NorthernDevo

Hi all; update: I built a simple Mk1 firecracker and sent Beaslie into orbit, following the path of Megan's derelict - she's been stuck up there for about a week now in a highly inclined orbit at around 5000kms. I discovered quickly that by rotating the ship in the VAB prior to rollout lining up with the erstwhile kerbonaut was surprisingly easy. Thanks for the help fellows; this is so much easier than I thought! Now I'll build a recovery rocket and get the poor rocketeer down. Cheers!

Update: (No pics yet, sorry; I'll upload ASAP) Kerbal Kondor Test-flight 2: Updated vessel's utility by adding a cargo bay, swapped the vernors out for RCS blocks and added an RCS tank in the bay. Changed the SRB's for Skipper-driven liquid boosters. Launched into orbit easily; dropping boosters upon circularization phase. Fully fueled Kondor in orbit; boosted to 500kms to check fuel endurance. Returned to LKO for re-entry, used same entry profile as flight 1. Cargo Bay totally threw out Kondor's flight profile; it could not maintain entry attitude. Wound up with AOA of 0 at 1900 m/s. Lost forward RCS blocks almost instantly; no further damage on entry though Bob's nerves were seriously frayed. Jeb thought it as a hoot. Levelled out at 9500M @ 300m/s approx. 50K E of KSC; began turning back for landing. Needed moderate thrust from engines to maintain altitude; fuel exhaustion brought unrepairable shallow descent. Flight characteristics still good other than inability ro level out; Kondor reached SC runway before Jeb blew the cockpit free. Results: Kondor destroyed, crew safe. Groundskeeper livid at the loss of his begonias. Findings: More elevon authority clearly needed; payload bay puts CG too far forward for this wing design. Back to the drawing board...

Cool! I just built my first spaceplane! The Kerbal Kondor (go figure) is my first try at a Shuttle-style pad launch/glide landing aircraft. All fuel; nothing fancy but I was astonished at how well it flew given how badly all my airplanes have (which is why I never play in the SPH much). The Kondor is sweet, trim and flies real well at about 60 m/s. Launched from the pad with a pair of SRB's she flew sweetly into orbit, decelerated and re-entered without a hitch. I was certain she would become unstable during re-entry but it was smooth and clean. I pushed the nose over at about 800 m/s and WAAAAHHHHH!!!!! THEN the instability hit; going divergent on all three axes. She wound up in a flat spin about 30KM E of KSC. I used the last whispers of fuel to get the nose down; break the stall and get some wind over the wings. Finally stabilized going straight down at 5000M; pulled out and got ready to blow the control cabin free...established a glide...and plopped her down smartly (after a balloon and a couple of bounces) on the numbers to coast to a gentle stop. Woohoo! I wuz I'm-PRESSED! Here's a screenshot of the lovely little beastie:

Gotcha - I've been aware I haven't been doing it as efficiently as possible; you've given me some tips to follow; thanks

Thanks for the info - yes; I've always done it this way because I've never been good at launching into the correct plane from the ground; heading East is easy! Now that you say it, I think I ought to spend a few flights working that out.

Hallo - odd question here. I've been toying with blasting around the local system using minimum rockets and minimum fuel usage - odd for me since my motto has always been "Don't just build...overbuild!" I'm currently heading to Minmus in an attempt to grab all possible science (3X over with 2 storage containers) from the moon on a single trip; I think my record is 2000 but I can't quite recall. Anyhoo; my usual launch is to boost into parking orbit - 100kms - set the Mint Frosted Moon as target, burn for alignment then boost via a normal transfer. I'm pretty sure however that if I boosted into a higher orbit - say 1000kms - it would take less fuel to burn into alignment since my velocity is lower. A) is that correct? And if so B) Is there - mathematically speaking - an optimum altitude to change my plane with minimum fuel usage? Thanks!

First TV game: Pong First gaming console (and to date, the only console I've ever had:) The Magnavox Odyssey; sometime around 1972. We had two games: a racing game with cars that looked like green Tie-fighters, and something that looked like Breakout...I think. Dad would punish us by taking the patchcord to the TV away so we couldn't play it. It's amazing how a pair of 10 year olds can develop the basic skills of burglary in short order the moment Dad left for work. All-time favourite game: Paradroid. Fast-paced, beautifully designed, smooth movement and utterly entrancing. There have been many great games, but none have (IMO) ever matched Paradriod for sheer playable enjoyability Cheers!

