Hotel26

I guess I am ambithrusterous(?). I want that Eagle.

I would say that you meant to say "Head East Northeast (ENE) from Dessert Runway". [click & arrow for slides]

On the way, but just assuming from the get-go these directions contain one, small error... we'll see. (I'll update this note.)

Perfect! Thanks for the humor! OK, here it is: Everyone will no doubt find that this machine has heaps of personality to challenge your ability to bring it home. I am very keen to hear how people do it!! Please don't be shy, but have a go...

The Wangari Maathai KSC-Return Mission This mission stems from a discussion in the topic: Describe your "standard" Kerbin re-entry profile... The mission is about your technique as a spaceplane pilot, not about spaceplane design. (Please note this very carefully to avoid off-topic distractions!) Your mission, should you accept it, is to launch Wangari Maathai east-bound from the KSC pad, circularize between 70 and 75 km and then complete the lap of Kerbin, landing again, intact, on KSC R9/27. You will then, to participate, lodge a submission within this thread containing: a screenshot of your vehicle, whole and undamaged (showing particularly wings, engines, heat shield and speed brakes, all intact), at its final resting point on the runway Pilot Procedure for flying the same re-entry profile. (Please think of this as a detailed and precise 'recipe': if other pilots cannot fly and endorse your instructions, "it didn't happen".) Anyone interested, whether or not they have entered a submission, is most welcome to discuss Pilot Procedures submitted and anything related to spaceplane descent and approach-to-land profile technique. In particular, it is hoped that Pilots will try any and all Procedures of interest submitted; and comment, with or without endorsement, as this feedback/validation is critical to success. Please observe the following: time taken and fuel used do not matter fuel may be pumped during flight, but not dumped the vehicle MAY NOT be modified/tweaked full fuel load must be carried at launch you must circularize within the limits of 70-75 km the use of autopilots (e.g. Atmospheric Autopilot) is permitted mods that effect aerodynamics, e.g. FAR are prohibited settings that effect thermodynamics or damage limits may not be altered from their defaults gear may not be extended at any speed in excess of 150 m/s and may not then be retracted liftoff and return should be in daylight final resting point must have all landing gear on the runway asphalt Most importantly, let us please acknowledge and respect @Brikoleur 's generosity in subjecting his magnificent Wangari Maathai to the beatings you space jocks are likely to give it. Do remember that this Mission is about your skill (or lack thereof) and not about his design. (My deep gratitude to Professor Brikoleur for his permission to run this mission with focus on his most interesting craft.) Also bear in mind that this Mission, while a Challenge, is NOT a Competition; it is a Collaboration. There are no points awarded, no leaderboard, no Judges and no winners. Nor is there necessarily "One Right Way" to bring this machine home. This is an opportunity to hone or, perhaps, to teach, our skill and/or techniques as a spacepilot jockeys. The primary objective is that we all learn something and we all have fun. Good luck!! (The fire trucks are standing by...!) P.S. de-orbiting WM with lots of fuel has its challenges but may ultimately be easier than bringing it home after it's launched a payload close to its max tonnage. Potentially, if this mission stimulates interest, we may run a sequel with a precisely-defined payload, to be deposited into orbit, before returning WM to KSC.

One of my favorite movies is called Pushing Tin and it's a love triangle set involving two guys in ATC; two guys with completely different personalities. Who knock heads and eventually come to terms with each other. One of the subtexts of the movie is an acknowledgement of the real-life fact that Air Traffic Controllers mostly fall into one of two camps: the guys who also fly General Aviation for recreation, and those guys who love video games Both kinds of controllers are good at their jobs, but their approaches are from totally different quarters. And I think this is analogous to two of the major ways to approach KSP. I don't wish nor intend to disparage anyone, but I would further characterize those camps with the attributes Knowledge vs Creativity. This is just a metaphor but I think it helps explain the push & pull in this argument and why it's been so difficult to find a happy medium -- or at least, to terminate it. There was a discussion in this forum recently in which a topic discussed how to launch from KSC and pull up at apogee, circularized, within just a couple of kilometers from a target that moments before had had a closing velocity of over 1 km/sec. When one can do this successfully, thinking OVERSHOOT! OVERSHOOT! right down to the last couple of seconds, it is the most exhiliarating feeling I've ever experienced in KSP! Someone chimed in and said they didn't do it that way because the NASA way is to spend one full orbit sidling up to the target and closing in for the final rendez-vous at a very slow speed. I suppose there can be tremendous satisfaction in knowing that you've done it the way it's meant to be done in real life? I will never find out.

