mknote

Well, I added some wing strakes and it flies more stably now. Disabling the control surfaces is not advisable though. I've also removed the RAPIERS to better simulate the actual space shuttle. Dunno if it lands from space well yet, but I got it to land at a reasonable speed and it's a lot more controllable, so I think I'm good. Thanks for the help!

Here is the shuttle itself: Space Shuttle Concept 7.craft And here's the launcher stack I'm using to go to space: Space Shuttle Stack NEW.craft The launcher is pretty overpowered, but it gets the shuttle into space easily. The main booster is meant to be recovered, which I was able to do without issue. The problem again is landing the shuttle itself. It has difficulty landing on the runway it seems, and any maneuvers in the atmosphere causes it to decide that it doesn't like being in one piece any longer. I haven't messed around with any screenshots yet, but it's pretty standard stuff, which makes its refusal to work all the more perplexing.

I'm trying to design my own space shuttle, an endeavor that is quite frustrating right now. It seems that even the slightest breeze will cause the thing to fall to pieces, and it can't seem to maneuver at all in the atmosphere. I can probably get the thing to orbit pretty easily using my heavy lifter, but if I can't land the damn thing, what's the point? I'm at a loss as to how others have managed to produce a working shuttle using these parts. I've attached my latest conceptual design in hopes that somebody can help me understand where I'm going so wrong. Space Shuttle Concept

Actually, there is a further complication that nobody has pointed out: as you burn fuel, the mass of the aircraft will decrease, causing the velocity to increase over time. Without manual input, this will throw out the balance and the aircraft will try to climb out of the atmosphere.

And, you know, Minecraft. I've heard that that game has done rather well.

Mr. Scott Manley?

They never said this. On topic, it seems the OP was trying to imply that being like Minecraft is... a bad thing? It's one of the better games to come out recently, and it's getting better with each update! How can that be a bad thing? So the poll is missing an option: KSP is becoming more like Minecraft, and that's a good thing.

Okay, let's answer this thing. Let me preface this by saying that I'm about a semester away from getting my Master's degree in physics with a focus on astronomy and astrophysics, so while I may not be an expert, I'm probably more knowledgeable than the lay person. Now, it is my belief that Laythe is most certainly habitable. I see two main points being brought up against this supposition, which I'll refute in turn: Temperature: There's no reason to suggest that Laythe has a particularly low temperature. Assuming that it were in real life (i.e. 11 times larger, more massive, more distant from the star, etc.), it would be a Venus- to Earth-sized world in orbit of a Jupiter-like planet, and be in a 1:2:4 resonance as it is in game. This means enormous tidal heating, leading to a very high level of volcanic activity and out-gassing. Just look at Io. Unlike Io, however, Laythe has an atmosphere to trap heat produced by geological (laythalogical?) activity, and the atmosphere and (more importantly) huge ocean would effectively transport the heat around the moon, producing a fairly consistent temperature. It's quite conceivable that this temperature could be above the freezing point of water. Thus, it is quite likely that Laythe has a chilly but hardly freezing average surface temperature, despite the distance from its parent star. This higher-than-expected temperature would be the result of tidal heating generated by the Laplace resonance combined with the efficient transfer of heat by the atmosphere and ocean. Radiation: This is a non-issue. Again assuming a Venus- to Earth-sized world, and combined with the tidal heating and quick rotation (compared to Venus, at least), Laythe almost certainly has a magnetic field comparable in strength to the Earth's. After all, Ganymede has a magnetic field despite being only half the mass of Mercury, so Laythe must almost surely have a strong magnetic field (as should Tylo and, less certainly, Vall). This magnetic field would shield most of Laythe from Jool's radiation belts, although the polar regions might be significantly more hostile because of it. However, even if Laythe has no magnetic field, its atmosphere would still adequately shield Laythe's surface from the Joolian radiation belts. Being in orbit of Laythe might be deadly, but on the surface you'd hardly be able to detect the radiation. By the by, the combination of a magnetic field and the atmosphere would produce absolutely spectacular and constant aurorae, which would be a great feature to add in closer to the official release. So, in conclusion, it's this humble physics student's opinion that Laythe is most certainly habitable, albeit a bit cooler than we're comfortable with. The presence of oxygen in the atmosphere further indicates that life already exists on the moon, as there simply isn't another known process that could account for its presence in the atmosphere.