I wish I did; my own participation was nothing more than an interested son. All materials were returned to the owner - one of the other Arrowheads - though the majority of the information is available online now. I could tell a story about sitting down with Mr. Zurakowski though; the chief Arrow test pilot. As a younger pilot I was thrilled to chat with the 80 year old legend. I asked him how he completed an airshow maneuver no-one else has ever managed: the Zurakowski Dyna-loop. His answer was one of the most Kerbal responses you could possibly imagine: The Dyna-loop was performed in a Gloster Meteor; the beast was the only aircraft that could do it (and only with Jan flying it) due to its widely-spaced engines. It was a lateral rotation about the z-axis; the plane spinning wingtip-over-wingtip. I've never seen it of course; he did it in the '50's but it would be incredible to see. After he autographed my picture, I asked him, pilot to pilot (Ha! That's a hot one; my 400 hrs at that time to his 30,000) how he did it. He answered, and you have to imagine his rich Polish accent: "Vell, it vass very eassy. All you needed to do vass pull ze aircrawf up to 90 degrees. It cannot be 91, it cannot be 89. You keep full throttle, ja? You understand. Zen, as you slow to 60 knots, you shut off one engine." (Slaps forehead) Oh, really? That's easy? Shutting off one engine in a full-power vertical climb at 500ft. agl? Jeb; please meet your new tutor!

I always love seeing posts about the Avro Arrow; my family was involved - indirectly - with the project. (My father wrote the book "Avro Arrow" by 'The Arrowheads'. Producing that book in the early '80's took the young me down both the roads of aviation (at 13 I was already learning flight theory from my Dad and the Air Cadets) and graphic arts - the trade I've spent most of my life in.) As such we had access to all available information remaining: personal accounts, production documents, flight-test information; the works. In our later years we loved going to the National Aviation Museum in Ottawa; Dad was a total attention hound and enjoyed telling people about his book. To the question: was the Canadian government wrong in cancelling the Arrow? Certainly. The CF-105 was a superb aircraft and the OP is not lying; it had stats that are only being passed today. The project was cancelled for the wrong reasons. The question is though should it have been cancelled for right reasons? That's harder to answer. We DIDN'T need the Arrow; not at the time. It was powerful, fast and unique. It was also a terrible weapons platform; a useless dogfighter and an interceptor of very limited use. Its payload - 3 Falcon missiles - was outmoded long before it rolled off the line. The aircraft it was designed to replace, the CF-100 was far superior in versatility and survivability. The Arrow had one job, one job only: to destroy Russian Tupolev 'Bear' bombers coming over the pole in a nuclear assault. It was a superb platform for more advanced work; its basic design could have been adapted to other uses and it was: the American F-106 and the legendary Concorde both take their design from the Arrow's unique development. Furthermore, following the closure of the project many of the top developers went elsewhere: to Rockwell and Grumman, among other companies. Arrow designers worked on both the Apollo spacecraft and the Lunar Excursion Module. Their expertise helped put man on the moon. Would I have loved to see the Arrow go into service? Certainly. Do I think it would have been a good Canadian Air Force aircraft? Yes, with acknowledgement of its limitations. Do I think the world aviation progress has improved with its cancellation? Absolutely. The CF-105 Arrow was brilliant, but too limited as a combat aircraft. The knowledge gained from that superb project supported and assisted countless projects around the world. It helped build supersonic airliners and unnecessary interceptors. It built far superior jet engines and put the outline of a man's boot on the Moon. the aircraft would have been good; but the knowledge learned was far, far more important. Cheers!

Smile - your enthusiasm is infectious; I love reading your posts. Just one thing - and this might seem strange at first blush. You said: "I have been playing plane games and simulators long before i started flying so i am already used to the instruments." OK - reality check, Worir4. No, you are NOT used to the instruments. The instrument flight exam is one of the hardest courses in the civil aviation arena - I failed it my first attempt with, if I recall, 460 hours, numerous ratings and damn near a decade of flight behind me. Do NOT be fooled by the very weak and inaccurate model presented by PC simulators. Sims are excellent nowadays, but they cannot replicate the fear, uncertainty and self-doubt that presents itself when you have to fly an aircraft totally blind. You HAVE to know your instruments PERFECTLY - you have to - to use the Heinlein term - grok them in a way sims cannot even begin to replicate. Put the computer sims on the shelf, and concentrate on your flying. Start from fresh and be ABSOLUTELY aware that you're starting from fresh. Anything else can get you killed - and in as little as eleven more flights that becomes a very real possibility since your instructor won't be there when you solo. Sorry; but I've been flying too long to let things slide. Never forget that any PC experience you have counts for less than nothing - it teaches little save bad ideas and wrong beliefs. Forget PC sims and listen to your teacher.