Alternatively, Smokey the Bear could send you coordinates by Private Message and then you could simply Like his post if you concur... In any case, welcome to Kayak Club @Smokey the Bear and I will be updating the Leaderboard shortly.

KW Jetta SAS and Reaction Wheels do the job.

I use reaction wheel stability under the control of SAS. 40 m/s but a high duty cycle in 'space', low over the surface. The trick is landing. I generally use both a horizontal (prograde) reference and a vertical (Radial Out) for landing the jumps. In detail, Prograde into the jump and then SAS Hold to lock the attitude when flat (or in the attitude I estimate will match the landing) and then Vert ref and Radial Out to nail a rough landing or to straighten out a botched launch. You go high speed to get somewhere in a straight line, not make turns. So, like a boat, if you want to turn (to navigate around an obstacle) you have to be prepared to slow down, sometimes almost to a stop, to make the turn and then accelerate onward. Trains are the same. Some patience is involved.

I am very optimistic about KSP2, I have to say! I won't be buying it, but KSP2 will, once and for all, relieve the pressure and allow KSP to move into a richly-deserved retirement to be the niche game it's always intended to be, with only the super-loyal, dedicated fans who truly love it as it is (without e.g. "Gatling guns"). I have no doubt it will still receive the love and care it deserves from talented people, regardless of $$$ and thus will not stagnate. (More likely, actually, that KSP2 will suffer the fate of blending into a legion of familiar games, fading away, undistinguished). KSP is not my first game but I'm old enough to say that it stands a very good chance of being my last. Great marketing job, Prof. B! I'm going to (finally) give it a test drive right now!

OK! Good discussion and some nice points. I'm trying out some of these. Now I want to try to up the ante. Being simplistic, I could say that capsules/ships benefit from heat shields and, when properly done, profile is not critical and can be tailored for the particular job. With spaceplanes, they too may benefit from judiciously-placed heat shields but aerodynamic stability -- particularly the ability to hold high angles of attack, for space shuttle-style drag -- are key to design and can, again, render technique pretty much moot. With (passenger) spaceplanes, you design to get them to orbit and you design to get them back down. QED. Of course it works. But what if you build a VLHR[1] lifter in which the primary objective is to loft the maximum payload to space and the secondary but indispensable objective is to return intact for reuse -- and therefore at e.g. KSC? Since the OP, as I intended it, anyway, is about 'technique' and not 'design', I am going to post a Mission/Challenge and cross-link it here. It won't be a Competition per se, no points nor leaderboard and no judges nor winners. I have selected a heavy lifter that is VLHR; obtained the permission of its Creator; and the Mission, should you choose to accept it, will focus on your technique to perform one lap of Kerbin and return it, intact, to KSC, landing on the runway. It is a heavy aircraft. It is a fragile aircraft. It is, at certain flight regimes, only marginally stable. The Mission is NOT to critique the craft, but to find and clearly describe a technique that will bring it home reliably -- and will impress others (who will be at liberty to try your technique and comment on it; learn from it; and perhaps improve upon it), one way or another. Test pilots will be encouraged to endorse your technique and/or to politely question it. Everyone may learn something together, as a result! That could be fun. You will NOT be able to tune the craft to your own taste, so (to participate) you WILL have to develop and exhibit your technique in flying it. Stay tuned for this post, if it sounds at all interesting to You, The Quintessential Spaceplane Pilot. [1] Vertical Liftoff Horizontal Return

Thanks for your qualification (and correction: yes, longitude!) I personally am more interested here in spaceplanes but others might be interested in the techniques used to spot land capsules, too, since there are some similarities. I hope people keep posting and I have a related idea I hope to announce shortly. Stay tuned.

I'd like to give this a try! Starting at 70 km and desirous of a touch-down on KSC R9, where would you perform the de-orbit? (latitude)

