Jestersage

Okay, my pastebin is up. Check OP. The goal of this SSTO is of follow: Orange Tank challenge Cargo ramp open at the front. Ramp pointing down to allow loading and unloading of wheeled vehicles. Easy flight with minimal user control on pitch/roll/yaw. Expected atmospheric flight will be at 10 degrees above horizon. Minimal goal: 80km with 1k dv left for possible Munar injection. Optimally 1.1k dv at 100km (Possibly unrealistic because if this is good, it will be replaced by a lab+science package -- 1 is just to show it can be done and is a hallmark of good SSTO) Re-entry: Not planned yet. Can't even enter orbit at this point! Possible misaligned parts, but as far as I know, the only clipping-hiding parts should be a jr dock port, the crew cab, and a drill o matic

In my continue refinement of SSTO (and to make it replace my rockets), I am attempting to bring an orange tank in my SSTO to 151 km x 151 km. What happen is that it rolled off one side before disassemble rapidly. Even if by some flying miracle, it never managed to gain enough speed reach orbit. AFAIK, I didn't have anything offset that majorly. What could be the cause? I will post a pastbin sometime. EDIT: The pastbin: http://pastebin.com/wJAdUUiL

Kind of thinking like that too. I mean, my Lunex clone deliver 10 Kerbal, a rover, and a full science package (no lab) to mun/minmus direct ascent; I am sure your SSTO could do the same (and more, I think) The only reason I think Lunex / Plane-on-a-stick is better is if I care about every seconds, and want to get into position ASAP

While trying to make my lunex clone, I can't help but to think that, if I am going to do it purely in concept, I may use SSTO instead, if I am not pressed for flying time. Is that true in general, that SSTO require more flying time to create a stable orbit that is smaller, compare to rockets that can generate a large orbit in a shorter amount of time?

Thanks for updating your crafts. I think a possible craft idea is to make some kind of ESA Hermes shuttle that launch on top of one of the Thunder / Lighting. In fact I actually made one myself (at block D iteration), but I want to see your intepretation. The main reason I did that, instead of building something similar to your SVR-20 (or use your SVR-20), are the following reasons: Plane-on-a-stick is easier to fly than side mounted shuttles, even with thrusters underneath the "fuel tank" longer payload bay without loss of passenger capacity -- managed to did some salvaging contracts with it Forward and aft docking bay -- makes docking easier. And of course, can't wait to see your spin of relay and launching systems.

I don't know... the next administration seems to be thinking this way. TBH, I wrote this thread because of this: http://www.inquisitr.com/3727375/trump-space-reform-may-force-nasa-to-ditch-sls-rocket-and-orion-spacecraft/ And I do hope this is a dreamworld along with the report, because it is starting to become a nightmare we can't wake up. I know what is better. NASA actually know what is better. But if the person who hold the purse string doesn't, then it does not matter.

I think everyone agree KSP can use a steam award. http://store.steampowered.com/SteamAwardNominations While "test of time" and "5 more minutes", and “I Thought This Game Was Cool Before It Won An Award”, we can only pick one. I am creating a poll to see what everyone voted, so we do not split the vote and lose nomination. Rocket League is really strong. Edit: while you may not be able to change the results here, you can do so on steam. And you can nominate on steam as long as you have an account, I think? EDIT2:I myself gone with Test of time.

I see.TBH I did that, aside from being a SpaceX fanboy, the modified capsule have a few other benefit: 1) deliver more Kerbals in a compact 2.5m package; the hitchhiker looks too big and not crash tolerant. 2) eliminate the need to airbrake on reentry from a steep descent. I tested with a 400k re entry, one to -400k pe, and one with 20k pe, and the modified capsule survived.

Can we nominate KSP for all 3? EDIT: I see. We can't. So I agree to the suggestion of nominate "Just 5 More Minutes". "Test of time". It does make better sense. We need a vote to make sure that we don't split it in Steam and give it to Goat Simulator.

Please delete

It's nice to see you build a few more units. I had modified your EV-2B so it contains a Mk-1 crew cab in the service bay, and replaced it's fuel tank with 12 Oscar in total and 4 twitch engines, turning it into 5 person Dragon v2. It still look nice and can land in one piece. Is there some design philosophy that you would not do that?

I may look into the codes of FMRS myself... need some project to work on anyway. My concern is that I need modulemanager. If I need to modify it so it doesn't, then there's a project. So far, no one answered if I can use it without modulemanager. Back to topic: For StageRecovery, would it work for airlaunch carriers by treating it as a powered stage? Nevermind, will try it. EDIT3: yes, it will recover a Jet launcher, as I have tested it with the stock-craft Stratolauncher EDIT4 / Question: So how well does it stand against mod-game version mismatch?

