swjr-swis

I would like to enter the BumbleBee II, a 2.2 m RAPIER-based drone clocked at 1751.3 m/s or 796 body lengths per second. Form and length are dictated by the nacelle intake dimensions and the need for thermal protection at RAPIER top speeds. The invisibly protruding RAPIER CoM is balanced by a disabled backward-facing RAPIER, leaving CoM in a very manageable and almost centered position. The otherwise relatively conventional design manages to clock 1751.3 m/s, which at 2.2 m in length makes a 796 body lengths per second. Obviously clipping and offset have been used, but all parts are regularly attached and fully exposed to the game's thermal and drag physics, and no cheats were required, the drone uses fuel and air. It results in a quite viable-looking design, which is at least as worthy of consideration along-side more esoteric non-clipping (but mechanically/structurally/aerodynamically questionable, respectfully) entries. Junos max out at 820 m/s at sea level, there's been challenges before that proved that. It's not too difficult to make a very controllable/stable drone to do this (has to be if you need to skim the surface for max speed). So at 1.3 m with landing gear that maxes out at 631 bl/s. With clipping and droppable gear length could be shortened max to 0.5 m, using only elevons 1's, the length of the Juno setting the limit. So potentially, values of up to 1640 bl/s could be reached, which is completely outside the feasible with any other engine, RAPIER included. A non-entry example, just going for the shortest length (0.5 m) reaches 1305 body lengths per second on a single (thrusting) Juno:

Automated lithobraking. If that isn't a kerbal application, I don't know what is.

Imagine if we could use the pressure readout of the barometer as an input... dynamically adjust control surface authority/deployment to pressure, or ballast systems that adjust to depth. Ore % readout to make an auto-searching ISRU rover that finds the spot with the highest ore yield in the landing area. Thermometer readout to adjust airbrake deployment and/or pitch angle to manage reentry heat, or reduce throttle for super- and hypersonic planes to stay within thermal tolerances. Ah but a Kerbal can dream...

This is a dead giveaway for the root cause: this means that the docking port has been attached to the ship by its front docking node, instead of the back one. Since that front node is not free to use, it won't dock. And this is the second part of the puzzle. Fairing interstage nodes always come in pairs, almost overlapping, pointing opposite of each other. Add to that a part that also has its front and back nodes very close to each other, like a docking port, and it's very easy to get those attached incorrectly. Always check and double-check in such cases. You may still be able to correct this in flight with EVA construction, if there's not too much clipping involved. otherwise back to the VAB/SPH and reconnect them properly before launching again.

Thank you for doing this. Much of this I already 'knew' from my own planes and testing, but it always helps to see it confirmed with actual data. Much appreciated, also with the very readable presentation. One tip that may open a world for you in matters of fuel efficiency: add a few degrees of Angle of Incidence to your wings (rotating them so the leading edge is pointing a bit upwards compared to the trailing edge). This allows for lift to be generated while keeping the main body of the plane as close to prograde as possible, which minimizes body drag. Conversely it may allow smaller wing area to maintain the same lift, which would also lower total drag. both of those tend to translate to more fuel efficient flight, combined with the more common optimizations. Get accustomed to tuning your plane designs to efficient flying, and you'll notice it's possible to do much better even, with smaller/slower engines too. How about on a single Juno, using less than 86 units of LF? Flying at mach 2+ and relatively high was definitely key for this one too. I'll be interested to see what designs you come up with. Do share!

Corrected entry for class 2: themiteyone c, 9728 m. Corrected entry for class 3: the sifu-dawn b, 52148 m. The sepratwist did not need correction, it landed with all parts intact.

I need to stop doing these challenges when I'm having trouble sleeping - just now realized this means the entire rocket, not just the kerbal. I'll have to redo the class 2 and 3 entries, since they lost their fins on landing. I assume this also means no fairing shroud deployment? Correction coming up.

Entry for class 1: the sepratwist, 1469 m. Entry for class 2: themiteyone, 11674 m. Please ignore, see corrected no-damage entry. Entry for class 3: the sifu-dwan, 88128 m. Please ignore, see corrected no-damage entry.