I'll describe my history on this but, before I do, I regard aerobraking as a kind of pre-maneuver with the objective of reaching a 70 km2 orbit before final re-entry. It might often be possible to finesse it direct to land, but for the sake of clarity/conformity, the starting point for the question is, "given you are in a 70 km2 orbit, what do you do to land at KSC?" Sorry for any confusion. In the early days, I hunted around for an initial Pe for the de-orbit. I guess the most naive approach is to think, "I will depress my trajectory to intersect my target" and perhaps add a bit of extra to compensate for atmo drag. This turns out to be a pretty rough descent. I spent a while longer exploring the 20-40s for Pe... Finally, I came up with a magic number of 50km for the Pe and have been using it with good success for several years. So, over Netherania, [1] I reduce Pe to 50km, meaning that that Pe is directly over the KSC. I think the significance of the magic number is that, at 50km and above, you can maneuver easily, without significant drag penalties nor risk of structural damage and -- most importantly -- heat build-up is not too severe at this high altitude. By maneuver, I mean flip between prograde and retrograde and vice-versa. After some long while, the common wisdom about starting the final descent over the tip of the western desert [108W] sunk in and I began using this point and the Map View to either fire retrograde or else go Radial Out for drag. That's what I have been doing up until recently, but I'm starting to notice some anomalies (room for improvement) in the strategy. For one thing, instead of reducing Pe over the KSC, it should really be lowered over 108W. Which would mean firing the initial retro burn over 72E. Gonna try this, and thank you. This looks like a plan finely tuned for a specific case which may yield excellent results for your vehicle. I'll see if I can tune it for a couple of my own examples. It might entail a longer path through the atmo below 50km, however, which might break the deal for craft like Archer and Wangari Maathai, for example. One thing that has been on my mind recently, (due to flying Mach 7 equipment low in the atmo), is I've realized how much AoA can pile up heat via drag when you have a shuttle-style high attitude through the descent. Some longer craft I use are borderline on heat and can't take maneuvering pressure which can amount to a kind of 'coffin's corner'. The drag will vaporize your wings, but if you don't pull out, the magnetite will kill you... What I have begun experimenting with is a way to get one's speed way down, while still high, before triggering the final plunge. Phase 1: 70 km2 to 50 km2, stabilize, then Phase 2: 50 km2 to land. Here's something quite tantalizing to look at: LKO at 70 km2 yields an orbital speed of 2,295 m/s or so. Descending through 50 km, one has accelerated to 2,327 m/s. Yet in the shot above, we see Dolphin in a 50 km circular orbit, stabilized at a low 2,137 m/s -- a full 190 m/s slower than the conventional descent from space. I haven't been able to reproduce this with Nerfjet 2020. I think the reason for the slower speed is lift being generated by the wings and body, even in the very thin atmo at 50 km. So it may depend upon wing area (although the Nerfjet has the same configuration). Aaaah. You can see the angle of incidence on the wings of Dolphin. They are generating lift even though the AoA at the nose is zero: minimum drag/heat. I bet the older-design Nerfjet has no wing incidence and therefore neglible lift. To be investigated... [1] Netherania is on the equator near Nye Island and is diametrically opposite the KSC. 104.39W. (What you do here pays dividends over the KSC.)

Welcome to the Forum. I guess you have to mount a rescue mission. (Considering the difficulty of that, you also have the option to leave the Kerbals there for a few years and pick them up later, when you are more experienced. ) Your rescue mission should include accommodation for the two extra Kerbals on the return, which is an obvious detail but soooo easy for Kerbals to forget. You'll need to land your rescue mission within say about 5 kms, which could be challenging to say the least! Then the 2 stranded Kerbals can cover that distance using their jetpacks... More fun. Don't be frightened to fail! Finally, this is Sandbox, so you are your own boss! Order yourself to "have fun" and then do it...

Do you use a "standard" re-entry profile for Kerbin? What are its parameters? Explain its rationale, if you like. How, and under what circumstances, do you vary it? When/where/how much do you fire the initial de-orbit burn? What are the steps in your procedure after that? If you like, explain what you've tried and how your approach has thereby evolved over time. Do you design your craft with any particular characteristics in order to best use a particular profile? I have found that the way I return craft to the KSC has indeed evolved over time. What have you found that suits you best? By all means, add screenshots of craft if you think it will help the discussion! I think it would be interesting to compare notes on various approaches. (I doubt there is any one "right" way, so this topic is more for simple comparison and mutual edification, rather than to be the subject of any strong argument!) Please do tell!

