swjr-swis

Tsiolkovsky say: maximum fuel conservation achieved by not going to space. (but if you insist on going to space, build small and light)

I don't think quotes work the way you think they do...

Both to minimize drag and to maximize the air intake, you should place them as much as possible parallel to the airflow - intake opening pointing to the front of the craft. Placement on top/bottom (dorsal/ventral) makes no difference for drag or air intake. It does make a difference for heat, but that only comes to play if your fighter tries to go orbital or do Mach 3+ speeds for extended periods of time, in which case placing them on the top/dorsal of fuselage or wings will keep the intakes from heating up.

Not sure why there is so much assuming going on in these threads. Yes, both Kerbin and Laythe have oceans, and yes, Laythe more so than Kerbin appears to be almost entirely covered by water. But those oceans are what, 1.4km deep on Kerbin, on average less than 1km, and 2.7km deep on Laythe, average about 1.5km? In either case just a very thin layer of liquid around otherwise rocky bodies, considering that their density is 10-11x as high as the rockiest planet we know in the terrestial system. Even if their hyperdense cores are still molten (of which we have no evidence, as there is nothing indicating plate tectonics or volcanism on either planet), they would still act very rigidly.

You meant 240+ km, yes?

I would be in favour of this implementation. Not everything that the game believes is 'debris' is always debris by my definition, so for a batch delete to be usable for me, it would need to allow me to specify the selection.

A bit more ambition is warranted. For your consideration: https://kerbalx.com/Eladdv/K-Drive-122 https://kerbalx.com/Eladdv/Kraken-Drive-8-0 79g is within the realm of possibilities according to the screenshots.

One other thing you can do is attach (the back of) a docking port to an interstage node opposite of the payload, and give your payload a docking port on that end. Ensure the docking ports are close enough that when the vessel loads on the pad, they automatically dock -> now the payload is secured from both ends. Disadvantage: contrary to the fairing truss structure (which is apparently just a holographic projection), the docking port on the interstage node will be completely solid and your payload may need to maneuver free from it, so design accordingly.

Has to be. Why else would he leave two words in that entire post uncapitalized? Cruel...

Yes. You can see this by opening the Aero GUI (Alt-F12 on PC, Physics, Aero) and watching the Mach nr change live as your plane climbs. Having the rightclick menu of your engine pinned open at the same time will also show you how the thrust develops, and you will notice that planes that struggle to get to Mach 1 at sea level can often punch through quite easily at higher elevations.

#StockForumElitism . . .

Sad that they had to close. They mention they'll be open sourcing their solution though, that gives some hope.

A docking port at the back node of a rapier can be offset into the rapier but left with its docking edge just barely sticking out, without the rapier exhaust affecting it. That way it can dock from the back and the engine will still work at full thrust.

You mean, something other than the stock FL-R10 small RCS tank (which can also be radially attached), or the Stratus-V tanks?

I did a bit of editing on the Volta VIII Spear II. It probably still needs some finetuning, but let me know what you think so far. https://www.dropbox.com/s/08iakxlna5y98b1/Volta VIII - Spear IIa.craft?dl=0 edit 1: I've added a second version, with improved maneuverability. This version is fully fueled with 880 units of LF and so a bit heavier than the Volta I, but I think you'll find it doesn't lose much in maneuverability because of it. Even so, you can empty it down to 180 units like the Volta I in which case it is actually lighter, with even better maneuverability. https://www.dropbox.com/s/hsxlm8knp5btew4/Volta VIII - Spear IIb.craft?dl=0 Very fun plane you got yourself here, I enjoyed flying this. edit 2: Aaaand a third version. Crazy maneuverable now, even when fully fueled. Man is this thing fun to fly. https://www.dropbox.com/s/qd04m7sgpazzczg/Volta VIII - Spear IIc.craft?dl=0

Start with this. Radiators may look like they should be pretty aerodynamic, but they work like extended airbrakes when it comes to KSP stock drag.

I like it. Except it still requires at least one control input after leaving the pad: changing SAS to follow target (which can only be done once the craft has lifted off and velocity is >1.0m/s).

No worries, I answered the challenge just to see what I could do within the given constraints, it was an interesting problem and quite relevant to me right now since I'm trying to get myself motivated to rebuild several of my older craft. My 'disappointment' stemmed just from being left wondering if I had met that particular part of your challenge. All's well. The tank size difference set me to thinking though: the stock craft should probably be rebuilt entirely from scratch first, and move from there, to prevent any import artifacts from obscuring the real issues. Which also tells me reworking my older craft may be a lot more work than I care for, if I'm going to have to watch for clues of import errors that the game doesn't warn us about.