Or... and hear me out a moment... add an option for us to entirely disable (and I really do mean with absolute prejudice disable) the code that does the 'let's disable stuff when parts are shielded' thing. That would solve So. Many. Bugs. in one fell swoop. Anyway. Never mind me.

These three are not stock or DLC parts (names are different), and you're forgetting to mention one part - the engineer's report in your screenshot shows your craft is made of 6 parts.

There's a third option: use fuel cells powered by LFO (you won't need much). You could even combine things..

Good news! We're always interested in mission reports in this forum. A Sea Dragon launch would make a spectacular one. Hint hint.

And welcome to the forums!

Tip: https://kerbalx.com/parts/31747 A few examples of the diversity of legitimate uses for a KAL-1000, in no particular order: https://kerbalx.com/BlackRockStar/Countdown-timer https://kerbalx.com/Triop/Frisbee https://kerbalx.com/BrainyDJ/The-Electric-Rocket-Roller-Coaster https://kerbalx.com/CoyoteFoxtrot/Hexagonal-Folding-Solar-Panel https://kerbalx.com/sir_frost/self-assembling-icosahedron https://kerbalx.com/IkranMakto/Combine-Gunship-Half-Life-2 https://kerbalx.com/yajifu/Auto-Balanced-Drone https://kerbalx.com/jmark1213/MechaRaptor https://kerbalx.com/jmark1213/Imperial-AT-AT https://kerbalx.com/Squiddy/Herald-Mech

Is there a cargo bay or a fairing (base) near that hatch, or is the part slightly clipped into one? And did you stage/decouple/(un)dock something since the last time you tried to EVA? Or even just reload a quicksave? That might be the source of the issue: if a crewed part is considered shielded/occluded by a bay/fairing, it won't allow use of the hatches, ANY hatches on that part. Unfortunately if there is a way to fix it, I'm not aware of it - in all cases where I encountered this, that part would no longer allow EVA regardless of what I tried, with the same message you're showing.

One thing to consider: the first part of reentry, and in a large atmosphere like Eve's that's a LOT of km in, SAS will by default stay in Orbital mode. If you have SAS trying to hold prograde or retrograde to get the most advantage of heatshields, keep in mind that SAS is actually pointing somewhat away from the actual airstream vector. This could be the reason you notice a deviation, because in Eve's thicker atmosphere even a slight deviation from the actual airstream vector can make a lot of difference. Manually set your SAS to Surface mode as soon as you start entering so it follows 'true' prograde/retrograde; that may be all you need for that deviation to go away.

The Swivel engine was revamped at some point, given a new internal name, and the old one was 'obsoleted' by hiding it from the default tech tree category. They forgot to adapt the training though, so it's still trying to point to an engine that is now 'missing'. If you 'Enable advanced mode' (top left), and go to the tech level category, you can still find it in level 2. Pictures or it didn't get explained:

Lampirydae, a.k.a. Firefly. Very enlightening. (I love small one-seater jets, especially when supersonic.) Cruise mach 1.65 @ 13 km, with more than enough fuel to land anywhere on Kerbin and return.

The last series of comments about the ISS being too outdated to serve this purpose and discussing alternatives answers the why. I thought the conversation was already past that point. Jolly good, then it's all solved already. Which ones are those btw, and when are their launch dates?

I think you just described almost 100% of the universe. Not very specific. In any case, welcome. Have a thumbs up just for the thought-provoking introduction, and feel free to link your craft/screenshots/movies of KSP, or tell us your missions, or ask us your questions.

So, basically we just need someone to fly up a self-boosting station core with an expandable multi-dock truss, and things will grow from there by renting out -and eventually, expand- the docking space? Incentive for the early bird renters to get their modules close to the core. Incentive for the core owner to provide/maintain the core services since there's already multiple parties with a committed interest, of which several national or even international level, and at least one existing station that needs replacing in the very near future. Why is this not in the plans of the Elon Musks et al, as something much more immediately attainable (with a much more realistic RoI) than say, Moon landings or Mars one-way trips? Too mundane for them?

Any chance of an official 11th anniversary of KSP being celebrated with an official bugfix of 1.12.3 ...?

The debug option you clicked (and need to unclick) is this one:

Not even an honorary mention for the infinite range plane? You're actually gonna make me sit through 3-4 circumnavigations to secure that top spot? Sad face.