Fortunateson1969

I didn't say I was going to use DR, but that is my plan.

Okay-quick clarification-simply because I spent all day braining in one area and now I can't brain in another. The SSME's on the American Space Shuttle (and possibly Buran I don't know) were angled away from CoG to counter the off-center CoG caused by the ET and the thrust caused by the SRB's right? Theoretically, the CoT vector in Kerbal Space Program would anti-point right at the CoG marker? Was that true all the way throughout the launch or were they adjusted after stagings? I'm trying to work on a little plugin that will automatically gimbal engines to adjust the CoT to wherever it needs to be with a constantly changing CoG, and I'm trying to figure out what variables I have to account for. A quick rundown (or a super-technical webpage) would be much appreciated! -Thankya!

That thing is seriously sexy. Wow. I love when I parked my 1m lander next to my 3m lander how much bigger it was. (And the fact that I almost squished a moonwalking Jeb)

Since it stands to be said, and since the last couple of posts on this topic seemed a bit complainey and not your problem-y... You\'re my Yoda dude. My guide and mentor through the wacky world of KSP. And for that I thank you. Really excited to see some of your Kerbals walking around on the moon

I second this motion. The 55 gallon drums for the 2m stock fuel tanks are horrible and tend to accordion in on themselves.

I tried doing something similar with the BigTrak. To the best of my knowledge, you need to have multiple command pods on the craft, one for each one you want to control. Something about how rcs/sas won\'t work unless they\'re attached to a pod. I\'m not sure how this is done (I\'m waiting with bated breath for WinterOwl\'s video series to tell me ) but apparently it is possible.

I smell a but coming... EDIT: WAIT WHAT GET THAT MAN IN MY OFFICE RIGHT NOW. PARKER I WANT A STORY ON THIS SAWFISH 'FLIGHT OR FRAUD' IS THE TAGLINE

So I\'ve been playing KSP for some time. I\'ve been using the c7 and other aerospace parts for considerably less time. I have built spaceplanes, airplanes and the like and have had moderate success. There seem to be problems that plague my atmospherically bound craft, and they never seem to be the same. Planes and the like seem to be infinitely more complex to build than rockets (stack as much boosters and fuel on the beastie as you can and shoot for the moon you caveman). Perhaps it\'s the nature of the program itself, but I\'m wondering if it\'s my own personal inequities that cause the issues-namely my lack of an Aerospace Engineering Degree (I myself only possess a meager Computer Science/Applied Mathematics double major). I know about statics, and lifting bodies, and how wings work (kind of), and I even know how to fly a plane (in simulations, I\'ve played too much x-plane for my own good) but I\'m wondering if there\'s some math I can do here to even the playing field. So here\'s my questions in no particular order. 1.) Should I be balancing my lift constant of the craft with the thrust the engines can produce? I seem to either have planes that pitch down or up, and I\'m wondering if my upward force vector should be equal to my lateral force vector (overcoming forces, free body diagrams...etc) 2.) My planes seem super tetchy. How many is too many control surfaces? Should I be using a certain number for however heavy the craft is/the lift quotient? 3.) The air breathing engines in this game seem to have very little science-that I can see-associated with them. Are those nacelle things purely aestetic? They all seem to have intakes, and they seem to max out at some number (correlated with altitude and the thickness of the air there no doubt), I seem to want to get them to their optimal flow, but no matter what I do the efficiency goes down. What is the efficiency? The amount of fuel that is wasted due to insufficient 'oxygen'? The efficiency of the intakes in getting oxygen into the engines? 4.) Is there a point where my excessive lift surfaces generate more drag than lift? 5.) Is it possible to make a plane that is, forgive the pun, 'pitch perfect'? Meaning that at some thrust, it will sit on the 0 pitch marker and not translate vertically? It seems like most planes in the (real life) universe do that-or have I been lied to by flight sims, and the meatball is showing an adjusted value? I feel like I have to hold a pitch of 3.5 or some such to stop the plane from dropping into the sea below. I appreciate any help you can give me-and don\'t be afraid to lay it on me mathmatically. I\'m a big boy and can take some scary numbers (or lack therof as engineering school taught me)

Noone ever said it would be easy-but I understand the frustration. I\'m beginning to wonder how possible it is myself. I mean, I keep trying out different landing methods (I even tried to put an orbit @ 1km. I smashed into a mountain) and none seem to work I wonder if I attach an absurd amount of those c7 shock absorbers to the thing if it will work, but it looks goofy as hell and I can\'t get them attached how I like. I also wonder if some kind of automatic plotting and obstacle avoidance algo is needed to do this properly. I\'m going to keep trying. As my own issues and challenges arise in the scope of this, I might modify the rules.

