bsalis

I have tried out all sorts of mods. Nowadays though, all I seem to use is MechJeb. Keeps things simple and makes version releases less painful.

You just have to use less parts. If you want something simple and functional, then just launch a one-piece station with what matters: 1) fuel storage 2) seats for crew 3) docking ports For example, this has less than 40 parts...

High lift certainly helps. However may find it hard to land with such a wide wingspan. Air intakes hanging down there may also pose a problem. Somethings small is best. Remember the terrain is rough, so it presents all sorts of challenges...

I pretty much just build rockets to support the planes. I disagree. An SSTO Spaceplane is just an orbiter that can get itself to orbit, as well as fly around Kerbin and Laythe, and land at a specific location reliably (without automation). You can put legs at the back to land like an orbiter/lander as well. You can also refuel them in orbit like an orbiter, and on the ground as well... since it can get itself back to orbit. It does not have to be a big to use a 3 seater cockpit, or even a have a hitchhiker container. What is not to like?

Perfect, no. However I would think new players will be looking at the stock crafts and expecting good designs. Designs that can be used as examples, templates, or figuring out why your craft fails where the stock craft works (ie. learning from reverse engineering). Don't get me wrong. I love this game. However the stock crafts are not as good as I think they should be. Just trying to put that constructive criticism out there.

Some way or another I expect it to be fixed. Personally I'm not really fussed about Sandbox. However for Career I would think it's a significant balance issue.

Lets be honest. Most of them are not very good are they? I would think that the crafts bundled with the game should be excellent examples. Simple, pragmatic, functional, and above all, well designed. They should be craft that can learn from, and use as a template for your own designs. For most of them I am not seeing that. Here is my critique of them. What are you views? Ion-Powered Space Probe It has RTGs, which are great. So why the batteries? It has two of the four science instruments. Why not all four? There are a couple of nice spots left for the other two. Finally, those RTGs are nowhere near enough power for the Ion engine. Even at 1/3 thrust, you will be out of juice in a minute or two. Kerbal X I actually like this rocket, it is simple and well proportioned. Also a good example of Asparagus staging - like a stock craft should be. Only minor criticism is that it is a bit wobbly. Some struts would be nice. Also, three winglets would have been enough. Orbiter 1A Huh? Seems very extravagant for a stock orbiter. What is with the Radial Engine Nacels Bodies. Using tail fins as structural mounts seems out of place too. Then there is the six legs... on an orbiter. I would think a stock orbiter would be something simple and sensible, but with all the trimmings. Such as lights, power supply, batteries, docking port, chute(s), and conventional 4-block RCS setup around the CoM. Skycrane + Rover We have a winner, this is actually good. Congrats to whomever made it. I have not tried it but assume it works fine - it looks like it should. It is creative but in a proper functional way. Even the struts between the crane and rover are connected the right way. Space Station Core It's not bad actually. However the ring of BattMan batteries is probably not needed, as well as the SAS unit. A Probe Core would be nice on such a craft. Super-Heavy Lander Again, like the Orbiter 1A, creativity has won out over providing a pragmatic example of a good lander. The RCS is all over the place, and there is way too much monopropellant. Tanks and engines on an angle like that is silly. Has four legs - at least it has that right. I also notice that it has a docking port and no chutes, so it is intended to be used with an orbiter. I'm thinking that for a simple example lander, have a decoupler and chute(s) so that it can be used by itself as an orbiter as well. Why is it called a Super-Heavy Lander? It is neither super nor heavy. Two-stage Lander This is actually pretty good. Neat simple approach for a two stage lander. Seats two, has four legs. Good so far. For a more advanced lander like this, it does make sense to use a docking port, so as to be used with a separate orbiter. Only one real issue - no RCS! Z-MAP Satellite Seems fine. However the initial TWR is mental. Also, why two probe cores? Ravenspear Mk1 Woeful, just woeful. Did anyone actually test this? It is not even stable. The CoM and CoL are basically on top of each other. It flips out. The engine at the far aft is also a tail strike hazard. Why is the Telus ladder in the winglet instead of under the cockpit ladder?! Ravenspear Mk2 This does not actually exist. Perhaps it removed itself out of utter shame. Ravenspear Mk3 This is terrible. It flops around and could really use some struts. Just two of them would make a big difference. It cannot lift off the runway before the end. This is because the landing gear arrangement puts it nose down, so you get a downward force. The turbojets seem to indicate it is for high altitude and speed, but does not have the intakes for it. Why the RCS too, it's pointless. Also the winglets are over the cockpit ladder, hence the yellow Telus ladder places to the aft, which does not let you get back to the cockpit! After pulling this down from the roof of the SPH, here is what it looks like... Ravenspear Mk4 It is powerful and stable. Certainly one of the more fun stock aircraft. It could use more pitch authority though. Rocket-powered VTOL Seemingly a little diversion, rather than a serious craft design to be used as a template for your own designs. I tried it and it works fine. So I don't think theres much more to say. Albatross 3 Another novelty craft, like the VTOL above. However, you can barely control this craft. The control inputs give you odd results. Rudder causes it to roll and ailerons do nothing. I did check the SPH part listing to be sure, and yes there *are* struts available. I used them, as well as move the Small Control Surfaces to the wingtips, and hey presto it actually flies reasonable well. So why is it not like this? Aeris 3a Finally a good aircraft. Damn good - something people new to the game could actually learn to fly with. It's stable, responsive, has good control authority on all axis. Does not flip. No tail strike hazard. Only issue is the ladder, it's the same problem as the Ravenspear Mk3. Aeris 4a So I saved the worst to last. Actually Ravenspear Mk1 is probably the worst, but if any craft here should be an exemplary of good design it should be the SSTO Spaceplane. For starters, the CoL is in front of the CoM. This is unforgivable. This is why many people lose control of it shortly after takeoff, occasionally with the LV-T30 still attached. Which brings me to the next issue. The engine is a tail strike hazard. Why not just use an aerospike? If you somehow do get it to orbit, you will surely lose control of it after re-entry unless you know what you are doing, and are really careful. New players toying around with stock crafts are neither of these things. Two jets and one rocket engine is also the worst setup. Since you have to switch from jets to rockets without much of a transition unlike a three jet setup. You also have to deal with flat spins, unlike a one jet setup. For a craft of this size, one jet with a couple of LV-909s would be a more effective and safer configuration. Furthermore, the fuel is fed inward as well, so there is nothing left for the jets to run on post-orbit unless you manually feed some back into the side tanks. Finally, the RCS is unbalanced as well.

