Skylon

Would second stage adaptations for reusability compromise structural strength? Will we ever see an upgraded Falcon 9 with better structural integrity so it can actually lift the payload so it says it can, a Falcon 9 Mk6 (to continue the naming scheme) of sorts?

Aircraft carriers are huge

Could someone explain this? I don't want to nudge but it is nigh on impossible to build ships with this problem

Mechjeb I think would be a bit too daunting for some players, and I some may never learn how to fly something properly if they just use the autopilot. Now if you mean Dv readings and the like then I would agree. I think perhaps a simpler version of mechjeb, possibly with a gravity turn 'guide' which just shows you roughly where your rocket should be pointing, as opposed to flying it for you KSP is a space game, not a plane and helicopter game. For now KAX should remain a mod, because some of the parts just won't be used for some players. And personally I don't think it is stockalike in appearance and wouldn't fit too well with the current feel of planes I think possibly the pipe attachment system of KIS/KAS could be integrated, but maybe not all of the other features

I second that

December 25th, with a giant cardboard box wrapped in Christmas wrapping paper as payload Very unlikely, because no one wants to work on Christmas, but maybe around then. Either way, if it launches in December I want a gift as a payload. I wish that they could land all three falcons next to each other, like in the animation video (the second one). Also, can we refer to 39A or any launch site as "the nest"? "Falcon has returned to the nest"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6 First flight scheduled for 2020

The fins act as a control surface for yaw and pitch by rotating around (you can see this if you try using yaw or pitch on the runway with them deployed). So one of the deploys locks the control surface and will force the rocket to roll. The same things happen on a plane if you deploy the control surfaces with an action group. If you have to deploy the fins manually ever, pin them (using the button in the top right of the part window) before stage separation Most rocket landings should be done manually as you are doing now, mechjeb isn't very efficient with them. I believe kerbal engineer has a suicide burn indicator, and Mech Jeb may have something similar. They aren't completely accurate but can give you a good idea of when to start burning, and you can adjust your throttle later.

No, I don't think so

A picture wouldn't hurt here, but do you have fins at the bottom too? Just like how they keep your rocket facing up while going up, they make it face down when going down. As for control at low speeds, gimballing engines, thrusters and reaction wheels (though reaction wheels are far from needed) are useful here. And yes, I think it would work better with 4 fins, or it won't fully stabilise. 3 may work, but I haven't tried it. I don't see why you should need to use less than 4 fins. Edit: What is your speed above 5km? I think braking deploys the fins, or you could use an action group rather than doing it manually I'm guessing you are not using mechjeb. Maybe also try suborbital single stage hops first with your first stage to test it out

When I hover my mouse over the parts list, it starts scrolling to the bottom without me doing anything. I'm in KSP 1.2.2. On the craft list it scroll down when I hover my mouse over the bar at the side. Any ideas?

The carrier looks very nice, but I'm struggling to land on it with my less than optimal computer. I'm getting better though. I'll uninstall a few graphics mods and see if it helps, though I don't really want to do this.

Very interesting. I suppose if your 'magnet' was strong enough it could break through the glass. Could a black hole do the same?

Here's the best picture I've got so far:

You would use it as a less powerful version of Cloud one, or a Luna IX Plus kind of thing

I mean a Luna IX replacing the first stage. Generally sounding rockets have high TWR, so it could have the thrust to lift the second stage of Cloud One

I was thinking that a modular design would make more sense. Would a Luna IX have the thrust to lift a Cloud One second stage? Also, are the Vapor engines named? I was thinking of something like 'Raindrop' or 'Snowflake'. Or something less cute, like 'Hailstorm' or 'Lightning'

16 tons! That will be incredible. And that render of the line-up is stunning

Thank you! Unfortunately I'm not skilled enough to make a stock prop, but i guess I could try downloading one

I love the simplistic style, great job Do you take requests?

No, I don't think it can get there.

After testing the range, it looks like my plane can't complete this challenge. I will be pulling out of this one, sorry Edit: (For the rover Drop challenge) Edit 2: And could we have a challenge that encourages old-style planes? I'm dying to use this. Looks and could be used like a carrier aircraft, though its prop-driven top speed of 180m/s may render it uncompetitive

Maybe we could have a higher science return for kerbals

Can we offload the rover after landing? So no airdrop?

Normally I have 8 reliant engines on the outside, with another reliant or a swivel for gimbal and smaller size in the middle. If you want to land on just the centre engine, I suggest a vector. You could also probably tweakscale a vector, but I would say that the vector engine is overpowered in terms of Thrust to Weight/Size Ratio. I guess they were designed for use on a shuttle design, so they needed a lot of thrust and gimbal to increase ease of use