Woof. I suppose that\'s just a tribute to the alpha-ness of the game

They really need a tool that shows the 'centerlines' of the craft you\'re building-especially for spaceplanes. Based on the Center of Gravity, the 'line' moves foreward and backward, up and down. It would make creating spaceplanes so much easier.

You\'d think that the wee little RCS tanks I put on the very top of my ship would be used very last, as that\'s how I ordered them in the stage list and the giant one for my first stage would be used first. However, KSP has different plans. I can\'t right click on them to disable flow-is there something that I\'m missing to order RCS tank usage? I\'ve never had this problem before.

What I didn\'t say is that usually after a frenzy of activity of launching the next ship right after the injection burn I turn on the tv or go to work lol

Haha no it does not. Yes, but all of my craft of this type run into issues where even though I have one pod, the smaller 'child' craft is super sluggish and slow...

You\'re right, and I\'m an idiot. When sitting on it\'s wheels, any thrusting mechanisms must be parallel to the ground. Nice try though! That\'s a pretty cool ship!

:\ You know what I mean... No CFG edits for the...crafty.

I have brought great shame upon my House. I have been building planes for some time with limited success, until I was watching a video by WinterOwl where he explained the difference between Ailerons and Elevators. And how every plane I\'ve ever built is wrong. So I looked it up and most planes have elevators on the tail, rudder there too, and ailerons on the wings. A couple of questions. 1.) Do all CS in KSP work in tandem-ie pitching back makes them all go back or what have you, and rolling right/left makes them do that appropriate action? Is is possible to arrest this action so I can have true ailerons/elevators...Is that even neccessary? 2.)Are there planes (that haven\'t killed their test pilots) that have the elevators in front in real life? Thanks!

Are you trying to win my challenge? http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=16313.0 I point away from the surface and slow my Vert Speed to about 10m/s. Then, based on my appx of how high up I really am (AGL) I turn prograde(ish, really more like my desired approach angle) and fire the retros on the front. I have a whole mess of landing gear on the bottom and still haven\'t gotten it. The terrain gets me every time.

UGH! This challenge is...challenging! If I were trying my method of landing on completely smooth terrain, then I might have a kerbal\'s chance in a Mk1 Pod but WOW the moon is rough! I\'ve never really gotten a great tailsitter landing without the thing sliding or tipping for a moment before and now to graduate to landing a craft no faster than 10 or so m/s vertical and (I\'d like to hit) 100m/s horizontal on touchdown on Edward James Olmos\'s face! (No insult to that fantastic actor) It really messes with your head when you see the ground coming up ever so slowly, but crap whizzing by you at 500m/s and then you think 'I need several more arms...or a copilot...or more engines or SOMETHING OH GOD HERE WE G-*static*' EDIT: And the part that I just thought about right now is-what do I do if I get wheels stopped on the surface of the Mun? I have almost no steering abilities-no rudder that I can turn to line up on a big hill or some such. Woof.

Would you look at that. I guess I saw what I wanted to during my orbits. That\'s boring

How do you guys play KSP if not this? I frequently send up several ships at once so that if (when) I crash one I have three or four spares waiting to land! (This is especially true of the KSP BigTrak)

An extra $K 2,000,000 to the BAMF Engineer who can pull that off. No, it does not. I need two stages to get my shuttle to the moon, and then the shuttle does the landing and return by itself.

I didn\'t even know there was a second one-but if it\'s a great distance away you\'re going to need to puddle jump. The landmasses in KSP aren\'t all continuous. I was going to challenge myself to circumnavigate the globe using minimal puddle jumping using the BigTrak a bit later on.

Production Update! After a worker in the factories (Did I say factories? I meant sweatshops) of the United Republics of Kerb Capitol had a misunderstanding about the meaning of the phrase 'Retro-Rockets', he will now be incorporated into our new line of Aviation Fuels. However, the mission to land on the Mun was not a complete failure, and instead served as a dry-run for the return portion of the trip with everything going exactly to plan-including the triumphant return of our test-heroes on Runway 9 of the KSP. I\'m pretty happy with my design for the craft, and it would appear there are two ways to do this. a.) 'Skip' off the ground, putting massive thrust behind you as you do it to kill vertical speed (not such a great way) b.) Kill almost all vertical speed, putting you on a (really fast) 'glideslope' of sorts. Anyone else?

I\'ll allow it, and if you pull it off you get a bonus of $K 2,000,000. And your name on a plaque. However, since fuel storage doesn\'t really enter into it, I don\'t think that using modded parts should put you out of the running. I used modded parts for the Prometheus (really it was just the booster, fuel tanks and mechjeb) and hardly use them for my Mun approach. For me it\'s mostly my RCS and reverse thrusters that (attempt) to keep me from slamming into the face of the Mun.