Hotel26

Assuming that you are flipping because one or more engines shutdown due to fuel starvation (which you haven't explicitly said)... you would then find the following fuel rules helpful to understand. The key point in these rules is under the heading Common Errors: "If the ship is symmetric, it will draw fuel symmetrically". If tank A supplies tank D via two paths, through B and C, one of B and C will begin to drain earlier (as if not fed by A). I doubt your lander is this complex, but bear it in mind and the above article is essential to the design of any complex craft, particularly those using asparagus staging.

I had hoped to post a pirep (pilot report) on foamyesque's machine but I am apparently still running 1.0.5 and can't upgrade (to at least 1.1.13) until internet is restored. Oh well. So I tried updating Falcon with a number of ideas exhibited by foamyesque. I'm using 5 standard canards: two horizontally on the cockpit and three in the empennage (tailplane). Beautiful. I tried the S-fin wing extensions but no luck for me, yet. (I'll revisit this after studying the foam machine in the air.) Understand your second suggestion and will see how your machine flies. In my case, flying SSTO is an interesting proposition because it has multiple phases. Similarly, I do like an aircraft that not only responds to my command but also requires me to understand it as well, particularly if it is to deliver peak performance. I seem to have hit a sweet spot with Falcon 5b now: the CoL is close enough behind the Com to provide maneuverability but not so close as to produce overshoot in pitch adjustments (due to rotational momentum). What I like about the amount of fuel I am carrying -- over the CoM and in the tail -- is that I can dynamically adjust the CoM by pumping fuel fore and aft. What this does is provides trim to give the canards full range of authority. I pump it back for rotation on the runway and for steep climbs and I pump it forward for the 12km and 20km accelerations. Having the canards in a relatively neutral position gives me that control range. I realize that a lot of pilots (most in fact) prefer docile craft with no complications (and no sane pilot likes any treacherous craft), but I don't mind flying mildly interesting procedures. My Kerbals have dubbed Falcon "the flying hotdog" now (and sometimes "pig-on-a-stick"), due to its ugly appearance. It has grown on me, though. I look forward to 1.1.13, new parts and test flying foamyesque's machine.

My own upgrade to Falcon 5 implementing suggestions: I did go back to Falcon 4, with the FAT 455 wings and attempt to refit it, too, but it couldn't manage rotation below 100 m/s on the runway, and had lots of control authority problems at high altitude/high attitude. I'm pretty darn impressed with foamyesque's suggestion/idea of Big-S fins fitted to the ends of Big-S wings...!

I think dire is indicating that there is plenty of forward thrust available from the Rapiers. But something else is needed to power the reverse direction and, yes, that is conventionally RCS, of course. @dire, I do the same as you: main engines to the vicinity (<= 100m) and then RCS for the dock.

Sharp eyes. You could be talking about either my screenshot or foamyesque, but foamyesque was working from my initial (pictured), so I'll take responsibility. The original Falcon had 4 on the front and 4 on back. I have a feeling I've not corrected the oversight on the rebuilt Falcon pictured, so thank you. I haven't attempted a dock with it but I would have noticed. It's got a reaction wheel which is enough for rotational adjustment and conserves MP, (especially with MJ driving!!). Nevertheless, RCS should be symmetric, as you say. In any case, the original Falcon had 8 and a 750-unit MP tank and it was enough to dock. You'll notice in the picture above that I've deleted the ugly yellow MP tank and slung a 150-unit canister under the belly. The MK3 cockpit has 100 for a total of 250 which is plenty for docking. Thanks for picking this up and kudos to everyone who has contributed to this topic so far. Bravo.

