Giggleplex777

I won't recommend using an A10 for gaming. An FX-8350 is much powerfuller and costs the same.

Is this a laptop? If it's a desktop, you should get either an Intel Core i5-4000 series processor or an AMD FX-8350 for the CPU. As for the GPU, an Nvidia GTX 750 or AMD Radeon 7770 should do the trick. These are the most cost effective options I can think of. I bought my computer for $600 CAD and it has an FX-8350, Radeon 7770, and 10GB of RAM.

I play with my max delta time slider at 1.00, so the most my PC can handle is about 300 parts. With a max delta time of 0.03, I can fly 1500 at 30fps, but I hate waiting.

The booster engines had much more trust than the sustainer at the cost of lower efficiency. The reason they used one-and-a-half staging is because they weren't sure where or not engines could be starting in space, so they ignited all engines on the launchpad. Since Atlas-Centaur was just an Atlas rocket with a Centaur second stage, it stilled used the same one-and-a-half staging as its predecessors. In fact, the booster a sustainer arrangement was used up until (and including) the Atlas IIAS.

That's probably the cost. A FL-T800 weighs 4.5t. Edit: Yup, you mistook the cost for mass (the probes cost about 20 000 funds, so three of them would cost about 60 000 funds). Number at the bottom left corner is the price of the ship in funds. To see the total mass, click the i in map view.

From what I see, you have 40 tons of liquid fuel and oxidizer (a 4.5t fuel tank holds 360 units of liquid fuel, since 3600/360=10, that 45t including the mass of the tank). There's no way you can lift 112t with that little fuel. The bombs are (180*0.025t)+(3*0.8t)= 6.9 tonnes. I believe you are including the mass of the spacecraft with the payload mass. Edit: Your spaceplane holds 75% as much oxidizer as a 45t tank, which means that you actually have 34.5t of liquid fuel an oxidizer.

Try changing the angle of incidence horizontal stabilizer (angle the horizontal stabilizer down). It should be enough to keep the nose up.

Does it fly without canards? It would look better without them.

You should also try making torpedoes out of them.

Damn, just realized that structural intakes have the same impact tolerence as the metal panels. Might test out reactive armour when I have a chance.

Planning on attaching a 6-node 2.5m docking hub and then adding a some solar panels. It's in an 200km orbit with 45 degree inclination, so I don't see it as a checkpoint station.

The first supply mission to my new career mode station: I like how the shuttle dwarfs the core module.

Aerodynamic effects?

If you want lower part count fairings, you should use the type E wing panel. They're lighter and longer than the metal panels plus they're white.

And which part-saving trick is this?

You need a bigger plane.

Block V released!

I just gave myself just enough science to unlock all the parts from the start, and then all I have to manage is my budget.

That already happened: Looks like the radial decoupler bug ruined the shuttle, and I don't have the time to fix it. That said, here's the download for the shuttle: http://www./download/v17p9h8t7vvsjby/Shutte-M.craft

Found a new use for those new structural intakes:

It's cooler? In all seriousness, shuttles allow you to send crew and cargo to orbit and then return them to the surface; what would otherwise require two launches can be done in one.

Nice. My MPCV is very similar to yours with two cargo bays and power-landing capsule. One difference is that I have a tank underneath the bays for a cleaner look and universal (1.25m and 2.5m) docking ports on the capsule and service module. Aside from the cargo bays, the design had remained virtually unchanged since 0.20. I also built a 3.75m version with four long cargo bays for Mun missions. Pics:

I'm making a few changes to the shuttle ATM. Not sure when it will be ready, sorry.

What's the flame trench for then?