Jestersage

Seeing that the old parts will be depreciated, will we get a part converter that may at least concert them all automatically, even if it will look ugly? EDIT: I decide that, instead of waiting for someone to write one that will forcibly convert the old craft files into new, I decide to try to write one. That being said, since it's rusty, it's like 1.6 will be out by the time I got it out. (sidenote: Should I go Java, Xamarin, or just good old Bat/PS script?) However, the following can be used by find and replace on text editors (I recommend notepad++): Note: Note sure. but **Make sure you search by WHOLE WORD ONLY!** Note 2: ** They will use the new Black on white color. I will look for orange color for the Jumbo-64** Note 3: changed the order so the longer string name will be converted before the smaller ones does // TR-2V Stack Decoupler → TD-06 Decoupler stackDecouplerMini to Decoupler.0 // TR-18A Stack Decoupler → TD-12 Decoupler stackDecoupler to Decoupler.1 // Rockomax brand decoupler → TD-25 Decoupler decoupler1-2 to Decoupler.2 // TR-38-D → TD-37 Decoupler size3Decoupler to Decoupler.3 // TR-2C Stack Separator → TS-06 Stack Separator stackSeparatorMini to Separator.0 // TR-XL Stack Separator → TS-25 Stack Separator stackSeparatorBig to Separator.2 // TR-18D Stack Separator → TS-12 Stack Separator stackSeparator to Separator.1 // ROUND-8 Toroidal Fuel Tank → R-12 'Doughnut' External Tank toroidalFuelTank to externalTankToroid // Rockomax X200-8 Fuel Tank → same name fuelTank4-2 to Rockomax8BW // Rockomax X200-16 Fuel Tank → same name fuelTank2-2 to Rockomax16.BW // Rockomax X200-32 Fuel Tank → same name fuelTank1-2 to Rockomax32.BW // Rockomax Jumbo-64 Fuel Tank → same name fuelTank3-2 to Rockomax64.BW //orange color unfortunately cannot be made by a simple "part swap" in the name, as it's a variable for "variant". // Mk 1-2 Pod → Mk 1-3 Pod Mk1-2Pod to Mk1-3Pod

AeroGav, reviving this thread as I started it: Are there any advantage to use Mk2 fuselage, other than the higher heat resistence during re-entry and or part counts? In short, once past the re-entry in stock, does the lift capability provided helps or hinders?

One use that I found by modifying your craft and switch to the original 2 engines on the fuselage design: the empty area cleared allows me to place science equipments, not unlike F-82G

Interesting. I myself will modify it to use the Wheesley as a front engine option (reverse thrust). What's your opinion regarding this kind of "frontal jets"?

I am trying to create a SSTO taxi without going overboard on the engines in order to maintain a smooth outline. However, while it can go into LKO, I am wondering if 700 ish Delta V is sufficent for a transfer to a LKO station. I am debating whether to put the station in 150k or 250k.

Should I test them all in one test? I am trying to figure out which is lower drag, 1 Long Mk2-1.25 adapter, or a Standard mk2-1.25 adapter+ ft400. And does orientation matter? Are they additive?

Related question: Is it better to go without a size converter or not in terms of drag? namely, from mk2 to 1.25?

Thanks. I ended up replacing as much of the Mk2 Fuel tanks with the standard 1.25m, and it can actually fly on two RAPIERs. Now I have to debate which one look closer to Concord, Mk1 or Mk2 fuselage.

I was trying to convert the Stock Learstar and Stock Slim Shuttle into SSTO for Kerbin-Station transfer, and I found that it's easier to get the Mk1 design into orbit compared to the Mk2 design, and requiring less engines (2 instead of 4)! Is there an explaination for why it's easier to use a Mk1 to make orbit? EDIT: Related question: Is it better to go without a size converter or not in terms of drag? Namely, from mk2 to 1.25? EDIT 2: Never mind: just saw AeroGav's mk2 tutorial (https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165435-basic-mk2-spaceplane-guide/. Thanks.

from what I know of the environmental mod: Scatter provide the lighting effects, namely for water EVE provided the clouds So what does SVE do?

Very well. I was trying to figure out how would you make the BFR, since I feel that you focus on NASA missions.

Question, Raptor9: How do you decide which thrusters is best to use for a replica? Looks? Thrust? TWR? ISP?

I want to test out my design for my first Duna craft before uploading it to KerbalX. So from what I can understand: Use the the map and http://ksp.olex.biz/ to estimate the amount of DeltaV Use http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ to caclulate when to launch So are there other ways to make it less painful? If not, are there mods, without the need of module manager, that will allow me to reach the launch window quicker and easier?

So it was conical, with the point originate from the heatshield? Or the flat originate from the heatshield?

It was more of a general dimension/shape. Was actually planning more of the SpaceX BFR. I am just designing, hence the "thought experiment" I thought the heatshield protection is cylinder? Can you elaborate on the "protective cone" - Is it with the point down, or the point pointing up?

Thought experiment: Assuming a standard fuel tank + capsule, with heatshield at the flat end (so yes, basic standard construction). If I mount 4 Thud thrusters radially, does the heatshield protect them from any heat or not? Some heat? (assuming above 2000k during entry) Alternatively, what is the best way to find out in terms of re-entry - angle of rentry, etc?

What's the difference between their performance as air intake? Does one work better at lower speed, one work better at higher speed, or is one better overall?

Can you go with last 14 days, instead of last 7 days? Want to check what you have added or updated, as KerbalX don't notify which one you had updated

While there's the good old orange tank, about what mass do you think is the best choice to use for a payload test of a "realism based" rocket? I want to test if a particular stage I am designing is good enough.

Question: How would you do a surface based rover scan on kerbin? Plane, VTOL, rover, or flying car?

I am away from my home, so I cannot upload the craft. Anyway, I am making a XS-1 clone, so it have wings, with 1 orange tank, 1 rockomax 32 at bottom of the orange and a rockomax 16 above the orange. Attached to the side is the payload. Between the 32 and the orange is a SAS wheel. Entire thing is propelled by a RS25 and 2 aerospike. What I found is that, if I have the SAS on, the entire thing is hard to control, while with the wheel off it's smooth flying. Why is it harder to fly with the wheel?

In addition, the concept is pretty much similar to subassembly, except subassembly will also reside in a seperate folder.

Okay, I will bite -- still trying to figure out how to taxi without getting myself airborne, and able to taxi anywhere (on Kerbin), Is some landing wheels better than others?

But the problem is, unless you have rover wheels, you don't get the surface maneuverability or small area navigation you need for career surface surveys... And you can't really fly Mach 3 with a rover wheel sticking out. Trust me, if I can think of how to make a plane that have the function of batwing, I would have done that.

For my career, when doing missions that involve surface scan in some distant corner of Kerbin, my method of delivery is to use the "ICBM" (aka a rocket that goes past an atmosphere, with its payload re-enter in a capsule). In this case, it was the otherside of Kerbin, and use a polar orbit. However, I am wondering would it be faster to deliver the rover by the way of a Mach3 (or even mach 5) jet, and then drop it off like a bomb?