Jestersage

But in a way, to build something a noob can fly is a challenge in itself. So pretty much aim prograde is the best answer. (TBH, follow by fly and aim a x degree without further adjustment) I am not asking for others to build that one button rocket that is designed and setup to achieve orbit with no inputs; I am asking for that goal, which happens to be"one button rocket that is designed and setup to achieve orbit with no inputs". In any case, the main reason I ask this question is because I am wondering why my SSTO "ascensor" have significantly less downloads in comparison to a bunch of other crafts that are just as "non-standard", and I always look back, when I am a noob, -- and I realize that (aside from it's not optimized) step-based flight profile is more difficult for most people. That is where you and I think differently, I guess. When you say the last line, you may think of me "so you are trying to have someone to build something for the OP." But I see that to be challenge and the answer itself -- because the less control a customer need, the more we builders have to account things for, which is what make craft building interesting. --- I think the comparison of engineer vs management in terms of space flight: Whether to try to build a useful probe, or just strap some battery and radio transmitter and send it on an ICBM (sputnik); Whether STS should be a good TSTO, or make the space shuttle as happened to satisfy customer requirement of big payload and budget. It's a challenge, and they did it; they didn't say the schedule is too tough; they didn't say stop. They built it. They should have congrats themselves for finding a solution and not say "well, you have to fly it this way." Some call it overbudget. I call it a good product. Or something more relevant: Apple may have the best hardware, the best software engineer, but what make them successful, in my opinion, is that they actually have management hats. Customers say "I don't want to manage my stuff but stable"; linux say all these Command Line. Windows assume drag and drop. Apple just say "sure thing" and gave what customers want. Sure, user no longer have control, but they want it easy. And they can overcharge if needed. This is precisely what I mean by think less like engineers and think more like managers. Or for long term, we need engineers who can think like managers and marketers. Sometimes don't look at the evil, but that our moral, our "baseline" limiting ourselves.

While this advice is helpful to teach people how to make a good SSTO, it does not help with my question. In short, my question is more of "how to make an SSTO so that I don't have to learn how to fly", or in a more professional way (as in, creating crafts with other users in mind) "how to make an HSSTO that even a total noob can fly and get to orbit." Or to flip your proposal around, design an SSTO so that "You just need to adjust your SSTO design until you get it, each SSTO practice and plans are similar". A few things I can think of: 1) Anything that does not require adjusting trim and... not sure what else. Of course the SSTO itself is NOT efficient. I am not asking for efficient in engineering. Yet, in itself is a challenge. It helps take us from thinking like engineers and thinking like management

This is less of "how do I fly an SSTO carrying X ton of stuff to Y-km orbit", but more of: Based on what you recall, what procedure of SSTO (aka flight profile) would you consider to be easy for most players?

All I can say is ??? -- as in, I am confused. Did you modified KVV, or...

So how did you do your plan B? Did you actually use GIMP/PS to carefully cut out your ships? (I know it's possible, but real tedious)

But you are talking about mk1 (1.25m parts) instead of the mk3 parts... Anyway, I will look at IronMaiden's design. Will probably keep the 6 NERV design, but modify the wings, which i actually have it in pipeline already with multiple possiblity, because it's not a craft for "I can reach the orbit", but "it can do useful work". So my end goal is to match even closer to the M19, that is: Low part count at 80~100k, 28 degree, can lift 40t and at least 4 Kerbals, excluding components that may be added. at above mission parameter, with possibility of lower payload mass, have about total 500 m/s for transfer to spacestation (~300 m/s on average) no oxidizer tank if possible (I actually made a version using LFO-tank and vernor, which gives better in orbit performance) Easy to fly (ascent) Easy to maneuvur in orbit - hence, 0.4 TRW (originally 0.6 TRW)

Thank you. I will load it in KSP later. (I was experimenting on the wing angle, but did it in a way that actually slowed it down) While I can understand most of the changes, what I am curious is about the removal of aerodynamic cones and quad adapter (namely the cones), as those are added on the research from AeroGav and fourfa, where they put it at the end to reduce drag. So why is removing okay in this case? Yes. In fact, the beta version, with 4 NERVs, are identical: a quad adaptor onto the center 2.5m for the nervs, then top 1.25 node have the whiplash, the side nodes having the pre-coolers and rapiers. The Current version (due to nonoptimization, and a preference for 0.4 TRW once in orbit) used 6 NERV while the 4 NERVs and Whiplash are mounted the same: the two side nodes have the 2 NERVs, and then the rapiers are attached to the nodes and offset as needed. Also, I thought Mk2 have event greater drag then Mk3?

