swjr-swis

A spaceplane to carry an Mk3 cargo bay of payload to LKO doesn't need that much engine, so you could definitely benefit from switching to smaller ones. Part of your fuel/thrust is being wasted just to lift all that engine mass up to orbit. But who says we have to be efficient? KSP offers us the fun opportunity to be playful and extravagant, and try out all the what ifs we can come up with. I really like the looks of your concept, so I gave it a test run to see how to make this a viable -and safely returnable- cargo vehicle. I couldn't make out from the screenshots how you constructed the boosters, so I used a simple twin-boar stack for that. The flat spin was solved quite easily just by adding the vertical stabilizer with an elevon 3 for rudder. To get the CoM more forward without having to ditch the Rhino, I replaced the nosecone by an Mk1-2 command pod, and split the Mk3 LFO tank moving half of it in front of the cargo bay. This allows manned missions as well, and the docking port on the nose means docking to stations becomes an option. With the CoM forward, the CoL is left too far back - while this helps some with the stability on ascent, it makes it near impossible to land safely because it just wants to nose-dive. So I doubled up the front delta wing sections, and added an extra swept wing section in front of that, with a 5 degree AoI. Better, but it was still lacking on pitch authority. I chose to double up the elevon 2 and 3 at the back, which can then also be deployed as split airbrakes. Canards are an alternative, but they also add drag to the front with would make it prone to destabilize again. Assemble it all up with the boosters, and this bird can comfortably put a 37t full length module into orbits from 70-300km equatorial, or up to 225km polar. It needs very little stick during re-entry, maintains heading even when on probe control only, and is quite easy to land safely on or off the runway and on water. I think I managed to keep very close to your original concept, but that is of course up to you. Full album: https://imgur.com/a/8FIuKEm Craft files: Just the space plane alone (SPH) fueled without cargo, or fully assembled (VAB) with a 37t orange tank module. Note that they're both created in KSP 1.3.1 - if you load them in later versions, you may need to check some of the parts due to changes, but it should perform nearly the same. Needless to say - they're yours to use/edit/publish any way you see fit.

Call now. (or just click the convenient craft download link at the top)

Careful what you wish for... it's been done before, to the horror of many. The Mighty and Allremembering Google might still turn up an image or two of Scott-Manley-faced kerbals...

You'll be happy to know that we here at FYI have done exactly such a thing - our model KTD2 (more colloquially known as FakeJeb 2) has been performing these and many other functions for many years: Using only the finest surplus parts, arranged delicately to closely mimic the dimensions and mass of your average Kerbal, we have produced what we consider to be the finest test dummy this side of Eloo. FYI: we are committed to the well-being of your test engineers. That is why great care was taken in removing any endearing features, so no one may get overly attached to the KTD2. (Not FYI: the nr on the back of the card is from an unrelated company that, for a price, can uhm... 'kerbalize' an original KTD2 to your specifications. We do not want to know why... we just provide). Have you ever frowned mid-design, wondering if you allowed enough space between seats and other parts of a craft to fit some Kerbals? Shifting CoM when they climb aboard? Fuel efficiency with varying passenger loads? FYI: we can provide the answers! Stop wondering, stop estimating, stop chasing hapless volunteers around the cafetaria... just test! With a set of KTD2 (conveniently packed 4 in a box), the answers are just a quick test run away. Should the need arise for endurance and structural integrity testing, there will be no need to listen to the horrifying death-puffs of Kerbals exiting this plane of existance. FakeJeb2 will not only accurately mimic potential damage, it will do so in a much more satisfying explosive manner. FYI: Providing you with the details you need, so you can stop asking your Kerbals embarrassing questions. Call now, and we'll pack not one, but four of these amazing test buddies for that same price! Call 1-800-FakeAJeb and order now! Our call center is on standby 24/7. Call now.

With all due respect: it doesn't require 4000 hours, nor does it need to be perfectly attuned. I did mention 'reasonably designed', yes? There's tutorials up the wazoo explaining what a good rocket looks like. KSP's simulation offers very wide margins of error (so wide, that people routinely put contraptions into orbit that by all rights shouldn't be able to even lift off). Besides, OP is past the point of basic rocket design already. A gravity turn is the easiest possible way of launching a rocket into orbit, because it allows the rocket to follow a natural course, requiring only minimal input at the start. Think of it this way: most kids learn pretty quickly to throw a ball into a basket. The entire path of the ball is determined right at the start of it - how hard you throw, and at what angle. If you missed, adjust those two parameters and try again. Cutting down to basics, a real gravity turn only requires you to observe when you nudged and how hard, and from the path followed after that, you can easily tell which one you need to correct and how. This helps a new player to learn to put things in orbit much faster for two reasons: without the stressy need to continuously steer (and then correct, and then correct some more, and then -wait stage first!- then correct again, oh dear why is it not steering where I tell it to OH I FORGOT TO STAGE AGAIN!!!) the player actually has time and opportunity to observe what the rocket is doing all by itself, and what made a difference in which way. Additionally, manual steering is highly inaccurate in KSP, and tends to introduce random path deviations, which just complicate things further. Teaching newbies (or leaving them in the belief) that flying a rocket into orbit is some kind of arduous manual technique that requires thousands of hours to follow a specific path is a disservice, when they could instead be watching and learning while sipping a cup of their preferred beverage, calmly observing just the one or two actually important variables that will help them make a successful launch.