Oh good. You might not realize it right off the bat but that is an enormous advantage for you. The G-1000 is an excellent system for trained pilots (though I personally dislike it) and has many benefits for owners; namely in weight costs - 'steam' instruments are heavy! Learning the 6-pack however requires thought, patience and understanding. In flight, all I need to do is glance at the panel to gain a thorough understanding of my aircraft's position in space - something I cannot ascribe to the Garmin system; though that is clearly personal, other pilots disagree. If your training plan matches ours in Canada, you should have just been introduced to stalls, slow flight and spiral dives. Chuckle - I'm looking forward to hearing your experiences. From what I've seen so far you're a pretty good storyteller; I am enjoying your journey immensely. I started my own journey in 1979 as a Cadet of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets. A 13 year old with a lot of enthusiasm and interest in flight. In 1983 I was accepted to the RCACC's glider scholarship program, and earned my wings at 16 as a glider pilot. I earned my light aircraft wings privately; waiting tables and washing cars to make the money. I personally believe all pilots should learn to fly gliders since one of the Four Forces (thrust) is not present in flight; forcing the pilot to have a better understanding of Lift, Drag and Gravity. Bu that is unreasonable; simply a personal preference. I really do believe that learning to fly gliders has made me a better pilot. Even in rotorcraft - while very different in action gliding is gliding; and the one time I ever had to autorotate to safety (I had a 'chip' light 20 mi. outside of Quesnel, BC) I was comfortable with the decent; little stress at all. You've got a good start, Worir4; sounds like you're doing great. Study hard, listen to your instructor and above all HAVE FUN! What you're doing is really, really cool - never forget just how freakin' awesome it is to take wing. Cheers!

Chuckle - ahh; welcome to the lovely, lovely World of the Wiz-Wheel! I just saw this thread so I didn't get the opportunity to congratulate you for starting your journey towards flight. As a long-time pilot (civil private light, sailplane and helicopter) I can tell you that you are heading down an extremely rewarding, but also extremely challenging path. It is not easy; and more rewarding for the challenge. I've learned in my years not to offer advice to new people; it's often wrong and can interfere with your instructors' teaching. Besides, he or she is going to be far better that I; I've been out of the Cadet training system for over 15 years. That said, if I could offer advice, I would offer this: On your second flight, you're busy working on basics; straight and level flight; trim, secondary control actions. Before long, you're going to be getting into more advanced airwork and aircraft handling. I know you want to proceed, but unless you feel you're thoroughly confident with everything you've learned, never be afraid to repeat a lesson. If there's something you're a little unsure of; by all means repeat that lesson before going on. It costs another lesson but saves lessons down the road as you have a stronger understanding of the basics. The Tomahawk is an excellent aircraft to learn on; a good stable little platform. I'm less enthused that it apparently has a G-1000 (you described a glass cockpit); I'm a strong proponent of learning the basic 6-pack. Being able to read the instruments and keeping a mental image in your mind of the aircraft's attitude is a critical ability, IMO but then, I'm an old fogey - some CFIs strongly support the G-1000 system. As to the image above; the E-6B is a really important tool and an excellent skill to learn. By the time you read this you've already likely learned the basic functions; it takes 5 minutes to learn. Just never, ever underestimate that little Wiz-wheel. There are easier and more advanced tools out there, including full Internet flight planning, but the E-6B goes with you wherever you go. It slips in your map case, never needs batteries and always answers your questions with a simple slide of the thumb. Cheers! And good luck!

Not by a longshot. I'm guessing Orbiter and a doctored pic, but I'm probably wrong. The AMSO addon is realistic enough to take VERY realistic photos.

Ohhhhh you HAD to mention that, didn't you? Now I've got a craving for it! (sigh) I have to get to the store before it closes...

Waffles...the lines give me a reference guide to cut by. Nothing worse than irregular-sized egg-dipping, knowhatImean? And all them little indentations means one waffle can hold up to a quarter pound of melted butter.

Ending the bad stuff now; we can continue with the fun stuff. It's the same stuff; just with a different perspective.

