EpicSpaceTroll139

Find a ladder to get them down because their capsule would probably be hanging from the parachute tangled in one of the many trees behind my house. Ask them what the secret is to their 100% efficient closed loop life support systems. And other stuff.

Lol I'd have to learn a whole lot about analog computers first. I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to do it xD. I get the feeling even a 4 function calculator would have 1000+ parts lol. Anyways, nice work with the KC-46!

I did some work on my Apollo replica. Not enough to post pictures about. I also started working on craft for a grand tour mission. My vacuum lander has batteries for landing legs. What could possibly go wrong? I was amused by the complaint of "High Transonic / Supersonic Drag!" Thanks FAR! I'll remember that next time I think of trying to make a Kerbal go supersonic in a seat using an ion engine. Minute hand now works on my clock... Theoretically at least. Haven't tested that.

Ok, so I spent a few minutes in Microsoft Paint, and I believe I've come up with a reasonable representation of the problem. Not sure how reasonable the representation of the fins is, I was trying to get it like I was looking from one side, and not from this 45 degree angle or so. So I painted the lateral area fore of the center of mass red, and the lateral are aft of the COM blue, and all the forward facing / leading area yellow. In the second picture I demonstrated the balancing of area fore and aft of the COM. The rocket has an excess of lateral area at the back, which is good. This means that if flying sideways it will generally try to rotate its nose towards prograde. However, the forward facing / leading area is a different story. The yellow circles, rings, and rectangles show approximations of the location and amounts of surface area (and thus approx drag) of areas when looking down from the top of the rocket. I didn't bother actually do a similar demonstration of areas canceling out, but it was easy to find that there was significantly more area towards the top. This means that when pointing close to prograde, it ends up wanting to turn to the side. I'm guessing the effects of lateral and forward facing area balance out at some angle between 0 and 90 degrees, so without control the rocket will end up tilting over to this angle, causing problems. If given active control surfaces, it could probably go straight though, as they would keep it from deviating enough from prograde for aerodynamic forces to cause this issue.

With FAR, making sure the COL ball is behind the COM marker is no longer sufficient. You need to make sure the center of drag (aka center of pressure, COP) is also behind the COM. The true COP unfortunately does not have a visual indicator, so you just kind of have to guesstimate. Try checking the data + stability derivatives in the FAR tab. I find things usually work best when there aren't any red numbers. Just looking at your rocket I'm fairly sure your COP is ahead of your COM, meaning you either need some form of guidance to keep it from tipping, or to redesign it with more mass toward the top and/or drag at the bottom.

I took little break from working on a public speaking class presentation and ended up making this "little" RC jet. Probably would be banned. It's about 1,250kg, can go more than 240m/s, and pulls almost 20g without slowing down much. It would probably go supersonic with adjustments for area ruling.

I guess I never come across the problem because I have this OCD thing that I never put a part where it looks like it could possibly lie along an infinite line from a thruster's nozzle. Even RCS ports which lack actual occlusion detection. * I also realized I was mixing up my engine names. I meant to refer to the Spark engine when I said Dart. I must say I haven't used the Dart much in space since it (for good reasons) got whacked with the nerf bat, as I generally favor isp over power in my designs. Though from its stats, it definitely would be good for more power. * Except when building turboshaft vehicles, in which this is kind of necessary for the turbines to work!

Is it that hard to make sure not stick a part under your engine ? lol Anyways, back on topic, as has been mentioned earlier, the Poodle has the best isp, and is reasonably light. Though if your payload is light (just a couple tons), the dart spark or ant would probably be best. For about 7-10 tons I'd recommend the terrier. I could test using math to see where the crossover points are.

Lookin' good! If you swapped the positions of the elevons you could get the slightly forward swept trailing edge. You could clip in two pairs of elevon #3s on the fuselage with just the edges showing for the strakes, if you want those details. @Servo Nice!... Dat harrier...

I was actually thinking of something kind of like this: But your version looks good too.

I just saw that docu a month or so ago! I almost forgot to mention: perhaps radial drogue chutes could stand in for the thrust vectoring paddles? Or airbrakes if you want them to move (though they would be a bit big). Dunno if you can have them both look proportional and move though.

Might I suggest moving the main intakes back a little bit and creating a short, box-shaped extension using small wing parts or structural panels? (Perhaps with Elevon 1 parts as the sides, with a structural panel or small control surface edge for the splitter plate). It could give you the look I think you're searching for. Maybe also tilting the nose part down a bit, the point of the nose is only slightly above the level of the edge of the fuselage just above the lip of the intake, and it actually bulges down slightly below that level in-between. Anyways, nice work so far! Coincidentally, I've been creating a rough model of an X-31 in Google Sketchup, and if I ever get around to building through my long list of "planned replicas," I might make it in KSP. Considering my ADHD it is questionable I will ever get through to it.

There's the problem...I thought you meant 6 minutes xd. Must have missed it while skipping around. Edit: I love his reaction lol!

