swjr-swis

So for 1.8... you're introducing actual one-part bearings, and real skids, and generic tiny bumper parts, to 'balance' for the loss of the high crash tolerance of the ports and vernors... right? I'm going to pout a bit now.

That still happens, constantly. When debris from craft crashing anywhere near KSC get a certain distance away from where the game things your craft 'died', it has a high probability of losing touch with gravity and floating off in random directions.

It is indeed. As Barzon mentioned, the sepratron pods on the wing tips safely get the vehicle to enough altitude to transition into a glide and a soft landing (or with one more staging event, on chute, for those so inclined). I tested this from ground level, without the benefit of the launch vehicle altitude, which is a worse situation than should ever occur during launches. I tested at max Q (~10km up on a typical gravity curve) as well. Those are the two most critical points - every other moment during ascent (short of an unpredictable direct Kraken attack) is easier and safer to abort from.

Mainly, it looks like you're carrying way too much fuel for what that plane is meant to do. Even if you carry dense overweight payload in that cargo bay (like full ore tanks), it should be able to make orbit on a lot less fuel. Aside from that: control surfaces add drag too, so cutting down to the bare essentials will help as well. Try emptying your tanks completely and add only just enough LF to keep your jets running until they flame out on ascent (add a notch or two extra for contingency and for powered landing on reentry). Then add just enough LF+O for the aerospikes to take it to orbit, a midge more for orbital maneuvers, and another drop or two for the deorbit burn. At this point you may need to add a little extra LF, as the added weight will make the jet run longer. You will probably find the plane can reach orbit, deliver payload, and return safely without needing to fill all those tanks. That'll allow you to remove some of those tanks (and dead weight, and drag) and further optimize your design. Oh and add some (more) angle of incidence to your wings. The prograde marker being below the flight direction is a dead giveaway that you lack lift and/or incidence on the wings. This is the typical situation where the Mk2 fuselage suffers most from drag.

Time permitting I'm willing to look at it. Perhaps something like this? Craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/afrj6cngv56j0io/Dream Chaser II.craft?dl=0 Problem is that it's still a good bit too heavy for the Muon 6, so launches will be less frequent and considerably more expensive, not even counting the man rating cost. It looks good and works well, mind you, but I'd still strongly suggest going with something that can be lifted on a Muon (iow something that weighs 8 tonnes or less). P.S.: to answer a question about the lacking angle of incidence on the wings - this is completely intentional. This vehicle will never need to push itself supersonic or fly itself to orbit, so it gains little benefit from a flight-optimized lift/drag ratio. In fact the main problem becomes to minimize the wing/body lift generated during a typical gravity curve. Angle of incidence on the wings would add a strong force high up in the stack pushing away from pure prograde, making it very unstable and potentially flipping the launch stack. So in this particular case, that one tweak is skipped.

I uploaded an alternative design, the Wisp 2b. Let me know if it meets your requirements. It's yours to use and/or finalize.

Not exactly how you worded it before though. Now you're saying that it's not necessary for the Law to actually say you can do it, it can also just be inferred/implied indirectly. Something else then: does it also state anywhere that citizens/residents are allowed to wear clothes? T-shirts and even underwear may be implicitly outlawed by not being specifically mentioned anywhere. We can probably go on back and forth like this for a bit, but pretty inevitably we're going to encounter something we all take for granted as permitted that is not explicitly or indirectly mentioned in your code of laws. That's rather the eternal problem with lawmaking: you can't ever anticipate everything that people can come up with to do or try. So to say 'you can do anything as long as the law says you can' is inevitably going to leave gaps of things lawmakers forgot to think about giving people permission to do. P.S.: I'll concede the wager on the indirect 'permission'. I owe you a beverage.

I don't want to get into this debate, but this part puzzles me. If it is literally the way you describe it: can you quote us the exact article in your local lawbook that gives you permission to breathe? I'm no lawyer, but I am willing to wager a beverage of choice that you'll find no such article. So is the entire country in violation for 'unsanctioned survival activities'?