The minions report: 78 parts. mk3Cockpit.Shuttle_4294710386 mk3CrewCabin_4294049204 mk3FuselageLFO.50_4292087608 adapterMk3-Size2_4292087572 asasmodule1-2_4292087536 dockingPortLarge_4292087508 linearRcs_4292083126 linearRcs_4292083086 linearRcs_4292083046 linearRcs_4292083006 structuralWing_4292083668 elevon2_4292083634 pointyNoseConeB_4292087474 MK1Fuselage_4292087402 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292087368 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292087272 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292086950 RAPIER_4292086758 strutConnector_4292083540 pointyNoseConeB_4292087438 MK1Fuselage_4292087176 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292087142 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292087046 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292086854 RAPIER_4292086618 strutConnector_4292083602 pointyNoseConeB_4292086478 MK1Fuselage_4292086442 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292086408 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292086312 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292086216 RAPIER_4292086120 strutConnector_4292083416 pointyNoseConeB_4292085980 MK1Fuselage_4292085944 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292085910 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292085814 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292085718 RAPIER_4292085622 strutConnector_4292083478 wingShuttleDelta_4288246692 wingShuttleRudder_4288191604 wingShuttleElevon1_4288183868 wingShuttleDelta_4288246656 wingShuttleRudder_4288192618 wingShuttleElevon1_4288184250 solarPanels5_4292082806 solarPanels5_4292082778 solarPanels5_4292082638 solarPanels5_4292082610 wingShuttleStrake_4292085410 pointyNoseConeA_4292084892 MK1Fuselage_4292084856 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292084822 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292084726 RAPIER_4292084630 strutConnector_4292083292 GearMedium_4292084490 wingShuttleStrake_4292085374 pointyNoseConeA_4292085294 MK1Fuselage_4292085258 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292085224 Mk1FuselageStructural_4292085128 RAPIER_4292085032 strutConnector_4292083354 GearMedium_4292084244 GearSmall_4292083998 linearRcs_4292082966 linearRcs_4292082926 linearRcs_4292082886 linearRcs_4292082846 solarPanels5_4292082750 solarPanels5_4292082722 solarPanels5_4292082694 solarPanels5_4292082666 shockConeIntake_4293845280 CanardController_4293784780 CanardController_4293784556

@foamyesque, you are a champion. I can't wait to test fly your plane! (Then my minions are going to pull it apart to learn all its secrets!) I'll report back here when we're finished. I also have some photos of Falcon 5 to post but -- apologies for the slow turn-around -- no internet at home for a week, awaiting an upgrade... I'll also post here some screenshots of your creation. (Ugh, I see you did post a screenshot... my work internet censor ate it. ) (re: canards, I think I had them on the very original Falcon that had the CoL problems. I made that one worse with shuttle fins on the rear which is why the CoL wound up being back in the tailplane pushing upward and forward. I didn't realize that canards do act as controls because they're not animated; so that is very good information: thank you.)

Gentlemen, congratulations, Falcon 5 is in orbit. The 4 test pilots hated it at first sight, saying it was the butt-ugliest space vehicle they had ever beheld, but also the wildest ride to space any had ever endured. There's not an unused barf bag to be found aboard. Seriously, guys, excellent work!! What makes it particularly sinister are the S-wings, packed with Rapiers. I switched wings after a couple of test flights exploded around 45 km but later realized that was MJ fooling with physics warp. Serves me right for relinquishing the controls on a test flight. Photos tomorrow. Oh yeah. I haven't tried a landing yet.

I fixed the link in the original post: please pardon me. This is an update, though. I completely rebuilt the craft, keeping an eye on the center-of-lift indicator the whole time. It looks like it was some kind of self-inflicted GSW. The difference is marked, with the new version able to climb from sea level with about 35° attitude. @bewing, thanks for the helpful comments. ()I definitely need an Mk-3 for colonization purposes!)