[Speaking of KSP as background for the discussion about KSP2] In my view, KSP has "optional features" primarily because the developers had a coherent vision for KSP that could not be built instantaneously. As they introduced, e.g. Commnet, it was done so as an 'option' for the sake of compatibility. For that last, I have respect and gratitude. A fast release cycle is good when you can get it but an equally fast obsolescence rate is bad. Nevertheless, I think on a longer cycle, it's OK to withdraw support for the optional lack of a feature. This is the way operating system releases work vis-a-vis compatibility, for example. It's also true that, in some instances, Squad chose to introduce e.g. a new and aggressive heat model, that was fundamentally a 'breaking change', without an opt-out. I am fine with this also when it is the judgment of the developers that supporting compatibility for a period of time simultaneously is not feasible due to the over-arching scope or fundamentality of the change. Users can try the change and simply delay the upgrade until they are ready to change over. This, too, reflects practice in the real world. I'll point out here that I regard Sandbox, Science and Career as 'modes' rather than options. The goal should be to adhere to a coherent vision with integrity. For the kind of game that KSP has been, this artistic vision is key. KSP2$ is almost certainly not going to be driven the same way. (Oh!, I think I just enunciated why I am very unlikely to spend any time playing KSP2! "No love". Well. I will keep an open mind.) Since KSP2 is a remake, one could argue that it should have a clear road-map from the get-go and not require an upgrade path. I don't think this is reasonable, especially if KSP2 becomes a vibrant success. The practical goal should be to keep optional features to a minimum. Add them sparingly and judiciously with a plan to retire the option on a definite schedule. (Similarly, and more importantly, with retiring deprecated functionality.) So about options in KSP/KSP2, the answer is very clear to me. MODS!! For this reason, I echo what Brikoleur has said earlier: anything that PD can do to work with and facilitate (and shorten) the mod upgrade-compatibility/installation process would be strategic. This thread, as I recall, split out from "What Features Do You Want In KSP2?", in essence. I suspect that the core group of those who are pushing very hard to institutionalize Options in KSP are the very same who are pushing equally hard to have their very own set of favorite mods "made standard" in KSP. I think Opt-out is simply a concessional device in this argument: "why not? you can always opt out...". (Certainly, there are many others who may be in favor of Options, considered alone, simply because they are not considering the connections (maintainability and, particularly, extensibility)). The agenda of this core group appears to me to be, "I want the latest version of KSP NOW!; I don't want to wait for my mods to upgrade!; I want it all NOW! Waaaa...!!!"? The extensibility of KSP has been a superb aspect of this game. If you want "options", you can get anything you want at Kerbals' restaurant. Install the mod (and leave my game alone). P.S. in the case of KSP (not KSP2), I'd like to make a strong argument to PD that it consider making the source open to the community. (Public forks prohibited.) It would make modding easier. And I believe it could be the most effective (and only feasible) way now to get the bugs squashed. Let the programming community help. See The Cathedral and The Bazaar

https://kerbalx.com/Hotel26/BD-5J/parts The parts list reveals it has a single intake. The upper intake-tank-Juno assembly is radial-mounted and clipped into place. I was aiming for an approximation of the real jet's phenomenal TWR:1, which mainly results from its extremely light weight. (It goes way too fast, though, but Kerbals ain't complaining...) Yes, please! Especially now that you have a KerbalX site, I'm sure you'll get tons of downloads on both versions! So it would be worth your time to everyone at large (said with appreciation). It was mainly the nose/cockpit, I identified as foreign parts, but there could be more...

Wonderful work!! I SO want to fly this... Please let me down gently. It's not stock, is it. And you don't have a KerbalX site (yet)... ...going to be impossible to unsee this! Thanks for the videos. "Stay under the radar, guy!" While I am here, today's jet, a BD-5J:

This is Spearhead. It's my first serious use of the Mk3 Cargo Bay to deliver anything to space. The intended payload is 4x Spear MP tugs. I just completed my first, successful, intact landing and am quite chuffed, actually. The fourth shot (on the ground) is the (final) version with 4x Wheesleys. Spearhead is VLHR (Vertical Liftoff and Horizontal Return) and is designed with the capability for a 2-stage re-entry: "Hohmann Transfer from 70km circ to 50km circ". Speed decays harmlessly at 50km until ready for the final descent. Final LOX retrograde burn to leave nothing but 1,400 units of LF in the wing tanks, pre-balanced for maneuever to landing. Range in level flight is 500+ kms.

Well, well done and you are the first visitor to this land mark then. You certainly can claim the mountain, too. Your photo: not only shows the 6k+ mountain (what are you going to call it?!), but I can see Needle Mountain in the background near the LHS peaking over the horizon. You should be able to match it with my image of same. Furthermore, you are flying over "the green", so that's a grant. If you look at my original photo: you can see the bowling ball construction of five volcanic craters of varying sizes. The peak is just above and ahead of the nose of the MiG. And the tail of the MiG (and port wing) are obscuring a small section of The Green. The only thing you haven't really done (as far as I can tell) is land in the central crater. The nose of the MiG is aimed at it. And a couple of my shots showed the valley near its top that provides entry. Upshot is that everything required is in my shot above except for Needle Mountain (but which you have included in your first picture). If people won't object, since it was a bit unfair of me to put conditions on this anyway, I'd like to declare you the First Visitor to The Amphitheatre and will register your claim (and name) to The First of the Famous Fourteen. I salute you, sir! Which reminds me that, after what I went through to find Lac Eve, I wish also to issue @Pds314 with this challenge to test his navigation mettle! Here it is: only the greatest Explorer in Kayak Club has succeeded in finding the mythical Valhalla. I refer, of course, to @swjr-swis (currently holding 114 points). Accept this challenge and prevail -- and ye shall enter The Hall of Fame! (Open to All!)

