Halsfury

mine is certainly better looking though :-P

A subsonic, low drag fighter bomber with long range capability, in real life this aircraft was predicted to be able to carry 1000kg of bombs, anti bomber rockets, and 2 30mm cannons Notes: It's not very maneuverable on a full fuel load due to weight distribution, it's best to move fuel out of the wings first since moving the COM too far back will result in KSP thinking that the elevators are mounted in front of the centre of mass. SAS is necessary, due to the limitations of KSP with regards to flying wings. Knife edge manoeuvres are recoverable but ungainly due to not having a fuselage/tail http://www./download/81qr0lkglt0cbdi/Horten_Ho_229.craft Stats: cruise speed: 788kph / 218m/s takeoff speed: 216kph / 60m/s max altitude: 11,000m

Coming soon it is actually stable past the sound barrier, this was not true of the original design which would swap ends at 300m/s

Believe it or not this is an early career mode rocket, I called the original the Kerbin V because of the 5 engine config, but it only used 1m tanks this is the more efficient version. The most advanced tech I have is advanced aerodynamics at 160 science (I bought it to make the large fairings). Also I have Landing, Electrics, Aerodynamics, and Fuel systems (90 science level) $35,000 price tag assures that this will be in service for a long time, and I will make it available for others too

Ok so I have a way of totally circumventing the open ended interstage fairing issue, but it costs 100kg of mass So say you want a fairing with an open ended bottom say for a 2 meter soyuz block I (my current project) I know somebody else has done this but this is an even easier way. What I did is I took the Rockomax Brand adapter and added it to the bottom of the stage underneath a 2 meter aeroshell base (inverted of course) extrude the fairing directly onto the sides of the adapter, then use the offset tool and push the Rockomax adapter right into the stage above it, it will act as an attachment surface for all the rocket engines and it's very presence on the rocket will keep the fairing form deleting itself even though the adapter has been moved. This is the end result, you can see the Rockomax 1 meter to 2 meter adapter just poking out and all the engines attached to it, and the fairing in shadow mode off to the side it's completely adjustable using the offset tool. This exploits the fact that the fairing will only finish extruding on parts or in a point but if the part onto which the fairing is extruded has been moved without ever having been detached the fairing will not delete itself

Ok so I decided to write this tutorial because of my own experience with upper stage engines in 1.0 KSP I've been playing this game for a few years and as such I got very used to using nuclear rockets for all my deep space needs. At the time there was nothing wrong with this. Now all the upper stage engines have their own distinct advantages and as you play the campaign you will notice that even though the Terrier is less efficient than the Poodle, that in some cases using the poodle might be wasteful, or using the terrier engine might be wasteful. So this tutorial will be basically a list compiled from ÃŽâ€v -> calculations involving a theoretical rocket made of one 2 meter tank with a 2 meter command pod on top of it I hope to show the actual efficiency of each engine by compiling this data on efficiency. 48-7S "Spark" Liquid Fuel Engine This engine, has a low vacuum Isp because of it's small size, as such it has it's limits in efficiency but it has it's uses. with a Rockomax X200-8 fuel tank and the Spark the ÃŽâ€v -> for our simple rocket with a total mass of 8.7 tons (full) would be 1811.56 m/s with a X200-16 it does even better with more fuel and a better ratio between dry mass and fuel, now it has a higher ÃŽâ€v -> of 2740.64 m/s Now lets compare it with the LV-909 "Terrier" with the X200-16 the Terrier performs much better than the spark. for an increase in total mass of just 0.4 t we get 3002 m/s of ÃŽâ€v -> but with the smaller fuel tank the Terrier gives us less for our money with the X200-8 tank the ÃŽâ€v-> is only 1959 m/s so with the larger tank the Terrier gave us + 262 m/s of ÃŽâ€v-> while with the smaller rocket the Terrier only gave us 148 m/s extra. The Rockomax "Poodle" engine is even less forgiving because of it's increased mass, with the X200-8 tank (the smallest 2 meter tank) the Poodle only gives 1666 m/s so if you decided to go for the poodle's extra 5 seconds of Isp with a smallish upper stage you actually lost - 293 m/s of ability to go places (maybe more or less depending on payload) the Rockomax is also pretty much just more pounds on the larger rocket with the X200-16 tank since it only gives 2642m/s of ÃŽâ€v-> which is - 360m/s less than the "Terrier" and 98m/s less than the "Spark". and which one is cheapest? the spark. the terrier is only 120 bucks extra though so with a small rocket the terrier is probably your choice for shifting medium payloads and even really small rockets benefit from the terrier. Note: It's only with very small payloads that the Spark really excels on all fronts (things less than 3 tons or so) and at that point the "Ant" engine is probably more efficient with 315 secs of Isp. the Spark is really a landing engine for small landers on atmosphere-less bodies. Good places to use the Spark for landing (on a probe for instance) have low gravity like the Mun but not so little as to make the high thrust redundant like on Gilly, Pol or Bop The Moral of the Story is; do your Delta V calculations, the game gives you all the information you need to make the right engine choice for each part of the mission. You don't have to be exacting about it but in deep space, with no reason for great amounts of thrust, I would suggest going to this website http://www.strout.net/info/science/delta-v/ and at least make sure that you are making the most economically sensible decision with your rocket. Here are some rules of thumb: -In order for an LV-N "Nerv" rocket to make any sense you need something the size of a big orange tank. -A poodle is rarely more efficient (need a very big tanker) than the slightly less efficient-on-paper Terrier, and the only reason to really use it for anything is as a landing stage for big heavy landers, and as a final stage on smaller rockets where the thrust is still necessary to get to orbit. -your rocket must be positively tiny for the Spark to be more efficient than a Terrier I hope this tutorial helps someone, just sitting down to write it was enlightening for me though Good Luck, and Fly efficiently!