I skipped doing a flat spin, since i'm sure people have seen plenty of those! Craft file: Butterfly Stk.craft (if your browser just shows the craft text, then paste that into a file) Note that for the video I emptied all the rocket fuel tanks to make it light to fly easily. Yes, you are correct. However I just did both in one scene as one to keep it quick. As far as I know, a Split S is just a type of Immelman Turn, however I'm sure people will disagree.

I think this belongs here. Made an Aerial Acrobatics video to kill some time before .21. It has several classic maneuvers, as well as some of my own stunts which you will not see at an airshow... you will see why. Clicky pic to play (it's on Skydrive).

Do you really want a station? It sounds like you just want to get a fuel tank or tug in orbit, then dock deep space craft to that to head off to Jool or wherever. A simple Jumbo tank launcher for example... Used one to get a space plane to Eeloo (after filling it around laythe and docking to said spaceplane) Or a tug perhaps. Here i'm using one to get a couple of spaceplanes out to Jool.

Congrats llamatoes on your SSTO. I was going to suggest a few more intakes would probably be enough. Having said that though... Minimum of 4? Effective? I managed to get an SSTO Spaceplane to Duna, land, and get back to KSC runway again with no refueling, and only a 16:5 ratio. I think that is effective enough!

Having a whole single stage taken to a circular 150Km orbit is a lot of mass. Any satellite will have fuel and a small engine for station keeping right? Another option is to try out a booster that can get such a satellite to a sub-orbital, with Ap at 150Km. Decouple and round out the satellite. Then switch to the booster and land that with chutes, legs and a bit of thrust just before touchdown.