It's been in the game as long as EVAs have been. It also only works in higher gravity.

How on earth is redone aerodynamics a "neat feature" and not something that constitutes scope completion?

Seriously... when are they going to work on aerodynamics? That's the thing I'm looking forward to... And don't tell me to use FAR! I don't like using mods. TBH, Career mode (and multiplayer) don't hold much interest for me, but I'll allow that I'm in the minority. Still...

...wat. When did they stop working on career mode? It's still top priority! There's arguing and then there's misinformation. A poll created less than 24 hours ago in a time of high emotions is not indicative of general sentiment. I think the poll is therefore inconclusive based on when it was made, and I would generally believe the sentiment I have witnessed over the not quite 2 years I've been here than a spur of the moment poll. I agree with sal_verger: multiplayer has been a request as long as I've been here, and while I couldn't care less about it, if implemented properly it can be a good thing.

Excuse me. I stated that people needed to stop being rude. This is rude. If you'd care to rephrase it, I'll consider your words more carefully. Until then, however, I hold your opinion in low esteem.

Just FYI: I've been here since 0.14, and I don't think SQUAD has done a thing wrong. Y'all need to chill out and stop -hugging-, because that's what really turns good developers into... well, EA: an unpleasable fanbase. They've churned out a good game already and I have zero reason not to trust them in the future. Furthermore, some of the people in this thread are being plain rude. That's simply unacceptable, and I think moderators should take action. It's fine to have a wildly differing opinion, as long as you express it in a respectful manner. Also, for the comparisons to Minecraft... that turned out fine, so I don't see at all why that's supposed to be a bad thing.

Since English isn't your native language, you're excused somewhat, but the tone of this post was still quite rude.

I think they are bugs, and they should be removed. I don't like them. Too unrealistic.

That was one thing I was going to add to the post before I realized I couldn't reply to it. By the by, the patch did not fix the issue. Perhaps. I would hope, however, that the mods wouldn't send these threads into purgatory without reading them to make sure they had been solved. I already have; it doesn't. Thanks for the quick reply, though.

Okay, I'm a little peeved at the mods right now. Yesterday, I created a thread (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/42142-Two-Bugs-for-the-Price-of-One!) detailing a couple of bugs that had occurred to me. I come back to find that nobody has replied to the thread, which is a little disconcerting and somewhat rude in my opinion. So I decided to bump the topic to move it to where people can actually see it... Only to find that the mods had moved it to some archive that neither I nor anyone else can reply to and which, in fact, will be deleted soon. Not only did nobody look at my problem, but it has been swept under the rug. So I ask the moderators, why has my problem been ignored and placed to where nobody will find it? I provided all the information that I could, including a save file, so what did I do wrong?

I know I'm replying to an older-ish post, but... I don't see this as a problem or a fault. It's something that you can easily account for (I know because I have in the 2 hours that I've played 0.21), is intended by the devs, and really doesn't cause that much problem. Leave it as is, I say. Others have posted things that might be legitimate issues, but I don't think this is one.

