Raideur Ng

While ultra high efficiency orbital haulers is a brilliant thing, I cannot divest that amount of effort into each launch. I want a simple, no nonsense payload to orbit with virtually zero room for failure and lots of room for dick-ups. i suppose that;'s truly my greatest measurement of SSTOs over all other considerations. The margin for error, because we're all human... er KERBAL.

Well, I wasn't doing it quite that intensely. I prefer vehicles I can maneuver aggressively, especially during re-entry and landing and they will not spork me for doing so. I guess I'm not cut out for the ultra-efficiency SSTO club.

Val, the craft in question is roughly on par with yours, at 31~t per Rapier. The issue is it simply cannot accelerate in level flight to create enough lift to hold itself up. So it seems. I'm aware the accent will be very flat and gradual, and thus the shielded docking port for maximum heat resistance during such a shallow profile. Plusck, I tried my craft with a tail cone, aero nose cone, etc. It's not a matter of drag at high speeds, it's a matter of thrust at low speeds. I don't have nor use MechJeb to fine tune my profile so any pitch command will bleed off massive speed to the point the vehicle isnt producing enough thrust to hold itself up. Concerning the wings, moving them at no effect. The problem is such a poor thrust vehicle flies at nearly 5-8 degrees AoA just to stay level, and this prevents it from climbing or accelerating, This INCLUDES Plusck's vehicle, which I also flew on Val's profile, no less, the results were always the same, if I didnt hit the ocean immediately, it would stop accelerating at 3-5km due to nose AoA. Not sure what black magic you're using to keep your craft level, but it simply will not fly like that for me. Also, pitching up with keyboard inputs 'softly' is effectively impossible without tuning down control surface power to the point they can barely control the vehicle. No ideas besides more boosters engines. If you add an additional engine on the back instead of a cone, it flies quite nicely, like I would expect a well designed aircraft would. But why.. P.S. Tail cones are really terrible at dealing with heat, theres NO way you can get past 1300 without it exploding, and below that, you're not getting nearly what you want out of the Rapiers.

Hate to drag up an old topic, but how does your craft even FLY, slashy? I've made one roughly the same, and weighs 1 ton less, four Rapiers, and it cannot lift itself, no matter what wing AoA, beyond 5km up. The TWR is simply not good enough, and yours would be even less than the 0.34 I'm getting. It simply makes no sense. The craft cannot carry itself. Your large tail-fins are very heavy and it makes more sense to use small fins. Regardless of how many and their strength, the vehicle just cannot accelerate while keeping the AoA required to not fall out of the sky. What is this witchcraft?

Soyuz in a nutshell. Re-entry burn = very tasty.

Concerning your nitpicking, they are indeed mounted with proper AoI, otherwise that would never make it into orbit. Hrm. I was hoping KSP wasn't that simple concerning clipping, but oh well. I avoid mounting -anything- on wings due to warping, including engine stacks or landing gear. It also makes no sense to use anything but the precooler for intakes.

If this isn't optimized for drag, I don't know what is: (Precooler clipped into the tail) It does have an excess of power, even on a single Rapier. The question is when you start having to mount engines out beyond the body on pylons. For lifting VERY heavy payloads, you need a lot of engines to get at LEAST 0.5 TWR, otherwise take-offs generally don't occur how you'd like. For the same area, it would seem best to mount them on the wings, rather than outrigged on the body, significantly increasing cross-section and drag. However, when you REALLY start stacking engines, you run out of wing space before you are burning aft parts with exhaust (I prefer to use one forward set of wings and one aft and no horizontal stabilizer, since they hold no fuel). I realize engine power isn't required for hypersonic, but rather the initial takeoff, when Rapier performance is very low. Thus, a better summary would be: It is worthwhile to have two sets of wings, front and back, one giant one, or an exotic X-wing layout for max lift and the most engine mounting for the least drag. Additionally, concerning the X-wing layout, I did indeed try a heavy style version, with properly rotated wings for max lift, and then canted. It does work, but requires additional rear stabilization and it makes mounting engines on the wings themselves really nightmarish.

I use ore as the boilerplate mass during most test missions. Ore is jettisoned in orbit for a lightweight return (Learned that the hard way...) Also, I ask Slashy, what is the point of ballast fuel if you're not stable after using it?

The CoM and CoeM (empty) should not only be at roughly the same spot, but you want them centered in your cargo hold, so when you release cargo, it does not move. Getting them to do that requires forward weight, especially with heavy lifter payloads. What you displayed doesn't appear to carry any cargo. Vall's designs, however, are so large the differences probably average out. I suppose I am trying to find a middleground.

KSP does seem to care though. Dihedral and anhedral seem to cause some surprizing issues, much like canted tails. I ask because I do indeed find myself spamming engines just to break even when lifting super heavy payloads to make 0.60 TWR. I am aware the Mk3 Command Pod is heavy and draggy, but designing vehicles like yours means it ALWAYS tail heavy and requires trimming on the fly. This also has 60 tons of ore in it.

