR, while 1 Vector is usually enough (think dry mass fraction considering the structural elements).

None that I am aware of. Kopernicus has just been updated for 1.0.5, and as most (if not all) planet mods rely on it, I guess they will be updated in the next few days or next week, depending in the complexity of the mod. Edit: RSS has just been updated for 1.0.5

Low altitude drag has somehow been reduced so that an simple command pod can barely slow down enough to deploy chutes, on a suborbital trajectory. I suggest these two solutions: - remove the heatshield: they actually make your craft go faster while falling in low atmosphere (discussed in [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/139655-Mk1-ablator-too-aerodynamic"]this thread[/URL], by GoSlash27, as he mentioned it himself below) and you don't need a heat shield for a suborbital trajectory; - go flatter. Suborbital flights, even with an apoapsis below 70km, can be unrecoverable because of going too steep: this is much more an issue than with 1.0.4 (even crafts going as low as 30km with a 45° ascent angle can be too fast). You'll have to put much more horizontal speed than you had to until now, you'll need larger rockets to even reach space but this solution works. [s]What was your ascent profile for your 200km suborbital flight ?[/s] Edit: coming down from 200km [I]straight-down [/I]was deadly even before 1.0.4. Never go straight up.

[quote name='HyperbolicKerbonaut']??????[/QUOTE] OP asked how to make a spoiler. BTW, he seems to have left his own thread :huh:

Here's how to make a spoiler: [noparse][spoiler=Some random text]Some random stuff[/spoiler][/noparse] [spoiler=Some random text]Some random stuff[/spoiler]

[quote name='Venusgate']Using less rocketpower will stretch out your dV for how much fuel you send up, but too little twr you might have to get tricksy with things like resonating de-orbit burns and aerobraking.[/QUOTE] This is not true: dV does not depend on thrust. You lose dV when adding engines because you're adding mass through these engines. If you have a 1t engine with 10kN thrust or 1000kN, as long as the Isp is the same, the dV will remain the same; and putting a 2t engine with 1kN thrust will give you less dV.

[quote name='Foxster']Thanks guys. Interesting stuff. I was trying a few designs and wanted to see what might be possible. I'm up to about 240 m/s so far with a stable and (just about) steerable craft.[/QUOTE] 240 m/s ? I'd like to see this ship. I'm still struggling achieving thrust balance without radial attached engines. I [I]want[/I] to use these Goliaths, but they are just too powerful, and my boat dives if I go full throttle.

I think it was shown during the 1.0.5 streams in KSPTV. At least the Mk1 and the Mk3 Cockpit were shown to do so. But it already somewhat existed before 1.0.5: you could double click windows to get the view "from" the window. Edit: wait, I just noticed you meant you could actually change parts in IVA. I don't remember seeing this before, nice!

[quote name='gag09']Does it still have a high TWR? At one point it was higher then one IIRC.[/QUOTE] 5 Vectors = 5MN of thrust. So that's a TWR of 0.68 at Kerbin. Unless there are hidden engines. Anyway, a gorgeous ship!

[quote name='fisfis']So what you want to say is that Squad does not take care about comunity at all and they blindly follows their road map?[/QUOTE] No, they do listen to the community sometimes (see all the post-1.0 aerodynamics and thermal corrections). I don't really know on what criteria Squad will or will not implement something suggested by the community (1.0.x "fixes" vs. stock dV readouts); and I don't pretend to know what is better or not for the game development, so I let them decide what is to be in the game or not: it's their game, they do what they want.

Already suggested a million times, yet never implemented. You can hope for it to appear in 1.1, but Squad definitely knows the community wants these so I don't think suggesting it one more time will change anything. Would indeed be great though...

There you go: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/2yFe4rb.png[/IMG] This thing was built with the sole purpose to be a dual-Goliath powered boat, so not optimised at all. Reached 120 m/s before one of the front tail connectors broke up, followed by the rest of the craft shortly after; Jeb survived though. I don't know how parts handle high speed contact with water, but if they don't break up only because of high speed, then reaching Mach 1 seems possible with some optimisation.

1.2 probably.

Hmm, I really like that booster design for your KLS Block 3 ! I'm going to have to see what I can do with it once all the mods I use are updated to 1.0.5 :wink:

[quote name='fourfa']Hydrofoils allowed?[/QUOTE] I guess so: [QUOTE][COLOR=#333333]something that constantly maintains contact with the water on Kerbin[/COLOR][/QUOTE] Anyway, I'm busy this week, but I'll try to see what can be done next week (also more mods will hopefully be updated then). Objective: hit Mach 1 on water! [SIZE=1]If parts don't break up before; if they do, I guess that would be impossible without cheating...[/SIZE]