Not the actual tail cone (which is long and big), but the short version (that's the advanced nosed cone). As you can guess, I am still trying to optimize my LF-only SSTO. The main reason is that I really dislike using fairing as permanent part, but I would like a forward facing nosecone that can stand up to heat. At mach 5, the nosecone is at 1800 deg

After enough testing that I managed to repeat, my first functional SSTO, Currently named "ascensor", is available: https://kerbalx.com/Jestersage/Ascensor-Liquid-Fuel-Only-SSTO Yup, pure liquid fuel construction. Special thanks to the builders who researched and share drag findings, including but not limited to AeroGav, fourfa, bewing, and probably a few others I missed. I have a feeling I may change the name and reassign "Ascensor" to something else. It's either that, or this polish Vodka talking...

Also, as a few of my own threads atested, the rooting of parts affect drag calculation; namely, do not use PL Bay as root.

In order to optimize my SSTO, I am reading up on the KSP drag-cone research put forth by fourfa, aerogav, and others: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/183551-rapier-engine-drag-in-161-with-tailcone-attachments/ https://kerbalx.com/fourfa/Rapier-tailcone-test https://kerbalx.com/fourfa/Rapier-tailcone-test-2 https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/155779-best-hyper-sonic-nose-cone/ https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalAcademy/comments/5eh8yh/the_least_draggy_nose_cone_and_ideal_shell_shapes/ The thing is, many of these info are 2~3 years old, so many versions ago. So my question is: Are there advantage of using advanced nose cone over aerodynamic cone, as tests seems inconclusive about the drag reduction (especially based on those done by fourfa) No one have done an NCS+small nose cone. How is the drag-stat for combination of such cone? When is the shock-intake small drag outweight (no pun intended) its high mass for SSTO?

If it's on KerbalX, would you please give us your craft page's URL? (It's case sensitive). Unfortunately we are aware of malicious downvoting, but ironically are restricted to more famous builders.

Most of my craft are not really creative. My earliest ones are literally pinyin of the english name -- sound good and creative only if you are not Lehu is Anglization of 猎户(Lièhù).... aka Orion The Herguer lander is Anglization of 河鼓二(Hé gǔ èr), or Altair LyncBon comes from "Liánbāng".... or Federation Fogin is the cantonese pronounciation of 火箭 (rocket)

The actual issue is: "if the bay is the root instead of the cockpit, except load from editor, it will be unshielded" (aka, if revert to launch is used). Hence @Streetwind got the point. However, it can be solved by making the cockpit root. So it's a bug. What more do I need to input to submit it (and how?)

Both yes and no. I actually did 4 test, 2 of them open then close, 2 did not. Sometimes the drag are there, sometimes are no drag. I will double check that, but I recall it's suppose to be the cockpit that is root.

Removed all the mods so only Squad and SquadExpansion is in GameData. Sometimes with drag: Sometimes no drag: Current exposed nodes within the Mk3 bay:

1.8.1. Below is one of the occasion where the drag shows: While this time it's fine:

From time to time, I found the payload within the Mk3 tank generate drag (using AeroGUI). Is that a bug with my design, or a bug of the game? If it;'s the bug of the game, any mod that can patch it?

Question: Does anyone know (or can point to a reference) why DOS-8 (zvezda module) have only Zenith, Nadir, forward, and rearward docks, in comparison to Mir's DOS-7? To my understanding, Zvezda is originally for Mir-2, which implies an improvement.

Same problem. Mine is only modded with visual and info mods. So they didn't fix the problem yet huh?

Hi Starhawk, Just want to make sure that when we are talking about "rotating around a vertical axis", we are talking about the VAB operation similar to typical sweep wing of the F-14

So upon finding I have issues with my SSTO, I decide to traceback my step, and recall on one of the operation, I have rotated slightly along the horizontal plane for looks -- ie not pitching or rolling, which will definitely change the lift, but instead sweeping forward or back like F-14 Does that affect drag? My understanding is that KSP simplified atmospheric phsyics do not change lift based on the angle horizontal plane's angle (eg if you sweep a wing a bit more), and thus drag is not affected. EDIT: Okay, now I realized if I change it to "sweep" (instead of rotated), I actually asked this question before: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/184891-breaking-ground-request-drag-effects-on-collapsable-wings/ So which one is correct??

Thanks for the pointer. It's already running in big wing mode (dark screenshot): https://i.imgur.com/oSOsgqt.png. May have to test out a bit more before I can push it: During one run I have 400 m/s left in 80k orbit, but not good enough for a rendezvous with a spacestation at 125k with an orange tank as cargo. So right now, I am trying to have a consistence profile that other people can use too.

Or are you waiting for KVV 1.8? (I have to go with a stop-gap poster)

Thanks for the response, everyone. Of course, in my way, I have to go with one of the most difficult SSTO: Liquid fuel Only SSTO that is hauling an Orange Tank. I ended up using a variant of bewing's profile, except it goes full thrust. While a few of the early test gives me 1400 m/s before needing rocket assist, as of recently somehow he drops to 1350 m/s, which does eat into the overall 75k delta-V (530 m/s --> 200 m/s) Right now I am fine tuning to see any parts cause drag, or have a more accurate flight profile.