BLUF: Can X pattern and / or otherwise unconventionally mounted wings provide everything required of wings during hypersonic SSTO ascent? I ask this because theres only so many ways you can mount enough gosh darn Rapiers without just ramping up your ballistic coefficient with forward area. It makes the most sense to mount them on wings since that keeps overall profile low. However, flat, straight wings can only mount so many before you have them reheating each other or just run out of room. Any ideas? I'm going for efficiency as opposed to brute size.

The more frustrating airborne missions are measurement below an altitude ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET, which means you're either trying to land an ICBM directly on target or you're flying around the god-forsaken globe. These seem to have no easy solution short of a hypersonic jet or SSTO.

Reoccurring Reentry Syndrome - 1st Stage recoverable The Need for Speed - Light SSTO The Hot Sh*t - Recoverable propulsion ferry

I used a fresh install and avoided the patcher.

We need your shuttle to fly out to the nearest, meanest Class E asteroid/comet and plant a large drill and NERVA engine on it's surface. You then need to make it back alive. If you attempt to dock with any station during this mission, it will explode. Good luck.

I'm still waiting for a Krombopulos Kerman. That would be awesome.

We've established that when you burn fuel, your CoM will shift, probably to the rear, and if you undock cargo from an internal bay, CoM will shift. Ideally, having both your full (fuel + cargo) and empty CoM right in the middle of your cargo hold. A decent question is how do you possibly wing this? Engines will always be towards the rear and without a non-fuel counterweight, you cannot balance your vehicle short of eyeballing fuel redistribution. Any thoughts? (Sorry to put a question in a question)

I outright refuse to watch the second half of Gravity. Good god it was terrible. Probably the best space movie I have ever seen is Apollo 13. It's spot on in virtually every way and doesn't require (many) explosions to remind you how serious the situation is. It's simply an excellent movie, I'm going to go watch that again and delete Gravity.

While recovering 100% would be nice, it ends up being a hassle for every launch. Either using a SSTO heavy lifter or using a recoverable first stage that lands near the peninsula east of the KSC are the least painful ways to reuse your stuff. Unless this is simply a challenge, then anything goes.

Standardized sub-assembly first stages with an embedded probe core. Staged at 1500-1800 m/s, you have time to circularize your orbit while the first stage just starts to hit the atmosphere. Minor boostback to avoid serious heat and parachutes for a nice, soft landing. Everything saved, no need to build it everytime. 1 Skipper and 4 Reliants are nearly the same thrust as a Mainsail but much cheaper.

Kerbal Space Program - 1.1.2.1260 (WindowsPlayer) Problem: Unable to enter KSC buildings or main menu. Mods Installed: Chatterer_v0.9.7 RCSBuildAid_v0.7.7 KerbalAlarmClock_3.6.1.0 I recently removed several mods including KerbalAtomics, CryoTanks,Stock Visual Enhancement, Scatterer, etc trying to fix this issue. This occurs when I try to go into any of those menus: [EXC 15:23:56.458] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object Contracts.Parameters.PartTest.OnSave (.ConfigNode node) Contracts.ContractParameter.Save (.ConfigNode node) Contracts.Contract.Save (.ConfigNode node) Contracts.ContractSystem.OnSave (.ConfigNode gameNode) ScenarioModule.Save (.ConfigNode node) ProtoScenarioModule..ctor (.ScenarioModule module) ScenarioRunner.GetUpdatedProtoModules () Game.Updated () GamePersistence.SaveGame (System.String saveFileName, System.String saveFolder, SaveMode saveMode) VehicleAssemblyBuilding.OnClicked () SpaceCenterBuilding.EnterBuilding () SpaceCenterBuilding.OnLeftClick () SpaceCenterBuilding+<OnMouseTap>c__Iterator98.MoveNext () Full log: http://s000.tinyupload.com/download.php?file_id=76546342015746941859&t=7654634201574694185976669

Actually, things HAVE changed. Drag was reduced, remember? Now re-entry is considerably more deadly and you almost are required to use a heatshield, drogues, and mains. Things that made it through re-entry in 1.0.5 will pancake at 350 m/s with no chance to open mains. Let's not forget this. The game HAS gotten harder, just not by much.

It's not part of the runway that causes the veering, it's wobble. The more wobble between each wheel, the more it will disrupt your runway roll. His main's are attached to his wings, which wobble like a mother. I am aware you want a tricycle style layout, but attaching it to solid main body parts that have very strong connections between each other (Mk3 body parts) will reduce wobble to the point you can take off. Ideally, you can attach all three gear to a single large structural piece and basically remove wobble entirely. I fully expect Slashy or someone with solid stats to come in and show me up, but I assure you, it's wobble and eliminating it will make for a better takeoff.

This was encountered during the update. I am not sure if this is game-breaking at all. Just wanted to share and confirm whether it can be dismissed or if it is a significant issue. Update of previous game with one career save file. Patcher 2.1.1.270 Store Windows 64-bit KSP Previous version 1.1.1 Windows Version Windows 7 (Service Pack 1) (64 bit) CPU Type AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor System Memory 16 GB Graphics ChipsetAMD Radeon HD 7900 Series Radeon Software Version 16.4.2

You have another network active. It may simply be between computers in your home or a homegroup, but anything beyond a single network connection apparently causes this. No idea why, hopefully Unity folks can weigh in on this.