plazmaXIII

i done some tests on this a while back. higher altitudes are best for big plane changes. this is because your going slower and forces apply better to objects that travel slower (to my knowledge).

DERP parachute?

im really not happy with the amount of drag + size of the landing gear. I know they are not deployable yet but in reality no plane could fly at Mach speeds with the landing gear out and stay airworthy; tail fins are also undesirable (although they make you more stable lower to ground). i think im going to have to mod landing parts to zero drag (as if they were inside the wing) because its not realistic

wow nice design. what's that like to get into orbit? very shuttle-like ive used sleds before and had a lot of success with them so i will try to fit them somehow where are you landing? the gears don't seem like to rough land?

is it possible to land with one gear you think? perhaps someone needs to mod a lighter smaller set of gear . . . (hint)

a calculation that shows what angle and speed you will hit the main atmosphere (probably going to need it sooner or later. and its nice to know with space planes so you don't rip the wings off)

BREAKTHROUGH!!! :D i have finally come up with a solution to getting a space plane into orbit via rocket with minimal modding. this is just a prototype design but im sure with a few modifications i can get this to land at KSC! It seems that the hardest part is getting your rocket past the 10,000m mark, once you have managed that the issue of the wings throwing your rocket off-course is negligible. the way i got past this is to use LOTS OF TAIL FINS on the first stage so that the rocket didn't veer of course. i also tried to use a design which places the flight wings as far away from the top of the rocket as possible, this reduces the rotational force on the rocket. On the way down to kerbin i tried to keep the plane in line with its vector until i lost most of my speed (you cant really use your wings at high altitude / speed. you just spin out of control). once i had slowed down to about 300m/s i took control of the space plane and it was easily controllable. im fairly confident that if i can get lander gear on this plane i can get it to KSC. will post my attempt at getting to KSC soon!

did you fly that plane into orbit? the best way we know how right now is to fly dead north/south (or east/west) and get into a stable orbit. Then use a transfer orbit down to about 32,000m when you are directly behind KSC by using your navball (other side of the planet - a purple indicator on your navball will show you. however, this isn't particularity accurate . . .

thats awesome. a few more goes and you could probably get that! shame your kinda cheating though with those jet engines, wasn't somebody supposed to be making a space shuttle that would work on top of a rocket?

my thinking was that with a spare tank of fuel and moveable fins you could compensate for the inaccurate method of landing at KSP. if you aimed a litle short with a transfer orbit you could fly the rest of the way back. i cant test this yet as im still having problems getting a spaceplane into orbit any suggestions?

think it would be fair to say that you can use disposable stages if you need. The main problem ive found is keep the rocket stable with fins so high on the stack. Maybe i just need more SAS 8) Will try this later on tonight when i get back

ok, so with the new experimental we have been given moveable flight surfaces meaning that its easier (ish) to fly and glide objects down to kerbin! some people have been flying for a while and i was wondering if anyone has been able to get a plane into space then glide it back to the new runway my early attempts havent gone so well as the wings seem to tip my rocket over! if anyone has a workable desgin post it here!

Ok that makes sense thank you. A good but slow technique for future moon landings then.

ok, i understand that now. every example ive typed in so far have been more fuel intensive. whats a good example of it being effective to save fuel. also where should the turnover altitude be set for maximum effciency?

can someone explain how to use the bi elliptic transfer calculator? what is the turnover altitude? i understand how these orbit changes work but cant figure out how to use it :|. it also seems really inefficient.

haha this took me back!

how dou calculate this with the plane change, i wanna give it a try

if it can be proven to work then its a new challenge for KSP players to sink there teeth into. however, how much momentum does a decoupler add to the final stage/station? can we be sure that its not going to add momentum. even if the final speed was like 0.1m/s off, for 100mins or so that could make a huge difference! and thats without the human error involved in the timings and speed . . . guess we need to wait and see if it will work . . .

Warringer should put this into his next KSP calculator . . . i would imagine if your just the tinyest bit off you would miss by quite some distance, maybe its not possible to do manually . . . keep trying

Ok heres my attempt at doing this. im fairly confident in this desgin ive made, it can normally get me into orbit with a tank and 3/4 to spare. because of this. im going to get fancy and do a 15 degree plane change and aim to put the satellite into orbit at a height of about 70,000m pic one is my rocket. not using any fancy covers as they are heavy and often wobble . . . almost didnt make orbit, start losing altitude at 45,000m or so. recovered however with a tank and a bit to spare. took my spacecraft up to 69500m (close enougth), picture 3 shows me doing a plane change. released Satellite, followed it for a while . . . which is really hard! mission accomplised

yeah i noticed that. my procedure was to burn until it started to affect my speed. then stop and reset using the pro and retrograde markers. 8) when i mean the prograde markers moving. i dont mean between left and right when your making a burn . . . when i fly over certain parts of kearth i think the markers move from the 45 degree angle to 0 then back to 45 :S crossing a pole prehaps? chase cam is quite good for this as well. itl follow your spaceship as your turning so u can get a better view than you would with free cam. just read somewhere that a lot of the time the fuel needed to put a craft into an high eliptic orbit, plane change up high and then come back down often uses less fuel than plane changing at a lower altitude.

update. its true that higher orbits will allow you to change your flight plane with less fuel. just tested it now on a eliptic orbit. made 45 degree change with the same amount of fuel. thanks!

Just tried that technique you said about lining up the yellow markers and it was very effective at changing my flight plane. shifted about 20 degrees with half a tank of fuel the without drasticly affecting my circular orbit. ps. my prograde and retrograde markers keep fluxing back and forth. whats the explanation for this?

i managed to change my plane of orbit by about 15 - 20 degrees by expending a whole tank of fuel. however doing this increased my speed no matter how hard i tried to keep the rocket at 60 degrees it took me out of my stable orbit . . . is there a way of doing it without causing this to happen? my orginal process was to get orbit at around 150,000m and just fire my rocket perfectly sideways until i could see a change of direction on navball. is that correct? so evo, would a highly eliptic orbit be a good idea to save fuel on plane changes?

Hi all. Just wondering how you guys do certain maneuvers in KSP. i can orbit very well and do hohmann transfer orbits etc. the more advanced moves like orbital plane changes and landing over the launch pad however are mysterys to me. is it possible to change your orbital plane by 45 degrees or so mid flight? or is the fuel needed too high?