Hotel26

Thanks Helmetman. The mission profile always starts at either KSC or the Inland KSC where a 3km runway is available. As long as I get rotation before the end of runway, establish positive climb, make a turn onto heading and reach a 20km cruising altitude within 10 minutes (all accomplished), I am cool. In addition, the mission objective is to be able to do a short-field landing on possibly uneven/unknown terrain using twin chutes and that actually was easily done because of the chutes (until I added the cargo bay extension). Then a short-field take-off to get out is required and I've been testing that at KSC on the runway with half fuel and the runway use is much much shorter and the climb is nearly 50 degrees. Thanks for all the tips, especially about strutting. I'll try to post more/better photos shortly, but there's one above.

Wow. Looking forward to your feedback! I moved two of the Whiplashes to the fuselage. I found this counter-intuituve because it is *more* weight on the wing root, but I just tested it with half fuel and landed it first time. Plus, I have more fuel onboard now. The twin engines mounted higher on the fuselage resist take-off rotation a tad but it was still close to 40. And it looks a whole lot more wicked! Please do continue your analysis, because this is educational! But thanks already.

(I'm starting to like the idea of just putting a parachute on the rover, dropping the rear cargo door in flight and just pushing it out over the target, James Bond style...)

I'm a noob in the SPH and working on only my second (2nd) airplane. This one is a supersonic transporter (named Aquila Ursa) All was going well with previous development versions including a number of short-field landings and take-offs, which is its primary mission. Then I extended its body to insert a short cargo bay in which to load the Prospector 1 (stock) rover. Gross weight is now 75t. It takes the whole 3km to reach Vr = 120m/sec, but with half tanks it will do it at 40 m/s and climb solidly. Cruise is Mach 3+ and range is 75% Kerbin circumference. Problem is that I cannot land it any more without the wings breaking off. (Maybe I just need to get better at landing but this one is palpably fussy about it compare to my SSTO (which is a good deal lighter)). I've moved the engine close and equally-spaced to the gear and moved all closer to the wing root. I tried aligning the main gear as best I could. I tried using Toggle Snap for alignment as well. I can accept not being able to land it with full fuel and that's fine. (Do the mission or don't come back!) But I want to be able to land it reliably on half tanks or less. I will really appreciate any help on this because I am so EXCITED: who needs to go into space when there is all of Kerbin to explore!!?

And the change (around 1.2) that meant you can't even flick a switch to activate an emergency battery once all other active sources of elec are exhausted... That's an immediate "cheat rule" for me!

The only thing more frustrating than the Vehicle Assembly Building editor is the Spaceplane Hangar Assembly editor. I know they are hard to do and I don't want to sound ungrateful, but frustrated isn't the right word for spending ten minutes with these pieces of software: try livid. EDIT: I have to admit though that I can be my own worst enemy: I keep forgetting the trick in the spaceplane hangar with just placing the part very approximately and then using the RGB-XYZ-rotator-translator control to fine-tune it. [A plug for Kerbal Alarm Clock: best mod and my household has a no-mods policy. Could not manage missions without it!]

OK, thank you; I did not know that. My objective is to "teleport" personnel to the Inland KSC. I guess I will make a 16 pax cabin with a control pod and deploy it (with crew) on the runway and then teleport that. (Then "recover" the "vehicle" after disembarking the crew.) Danke schoen.

I tried to deploy a KSP standard-issue Prospector Rover on the KSC runway with crew, but couldn't do it. There's a crew menu in the Spaceplane Hangar and the equivalent if you click the runway from the space center menu and select the craft and then try to crew it. I couldn't deploy crew by selecting the Green Tick on each crew member, nor by dragging the bod to the crew manifest on the left side. Is there a trick? All expert advice appreciated!

Actually, I really do apologize for the confusion! (And KerikBalm: spot on and well done! "Irving Asimov" is one of my many nommes des plumes.) I guess there are definitely two schools of thought about rocketry. And I admit I have a bee in the bonnet about "architecture". I read ArchGeek's opinion and example above with respect but was not at all convinced -- in fact I want to use his example as my own!! When I reach my 90x90km fuel dump, any excess fuel is siphoned into the dump for future use. As he says though, "Law" 3 is definitely an ergo conclusion. Here's a thought: my space dump is actually put together from parts scavenged from the first two super-tankers that come up to establish the dump. The super-tanker has a hex-connector and a small lander mounted atop and that is enough for the tanker itself to perform some gymnastics to shed some orange tanks that then become a giant ten-dock rig constructed purely of 24 orange tanks about 10 monoprop tanks and the 2 hex connectors. In other words, I think my motto is "never do anything in space that doesn't achieve at least two objectives". You can quote me on that! (Just spell it correctly: "Irving Asimov")