I'm working on my second spaceplane and I'm stuck. This is the craft file for Aquila Falcon. I think that any real master, looking at my work, is going to know pretty fast what I don't know and be able to offer a critique that will benefit not only me but maybe a few other noobs. I am following three requirements: It's a surface-to-orbit shuttle for duty on Kerbin and Lathe, so it must have a Mk-3 cabin I want to be able to couple it to an interplanetary vehicle (as well as launch it from Kerbin that way when I feel too lazy to wrestle it), so it needs a Senior docking ring for a vertical launch In order to fit in with the rest of my fleet, it has to be butt-ugly. Falcon, as it is, has the following problems that I am aware of and many more, I'm sure: the landing gear aren't straight, but cocked slightly forward I don't understand what the SPH is telling me about the Center of Lift, but I think that is the key to: a lack of pitch authority, hampering landings. I've landed it but only on the back of the power curve... the tail fins are unreasonably butt-ugly and are producing drag via downforce. maybe the wings are on upside down -- I can't tell; it's one explanation for the crazy lift vector. I can't land it heavy with fuel -- it breaks and explodes the MP tank is unreasonably butt-ugly but I don't know anything about cargo holds either (Sorry, no screenshots as I am actually without internet at home at the moment.) I'm hoping that one or more Grand Masters will comb over this file and not only a) list out every last little flaw and nit with this craft, but also b) teach the technique in the SPH for everything I've been unable to do. Thanks in advance! Go, team.

Very helpful. Mk3 and 6 Rapiers. Just docking my new "Falcon" with my Kerbin space station now. Thanks Slashy.

This is a shock to my plans. I had intended to make an SSTO spaceplane (Mk3 cabin) to suit Eve and Laythe, assuming the capability to refuel on the surface. It now seems like Eve is a dead-end (for me) since I have little interest in building massive single-use vehicles. Say it ain't so?

I'm glad you provided the link!! There's a scene in the Mars Underground documentary in which Robert Zubrin is shown testifying before a Congress committee and one of the critters there (well-known, but I don't recall which one) addresses Zubrin, saying, "You're mad aren't you? [pregnant pause] You're mad that your govt hasn't made enough progress fulfilling your boyhood vision to....[paraphrased]". I'm pretty sure the committee men had a good chuckle about the double entendre, afterward. (Which is about what one would expect in Congress...)

Allow me to please phrase the following as a confession. As a dilemma. And a plea for help. I find this conversation fascinating and erudite. I understand that science is interested in everything that is factual and can be learned. It's a mistake to question utility before the discovery. You never know where our wonderful universe is going to lead. The dilemma is whether I should open a meta-topic that links to and discusses this one. But I don't think I have that much to say. And I think the pith might actually be useful here for momentary introspection. Philosophically, why is it so important to settle this question: "are we alone?". Truly, my plea is for some one to cogently explain to me why we want to know more urgently. The confession is that I don't understand why we are so imperatively interested. Indeed, settling the question now, within our lifetimes, may be the same mistake the early ancient armchair philosophers made: attempting to decide matters related to the nature of 'stuff' with insufficient facts and inadequate powers of observation, overpowered by excessive curiosity. Now, a host of suspicions. Why are little kids so danged obsessed with dinosaurs? (Monsters?) Why is everybody so interested in black holes? (Speculation about things that are going to rip you to shreds for doing more than thinking about them... monsters) It's likely mankind will never go near the center of any galaxy and if we could, we would want a fare refund. Why does NASA couch everything in terms for the average TV viewer primarily as "the search for life"? Wait. Why? Is this the Marketing Dept appealing for ratings share? (Oh, hey, is it a religious vendetta to avenge Galileo??) The plea is "can anyone help me understand why people are so fascinated with this particular question [are we alone?]?" Is it just that we are anthropomorphically biased? I get that any question in science is worthwhile...? I think that Fermi's Paradox is very interesting and even enlightening as a kind of koan. It makes one think, introspectively. I for one would be happy if we just took a vote here on KSP Forum and ratified that we don't see much life out there because their politicians strangled them before they learned anything profound, same as is happening here. Is it that we refuse to accept that some things are unanswerable, permanently, or even temporarily (next billion years)? S'posing I said it might be more worthwhile in terms of scientific payback to just get out there... Colonize. Even terra-form. We'd learn a lot. And we might meet those dang aliens, too, if they really are out there! (Bet that would top the nightly TV news for about 3 nights running and then drop off the scope, too!?) Then s'posing we found out that actually, it's pretty hostile and lonely out there. And we'd likely work on some kind of electronic life form to go explore for us. It wouldn't be intentional. It'd spring out of robotics. (We actually ought to be doing that now. Especially instead of the keyhole missions we keep running!) And it might couple with some singular event in machine intelligence. Who knows where that would leave us? But it might be like this. The universe threw us up. We know that much. It did that out of chemistry and some game theory. So it could do it again, elsewhere, or have already done that. Evolution. It's not fast or inefficient: it's really brute force, but it's a specialist at shifting metaphors. It threw us up, so we may be alone because that's the difficulty of producing sentient life. Or we may be alone because other forms have and will exist but never simultaneously because that's the sheer statistics of it. Or the more I personally comprehend the sheer size of the cosmos, the more Fermi's Paradox seems no paradox to me. It's teeming with life out there and we will never bump into it. We assume we can conquer all distances in the universe, assuming also we have the technology, but the more one understands about the unchartable expanse of the universe, the more one understands that it wasn't made for us or our travel plans and there are no money-back guarantees for our vacation plans. So we are here and that is monumental, if we are a singleton. We have it made already. Because even though it is hostile and lonely out there, We Are Here. Cogito ergo sum. Alternatively, there may be other life, via the same processes, and we are not alone. That is monumental, too. We may even meet up with it (I bloody doubt it!) and then the TV masses can get their entertainment for a very short while before their attention turns to something else. Or we could be the first(?) (or possibly sole) life form in the history of the universe that actually transcends the obsolete random biological process and progenates an Intelligently Designed (electronic), living entity that truly has the capacity to explore the universe to the full extent that the remaining lifetime of this universe, and its physical laws, allows. Now. Tell me. Honestly. Which is more cool? (And more importantly, what do you think you could get more traction on today? That would also have immediate payback in automating the means of production here, now?) Yeah, I didn't start writing this thinking it would be a koan, but that is exactly what it is...