Been working on my pendulum clock. Just need one more 1:5 gear reduction and I'll have a working minute hand. Then I'll need either a 1:6 gear and an idler gear, or a 1:2 gear and 1:3 gear to get the hour hand working... or would Kerbals have clocks that complete a cycle every 3 hours? In that case it would be 1:3 gear and an idler gear. Anyways, I have a shaft that spins at the right rate to theoretically have a second hand, but testing showed it would be too sensitive, visibly floating backwards at points due to backlash. Speaking of which, I need to figure out some way to reduce that. @Azimech Looks better than any car I've ever made

I've got this carrier, the KSS Haven III. Too lazy to restart get a direct picture since my game crashed due to some weird bug in which my carrier would disappear when I got within 200m, and then lag would slowly build up. Anyways, her landing deck is 140m long by 18m wide, and she's got about 480m2 of parking area on the wings (the side parts). Her 5 Goliath powerplants take her up to an impressive speed of [CLASSIFIED], with a service radius of [TOP SECRET]. Unfortunately, due to aforementioned bug + crash, I do not know how many of my planes can land on it in FAR. I know most of my fighters were able to land on it easily in stock aero, and I even managed to accidentally land a STOL cargo plane on its baby sister, the KSS Haven I (which was only 100m long), though the Haven I was damaged when that plane dragged its tail on takeoff. I have some other ships, including patrol boats, tankers, and hydroplanes hanging around in a save in a previous version of KSP. In the current version I have a mostly finished drillship, but as you may or may not have seen in the WIP thread a while back, the Kraken seems to have identified the pipes as ramen noodles.

Perhaps you could make a hybrid helicopter? Reaction wheels could spin the rotor enough to provide 90% of the lift needed to hover. Then possibly even a single small blower could provide the extra bit of thrust needed to fly, as well as throttling to allow climbing and descending without switching. I've experimented with such a design and it appears to offer efficiency improvements, however I haven't put it in any of my main designs as I like being able simply hit a button and start flying.

I tried watching and since I couldn't skip ahead by sub-10-minute long increments, I had to watch from the beginning. All I got was the "starting soon" thing for 6½ mins. I then skipped around through some of the 9+hr (!) stream and didn't find KSP anywhere? I want to see this magical flying machine too.

Who says big ships can't be hydrofoils? Anyways, my clock is starting to go from looking like a longcase clock to looking like the little battery powered pendulum clock above my fireplace. Ah well. No pictures at the moment. Still hasn't stopped me from getting the Grandfather Clock song stuck in my head. Most specifically this guy's version. Maybe I can lengthen the pendulum and use a 5 second period instead of a 2 or 3 second one. Hmm...

Correct! I've gotten the escapement (to be specific it's an anchor escapement) working fairly reliably now, but I need to adjust the pendulum, as currently it's period is about 4.28 seconds, which will not be very useful for keeping time. I'm hoping to optimize the escapement for smoothness, make chains from thermometers and RCS ports and create a weight drive mechanism, but for now it will just use a reaction wheel as a stand in. I was thinking of using a gravity escapement, but it's kind of bulky, so I figure I'll leave that for a future project. I want this thing to have the traditional grandfather clock look.

A sneak peek at something I'm working on. Any guesses?

Oops [Original content was based on dated post] Anyways, a hint at something I'm working on: ...without slumbering... Anyone wanna take a guess? @players from nonameships: please don't give it away

Reminds me of my first time playing KSP way back in the days of .14 or so. I quickly slapped together a rocket and launched it, exiting the instructions window. Immediately I thought "Wait... How do I ignite the engines?" After a moment I just started mashing keys, and I happened to hit d and my rocket fell over like a tree in slow motion. *Kaboom!* Eagerness often leads to facepalms. Anyways, I gave my E-50 new high aspect ratio blades and sealed up the engine compartment. It will now fly over 60m/s effortlessly. None of that saves it from the dreaded dmp vessel-changed-in-future bug. Most craft can be saved from this bug by syncing to the future-most person, but not helicopters. Their rotor will disappear if I sync. A bit of a catch 22. I also suffered the consequences of accidentally tapping the airbrakes at Mach 1.8. Don't ask me how my Kerbal survived falling from 18000ft. He's just badass like that.

I thought my old 1300m/s jet/rocket cars were fast. I was wrong. This is fantastic.

Ah this brings back childhood memories! I loved that movie as a little kid... DANGIT YOU'VE GOTTEN THE SONG STUCK IN MY HEAD! I've switched myself over to the dev version of FAR. I have generally tried to build my aircraft in a semi-reasonable manner, so most of the ones I've looked at so far function fine with realistic aerodynamics, it's simply a matter of resetting the controls and knowing what the limits of my planes are now. Though I have been experimenting with some things that aren't so reasonable. I was worried that the leading edge control surfaces would be ripped off if I tried using them. I was pleasantly surprised when they didn't. It wasn't particularly maneuverable though. I've also been testing my career mode craft to be sure that they won't tumble and disintegrate when I return to things there. I ended up having to intentionally put this spaceplane in a tumble on reentry as I was overshooting the KSC and it just did not want to slow down. I was later able to glide all the way back by the same token of low drag. I was amazed when my E-50A Triton functioned well enough to fly without any changes. However, as can be seen in this picture, the rotors were spinning much faster than normal, putting immense strain on the bearings. In fact you can see some fragments of shaft protection shroud being thrown thrown out by excessive vibration. Anyways, minor blade changes, mainly increasing the blade pitch, allowed the thing to function more or less normally at low speed. I'm going to need to increase the separation between the rotors though, because the blades apparently become prone to colliding with each other at moderate to high speeds. I should probably also seal up the engine compartment as realistic aerodynamics will allow significant drag reduction on the inner mechanics.

I'm on mobile right now, so I can't download to investigate, but does the black hole lack "terrain"? In other words, can a ship get near and be torn apart by the singularity, kind of like what can happen on the rare occasion that you find a rift in Kerbin's seafloor and sink down to the center in a submarine?