I disagree. Any reasonably designed rocket will have a completely natural tendency to follow a standard gravity turn, requiring minimal input. You really only need to pay attention to two variables. With any reasonably designed rocket, the standard launch-into-easily-repeatable-gravity-turns procedure is: set SAS to hold stage to launch wait until X nudge the nose Y degrees East switch SAS to prograde take your hands off the stick/keys and just stage if and when required, until Ap reaches a few km over your desired orbit altitude coast circularize (manually or with a node) X = Either a specific speed or altitude, whichever seems more convenient for you. I usually go by speed, and find the right moment to be often somewhere between 80-120 m/s, depending on the flight characteristics of the rocket. Finding the sweet spot takes a bit of trial and error, but usually within that range you still make orbit, just not as efficient. Correcting for a less than perfect launch is simple: if it's too shallow, wait longer; if too steep, wait less. Y = I usually nudge no more than 5 degrees. Much more than this tends to cause unwanted deviations in the flight path that will require additional corrections later. If you want to turn the above almost perfectly repeatable, use launch clamps and pre-incline your rocket 5 degrees east. That way you literally only need to figure out X (the exact moment when you need to switch SAS to prograde), and never even need to perform any steering inputs at all. I would posit that getting used to performing launches as described here will not only allow you to repeatably achieve near-circular orbits, but also make it a routine thing that will allow you to get most launches with new rockets right in just one or two (test) launches. Ahem.

Introducing one of my nephews to the game just a few days ago, I encountered the same thing: a direct replica of the starting rocket went so high so fast it would shred its parachute to bits on the way back down. I relaunched with a triplet of basic winglets rotated by 5 degrees and SAS off, so it would lose speed by rotating - problem solved and parachute opened safely. Nephew seemed to find it hilarious that the only way to survive was in a vomit rocket. For my next trick...

@somebody might feel offended now...

What's wrong, lads? Lost your Nerv...?

I think this one has them all beat: * Don't put parachutes in the first (launchpad) stage by default. We're all gonna have to unlearn checking our staging now...

In theory this sounds like easy math.... except the distance numbers on the F3 display are known to be utter nonsense, and you divided by the circumference at sea level instead of at 69989 m (slight difference, 4,209,665 m). You'd have to have been flying at 3202 m/s at sea level to get that many laps, or 3576 m/s at the edge of the atmosphere. Crispy, even for a missile. Your total flight time is a much more accurate source to figure out how many laps were made during your flight. My estimate would be 23 circumnavigations. Still a very impressive number, mind you.

"KSP3: The Big Barn"

I'm impressed and disappointed at the same time. Impressed that you got them to cook for you. Disappointed that this has been up for almost an entire month and no one else reacted to it.

You's got pinned.

I say nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure. Iow: start with a fresh empty folder (don't just uninstall through Steam, it will still leave files behind that it doesn't know of - ie. mod files) and let Steam redownload the whole thing.

It's literally a few lines of text in the part file. So it must be intended.

Somewhat surprised no one yet is asking questions about what or who is throwing up those dust clouds over the horizon...

Even in the case of metallic or mineral asteroids there will likely be some small debris on the surface or floating around it, which could still pose risks for a grappling spacecraft or interfere with a proper grapple. And in the case of layers of more dust-like proportions, a 'simple' net is liable to throw up a cloud of trouble. The only safe way to do this without having to use a long distance arm may be by wrapping it with some form of blanket material. Doggie bag to go?

I think @AHHans has it right, but would like to also point out that fairings can generate an enormous amount of drag -and thus torque- when deviating even slightly away from directly into the airflow (usually surface prograde). So a very short propulsion stub with a huge fairing on top that is still in quite thick atmosphere needs to stay pointing very close into the airflow to avoid getting overwhelmed by sheer drag forces. If your autopilot is trying to fly otherwise due to its programmed flight path, it's going to have trouble.

Uhm...

I like the looks and form of the AV-R8, but there's plenty of practical reasons to pick the delta: Cost. 40 funds cheaper. Depending on the requirements or the available budget that might just make the difference. Lift. 0.15 wing area more to get higher (or lift more overall weight). Weight. 0.022 t less per winglet to push. Form. The shape of the wing may be just the fitting piece of the puzzle for your airframe. If you need something that adds a good amount of stabilization and just a bit of control, the delta wins. If you need something that gives you both a fixed wing with better lift, and a control surface, the delta wins. The main reason it's often scoffed upon is its not-so-sleek looks. So when you explicitly single that out, the delta pretty much wins on all counts except as a pure control surface.

Yes, without breaking anything. From a higher version to a lower one may not, although I think it would simply ignore the entries that are not known to it.

Something to consider: all engines have a thrust limiter slider that you can adjust live in flight. So you could leave it full thrust for the initial transfer and capture burns and perhaps even the initial circularization, and then adjust it down (all the way to 0.5% if need be!) for precision orbit finetuning.

Yes. Not all resources are treated equally in KSP. In your KSP folder, check the file GameData\Squad\Resources\ResourcesGeneric.cfg . You'll see a list of all resources used in the game. One of the properties of resources is the 'flowMode'. You'll notice the flowmode of Monopropellant is different from LiquidFuel or Oxidizer, and that there's also other flowModes. Whether a resource flows at all, and if they obey crossfeed or not, is decided by this. In good Kerbal tradition, this rather crucial information can only be obtained outside of the game.