Yup. I've been using the following system that is standardized across lander, fuel rover, drill rigs and lunar flitter -- basically, anything that transfers fuel on the surface. I considered ports on underbellies and lifting drill rigs on legs in order to service them underneath (like your idea) but I eventually decided it would all work better with side-mounted ports. This is an old photo and the rover port drove in under the service port and then front legs lifted it up if necessary. With the addition of the flitter, (pic 2), I had to refit the whole system for the fuel rover port to drive over the service port. I do the initial design adjustments and testing near the pad at Kerbin Space Center. When it's tuned correctly, you do not need the legs on the rover to mate -- you'll get capture magnetically just driving over. If the terrain is uneven, the legs will save your bacon. And if I *just* can't get it, the Docking Port Alignment Indicator finishes off the job.

I think this statement casts a lot of insight on why possibly ion engines are not used very much. I've just become interested in ion-drive for interplanetary. I built the following and flew it to Moho as a test. I've also ganged two of them, due to the low thrust, and figure I could gang more without structural problems, also due to the low thrust. Shown above (not very well) is a 16-pax MK3 cabin payload for test, 24x Dawn, 22x PB-X750 (enough for round trip to anywhere) and 32x Gigantor 'sails'. 50 tons including payload. I've also built a lo-grav 'flitter', 24-pax, that I've flown cruise at 300 m/s over the Mun and which I'm confident could also operate between the surface and station orbit. That had 2x PB-X750 and 9x Dawn and would definitely benefit from lighter Xenon tanks. Maybe I am unfortunately making the case that ions are not a marginal use case but ought to be considered unfairly useful, because right now I am questioning my whole architecture built around LV-N.

