Reusables

If you are using Geforce drivers, Press alt+z and change KeyBindings in the keyboard settings so that there is no key bound for alt+f12.

There is another way if both has the docking port: matching the ports and dock, really carefully.

Are they connected with the docking ports? I think they could be buggy, so that stock hinge might be better.

Sorry, I found them not appealing for me.

I think the contract system is either over engineered or underengineered; They should have kept ProcGen minimal with given layout or taken heuristic approach to generate it correctly. Not just blacklists and such...

Thank you for the great advice! Thanks, I'll take a look at them. I had a cubic strut sticking out on a spaceplane, maybe that was the problem! Thanks, I'll take care of optimizing as well! Sorry but I don't want to install mods for this..; It makes me feel sad..

I just can't build planes/spaceships looking good, how can I improve the aesthetics?

Just a proof of concept, of propeller-rocket SSTO. (Didn't care much about aesthetics and optimization) Developing this for Eve even though it is impossible.

I'm certain that it's worth the time for simple simulation purpose. The approximate solution makes it easy to provide realistic skybox with a bit of perturbation in parameters, like what's done in Stellarium. AFAIK, even apollo program used the keplerian approximation on the SOI. Also, it's easy to write a program to get the approximate solution. It cost me less than half an hour.

You can intermix vis-viva equation and kepler's second law. Actually, dealing with the time is hard since nonlinear(?) differential equation gets involved. Instead, you can easily get the speed at specific position using vis-viva. Just find the length of the semi-major axis and distance from the planet. (Well, planet mass is needed as well) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis-viva_equation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion Wait, is G constant changed in ksp? EDIT: I have a program which calculates the position of the craft for specific time. Do you want one?

That's not what I meant, what I said was about TWR. To clarify, my point is that thrust per torque is smaller for bigger friction and inversely proportional to the radius of fins, and the thrust per torque is critical to the TWR. Since the stable angular velocity is achieved when the wheel torque is equivalent with friction torque and lift&drag induced torque. Because L/D ratio is the same given the same AoA, Thrust by the lift per the lift&drag force is same for the same geometry. Since ift&drag torque is the force multiplied by the fin radius, Thrust per (wheel) torque is better for smaller prop. diameter and smaller friction torque per wheel torque. And it's obvious that friction torque per wheel torque is bigger for faster rotation speed. In detail, Thrust is proportional to the square of the propeller fin radius while the torque does to cubic of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller, look at the theory section. This is really critical with the TWR, since the most of the engine mass is from the reaction wheels and the generator if the prop wings are not too big. Configuration of 20 small reaction wheels powered by 6 radioactive generatoes weighs 1.48t, while Stayputnik bearing should be under 0.5t and 8 fourth elevons weigh 0.32t. In my case, it gets worse since I uses 20 mk1 sized reaction wheels for bigger thrust, while the bearing remained the same and prop fins weigh 0.92t. The wheels and generators weigh over 3.5t. I think TWR is what only matters with the prop engines. Even with the bigger thrust the plane with the engine wouldn't fly well with less TWR since the engine mass gives certain lift requirements which causes increased drag. About the measurement, I measured the thrust without the drag of props since it's the thrust which the plane gets. So the thrust will be bigger for faster speed if I added the drag.

I measured the thrust with weights and the acceleration it gets on vertical ascent. And, isn't 50rad/s too fast? I got similar thrust with more wing surface minus the additional drag to the airstream on the loway atmosphere. I personally think that the full speed would get disadvantage from the friction, which gives less lift per the torque. (Due to the constant L/D and more friction torque compared to drag torque) Also, front lift per drag torque is inversely proportional to the radius of the propeller fins in the theory.

I found that shorter elerons for propeller wings provide better thrust. So If I allow higher part count or accomodate better design, propellers with TWR over 4 on high speed would be possible. Also, I managed to get this to fly. (This does not mean it will capable of orbit) http://imgur.com/a/fVk2F

This. (And also there's the control issue, which is not really an issue on the real world counterpart) To add, there are reliable stock hinges which can have light high-speed rotors to haul heavy stators, but heavy rotors will simply be broken due to the fragility of the hinge.

