TheHengeProphet

Why doesn't anybody just switch to docking mode? This switches to translate only controls without having to set up a new control scheme.

Admired the local scenery, then proceeded to find out what all this hullabaloo was about the new SAS functionality. Final opinion: novel, but doesn't quite do the job. Next on the to do list: Start planting flags at all the munoliths.

Tapping any control direction is roughly equivalent to tapping F now, as it deactivates SAS when under manual imput...

This. I made a few simple rockets to test SAS functionality, and it simply lacks the gall to do a heading lock. Rockets and planes alike drift off course, and the SAS does minimal correction (enough to prevent it from flipping out, provided you don't touch the controls). Another issue is that any time you press a control (WASDQE), it is effectively like turning the SAS off. The old aeronautics package worked better than this, which is what I always used to use on my rockets and planes, because the rigidity of the old ASAS got in the way, but now I think it all has gone soft... I want a middleground vote, but without one, I vote it does not work as it should.

I challenge you to fly a dart backwards from re-entry and keep it straight. If you keep any deflection from happening, of course you'll be "stable", but you'll also drop like a stone. Don't expect any given pilot to just be able to perform this manoevre.

Is that fuselage section in the back a mk 1 liquid fuel tank? If you dip into your oxidiser/liquid fuel tanks for jet fuel, during ascent, you have too much oxidiser and could probably get by replacing some tanks with lighter liquid only tanks. This may sound weird, but you want your intakes as far back as possible. The flat one on the nose is a less efficient intake than the ram scoops on the nacelles, and the radial scoops only cause immense drag at high altitude. Jets are very powerful, so you could probably get by with only one or two, reducing the weight behind the CoL, and you might be able to get by with only one aerospike, as well. Good luck!

Another way of gaining planetary orbit, if you can path in right, is gravity capture, or gravity assist, using the gravity of a body's moon to turn you in and slow you down. This is more difficult, but less dangerous than aerobraking, but if the window is wrong, you might waste more fuel trying to achieve it. On a moonless body, or on one where the window is wrong to gain gravity capture, the best place to slow down is nearest to the body as possible, so it is advisable to nudge that in before you get there. All you need to do is get the apoapsis inside the sphere of influence, and after that point, manoevering is fairly simple.

Find something that translates from hsinapS, and try to keep the little guy comfortable, because that's gotta be weird.

I started playing around .13.1, so... Pre .14 would be my check if it was there.

Another alternative is to build it with them already docked, then strut to the main frame at the hinge, so you aren't lugging around that giant framework.

Okay, so the reason why your docking ports weren't working is because they are still part of the same craft. A craft is unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) not allowed to dock to itself.

I personally refer to KSC2 as the SSC, or Serbal Space Center. This is partially a joke about the other space center being Serbian (due to geography), or Soviet Kerbal! Anyways, I don't think a surname is neccessary, seeing as each pilot is a "Kerman", which I assume is singular for "Kermen". To my knowledge, pilot names are generated from existing astronaut names, so why not change the filter to that of Russian crews?

Everybody already answered the question about fuel efficiency in space, so I'll provide an answer for the other question. Yes, it is entirely possible to land "safely" with less than 1 T:W, assuming you have a shallow enough approach, and burn close enough to periapsis so you don't drift too far past it, you can essentially get nearly zero vertical speed, and just kill your horizontal speed for a safe landing. I would not suggest this, however, as it is NOT easy...

I de-orbit my debris, so I leave minial in orbit; however, when planes crash at the end of the runway and land wing and winglets in the water, the game becomes unplayable until said debris is deleted...

The runway is completely fine as is (it can be a little difficult to hit with controls being as squirrely as they are, but that's the way things go). I do think brakes are insufficient, though, as far as stopping craft goes, without being able to use proper air brakes and such... Reverse engines are just so heavy...

Alright, list has been updated. You people are way too fast in those exploitational craft...

Your entry isn't late! This challenge will never end, so long as I can manage keeping up with it. I admit, I'm a bit slow at times with all this, as life gets in the way, so sorry all for the delays. I'll see if I can't manage the time in the next couple days to update the boards.

I think cockpit catapults would fall under the exploitational category.

Agreed about that decoupler thing. It doesn't make too much a difference, though stack separators might do a bit better, as those things act pretty strangely. I've been meaning to have another go at this, but I've been so busy/lazy/occupied with B9 Aerospace parts that I haven't gotten around to it!

Pbhead, that is amazingly fast! I am wondering how much of a boost that decoupling in space netted you, though. Anyways, you're at the top! Skyhawk... that thing is horrifying. Also, I thought the numbers were a little ridiculous, so I did the math, and found it's possible. Well, you made it into the exploitational category! Cranium, I looked through your album, but didn't see a flight log. You happen to have that somewhere?

Sorry, it's gotta take off horizontally. VTO craft are only allowed if you can prove they can take off horizontally. One person in the old challenge had a rather quick craft that never even had landing gear, rather taking off by skidding along the runway (something I personally tested, which was terrifying). I hope you enter again! MR4Y, would you like me to take that entry over your quicker run with the stock craft? I'm only keeping one entry per person per category, to avoid clutter.

I do not find this kind of behaviour unusual. Many of my later SSTO planes accellerated their way out of the atmosphere on a rather shallow angle, just using speed to fling out. I would suggest you check out Ferram Aerospace Research, as it completely revamps the aerodynamics system.

Alright, Warboy, you're in. Sorry for making you do that again... Welcome back, Tembaco! It seems around the same to me, personally.

Serious props. This is now my desktop.

I was waiting for someone to do this... Hoping it wouldn't happen, but waiting. Congratulations, you get your own category! Alright, good news for the recent FAR entries, where the over 2000 m/s speeds were suspect! In older versions of FAR, the part files were modified as part of the mod, but in v0.9.4, he did not adjust any part files, resulting in no parts folder included with the plugin, meaning your speeds are once again feasible! I will be updating your results. I'm making an exception for your lack of runway picture, knowing its a stock craft, MR4Y.