Of course, then I see this: bring xenon tank mass ratios to standard values and, yeah, 22x0.41 = 9 tonnes of my 50 are xenon tanks (dry weight). Well, maybe it will get fixed. Nevertheless, the thing that bothers me most about that thread are the comments that ion-drive is marginal because it's only useful for lightweight probes. Well, let's see how many Omegas I can gang up to push my heaviest payload. The longest burn suffered so far was 45 minutes. The longest nuke burn I've ever had to do was around 15 and, if I recollect, I had to break that into two periapsis burns to allow engines to cool off. [There is, actually, a better configuration for my 'sails' but it would be hard to get 32 that way. In addition, like any sailcraft, when pointed directly into the sun during part of a burn, it's practical I have found, to "tack", just like a yacht. Hold off from sunward by a few degrees enough to expose all panels and then "come about" onto the opposite tack and then continue prograde.]

I said I'd report back on this. Omega 4, pictured below, has 24 Dawn ion engines and 22x of the large 5,250-unit xenon tanks, plus 32x Gigantor sails. It weighs in at about 50 tons. I'm pretty much sold on ion-drive! As for the long "burns".......... a good time to read the KSP Forum. It's designed to be 'ganged' for bigger payloads, too. This shot shows just a 16-pax cabin mounted as payload. The 'sail' masts are mounted vertically for lift-off. Once in space, they are detached and redocked in the 'wing' position. Toggle them out and it's magic watching them unfurl. [Incidentally, an apology: I posted this topic while a perfectly good topic, Ion Engine burns for interplanetary transfers, was open concurrently. Sorry about that.]

The VAB. Most passionately.

Great responses, thanks, and a banquet of food for thought. >This is one of those cases where trying to give someone advice really bumps up against the beauty of KSP, namely, there are many different ways to accomplish a given goal. I really appreciate listening to how other people do and think about things precisely because KSP is so rich in ways and means. The time that xenon may save me in pumping fuel is going to be much more than the length of the "burns"...

Thanks for this, as it's along the lines of where my rumination is going. I'm not planning ion burns for 1 or 3 because they simply take too long. But maybe I'm wrong about that!? I certainly am going to have nukes for the critical burns. And my lander is conventional and designed for everything lo-grav (<= 2.5m/sec). I'd aim at getting the inclination burn done with the transit burn (only when Kerbin is aligned with the Moho orbit nodes). But it seems like there may be a 2b and 2c burn if one is doing a multi-phase transition? 2b would be to circularize (or bring into similar eccentricity) at helio-periapsis. And 2c to set up the intercept. And possibly a series of 2d burns to fine-tune the intercept trajectory? (I'm thinking out aloud, but it's good to get ideas and then try them out and then report back, because then the subject's on the table for perusal by others.) I know people are "inclined" to go direct in one shot but could ion engines make this incredibly efficient, fairly simple and not too much longer in duration?? As an afterthought, I could be wrong about not using ion engines for 1, too. Use nukes, say, to get escape; then ion thrust to lower the periapsis... The only time-critical burn is stopping at Moho for capture?

Thanks for two pieces of advice and one quote. I'll let you know how I get on. My drill rig is normally deposited and then the lander lifts off. But in this case, I'll try leaving it on with SAS engaged; get the drills down; and then detach the lander. Thanks!

I'm keen to learn from the experiences of anyone who might have attempted drilling on Gilly (moon of Eve). My drill rig has 3 drills but they are not on an action group, so they have to be deployed consecutively. I'm worried my rig will topple over? My only Plan B right now is to keep the lander on the rig and use SAS and RCS to stay vertical and possibly provide some downforce... Clues anyone, please?

Does anyone have any experience and/or tips regarding the use of ion engines when voyaging between Kerbin and Moho? (Pardon me if this has been discussed elsewhere. Search seems inop at the moment.)

I hear you. However, fuel load is make-or-break on interplanetary missions. Nukes can minimize the total departure mass of your vehicle and maximize the amount of surplus fuel at arrival. When I discovered nukes, I had just sent a fuel tanker to Duna and it arrived on fumes. Design invalidated? Nope: I added nukes and the next load arrived weighing in with 33K units of liquid fuel. That's the difference nukes can make.