Conte_Vincero

No, I understood that, my preliminary calculations suggested that the increase in area (mass) was compensated for by the decrease in drag.

I disagree, According to the drag calculations in the thread and on the wiki, Wings actually reduce your drag! Because an average of all parts is used and wings have extremely low drag, the net result is lower overall drag! I've put the figures into my calculations so far and it checks out, so I'm just gonna verify this ingame. EDIT: Checked doesn't work rechecking calculations. I do feel that Spaceplanes are the most efficient as you are essentially getting lift for free from the wings, but anyway I'm pushing on to get my model working so I can run simulations

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/29788-How-to-calculate-lift I downloaded the plugin and verified it to be correct. Hopefully once I've got my Matlab script working then I'll be able to work out what the best approach is.

Yeah, but that's once I've got a working model. I've had to ditch Excel and switch to Matlab

OK, so update! I found an old forum thread which basically stated that for optimal efficiency you must keep the angle of attack at around 25 degrees. This means having the angle between your marker and the yellow trajectory marker on the navball at 25 deg. What I'm doing at the moment is setting my AoA to 45 degrees and then adjusting the throttle accordingly. However there are some more complications with velocity, and I may have to do some more digging to work out the best velocity to climb at.

Hey, were can you get Version 1.0.5? I just tried to install 0.6.2.9 and I got the same problem the guy two pages back was having

OK, thanks for the replies, Staging is going to be interesting as I plan to fly it out of Kerbin's atmosphere and then dock it with a tug for the voyage. Regarding climbing out of the atmosphere though, I'm trying to work out what my optimal AOA is to minimise fuel consumption. I think I've found a helpful text book, but if anyone knows if anyone has done such calculations before please let me know

Hello, I'm planning a manned mission to Eve, and was wondering about building a spaceplane for it, however I'm having some issues. The first of these is choosing the right engine, I am currently experimenting with Aerospikes and they seem to work well, but does anyone know if I should be using something else. Secondly the ascent profile, most spaceplane ascent profiles are created expecting you to use jet engines for the early stages, however as I can't use jets I'm struggling to work out the optimum. A 50 degree climb seems to work well, but should I stay low and then try to climb almost vertically? Answers would be very greatly appreciated, please go as technical as possible!

My instincts tell me that I should strap SRBs to every part with available space. Will that be OK?

Right, so I won't have enough time to get the improved track up before friday, but! I have come up with an improved cone design that should be more stable, and not use landing legs. Some massive persistance file editing will happen between now and then.

Seriously, copycat!

Yes, the cones are a bit close together. I had considered moving them further apart, but after I bit of practise I was able to get through them fairly easy, and I wanted tight corners to make sure that your brakes had a decent test. However I'm now having problems with my second generation designs, so I will expand them. Also It's odd that you are reporting cone problems. I haven't had any at all. Also I like your car, I had intended to outlaw all probe cores, so as to force people to use cockpits. However I didn't make that clear in the rules, so if you set a legal time, I'll allow it. However if I get a few more results in I may separate the RC cars from the rest.

Switching to the probe just after it is dropped and then back again should work. EDIT: I'll try it when I get home, I have a plan for a design that should make all WW2 fans proud

Sceanario will be up soon, but I got distracted and ended up designing a new car instead

It's 0.19.1.54, I transfered it to steam, but I don't think that should make a difference. Are you copying the quicksave and the persistance file across into a new save?

OK, and now for my entry Giving me a time of 3:05.98 and provisional pole EDIT: Spoilers not working, anyone know how to shrink those

Hello and Greetings, this is a challenge to test you rover builders out there. I have set up a race course around the KSP runway, and your job is to design and race rovers/cars around it Rules 1. Only Stock. No mods allowed 2. All cars must be manned 3. To submit please post screenshots of your car about to start, and another of your car crossing the white line at the end of the runway with the UTC clock visible. You can access the UTC clock by pressing Alt + F12 and then selecting Debug stats (see video) 4. In the event of suspected cheating, you will be asked to upload your .Craft file for inspection. Your result will not be ratified until this inspection is complete. That's it. Watch this video for more information, and let me know if you have any questions. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing your designs. The save: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qsfssuxc9c6o9q6/TONuN1StSu LEADERBOARD 1. Conte Vincero (Fury) 3:05:98 2. 3. 4. 5.

Thanks, I'll get on that

Hello, I'm trying to get together a kerbal racetrack challenge. However I've just hit a snag. The MET doesn't start until you leave the ground. This gives me a problem as I want to time the laps from when the light turns green (you know the small one in the bottom left). Is there a mod or something that will allow me to do that, as I don't want to force challengers to submit a youtube video I've spent hours sorting out the track and checking out car designs, so I don't want to get thwarted by this small snag.

My twopenneth: The people who say that the hyperdrives used for moving between star systems will render any other form of inter system travel obsolete seem to be assuming that the engine will be simple to use (i.e. a more powerful mainsail). What if the engines are so large that they require the parts to be assembled in orbit. The required engines, fuel/collectors, and guidance systems may require a ship larger than most current space stations. Add to that the fact that short hops are really inefficient, and unless you want to have massive refueling depots around the place, using the engines for small hops becomes undesireible. Also I suggested a while back that alternate stars may bring space telescopes into play. For example, you have picked out a star and want to travel to it. You will need to set up several (at least 3) telescopes, as far apart from eachother as possible, and use them to calculate that star's position and velocity. This way interstellar travel requires a lot of preparation, and won't be as simple as people claim.

I'm about to post a challenge on the challenge section, I've made a racetrack around the runway, and the challenge is to complete it the fastest. I'm wondering how to turn it into a downloadable sceanario. Do I just copy and past the save folder? If not, I need to have a backup of the persistance file so that people can re-set it up after they've finished destroying all the markers. My save has one, but will the scenario? Thanks in advance and I look forward to racing against you

YOU BUILT A TOG II* AWESOME, I wonder if it's faster than its WoT counterpart out of interest what is your Wot name?

KSP, the only organisation that can accidentally carry out a terraforming mission

THIS is what kerbal is all about

On a new save, I sent bill, Jeb and bob to the mun, with an experimental asparagus staged lander (my first). Unfortunately I mounted the gear on the lower fuel tank, and so had to land it on the 4 engines. Fortunately as a non MechJeb player I have got quite good at landings and was able to pull it off sucessfully. Their rocket shall be the centerpiece of my new Munbase.