Wrong on almost all counts. 1.) There is no reason no believe that Laythe's oceans are any more salty than Earth's because, contrary to your statement, Laythe's temperatures are not far below 0 °C; in fact, it's above freezing, at a balmy 6.21 °C. 2.) The best point of the three, but hardly insurmountable. I've made several trips to Laythe already, and with practice it could become a quite routine, if tedious, task. 3.) There's an important difference between Io and Laythe, namely the fact that Laythe has an atmosphere. Not a thin one, either, but one nearly as thick as Earth/Kerbin. This alone would be enough to eliminate much of the radiation problem, but it's also quite possible that Laythe could have a significant magnetic field. After all, going by the acceleration due to gravity (which seem to me to be the best way to compare the bizarre Kerbal world to real life, as the strength of gravity is quite comparable between the two whereas mass, density, size, etc. are not), Laythe would probably be comparable in mass to Venus. Now, Venus doesn't have a global magnetic field, but this is because it rotates extremely slowly and its core is not convecting, likely due to Venus' smaller size and thus lower internal temperature. Laythe, by contrast, rotates far more quickly and has its interior heated by tidal heating, which could very well be enough to produce a dynamo and thus a global magnetic field. Further supporting this is the fact that the real-life Galilean moon Ganymede has a magnetic field despite having a lower mass than Venus (and thus to the comparable mass of Laythe). It's highly likely, then, that Laythe has a rather strong magnetic field, which would shield it it from the radiation from Jool's magnetosphere and give it almost constant and absolutely stunning aurora. In conclusion, Laythe is far and away the most habitable place in the Kerb system aside from Kerbin itself, with the only real barrier to colonization being its distance from the homeworld.

Nova, how exactly is whether jets work or not programmed into the game? Is it just a property you set in the atmosphere, or do the atmospheres actually have their composition coded in and you have jets look for oxygen specifically? The latter is probably a lot harder to code in, but it would be interesting.

Is it kosher to ask when it won't be released? As in, "There's no effing way it's coming out this week/month/incarnation of the universe, true or false?" and not going any further. ...it'd satisfy at least me.

Nova just confirmed on Kurt's livestream that the planet colors are changing.

Why on earth do you have so many ASAS? That\'s a waste of mass...

: I can get a spaceplane into orbit - even with stock parts - just fine. This was a challenge to build a space shuttle that looked and acted like it\'s real-life counterpart; to do as you\'re suggesting would defeat the entire purpose of me building it in the first place. I\'m no slouch at physics; I\'m getting my baccalaureate in physics a week from today, and I\'m headed off for my Master\'s and eventually Doctorate in the field. I had surmised that the problem was a shifting center of gravity - I\'m trying to correct for this shift, either by liquid booster placed around the assembly or just getting rid of the entire fuel tank at the problem point. It\'s obviously possible to get it working - the space shuttle launched perfectly 134 out of 135 times in real life (135 out of 136 if you count Buran). The problem is thus: At launch, the orbiter and the fuel tank stack are rather evenly balanced in weight. As the main fuel tank empties and the SRBs are jettisoned, however, the decreasing mass of the fuel tank stack (and no corresponding mass decrease on the orbiter) causes the engine underneath the fuel tank to tip the formerly vertical assembly over towards the orbiter, essentially turning the orbiter upside-down. To compensate, I jettison the primary engine, but this only causes the assembly to flip the other way - the orbiter is now the only source of thrust, after all. This would be good, as it gets the orbiter right-side up, which would allow me to achieve orbit... if the damn thing didn\'t keep tipping until I\'m doing rolls at a frightening rate, eventually tearing the entire ship apart if I leave the thrust up. Now, if I jettisoned the main tank at this point (it still has 1/3 of its fuel left, but oh well) and used the side tanks to control my orbiter\'s engines, I could make orbit at this point, but as I stated in my first post, these tanks drain first. Thus, I disable them... which wouldn\'t be a problem if it didn\'t permanently disable the fuel lines connecting it to the orbiter, causing me to have no fuel after I jettison the main tank. More succinctly, if I don\'t disable the tanks, they drain and I have no fuel, and if I do disable them, the fuel lines won\'t work and I have no fuel. Damned if I do, damned if I don\'t. I\'m hoping there\'s a way around this bug (and I\'m sure it\'s a bug), but if not, I\'m really out of ideas.