Thank you. You are smart, well-rounded and empathetic; I was sure you would understand. I just beg you to remember how many people, men, women and children, have seen 'those things' rumbling towards them - whether those things be tanks, technicals or scores of men with machetes. War is awful beyond measure; the machines are designed to do horrible things. My consolation lies in the belief that the ability and willingness to do horrible things on my part relieved the suffering of the civilians we protected. I don't know if we succeeded. I do know we had small victories. One sniper killed here, one family saved there. That is enough. And if I live long enough I might one day actually believe that. The rest is for history to decide.

Exactly. You're not suggesting one side or the other has experienced any less horror in war? That was not the point. The point was that war is destructive; and that destruction has a catastrophic and deeply traumatic effect on Human life. We can chat casually about 'great' tanks, machines, etc. but consider if YOU are the person FACING that machine...the focus shifts remarkably. I said I didn't want to be a killjoy. Military machinery and topics CAN be cool; but let's just keep the reality of those things in sharp focus. As an analogy; we can consider the sword. The sword is perhaps the most well-regarded and admired weapon; it is a beautiful, elegant and wonderfully-crafted piece of work; a finely-designed and desirable tool. Swords have shaped legend - as the Wootz sword pulled from a form in Damascus did (the linguistic root of Excalibur has been firmly traced to Syria.) Swords have been objects of desire; of story. Swords define heroes in story and legend. From (according to Mallory) Arthur's God-given weapon to the superbly balanced swords of the Samurai; the sword has always held the forefront of our imagination. Now think for a moment what that lovely piece of metal does to the Human body when it is being used for the purpose it was designed for. If you've ever seen a Katana - for example - actually used for its specific purpose, its glamour fades sharply; replaced by a much more sober and serious consideration of its capabilities. When a sword - great as it might be - is used to effect, the effect is death, agony and butchery. For the record I, myself, have never seen a Katana being used in combat; though I have seen machetes, axes and knives used. The difference between us is that for me and for those that like me served in combat, this is not an academic exercise; it is personal history. I have NO wish at all to disrupt this thread; simply to point out that what is cool to some is a horrible, personal reality to others. To add in a positive way to this thread, I can tell a story of my second tour in Bosnia, 1992. I was second-in-command of a Pioneer Section of the Patricias - the finest fighting Foot on Earth - operating in support of UNPROFOR, about three months into our tour of duty. For weeks, we'd been taking sporadic but increasing small-arms fire on our patrols; regular sweeps were more and more becoming active engagements. These were usually just locals with Kalashnikovs and too much Slivovitz taking potshots; but not always. Sometimes we took serious fire; we returned it in spades...NO-ONE fires on Canadian soldiers without a major fight on their hands. We never lost anyone in our platoon but overall the Battalion had 3 men hurt, for at least a dozen attackers (including a number of RPG's) wiped out. We were winning, but the Brass decided something needed to be done. So we did it. We arranged a fun event for the locals: a "Firepower Demonstration". It's a chance to show off a little, blend with the locals and chat them up. After all, we're strangers in their country; we should show them who we are, right? Keep in mind that as Peacekeepers we have to keep our 'friendly' faces on at all times. Not the easiest task, I assure you. In fact, it's much more serious, though we'd never say so. They want to see, to assess our tactical ability. We get the chance to clearly see their weaponry and strength. It's like a 'fun day' sponsored by the NRA. That is a joke. The firepower 2Bn chose to demonstrate was our vehicle-mounted TOW launcher - a powerful and effective anti-tank missile platform. Its HEAT rounds are devastatingly effective against armour; but hardly spectacular...so we put on a show. The night before the demonstration; I was assigned to take four soldiers - my entire fire-team - plus a fully-crewed M113 APC to act as security escort for a party of Canadian Combat Engineers out to the destroyed Russian T-55 tank we'd be using as a target. We set up a cordon; our APC's twin guns and thermal sights watching as the Engineers went to work. I don't know much about explosives save what I learned in the Infantry - I can only blow things up; I can't blow them down - but as far as I could see they wired that damn thing up with high explosive, a ton of black powder, a few gallons of naphtha and a drum of diesel fuel; all wrapped up in a few dozen yards of detcord. I can honestly say that loading my guys up and driving away from that thing was one of the scariest moments of my life. The Engineers were happy, I was shi...er...sweating bricks until we cleared the blast radius; which was a heck of a lot farther than I liked. (Chuckle) The next morning was bright, fresh and festive. The town had turned out; plenty of opportunity to mix with the locals. Most of the local men had weapons of one type or another; we knew damn well they'd been the ones shooting at us but...peacekeeping, remember. We chatted: Yes, this IS a C8! Top of the line; look how clean it is; how new. Those notches in the stock? Ignore them...not important. Is that your Kalashnikov? How nice! Let me look! Hmmm....some rusty rounds in there; I'll make a note. Ohhh....that guy has a Dragunov! Wonderful! What - no special ammunition? Too bad! I'll make a note. Here, let me show you something nice; THIS is the Bowie I always carry...oh yes sir; Canadian troops ALWAYS carry a favoured personal weapon...do you have a favourite weapon? No? Ohh. I'll make a note. And so on I would love to say I was the soldier selected to fire the TOW at the target. Perhaps if I say it enough I'll even believe it one day; I want to so much. But I wasn't. Mike Auccoin had that honour and I still haven't forgiven him I was over to the left of my line with my Section; making sure my courageous troupe of brainless idiots were doing what I told them to: staying behind the berm and keeping their flippin' faces planted. We were at a safe distance - in Army terms anyway. In civilian terms the range was totally-freakin'-stupid-close; it was planned that way. If you're going to make a point you don't want the people you're making a point at miss the point. RHIP - rank hath its privileges - I stayed standing until Mike shouted "Firing now!" Then I dropped and sucked mud - hard. BOOOOOMMM!!!! In all my years, in all my tours, in all my operations whether combat, training or monitoring, in all my civilian adventures - many somewhat shady - I've never seen an explosion like that. I've seen A-10s take out an ammunition dump; I have personally eliminated a fuel depot; I have withstood a major artillery barrage. I have NEVER seen a blast like that. The Engineers had done their work superbly; they crafted a blast never seen before or since. An actual HEAT round strike looks small on the outside; the devastation happens inside the vehicle. This blast erupted like a solar flare - white-hot, huge and unbelievably spectacular. There was enough solid explosive planted to mask the fact it was a fuel-air explosion (an FAE will give away the game to anyone who knows ANYTHING about explosions at all) and the ground heaved under us. I lifted my head just enough to see the most wonderful sight: the turret of the T-55 - 12 tons of steel - spinning lazily as it rocketed into the air above the gigantic fireball. My timing is probably off ( I do know the math) but that turret flew for damn near 10 seconds before it hit the ground. There was a sudden silence. The very next sound was the collective 'Thunk' of dozens of Serbian fighters' jaws hitting the ground at the same time. Insurgent activity dropped to near-zero for the remainder of our tour. We had maybe four or five serious firefights after that - a tenth of what we'd had beforehand. I love telling this story because it's fun and exciting and to be frank; I tell it well in real-life; it's a great story. More importantly, I love telling it because no-one died - and this one demonstration kept the hotheads and fighters from attacking us for a while. I call that a win. Cheers!

