Evanitis

But... but... I dislike negatve numbers. They feel fishy. Let me eliminate it. 0

I play.. everything. I'm an addict. Help! But really. It would be easer for me to list the mentionworthy titles of the past decades that I didn't play. Though I'm going trough a forced withdrawal - only played KSP this year.

Let me raise the stakes. 0

All problems I hear about SSTO planes are usually either design flaws or bad ascent profiles. Since you didn't share craft-files or screenshots, I can only give very vague design advice. Be very minimalistic first. Taking a barebone spaceplane to orbit is hard enough at first, having even the smallest payload (including docking ports and RCS) makes it -much- harder. Start with a single passenger SSTO, and make it more complex once you can orbit it. Minimize the mass. You need a lot less wings for lifting than eyeballing would suggest, and the extra only adds drag and weight. Same with kinda' everything. Got solar panels? Hope only a pair or so, and it also means you don't need batteries. Maybe just one. Drain the useless monoprop from command modules, and drain the unused oxidizer too. Reaction wheel? It can be substituted with proper CoM-CoL alignment that stays still as fuel is geting drained during the flight. Science stuff? Leave it for the MK II version. And about the ascent-profile.. It's really important, and the ideal one differs from plane to plane. Since I have no clue how is your design, I can't really help in that. Post some screens, or look in the plethora of SSTO-related threads for good examples.

I don't have 'global rules', but my separate career playtroughs usually have some restrictions to make it more fun. I'm having a horizontal launch only game for a while, and one where I only play in IVA with RasterPropMonitor, and first person EVA. I also found much fun in forcing myself to -never- do the slightest math before a mission, or to meticulously plan each stage with low margins of error. I enjoy both extremes.

I feel I'm only scratching the surface, but I'm totally loving the mod. I play career so it forces me to do stuff I normally wouldn't, and get rewarded for it. I was expecting relaxed plane flights, but on my first day, GAP got me to make a rover, a plane, a seaplane and a boat. Rescued a Kerbal from the ocean. It was so much fun after bringing dozens back from orbit in all my careers. And there will be sub and shuttle missions too? Jolly good. The given tasks were interesting enough, but it's really hard for me to tell: the fact that your contracts have context is -so- awesome that I'd probably complete the dullest mission with a satisfied grin on my face. NPC Kerbals -telling- me stuff in popup windows? Yes please. Such a minor ignorable feature, yet it boosts immersion greatly. I never criticized the stock gibberish contract-descriptions - I even found some of it funny. But now I had to realize that just a little bit of writing can matter so much. I couldn't finish the 'Join SSI' mission either. Probably I controled the rover with the NPC. Tried a few things, but it didn't occur to me that the driver should actually drive. Maybe it would worth a mention in the requirements list.

Started a new career for this mod, and having a blast.. by not even going near space. Will get back here once my initial amazement diminishes enough to comment in an unbiased and constructive way.

Peace and harmony governs the universe. +1

Ever considered an AdBlock extension? I heard that seeing advertisements on the internet causes cancer.

I love new career games with self-imposed limitations. The most fun times I had in KSP (since figuring out the very basics and landing on the Mun) was a horizontal launch only career. Now it would be even too easy with those junos. Though I generally enjoy the most basic career games too - if I get bored, I just pick an unusual contract with very silly requirements. Also, trying the exact opposite of how you usually design crafts is a great experience. Are you a full math or a full eyeball engineer? Or are you in-between those approaches? Try both extremes. Are you a rocket guy? There are planes, rovers, boats even submarines nowadays.

Design: Too much stuff = too much weight and drag. I'd remove 80% of those wings, 70% of the control surfaces (eg.: 4 tailfins look cool, but you only need one), 50% of the airbrakes and 70-100% of the RCS stuff. (but really: at first it's better to arrive with a 'useless' plane than failing to orbit a useful one.) Ascent profile: I feel your initial ascent is too steep: I'd aim for like 30° AoA below 10k, thus you arrive there on like 300 m/s instead of 100. Provided if you don't burn up. If you do, I'd slowly raise the angle (35°, 40°) until I manage to reach 10k meters with like 300-350 m/s. After that you can pitch down to like 10°, so you gain more speed while still on jet engines. If you reach like 1200 m/s before the air gets thin and you stop accelerating on jet trust, your ascent profile is geting close to be perfect. Once you reach your top jet speed, you can switch the rocket engine on, pitch up to like 40° or so, and take it to orbit like you did with every rocket before. Ahh, 40° is too steep for a Nerve, maybe 10-15 would be good.. To be frank, I never tried a spaceplane with a nuke.