I was mostly trying to keep the original appearance while still getting it to orbit and back with as much functionality as possible, since that seemed to be what you asked for specifically: Considering the wording of the challenge, I am a little disappointed that in your assessment the look wasn't factored at all. There are many many things I would do differently for a spaceplane, if trying to keep the appearance of the original had not been a criterium. Because it can in fact dock. LKO rendezvous and docking is almost the only thing it's good for. It retains the Jr docking port on the underside of the panel floor of the cargo bay, like the original. If you check the RCS ports, you'll notice they are set to work only for translation, leaving the reaction wheels to do what they do best. Reaching LKO with 120+ LF and 95 units of mono offers good margin for rendezvous and docking. True, and I might've looked at moving RCS into the cargo bay if it had been absolutely necessary. But the drag of the RCS ports does not prevent the craft from easily making LKO, and placing them outside provides the beneficial side-effect of pushing the heat bow slightly ahead of the cockpit, which means I can keep the original cockpit. The oxidizer space left on this version is just there because of the bicoupler; stock offers no LF-only alternative. Adding almost any oxidizer to that part -just to fuel vernors- quickly unbalances the plane when returning low or empty of LF causing it to spin, and requires rather extreme counter-measures that affect the original appearance more than I was aiming for. Additionally, I saved more mass removing the vernors and oxidizer than I added with the mono tank and RCS - in fact I can add another almost full tank of mono with what I saved. And since this craft gets nowhere near to leaving Kerbin SoI, any changes aimed at landings on other bodies is pointless. Btw, I noticed just now that by using the bicoupler that was in the original 1.0.5 craft, it kept its original tank sizes, which are significantly smaller than they are now (135/165 vs 180/220). Makes me wonder what other values and modules are wrongly translated when importing a craft from older to current versions...

I gave it a shot: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ix0sqitbcp1jkiz/Stearwing D45 fixed1.craft?dl=0 I tried first to keep it almost intact, but I found it horrible to fly, I really disliked the idea of dropping the jets (I may want those when coming back from orbit), the angled tail fins kept messing with the controls, the intakes kept knocking off parts when sliding off, all kinds of heat, drag and rigidity issues.... I quickly lost all incentive to try and keep that contraption. So, I rebuilt it almost from scratch and I did a lot of things different, but I think I managed to keep very close to the original appearance, and it's now LKO and reentry capable in 1.2.1, with ample RCS for docking maneuvres, and LF to spare to find a landing spot after reentry. Terrier+Whiplash replaced by Nerv+RAPIER, only the mk0 tanks drop now, less intakes placed on the Mk2 edges, doubled up on the wings and control surfaces to create enough lift, replaced the short LFO Mk2 tank by a long LF one, removed all oxidizer from the bicoupler, replaced all vernors and RCS by 3x 6-way linear ports, reordered all Mk2 parts (had to redo the entire cargo bay content to do so), added Mk2 drone core, repositioned gear, repositioned all wings and control surfaces, added a small RCS tank, and added some panels so the antenna, solar panels and docking port can be used without 'exposing' the passenger section to space. Ladder and front gear have been attached further back on the fuselage and then offset to the cockpit, to minimize the nr of parts that bleed heat to the cockpit; that and the front RCS ports allow the cockpit to survive ascent and reentry. I really just wanted to rip out the regular unfueled wing sections and use fueled Big-S rakes instead, much like what you did, but that changes the look a lot.

I have put a copy of the 1.0.5 version from a pure stock install on my dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/w3byc0jlofmv5dc/Stearwing D45.craft?dl=0

One way I can reproduce it reliably is in a fresh new save, launch the standard first pod-on-a-flea straight up from the launch pad - leave out the parachute. Zoom in close and angle the camera just below the pod and watch it crash. If it doesn't happen automatically, you can also angle the camera slowly down after the crash. It appears to happen when the position of the camera clips into the terrain, or into a building/tower. Zoom level doesn't matter when you do it that way. I think the one particular case you show is when the crash is with high enough speed that the craft 'penetrated' a good bit into the terrain before the game registers the destruction, but the above gives the same effect.

The Spacecraft Exchange section of the forum is probably the better place to ask for this. This thread is mainly about the workings of the KerbalX website, not so much about the content shared on it. That said, you'll need to be a bit more specific. Other than stack diameter, do you have length/height limits? Power type requirements? Array strength? Is it to be an independent satellite, a module for a station, or maybe even to be part of a base? Do you have limits on part number? Stock, or can it include mods? You'll find people willing to share craft files or even make new ones on order, but without more than size 2 to go on, the variations possible are... endless. And they might still not fit what you need.

Yes. I keep having this, with my pure stock install. It seems to happen especially if I follow the crash into terrain with the camera zoomed in fairly close, or positioned at an angle where the camera ends up under the terrain when the crash happens (ie. when watching from an angle slightly under the craft). It does seem to happen more often around the KSC though, and come to think of it I do have other vessels nearby: a rover with some kerbals and a couple of flags.

Long before the days of artificial satellites, the Ancient Ones were already measuring latitudes and longitudes (to varying degrees of accuracy)...