Uh huh - a decent answer. So why did posts on this list include "Which tank is the coolest"? I'm sorry, but this is NOT a serious and sober consideration of war and its consequences - it's a thread on how cool military machines are. A poster said the 'Tiger II' was the coolest tank; I wonder what an Allied soldier or French civilian would have thought about that machine. Now don't worry; I have no intention to be a killjoy; military machinery is cool; just so long as we keep in mind what that machinery is designed to do...and spend a thought to the consequences of that action. Now...I'm trying to quote posts here; this forum seems to be seriously resistant to easy quoting. I'll add to my thoughts soon just so long as I figure out how to quote something without the forum going completely insane. Which I'm sure is easy; but it's currently driving me nuts.

Umm....after reading the thread, I understand the focus of the thread but the title "War Interest" seriously jarred me. I know there are other combat veterans out there; not sure if they would agree with me; each has their own personal opinion. MY opinion is it is something to be avoided at all costs; that it is the last resort of the incompetent politicians to find a less extreme solution. If it is the first resort well...then it is even less desirable. I have seen both; first-hand. The cost is beyond measure; not in terms of dollars but in civilian lives and cultural stability. As a Patricia; I am sworn to protect civilians and the damage that was wrought to them in Bosnia and Afghanistan was unimaginable. Just please consider that for those who fought, war is not academic or interesting; it is horrible, personal and frightening. Cool gadgets and nifty documentaries are nice; they do not change the horror, bloodshed and destruction of war.