It might be a CoM-CoL issue than. The center of mass should be aligned with the center of lift to keep stability and control. Lift should be a bit behind, kinda' while still touching the CoM ball. Like that: (CoL maybe a bit ahead here) But the trick is that those should stay while the fuel burns - you can check that by draining all fuel from the tanks (or use the RCS build aid mod) If the CoM-CoL balance shifts too much when the plane is emptied, you might get to orbit, but you'll have serious problems on your way down. But if you allign those properly, you'll most likely won't need the reactions wheels.

Ooops, double post.

I feel that this spaceplane wants do too many things at once. Eg: you want to fly it to Minmus without refueling, yet I see RCS ports (more than needed). If you ain't docking, it's dead-weight - along with all the monoprop you carry. Ahh, and there's an inline docking port - same stuff. I'd either ditch those, or decide to refuel. Note: MJ wastes a ton of monoprop if you order it to dock - it can burn 2-300 units, when one can do it manually from like 50. SSTO planes can't really afford that luxury. I'd hunt for even more redundant parts that only add weight and drag. Intake spam was mentioned before. The design in the op also has two extra wings and control surfaces. You could probably use smaller (lighter) gears too. Finding when a spaceplane design can get to orbit is pretty hard if you start with an overbuilt craft. I suggest trying a test-version as light as possible, than check how much can be added to that. I suspect you are already familiar with the concept of CoM-CoL balance, and how should is stay relatively the same while the fuel tanks are draining. It -looks- all right on your screenshots, but I thought I mention it anyways. The fact that you mentioned multiple reaction wheels might mean that you have balance issues - maybe you can substitute one (or both) by shifting the wings a bit to gain stability. EDIT: Ahh, another thing: you'll notice that you can take more oxidizer than you can burn. Check if unused oxy remains after the tanks run dry - that's the amount you can remove in the VAB. More weight saved.

If I add one, it becomes 92, right?

Aliens picked the best place... that bloody planet is -always- in the way. Wherever I try to go anywhere in Jool SoI, Tylo pops up and intersects my path or at least it screws my trajectory. I always suspected it does this on purpose. Now I know. From now on, I'll start Jool missions with crashing an asteroid or two into that planet.. just to be sure.

I'm aware that most people feel that way, thus I get why it shouldn't be a stock feature. But there are others who feel that limitations and difficulties add to the challenge, what increases the fun-factor. My favorite KSP times were the ones when I realized my design mistakes too late, but managed to work around the complications. Sadly as I'm getting better, the less often such interesting situations happen. I'm yet to try a career with one of the failure mods, but I totally added it to my list of stuff to do in KSP... Guess it will be best with KIS. I envision big repair-stations with hangars full of essential spare parts at the planets-of-interest. Shuttles with engineers who can replace engines on stranded ships. Also... stations and supply runs with actual purpose? Hell, I wanna start today. Sadly, I'm not conviced that either of the two mods mentioned is exactly what I'm looking for. TestFlight would be very appealing with the increasing reliability feature, but if I read it right, it only affects atmospheric flight... naw, spaceplanes are hard enough, and I want glitches on my Jool transfers of so. Dangit users seems to find the failure rate too high. Hope that's a stock~ish impression, and my plan with KIS-repair stations will soften the edge of the mod. And yes, what I will miss the most is sliders to tweak failure-rates on different part-types. I probably prefered more failures on utility parts than on engines, not to mention the couplers.

Sidetrack: gravity assists seem to be the most overmistified and undervalued bit of orbital mechanics around here. It's -very- easy to do, not hard to time well and after you did it once, you'll instantly know when it can help (eg: in most of your transfers.) And you can save a -lot- of dV with it. Check a tutorial, it will be a revelation.

Only? 43 gb here, and I only installed the most popular-looking mod-pack. It has more campaigns that I could ever finish. Though it kinda' integrated FS1 and 2 into the same engine.

Whenever I return to KSP after a break, I find exciting stuff to do I'm yet to try in it. That's only partly the game's merit - you forum people also have a considerable part in that: this place is an endless resource of ideas. Other games can only offer the same experience that got me bored in the first place.

Well, these have infinite dV, so once in orbit, the sky is the limit (well, the sky and your patience). It never occured to me to test if such design have a chance to get there.

That. I can always just plant a flag there if I don't feel my life complete without it.

Whoa, I can leave my unneeded ones and zeroes here? I have one of both. I'll take them back later. -87

Heliobraking!

I just wanted to add that the Kerbin - Duna transfer is the prefect opportunity to learn the basics of the slingshot manuver (if you didn't already). It can save thousands of dV. It's not an exact science (well, not for me anyways), but I always managed to get from LKO to LDO by using less than 1000 m/s (that includes patient aerobraking until I can circularize with a minimal burn). Thanks to Ike, gravity assisting works on the way back too. I'm not a super efficient KSP-and-math-expert, but I bet the absolute minimum dV required is a surprizingly low number - not much more than the two takeoffs from the planets cost. It would be a fun challenge to figure out..