Jestersage

Thanks. To be honest I am trying to make not only the Falcon 9, but the Dragon V2. However, at an entry speed of 2.1km/s (using in-build cheat to bring it to 400k altitude and then burn retro grade), my airbrake was killed before the ship start flipping. The idea is to create a 100% reuse launcher + pod, minus the cargo/fairing section, that would allow direct re-entry from Minmus, without the use of the inflatable heatshield (since it cannot be deflated) and orbiting airbrake -- in short, a Dragon V2 Functional clone. Not sure if I should just give up on using 2.5m and use the Mk3/3.75m system for that.

While I know AIRBRAKES are required to make a reusable Falcon 9 clones, I have a few questions: Which direction to mount them, assuming down is ground? As in: whether it's the concave side (where Hydralics are) or the convex (opposite side) facing the ground? Should I enable pitch and/or yaw?

I recall that the Mk3 cockpit and some other parts, such as cargo ramp, are suppose to have mass offset; however, I am unable to find it in the wiki. can someone please confirm that for me? Thanks.

This is actually more of a KSP reference question... Anyway, the Dragon and Dragon V2 have an unpressurized "trunk". Is this the same as service module, containing fuels and thrusters ala Apollo CSM/CST-100/Orion, or is it just a cargo container with solar panels?

I actually gone out and try it, and seems both would work equally in LKO. All i need to do is to remove the original LF-O tank. Also shaved some weight since the coupler is lighter then engine mount. (0.15t vs 0.7t) So just to be clear: The central 2.5m need a 2.5m object that is aero dynamic (note the two requirements)? or can it be any (e.g flat 2.5, 1.25m, etc)? Still trying to understand how the drag model work

Have to figure out which wings... Maybe the Big-S Delta? One more before I go back to tnkering: Should I use the Mk3 engine mounts, or use a tri/quad coupler and a Mk3-2.5m converter at the end?

Thanks, I will work on tinkering with the design. Another question I have is landing legs: For SSTO, is it better to use LT-2, or to use girders?

After some hardwork, and adjusting starting fuel level, I got my first SSTO of my own ideal: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=797293723 Can someone comment whether the design is good? For those that want the figures without reading my screenshot, it's on a 100x100km orbit, with 1400 dv, carrying an ISRU-125, the full-size drill, and a lab with all the science fixing. Forgot to add the rover and solar panels, but it's pretty much what I want. The starting TWR is 0.6 What I like: -front-loading ramp and rear engine mount -Able to carry a lab and everything needed to refuel What I am concern with: -Not enough delta V to anywhere else. The plan was to use it for interplanetery exploration. While it's well within reach to Mun and Minmus, it's a bit dangerous. -Difficult to land compare to Standard landers on atmosphere-less environment (been having problem landing my mun base module on an Altair clone) -Take so long to circulate into an orbit. My Vertical TSTO would have reach it in half the time if at all, while this design took me 20 minutes in total

Okay, enabled it. What is the action menu, and how do I use AeroGUI?

My TWR is at 0.53, with delta V of 13100k Not sure how to enable stock aero debug.

Hey guys, I am trying to build a Mk 3 SSTO capable of reachign Mun or even Minmus. However, I have issue with building up speed (the one extra Mk3 bay and ISRU/Drill may have something to do with it...( What figure do I need to read on KER to ensure I can build up enough speed in atmosphere?

Yes, enablign it fix the problem. Being that is disabled by default, do you think I should have not go with such route with my design?

I was testing an Orion clone (more like modified version based on Raptor9's EV-3C), and I have an issue If I go to IVA in the crew cabin, while my SAS is not using stability assist (eg: pointing prograde), it will use the crew cab for orientation and make it spin. Even if I used "control from here" on the Mk1-2 cab, I still have the issue everytime I go IVA in crew cabin. http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/187291484503971324/21B9E6A56E63EBC5B55A65F5DD076ECE40ADABAA/ Is that normal? Can I turn that behavior off?

Do you still have 2 or 4? I am designing a cargo mover with ramp to and keep having issue.

Kimchi is also spicy and coated in sauce too, so in theory it's good. However I find it relatively bland compare to Tobassco. It would be interesting, because all cuisine must be derived and compared with its parent style. This makes food that require maillard reaction difficult to produce in space, I think -- namely Chinese and Korean cuisine (sorry, we don't eat noddles all the time), but also a good steak... while food rely on stew and boiling (sous vade and indian curry) a good choice? Maybe they can go utilize microgravity for some special food?

It does if people focus on the looks too. It was actually inspired by https://kerbalx.com/shonennick/CARL, but I used a Mk2 Crew Cab, radial attachment point, and parts clipping instead to make it even smaller If one does not detach the heatshield, the fairing would have originate from the command pod and point down and meet the heatshield. Issue with that arrangement is that, if the heatshield is detached it wouldn't look as nice, as it exposed the crew cab. Can't mark your answer right for taking a dump at aesthetics, especially since you focus on fairing too much.

Guess it's mainly just used to squeeze more thrust (since some craft have monoprop), or a really tiny design (read: mun/Minmus flyers) where one just want a tank for both RCS and Main thrusters. So as for landers: If one is not planning to hop around Mun/Minmus, stick with LFO.

Right now I am designign an Orion clone, and one of the question I have is: Should I detach the heatshield? I am using a fairing system to protect the components between the heatshield and Command Pod. The issue is that if I should not, I will orient the fairing downward. However, if I should, the fairing will orient upward.

Yes, except Mk IV is a mod. I am a stock only player, using KER at most. But in terms of looks? I agree.

For steam user it is.

One of the things going around the dinner table is: how would a space colony (O'Neill/Lunar/Mars) develop their cuisine, assuming they can grow their own vegetation and meat? We have issues with different gravity, different atmospheric pressure, and etc. It's not just in terms of cooking (i.e: forget about tossing with your wok), I think even taste would have to be adjusted. ISS/Mir/Skylab doesn't really count because you have scientist who knew it's gonna suck, and they are in microgravity.

Hey, this question is derived from my other thread on interplanetery, and everyone end up stating about SSTO. That's one thing I notice about: helps, be it from gamers or Microsoft: the answer is always never direct answer. If people want a big f** ass mothership, carrying a lab and extra rover, instead of a SSTO and use that as a rover, you answer about that mothership instead of saying why SSTO build on Mk2 is better. Good thing we have Nixon to nix our SSTO IRL and give us an actual useful Shuttle with big carrying capacity.

When i meant monoprop, I am also talking about the fuel tanks. the reason I am asking is that the wiki stated LF-O is 5kg/unit, While Monoprop is 4kg/unit. However, Puff is 250 ISP, While Spark is 300s... Ugh, how can this be so difficult?!

So short answer, especially for landers: because it's there. EDIT: Does monoprop offer better TWR / fuel consumption for Mun and Minmus?

I am testing out a lander/mun flyer combo, and while it works (KER makes things easier!), I can't help but to wonder: Could I replace the descent stage with Spark Engine? This led to the more general question: What's the purpose of using Puff engine, aside from an all monoprop design?