Ion drives are great. (I use them in packs of 24.) The amount of delta-V you can pack on a flight is almost like cheating. Yes, technically, xenon does not provide energy, yet it is an essential consumable. Ion drives will also not get you off Kerbin as they are just payload for that first half of the journey. It doesn't change the thesis: especially as, unfortunately, you cannot mine/refine xenon in KSP: the only source is Kerbin. The thesis is that launches are expensive (on time) and should achieve multiple objectives and be designed for a standard lift-off weight, not tailored to the payload or to a mission. I use almost exclusively nukes and ion after just shortly before reaching LKO. The exceptions would be a small lo-grav lander used as personnel/ore carrier and that space-plane, if I ever send it somewhere else. I am sure that there are many Kerbonauts who have gone this same route: assembly/fueling in LKO. I'd wonder what the percentage is, especially amongst the grizzled veterans? Additionally, I want to invite sharing of ideas by any who have gone the route of assembling expedition vehicles in LKO. P.S. I was quoting Irving Asimov, just to avoid confusion...

Erratum: Falcon is a recent addition and is a space-plane capable of taking 4 crew and 16 pax to LKO. It's also believed capable for deployment on Duna, Laythe and, in some limited manner, maybe on Eve(?). So, OK, three. Falcon was just for fun and not considered essential. It might get a promotion subject to successful testing on Laythe.

[I realize the following is going to be somewhat polemical...] Asimov's Three Laws are: Nothing accelerates (artificially) without fuel. All fuel comes from Earth (Kerbin).* Every launch from Earth MUST carry the maximum load of fuel possible. * Asimov wrote this before the advent of "mining/refining" in KSP [whichever version that was...] There's a catch-cry joke in space-jock circles, "moaah boosters!!!"... [subtext: "you don't even know what your delta-V is, nor how to use a slide-rule."] Somebody long ago in this forum asked about standardizing an orbit delivery system [the gist]. The answer was an emphatic, resounding, "you cannot. every [keyhole, bespoke] mission is different!"!. I'd like to opine this has been the NASA 1960s vision and it is the reason that space is now being privatized and modularized. My goal has been to conquer the Kerbolar system using a tightly-coupled architecture employing the minimum number of components. There are about seven components in it so far, covering a wide panopoly of purposes. Launch vehicles from Kerbin: just two. Two. Minotaur super-tanker is designed to blast 35 tonnes of fuel up to an LKO space dump (yes, it is nothing but a fuel dump and a rendez-vous for assembly of interplanetary expeditions). Aquila is a general-purpose payload deck (7 slots) that triples as a gangable interplanetary injection booster and orbital fuel tender. I build whatever payload I need on top of Aquila and then top up its payload with extra fuel to deliver to the Kerbin space dump for assembly and fueling of interplanetary missions. As R.A. Heinlein put it: "once you reach Low Kerbin Orbit, you are halfway to anywhere..." Or as the sign on George H.W. Bush' desk stated: "It's the fuel, dummy."

OBSOLETE -- PLEASE SKIP (OR MODERATOR DELETE) Sorry if this is stale and covered long ago. I took a break from KSP last September just as 1.2 came out. It took a while to upgrade mods etc but I am fionally back and trying to sort out compatibility problems. I had to upgrade my mining rig from 10 small radiators to 22 to get it to operate sustainably (although an advantage is that I can now operate all 3 excavators simultaneously without overheating). Now I notice that my fuel truck will no longer steer reliably. All of the docking ports are vertically oriented and motor and steering directions were all, once set, consistent. Now, I find that steering direction seems to depend on the terrain and going over a rise can cause everything to discombobulate. Rather than debug or analyze this change, can someone point me to a HowTo for rovers oriented toward how to control and steer them in a set-and-forget manner? (It's also worth mentioning that fuel pipes I had previously connected from tank to *engine* no longer function reliably. I'd love to get more information on any changes that may have impacted that.) UPDATE: Apologies: I mounted an Okto on a forward-facing surface, and it's all fine regardless of terrain, including it now gives me an accurate compass heading. Sorry for shooting too quick.

The UT time in my mainline "production" world reads Y10,D207,3:08:58. Easy to beat. I'm working on getting a mining colony established on every planetary system with a lo-grav target. (Which is all of them) What's your UT and what mainly has taken you this long to get this far from the starting point? What are your happiest/proudest moments? Are you a Time Juggler or a Time Warper? How many flights in progress?

Very topical as I have the problem that I have never gotten trim to make any discernible difference. I'm on Linux expecting to use R-shift in combination with the usual control key. The yaw/pitch/roll indicators do not move and the attitude doesn't change, even holding the key down to repeat. The only thing I haven't done is gone in to Key Settings and verified the deal nor forced the issue. I guess trim must work but unsure what's happening? Looks like nothing.

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.