Jestersage

Thanks. That means I do not need to rearrange my parts then.

Oh okay. So what about rotate 180 degree, and then translate (so basically "flip open")? Note that there are no exposed node points in this case.

While fine tuning my SSTO, I created a variant that use Vernor as RCS instead of Linear thrusters. The original version use the 1.8m RCS tank, while the Vernor-variant utilize 1x TX440 (other wise it will have no oxidizer). Placement of RCS thrusters, amount, and orientation obviously also differ, but in terms of part count the Vernor-variant takes 4 less parts. Yet when I flew the craft, I find it does not perform as well, so my suspicion is on drag. (the mass difference should not contribute much, as it was only 625kg difference for the tank) - delta-V difference is about 300 m/s when reaching similar 80k orbit Now, I am aware that both vernor and linear thrusters have drag; however, since they are all placed on the body radially, both solution would have induced drag. Thus, I am wondering if there is an orientation of drag for vernor, which does not exist for linear? According to KSP wiki, both linear and Vernor have same drag value. EDIT: found answer on my own. Unfortunately, if you rotate a vernor perpendicular to the traveling direction, you do have increase in drag force according to AeroGUI.

1) Nope. Think redder 2) Nice infographic... but I thought KVV is still not out for 1.8?

I know about this https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/11297-different-conic-drawing-modes/, but is "LERPED mode" what is now called "dynamic mode"? Also, what is "conic patch limit"?

So what if one DOES rotate it, say 180 degree?

Not the brightest screenshot, but a good sign of an achievement: Picture may not show much, until you realize this is a pure LF setup. Now I am gonna try to squeeze a bit more delta-V before release. And before anyone ask: Yes, this SSTO is inspired by a real-life planned plane. Virtual cookies for anyone who can guess what planned spaceplane this is based on.

Can someone point me to a topic that deals with the amount of drag incurred from radially attach to a parent, vs placing them on the node and then using the translate to move them around? The above question is based on, assuming same parts, and same amount of exposed nodes.

EDIT: But I though F is "Invert SAS state?"

So far I am adjusting my next craft (a SSTO), and I noticed that while it is successful, it is quite different from a rocket's profile. With rocket, AP, PE, and Surface/orbit speed just keep increasing. Any of these not increasing means the craft failed for the most part. With SSTO, I found that it will climb to an AP of 35k, then it will decrease... but if I kept it oriented +15~+30, then eventually the AP will increase again followed by PE, allowing circulization. (I did not check whether the speed increase or decrease between the two AP). So may I ask how does an SSTO fly in KSP? Is this "2x AP" normal?

Thanks. However, that one, being made in 2012, doesn't explain "dynamic", unless it corresponde to mode 4 "Lerped mode"? And default=relative is mode 3, right?

So what are the difference, and which one is "the best"?

Thank you. Then I will wait patiently instead of the stop gap measure I used for my poster. One tiny request: can we just have a way to enter a numerical angle? Just asking...

I am not one who usually "poke the bear", but I would like to know the update status of KVV -- specifically, about when would we expect a beta version for 1.8 to be available. The reason i ask is so that we craft creators can go with alternative plan should it be far off. Thank you in advance.

So finally, after doing some test, I had released my space shuttle. Best of all, it's Vanilla, and a pure LF-O system that, as usually, made with a low-part-count philosophy https://kerbalx.com/Jestersage/Porter-Space-Shuttle I have also decided to borrow the "mullet-dyne fuel pod" as used for the Shuttle challenge, and update it with 1.8.1 parts to bring it to actual 40t. It's not 100% certified for the challenge, but should still be good enough.

Fair enough. So I basically just have to consider if the extra mass of a shielded port outweight the benefit of the extra drag of an unshielded port in the PL Bay.

May I inquire if a port generate drag when attached to either the ends of payload bay/ parts within payload bay?

My Changes are: - Updated all old version of RCS thrusters and fuel tank to the revised versions - Added 1 Radiator Panel, bring it to a total of 4 - Replacing the 2x z100 battery with 4x z400 battery The exercise is not really to replace the old one, but make sure it functions well for test, due to not just mass constraint (if old parts are strictly replaced with new parts they become under-mass) but also dimensional constraint. That, and someone commented on the original to update it to 1.6

I will try to load it without the Craftmanager extension. Hold on... EDIT: I did not get the error either with the default loader or CraftManager. Which part does it declared missing? I (re)built it in 1.8.1. The reason I have to make that one is because the original version is now underweight when parts get replaced.

Would you verify if this can be used for the challenge? https://kerbalx.com/Jestersage/JS-40t-STS-Challenge-Fuel-Pod

Well, correct for the first 2, but as one who released crafts, if others cannot fly it, then there can be some design problem. Kinda like Linux vs Chrome OS. No one want to remmember "sudo rm -r folder". they want to click on something and delete it.

We all remember when we have the whimsical SRB/LFB before 1.8, where you will be lucky for it not to tumble. (it still does now if you screw up the SRB thrust vs vector thrust, but that's up to the builder.) But that raise a question: in your opinion, what would you consider to be a good shuttle launch?

So one can place LFO RCS thrusters that looks good, without the thrusters sticking out all over the place -- especially for aft/forward-translation LFO RCS. Of course, if your design philosophy is "I will clip everything in" or I will fly the giant spacestation wheel in one go with no fairing since i have a huge bundle of rockets", then you are right -- there is no point for that.

The best, of course, is to make it size of linear RCS AND max 45 degree Gimbals (must keep it LFO of course), but just one of the 2 will suffice.

Now I know they are suppose to be vernier, but in the end, they are still bipropellent RCS thrusters v-- and we sorely need some that does not stick out so weirdly when placed perpendicular to the surface.