I encounter this with some regularity too. Not a bug, just how the part parenting system works... but it does come with consequences in flight, as you describe. Perhaps rather than re-rooting manually, it could be alleviated a lot if we were able to assign 'root priority' in the editor, much like naming priority works these days. So when the craft separates, an automatic re-rooting takes place based on which part was assigned to be the next highest prio root.

You didn't. I'm disappoint. Guess I'll have to double it myself. I'll settle for first place (again) with a 1.82 second run, with the fittingly versioned 5G. Full album: https://imgur.com/a/BH0q3vB Craft file (not on KerbalX cause it's just silly now): https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wuifcuvsuzvwx5/The Egg 5G.craft?dl=0

Nah, I'm not a fan of the things. Too many parts required, not stable during warp, etc etc, and really just a constant reminder of one of the major missing things in KSP: a single-part stock bearing. I just really wanted the Kerman Flyer to specifically use props, so I reused and tweaked one of my own little experiments for it. It's very stable and does the job for the Flyer, but that's as far as I'll go. There's other people out there who practically make a career out of stock props that have tried all sorts of designs and techniques. Do a search for the phrases 'stock prop' or 'stock bearing' and you'll get enough hits to be reading and experimenting for a while.

KerbalX counts 360 sepratrons.

Actually, I decided to add some wheels instead. Presenting The Egg 5f - running the 1km in 1.92 seconds. Full album: https://imgur.com/a/Qqp27o3 Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/The-Egg-5f I had to temporarily install the BetterTimeWarp mod as well as Races to get the darn thing to register a time... had to slow down time to 0.25x for it to even see the checkpoint. But there you go, a proper Nr 1 spot for a proper wheeled drag race car.

Take your pick from the following - they can all go around Kerbin in a single continuous flight. An Mk3 hull transport plane that will return back to the KSC within the hour: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/Transport-3a A drag race plane that can also go the distance: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/SpeedyReturn-2b A stock electric propeller first flight experiment to take a more leisurely tour around Kerbin: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/Kerman-Flyer

Borrow away! I've been proclaiming the virtues of said braking system for ages now - would be nice to see it become more common use. Share the craft file, and I'll do a timed run in 1.6.1 for you if Triop doesn't, so you can get on the scoreboard.

Lots of things going on that are messing with my gaming time, unfortunately. I've been testing and tweaking intermittently with a few experimental drag racers since you started this thread. But since I can't tell from one day to the next when I'll have time to finish any KSP project, I didn't speak up to get added to the racing schedule. I figured if I ever managed to get a semi-worthy run I'd just post it and get an honorary mention or something. Triop, do notice that I don't have any wheels on my 'car' - I fully accept I am bending the definition, as evidenced by using the word between quotes even on the craft page. I'm fine with being barred from the actual scoreboard, which is what I expected. Besides, it was more of an encouragement to @qzgy to make his design comply with safety regulations and take that first spot. For the record: I have a version of the Egg with wheels that I still need to tweak to deal with the murderously wonky wheel physics, but no successful run recorded yet. So if that ever runs without scratching the runway, I may enter an actual car.

Fine... one mod, this one time. It runs out of fuel a good bit before reaching the 1km checkpoint. I tried a few runs adding another tick of fuel, but then it apparently goes too fast for the mod to register passing the second checkpoint (886 m/s at flame out), and it never gives me a finished race. I guess 1.94s is the best result the mod will let me record.

There's not much to fix how the KSP engine handles the collider/wheel physics - as players that's out of our hands. But you could try to brake harder - less time spent trying to stop is less time for the physics to cause an explosion. If you want an example how, check out this little craft, created as a drag race experiment: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/The-Egg-5b The 2 sets of elevon 4's in the back start shielded from the airflow, so they don't cause any drag. But as soon as the fairing is staged, they are immediately exposed to airflow. Since they are placed perpendicular to the airflow, you get maximum drag, so they act as a very effective airbrake. It works just as well in a 1.25m service bay, where you can add the 'toggle bay doors' action into the brake action group. An example craft using this braking system within service bays: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/SpeedyReturn-2b

How about an under 2 second run that stays on the runway and keeps Kraken away, kerbals alive, and parts unexploded? Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/The-Egg-5b Full album: https://imgur.com/a/DpI1ack