On my adventures on Laythe I have witnessed the migration of the Lesser Spotted Brown Laythian Slugs. You will be able to see them upon sunset or sunrise in the shadow of a hill that has the rocks on it. They take cover under the rocks during the day, and are always moving away from them in the evening or towards them in the morning. True story. wasn't expecting it at all. Stopped my rover dead in it's tracks. (ps. It's actually the shadows of rock scatters on a hill, cast on the next hill. The setting/rising sun makes them creep slowly. Enjoy the spectacle yourself before the lighting is fixed)

I hope theres a mod specifically for Career, that is integrated with the forum. Such that I can channel the hot air for forum threads like this into a propulsion system. Should get to to Jool and to the land of Win in no time! Heck, might try making a start on it myself... MODULE { name = WinAtCareerFuelGenerator isAlwaysActive = true INPUT_RESOURCE { name = ForumHotAir rate = 0.25 } OUTPUT_RESOURCE { name = AwesomenessFuel rate = 1.00 } }

First water docking. Did not think this was possible. Looks like I proved myself wrong.

My suggestion is to rethink doing this with a one craft setup and no refueling. IMO if you want to do a Grand Tour, then first I would drop an Eve landing and possibly Tylo as well. Then decide if you want to do this with support craft (ie. tankers and/or tugs, possibly unmanned) to be all stock, or to use Kethane.

Ok, well first up... be mindful that landing gear does not have any mass when flown, but the SPH includes it in the CoM marker. Which is why I removed the landing gear to take this pic of a working glider... So yes, I have found that for a stable glider with no trim, you should have the CoL slightly in front of the CoM. However, if you have something you want to bring down from orbit, you probably still want to have the CoL slightly behind, then use trim to pitch up. You also want some of this for full hands-free flight... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihedral_(aircraft) Then you can have some fun chasing your glider in another plane...

Indeed! Welp, i'm back to claim my .20 K-prize while I still can. So sorry boolybooly, but it had to be done. Here we are, this is the Valkyrie, ready to go. Note that I am moving forward at 0.3 m/s in order to qualify. It's another VTOL. Three seater this time. Doing 0.7 m/s now. Climb on jets. To orbit on rockets. Pe 102Km... bit messy without MJ. Re-entry. Burning up some excess fuel. Maneuvering around to land. That's better. We are done here

I think the only real challenges I have not done yet are is get back to orbit from Tylo and Eve. I was attempting a Tylo return mission at the end of .17 but shelved it in .18 With docking and other features added in .18 and onward, the nature of how I play has changed a lot, and have lost interest in big rocket missions.

It's wonderful. I like how he has succinctly captured the emotions of wonder and awe of this lone Kerbal on the Mun. The magnificent desolation just leaps out at you. The composition is also a standout, with interesting use of colour too. This artist is clearly a genius.

Yup - exactly that. Though a very slow pro-grade burn works just as well. It works because you are so far away (in distance and time), such that very small burns change your arrival time significantly. Laythe will actually orbit Jool several times before you get there. To add to that. I made sure my intercepts put me into a counter-clockwise orbit, with a Pe fine-tuned with RCS to be around 20Km. Then quickly after entering the Laythe SOI, I made Radial burns as needed to adjust my Pe in order to get the (aerocapture) Ap I wanted, using the calculations shown in MechJeb. If you are not planning to use MechJeb, then it's luck/quicksave/quickload. Sadly the game does not give the player much feedback for aerobraking outcomes, which is a shame. I expect that to change.

I'll say it again - love your work. I was looking forward to 11 & 12. Had a good laugh at your physics-warp-sliding-plane. Been there. Your Tylo-Vall conjunction animated gif was awesome. Kudos too for being disciplined with Quickloading. Makes for a much better story when dealing with adversity.

Actually in RL, airfoils don't really produce much lift without some angle of attack. Lift increases up to typically 16 degrees where you suddenly go from max lift to stall! In KSP, lift increases to a max at 30 degrees then goes down again, with no stall. In both cases, higher angle of attack increases induced drag. I don't know why people keep banging on about how it's not possible to build a realistic looking and flying plane in KSP (without FAR). Since I can do this just fine. Do people actually know about how real planes are built anyhow? For example RL plane wings have some angle of attack "built in" (ie. Angle of Incidence). Also, the tailplane actually creates a downwards force.

I have put a few flags down on Laythe just a few...

Achievements by a different name? Not that I think that is a bad thing.