Do I really need modulemanager? And is it possible to fork and modify the code such that it does not require one?

After realizing how much the ITS resembles a KSP spaceplane, I realized a lowpart count Stock ITS can be made by converting some existing SSTO. However, I am wondering: assuming it was tested to be able to reach a 100x100 LKO, do mounting it on a rocket increase its DeltaV and allow it to travel to Beyond Duna?

When you are thinking about how to stack the brew pub's barrel and brew tank into a rocket... while you are drinking soda because you are the designated driver.

Interested in this, but here's my question: While recovering parts are nice, does this mod make sure parts persist instead of flyign ballistically, or is it just a straight calculation? I am interested in getting this mod to make my plane-launched spacecraft recoverable. How well does this mod do against mismatched version? KER, for example, did it well by allowing their designed-for-1.1.3 work with 1.2.1

You do realized that it is because of the incoming administration that there are higher likelihood for Orion to have disassembly on paper and leave US with only Dragon and CST-100. Note: NASA and politics go hand in hand. We got Moon landing because of international politics, and our half-assed shuttle because of congress budget Note 2: with the way the future press secretary attack Elon, they better figure out how to use Starliner for the moon.

Should I get it if I am interested in recoverable TSTO? How well does it work for forward compatibility? What i mean is would it be like KER, where the use of a mis-match version won't break the game?

Except based on the general concensus of this thread, even Dragon V2 can't serve as a Orbiting CSM for a lunar landing mission. It may function as a lander, but you still need the CSM for the return trip

In laymen's term, US won't be going back to Moon then if they do cut Orion..

So US had downscale from Constellation program to SLS-Orion; news on the net indicate it may ended up being scrapped altogether, and instead will go with strictly private-public partnership (unless Orion becomes purely under lockheed) While CST-100 is gonna be okay for its mission (LEO mission), can either Blue Origin or Dragon V2 does what Orion was planned for? Forget about asteroid capture or Mars; I will just say go back to the moon. Or do you guys think the chinese are more likely to get to the moon before US goes back?

I thought if I enter directly from Minmus, I will have 3.2 km/s by the time I hit Kerbin according to Youtube videos (remember: direct re-entry), requiring a heatshield. I always need the extra monoprop (never managed a docking without one) But there are additional stuff hidden on the inside edge of the upper cabins and fuel tanks -- I will remove those. As to the "combo", you are talking about the cargo in the fairing, right? TBH, I wonder what would have been contained within the trunk, if in a hyptherical situation, they use Dragon V2 instead of Orion. If they are going to carry stuff in there, I will have to put some mass in there for simulation purpose. EDIT: I took your advice. While I kept my simulated trunk, I did managed to remove some prop tanks, and replace the 4 Thud with 12x Twitch. Managed to launch it to a 78k orbit with a lot of fuel to spare. Unable to recover the first stage due to it missing from tracking (maybe I need a mod?), but otherwise it works in theory. I may try to get that mod and gone with a smaller first stage.

Feel free to reference the stock Dynawing. The better thinking is actually mounting the fuel tank to the side of the cargobay. Remember the decouplers by the way. You may need to reroot parts as needed.

So far, I am not having much luck creating a Falcon 9 + Dragon v2 clone. It is currently using 2.5m parts, so nothing from Kerbodyne except the liquid booster ( it is in the same tech-node as mainsail, and is better than orange + mainsail) Mission profile: This is the second launch of the mission; an altair clone had been launched and is sitting at a 90k orbit, waiting for this ship. In this launch, the ship will go to LKO before rendezvous and dock with the altair clone. It will then ride on the minmus transfer stage to minmus. The current situation is that it does not have enough in the first/second stage to have a stable orbit. I have a few solution: Keep modifying the single core, but adjust the fuel tanks/thrusters Go with falcon heavy (3 cores) Give up and go with a disposable first stage, so I can significantly reduce the fuel tanks and thus mass. Give up on it and just use this guy. Good design except it uses the 3.75m parts. (I use the Liquid Booster because it is in the same tech-node as mainsail) My pastebin of my own craft is here: http://pastebin.com/AcyyGPnH The reason why I need such an overkill ship/lander combo is because I want a functional test for the RETURN trip. dV to Minmus and back is not an issue, but the speed is, especially for direct entry. And I explicitly rule out the use of any airbraking orbit (otherwise I have a bunch of Shuttle/spaceplane/SSTO that does a better job)

TBH it was a test entry, so it's an extreme steep re-entry; I placed it so KER state AP=400k, pe is at -380k. Drained tank to 1/4 full. The actual designed usage would be return from Minmus, direct, with an expected pe of 25 to 30k. Would not do any airbraking. The AIRBRAKES is used to prevent flipping. I can post the craft files tonight.