If the choice is to go with this overall design for one of the hab modules, might as well pick Johnster's. Although in my opinion, the can design costs too much for the capacity and function it offers. So I guess my actual suggestion is to not use either one of these, but you guys make your decision. These were just examples really on what can be done at less cost, but like I said, feel free to use them as is if you wish. I did go and retouch them to remove the DLC tanks and uploaded them to the following links (under different names): KCSS-Hab-1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vfe6adjc5zlmgza/KCSS-Hab-1.craft?dl=0 KCSS-SpaceBnB-1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/f0iqztdb6xp0hjq/KCSS-SpaceBnB-1.craft?dl=0 Both can be lifted comfortably together to a 125km orbit by the Kerbal XM, with a custom fairing. Which means the tug on the Hab-1 is superfluous and can optionally be left out, to save mass, parts, and cost. And since the SpaceBnB already includes a cupola, there really isn't need for a separate module for that - more funds saved. That still leaves a good bit of payload room to take up on that same flight, to make the most of it. A core module perhaps, to make the station operational from the very first launch? At least for tourism, which could start making some money while finishing the station. As for participating: I don't think I'm needed. I'm also having some scheduling issues due to workload. I think I'll watch this unfold. But I make no promises that I won't do this as an individual challenge.

Shouldn't need to wonder: at distances that make solar panelts irrelevant, a small tank of LFO and a fuel cell wins this every time.

Likely, something like: Specifically, the part:

A few things to consider: Take a critical look at the price and weight of parts you decide to include in your module. Some parts, while very pretty, carry a heavy cost in funds and mass. It is worthwhile to 'shop around' and see what alternatives there are and how much can be saved. example 1: the Atmospheric Fluid Spectro-Variometer looks very nice as a greeble for an EVA or airlock module. At 6500 a piece, that's an expensive greeble though. Replace it with a Surface Scanning Module, admittedly a little less impressive looking... but you save a lot of money that can be put towards another module, a bigger lift vehicle, or the development fee for a Sky IIIA if we really need to. example 2: Do we really need a heavy and expensive Mk1-3 pod / lander can combination (with lots of fuel and engines) for an emergency evacuation from a relatively low orbit? Requiring us to send it up with a very expensive large lifter. Or can we suffice with a solution using cheap and light Mk1 crew cabins with just sufficient fuel to deorbit, a heat shield, and a few chutes... and allowing us to lift it on a much more economic vehicle? Also, I see almost every proposed module including a relatively huge tank of fuel and LFO engines. Why? Other than a small tug for orbital assembly and a station-keeping module with limited fuel/thrust capacity, a station does not require engines at all. The modules should be rendevouzed near enough to the station to suffice with RCS for docking, or be within range of the one station tug to fetch. Consider using 2.5m fairings for the main truss functions. Fairings offer a lot of benefits for station constructs: they can be of almost arbitrary length, can vary seamlessly in diameter as required, and provide multiple attachment nodes to firmly attach docking ports, all within a single and relatively cheap/light part. Consider grouping functions into a single module. You seem to be thinking of modules in terms of separate functions, but the rules do not forbid to combine functions in one 'module'. A module should be defined in terms of what can be made to fit on a single launch (mass and size-wise). So if the core module can already fit a few seats, some basic comms, an airlock and an initial docking pier... why make those all separate payloads? Alternatively, when you think of launching payloads, think of how to make best use of the payload capacity of a vehicle. If one module pushes us slightly over mass budget and we have to use the next bigger lifter, what other module can we add into that launch to use the remaining payload budget?

Just a quick heads up: the proposals I posted here were just that, proposals, to give you good folks something to think about. I was seeing (and still see) a lot of excess cost and weight being submitted for a challenge that kinda requires heavily optimizing on both of those constraints. But if you guys are serious about wanting to use my proposals as is, I will look later today at removing the spurious DLC mono tanks (which were there to conform to the design drawing) and/or see what other modules/vehicles I can come up with.

Or... post a craft file and maybe one of us resident nutcases might build a working lifter for it. Some people here are pretty good at launching contraptions that have no physical business whatsoever trying to make it to orbit.