You mean rockets on the propeller fins? That's the traditional type of propellers in ksp. Since the propulsion happens on the rotor, it's unstable, hard to control and tend to have heavy rotor for the fuel. Also effective Isp on rocket mode gets smaller due to its tilted thrust, which is critical for chemical rockets to get high enough. On the other hand, turboprops with elevons would be better in the efficiency and stability.

It appeared in this thread couple of times, so it'should pretty well known. Also this thread is about stock feasibility...

I took wrong assumption of less Isp in spite of its better TWR. So what you meant was about rocket propelled turboprops? Then, what rocket engine would be the best?

Or, you can make a loading rover to haul the satellite with two docking ports into the cargo ramp of the SSTO, where it is docked.

I came up with this idea today: since the reaction wheels give torque not force, it'll be better to have props closer to the axis if the hinge is reliable and has marginal friction. Does this hold in ksp, or is this just a thought? EDIT: Just found that shorter wings greatly increases the performance, matching my hypothesis. Are there some props with TWR 4 on high speed? I found that mine gets TWR of 2.

Unlike the mod propellers, it's possible to have them streamlined to the airfloworld with authority in deploy mode. In my experience, the props give less than 2kn when the drag of the whole plane is over 50kn. Still, the mass penalty seems to be very big, so it's nearly impossible to have them as SSTO. I know that it'should different, but it's easier to test on Kerbin with the hacked gravity. I think the hardness is approximately same. VTOL is much harder, as the props have TWR less than 4 even in the dense atmosphere. Also rocket powered props will be less efficient than rocket itself in ksp, if this is what you meant.

That's the exact strategy I'm using now, which got a propeller-rocket SSTO to the orbit on Kerbin. During the test, I found that the high gravitation of Eve makes the craft unpractical to fly, as it needs tons of wing surfaces. Also it consumes a lot of fuel. Since the low atmosphere of Eve is very thick, I think it'd be better to have propellers to haul the craft. + Now I think that even if eve doesn't have any atmosphere, it'lly be still challenging to make an SSTO, since the DV & TWR requirement is just too big.. But it needs kOS, it wouldn't work without the mod. This thread was about stock solution. Anyway, I'm still trying with the propeller concept even though it'it's nearly impossible. I think hacking gravity by x1.7 on Kerbin will make a reasonable representation for eve ssto. I could get a liftoff on the setup with the props, but I think it isn't able to make any orbit..

This one seems to be more forgiving for me! (Or more precisely, my props)

Thanks for the tips. Since propeller planes can get out of the dense atmosphere, so I thought aerospikes would be better. But its TWR is lower than I thought... And imo reentry should be easier since propellers are also airbreaks. Does the nukes work in low atmosphere? Also eve jets could be better for with modded entries... I implemented reliable way to re-dock propellers and have them point parallel to the airstream. The real problemoney is their mass... Eve is much easier with mods. There was a thread about modded eve ssto feasibility, which offeredseveral candidates.

Okay, It barely made an orbit on Kerbin with nukes & aerospikes configuration. So it seems that it's nearly impossible to make propeller planes get to orbit. But there's more configurations to test: 1. Nukes & Vectors The boost stage needs more TWR to go up faster, so Vectors should be better for this. 2. Nukes only As spaceplanes can fly in the denser atmosphere with lower TWR, it could be better to optimize the plane for nukes. Instead of the aerospike engines and LF+O fuels, more nuke engines can give enough thrust during flight on the higher atmosphere. 3. Aerospikes only Aerospike only plane gets its advantage from high TWR and lift, even on the lower atmosphere. In this case, it'd be important to give it more mass. 4. Vectors only Basically 3 with a bit better TWR and a bit worse Isp.

Okay. Actually, it's a prototpe of propeller plane.