James M

Some of us have night jobs.

You're not the only one? That's why kOS is a thing. If you really want to get into programming stratolaunchers the real way, then learn to combine kOS and MJ to work simultaneously together, then program away the maximum controllable vessel distance limit and all our reusability issues will be solved (That's sarcasm. I know it would take years at least.)

Haha you're talking top teir programming. I'm not afraid to admit I have literally no idea. If I could program a flight computer just like that, we'd all be using stratolaunchers right now.

It means he had a flight computer controlling the other craft. And unless that flight computer was on the "electron rocket", he couldn't have swapped back to the plane from the rocket because it was in flight in the atmosphere essentially dooming it to crash into the surface. (Unless of course the flight computer was programmed with proper landing procedures as well.)

Yes but he wasn't actually controlling both at the same time. It might have looked like it, but that's because he put in (Or set up for) a predetermined path for whichever vehicle he wasn't using at the moment.

The program you're looking for doesn't exist. To be more specific, you can't determine the outcome beforehand of two separate instances whose outcome also happens to depends on the other's. There is a mod that allows you to essentially predetermine a flight plan for another vessel, but as soon as you swap back to your first vessel, you lose control of the second. What you're asking for requires essentially two controllers (Two players). I guess a probe core with SAS set to radial out with rcs control might work however?...

To further this, one rcs thruster placed at the end of a long stick could have the same rotational torque as 5 or 6 placed directly on the craft because of how leverage works. If you cover your three axis with rcs that's been extended out, it could potentially work as effectively as some of the more powerful reaction wheels. IOW, more is not always better. Work smart not hard.

I guess I should specify, I was landing on the target yes. Just not so perfectly that I could get the ports to align. I was always just a meter or two away from a perfect landing and any adjustments I tried to make just ended up confusing me on the navball. xD I could of just used trajectories mod or whatever but I wanted to do it legit stock.. I did however end up getting it to work later though. I made an entirely new hauler with the control point at the center of mass and used pulling engines rather than pushing.

Good job! Did it tip on the ascent or descent?

The closer you get to the poles, the more jagged the terrain. IOW, stay close to the equator. Best place is honestly just the midlands.

Tbh I still struggle with Spaceplanes, but I get the general gist of them. I also know what you mean about the front facing cargo bay, and I've definitely seen a lot of people do it that way. It may be ugly but it apparently works great xD

It bounces "Connection" for direct satellites so you can extend your satellite network further away from the source (KSC). Put a bunch of them everywhere (And I mean literally everywhere) and you'll never have to worry about your satellites going dead. Even the ones that aren't using relays. Then using MJ makes sense. Learning the basics however. Still something I'd argue everyone should know regardless. There's a slight blind spot at the poles. Only for a second though. Also some planets/moons can't have stationary satellites, so highly elliptical ends up working better anyhow.

That looks dope

https://imgur.com/gallery/RDR1wbA Finally captured my first Asteroid! And it was a magic one to boot xD That was so stressful lol

Cool idea!

Say you launch a rocket 10 times and only 5 times it succeeds at making it to orbit. This would be less efficient than say launching 10 times and orbiting 10 times.

It's understandable, but efficiency also requires consistency. Hard to be consistent when you only have half the tools you need to complete the job.

So 20 x 330kg (0.36 tons) = 7.2 tons payload weight A rocket with a skipper first stage or a cluster of ~4 swivels should be about right. Of course this also depends on how much fuel you intend to bring in your second stage. You could always strap a pair or two of thumpers on to compensate. i didn't actually do TWR mathematics there btw so I could be wrong. I was just going purely off experience there.

Do you though? How much mass is your payload? Using TWR calculations, you could most certainly develop a cheaper, possibly reusable, rocket to achieve the same goal. The only difference would be how to incorporate your kerbals into the payload as well.

This is why you see so few early game SSTO Spaceplanes.

Solutions Include: More rear wings (Think Delta Plane but bigger) More Gimbal on engines (Vector engines have 10 degrees and Mastadon and Bobcat have 5 degrees.) Just remember the engine also has to have enough thrust to propel the craft both through ascent and into orbit.

Your problem is two-fold. 1) Drag is mostly at the back, which is good, but there wont be enough after staging the boosters because 2) The load becomes completely uneven after booster separation and flips the vehicle. This is VERY COMMON with all shuttles and usually is compensated by high gimbal engines. (The more rotational torque you place at a longer length, the more force will be applied. AKA using your engines as levers.) The only other alternative that I know of are canards by the front cockpit, but that really only will help on descent to keep the nose up.

Check your staging. Or ensure that your payload is covered with either a fairing or a payload bay

"With a large enough lever, man could move the world" I pictured a huge stick structure going for miles off Gilly's surface and then a huge amount of engines at the end spinning it faster xD

I need this in my life. I also would want it to be checkered Green and Black.