I love the Kerbal Space Program. On almost any day, it feels like I have devoted my whole life to it. I started my current Orbit production world in Jan 2018. (We were running v1.6.1 back then. v1.7.3 nowadays...) Time progressed in 2018 more or less in sync with real-time. That gave a real feel of what it is like to wait for missions to arrive at their destinations. I'm still waiting for Eve and Jool. Moho slipped through my fingers. Mission Control made bumper stickers, "Next time: we brake for Moho; OK?" Duna was simpler. But that's all to show for the lapse of two years!! UT (Universal Time) now: Y2 D186 04:24:55. (Time progression picked up slightly during 2019.) Stats Dept reports "346 flights in progress". System Monitor Desk reports "98.3% of memory in use". "Cap'n, she can't take much more! She's already swapping at Warp 62.2%..." I don't know what that means but I know the vibrations on Flight Deck are shaking my fillings loose. Being Kommandant is a crushingly lonely job. Inspire Confidence. Maintain Loyalty. Some days, I just feel like rolling back Time and starting over: Leaner, Younger -- Eager. But the rules of this Orbit are, "Manage Complexity!". Directives: "Time warp not to exceed 30 minutes". Otherwise, "launch, or progress, some other operation". Too much -- and too many -- depending upon me doing my job; every day; faultlessly. But I do feel a weary readiness -- well, not quite -- to succumb to a restart; but I know it's my Duty to instill order, cohesion and meaning in this Program. It'd be the same, done again, anyway. "Only the weak start over", my Chief Instructor at the Academy drummed into us. Not much quiet time on the Flight Deck, but occasionally I like to check in on the flights out there I haven't heard from in a while. And in truth, am struggling to remember at all. This is Kontiki above. (So KAC informs me.) It has 4 km/s delta. 7 souls onboard. Destination appears to be Eve and an intercept has been plotted. A maneuver in 44d. It has an ion booster, but I don't recall its marque. Records will have that. I'd publish Kontiki but have no clue yet whether it will perform flawlessly. (It could be irresponsible to send even more Kerbals to their doom, ignorantly?) I don't envy the job of the descent to the Eve surface that Kontiki seems intended for...? May Luck travel with this ship, in the company of its crew... Command is the loneliest job.

9-

interesting, attractive place pictures catchy name clues to get there You're moving up the leaderboard, my friend! Up is a positive direction.

The Amphitheatre (I found this at night and actually thought it looked like a Bowling Ball!) I'm going to make this one relatively easy to get to: this Landmark Site is just over 400 kms from the KSC but harder to capture! For credit, you should: plant a flag in the central amphitheatre (shown in shots 1, 2, 3 below); floor is 3,029m altitude (with photo proof) take an aerial photo showing the main 5 amphitheatres and the peak (as above) take a photo of the peak (shot 5 below) photo of the "green" (shot 4 below) and lastly, one of Needle Mountain (shot 6) I would like to claim this whole group as one Landmark since it's all within the diameter of a supersonic turn. (I could just claim all these as separate Landmarks but I think this is much fairer on other point scorers and does this Natural Site better justice in appreciation.) To sweeten the deal, I wish to point out that "the peak" I refer to is confirmed in excess of 6,000m in height. Yes, it's one of the Famous XIV -- and I am NOT claiming it! Whoever gets to this site first and fulfills all the above conditions will not only get a richly-deserved 5 points, but also (potentially) another 10 points for the Peak, claimed as a separate Landmark -- as well as the all-important Naming Rights. To make that clear, I am not claiming the Peak but leaving it to be claimed as a separate Landmark: on the condition that a complete Visitation to the site known as "The Amphitheatre", complying with the above Terms, Conditions and Stipulations, be made. I think it is fair then, that subsequent visitors receive double points -- 8, 6, 4, 2 -- for visiting The Amphitheatre and Mount <Whatever> together. I sincerely hope I am not setting a (bad (or, indeed, any)) precedent for future landmarks, but hope everyone will give due consideration to the numerous, close-packed sights in this location. (Anything can be appealed and Judges' rulings always as Final as they are Well-Considered. ) I did actually land and depart safely (that's how I know the altitude of the floor of the Central Amphitheatre: Have fun and stay safe (i.e. F5)!!