I had a lovely Remembrance Day; went down for the service and wound up chatting with a 92-year old member of 1 Parachute Brigade; who'd hit the French countryside (literally hit, in his case - rather hard, bouncing off a tractor, he told me) on the night of 5 June, 1944. We had an enjoyable chat about the operation and comparing WWII paratroop operations to the much more precise (and far smaller) Airborne ops we conducted in Bosnia in the early '90's. It was also interesting because he fought over the same ground I had; 50 years apart. I must admit I was rather in awe; I've spoken to several veterans of WWII on both sides but this was the first time I ever talked with someone who actually fought at Normandy. Dick was sharp, spry and crisp - his only concession to his age a cane. He still had the gleam in his eye and the sharp whipcrack manner of an NCO. We both held the same rank - Sergeant - though I would not for a moment consider myself anywhere near his equal in terms of our respective action. We had a lovely chat until his wife led him away to join the Veteran's Parade. It was a wonderful time.

Speaking as a writer who is, if not professional, at least financially compensated for his work, if I could offer a suggestion I would offer this: You know that whole "show, don't tell" thing? STOP THINKING THAT WAY!!! That's flippin' grade-8 writing theory and has NO bearing on actual good fiction! "Tell" offers some of the most powerful, evocative and creative aspects of English fiction and to ignore good non-first-person description wipes out a vast range of this wonderful, weird language's creative ability. FORGET "Show" and "Tell". Forget the rules. Forget EVERYTHING high-school creative writing teaches. Writing is an ART - and while art is creative expression within a studied range of rules part of the art is knowing where to break the rules. Tolkien is a classic example: Following the rules "The Lord Of The Rings" is one of the worst books ever written; there are books detailing how bad LOTR is...and it should be remembered that as an Oxford translator/transliterator John Ronald was probably one of the most knowledgeable scholars of the English language and historical myth of his time. The criticism doesn't change the fact that LOTR is one of the most powerful and wonderful stories ever written. (And...just for your info, LOTR is, by high-school definition, almost entirely 'tell'; as is the vast history and supporting works of Middle Earth.) Forget the rules. Forget the dime-store philosophy and the advice given by high-school teachers that never wrote a bloody thing. You want to write? Do this: Lie back. Close your eyes. See your story. See it, love it, appreciate it. Embrace your story as its father (or mother, sorry). Bring it into the world with all its complexity, pleasure and love. Then go to your computer and write what is in your heart. DON'T worry if it's good, just write! Let your heart pour out through your fingers; lose yourself in your story. THEN the real story will come out; not when you worry and wonder about the rules you learned in school. Do that again...and again...and again. Do it for at least 8000 hours; the bare minimum a person needs to learn a new trade and don't fool yourself; if you want to express yourself as a writer that is exactly what you're doing - learning a new trade; the trade of the novelist. Writing is HARD. Learn the rules, and learn when to break them. Write, write, write; don't care about quality. Quality isn't important. As you write for thousands of pages and thousands of hours, your own voice, your own unique style, will develop. The very American concept of a layman sitting down and "writing the great American novel" (insert country of choice here) is a myth - all great novelists have developed their art through years of work, study, rejection, frustration, despair, hope, pleasure, doubt and practice, practice, practice. One last thing: the moment it stops being fun STOP! If it ain't fun you're not being creative; period. Get up, walk away and come back when you want to. There's no timetable. Good luck.

My names are probably less common; but for regular programmes I stick to them. Small rockets (1-Kerb capsule with FL-T tanks pushed by a Swivel) are "Kerbury", mid-sized (Rockomax parts with Mk-1 cockpit and a Skipper) are "Kermini" and large boosters (Kerbodyne parts) are...you guessed it - "Kerpollo". Individual vessels that don't fall into those categories get their own names. My orbital rescue craft (hauling 16 lander can re-entry pods) is "Kerb your Enthusiasm"; my one-time science vessel to the Mint Frosted Moon (Which I'm still trying to figure out how to get back) is Minimus Decimus Meridius". I currently have a major 2-ship expedition on the way to the next planet out; the Kerballed ship is "Duna Hustle" and the robot fuel/lander/rover carrier is "Duna Duna Want My Love?". I sent what turned out to be the very appropriately-named "KerBAMM!" on one half of a two-way trip to the Mun; rudely interrupted by the tiny detail of putting the descent engines on the same decoupler as the engine-bell fairings. Oops. But after all that, my most common ship name is "Untitled Space Craft Debris".

I'm currently finishing off my first novel; my first writing under my own name after 20 years of supporting other authors. It's a S-F murder mystery set about 250 years in the future. I'd love to be able to offer excerpts as I have on my other fora but my writing is rather raw and includes sex, violence and harsh language which means linking to it is against forum rules. (shrug)

Uhhhh.....Duhhh? That is incredible! Makes my Mun lander look pretty cheesy - but hey! It's gots lotsa science!