Ok I just discovered something, which can help with aesthetics and ergonomics. For the service module of a 2.5m capsule: Take a 2.5m Service Bay (that's the funny new part with doors), and in the centre of the bay place a SC 9001 Science Jr. science bay. On the floor or ceiling of the bay there is still room for radially attachable objects like goo containers and RCS propellant tanks. On the back of the Science Jr. module there is room for smaller experiments such as thermometers, Gravifoli detectors, accelerometers, and Barometers as well as radio equipment. This is how it looks from the front, on my campaign crew vehicle, the NCV (imaginatively named the New Crew Vehicle.) - - - Updated - - - You Sir, get rep for that, not only is that really nice looking, it also is very efficient since the mass of fairings is concentrated in the fairing base apparently. Doing it your way allows one to ditch the mass effectively when the fairing is no longer needed. you just saved me 0.20 tons of launch mass and boosted my efficiency

I rather like how the update turned out, 9/10 on all fronts, I would like it if the Mk 1 command pod were balanced so it would face bottom first into the airstream with the heat shield attached, and I would also really like it if the stayputnik were not a tumbling-out-of-control-fail-machine in the vacuum because of no SAS. It should at least be able to dampen control inputs over time but as it is right now I just went and researched the next probe core. The early career is very slow, and needs more contracts which can actually be done to help put wind in players' figurative sails. Contracts in the early game especially should award plenty of science too so that players can get to the next level. Also a full video tutorial of a perfect rocket launch for newbies should be placed at the beginning of the campaign. This would help the visual learning process which the game encourages, without having people relying on youtube and wiki's to do the teaching job (many of which are still based on the old aero) That's my view anyway:P

I simultaneously nominate and necro Wayfare's Aerospace, Engineering & Kitchen Appliances Munshine rocket family. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/63050-0-23-MUNSHINE-LIFTERS-5-165-tons-to-orbit-including-low-tech-Career-Mode-versions%21?highlight=Wayfare Always been of great use to me, the boosters are well designed and low on parts. and now have low tech versions of themselves for career I conquered all the planets while using these launchers, just because they made life so easy and saved me time EDIT oh damn, I just saw that this has already received a nomination, I nominate it again! Also I think that Mulbin's Apogee shipworks ought to be included, not because they are necessarily for beginners but because it shows what's possible http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/41575-Apogee-Ship-Works-Formerly-Mulbin-s-Ships-Replica-real-world-craft

So I have a tentative fix, I turned off terrain scatters and that seems to have brought down the demands on my pc enough to load the aforementioned textures

What kind of info would you need? Here is my KSP.log http://www./download/qsc9yqxokbfp2mt/KSP.log Can't tell you much more about my OS though, that's all I got

Hi I found out that whenever I start the game and go to my save, and open up the SPH first, the textures for the new adapters don't load, so I get pure white adapters (this doesn't happen with the adapters which were in the game before .90, just the new fuel tank adapters) If I open up the VAB first thing however there is absolutely no problem. Thanks in advance for looking into it:) Halsfury EDIT: Oh I almost forgot, my OS is v 10.9.5 2.6 GHz Inter Core i7 8GB 1600MHz ram memory

Amazing, I couldn't figure how to do this myself

pressing G twice for landing gear is in my opinion realistic, on the space shuttle for instance you need to arm the gear first before they can be lowered, it was made that way as a safety feature against the possibility of the gear being opened during reentry.

I got rep points for this R-7 rocket replica, here in the Sputnik 1 configuration

The meme only makes sense with an "I don't always beginning" and a "but when I do" end Someone else drew a picture of this a while back with "I don't always test my rockets, but when I do I'm in space" He said that he couldn't think up the "but when I do" part so he made it up and it didn't come off too well so, I went for mixing fuel and oxidizer since "but when I do" should imply a negative outcome if it's supposed to be humorous at all

After some Apollo like missions to atmosphere less places around the solar system, I realized that the Kerbal X could be modified to land on places with an atmosphere, the best thing about it is it is deadly reentry compatible for Duna missions so long as you take a shallow descent path Ap at roughly 50km and Pe at 1km deadly reentry effects are uncommon on Duna The Nuclear tug I left in orbit has all the fuel for the return and also has all the RCS for docking, once docking is accomplished fuel gets transferred out of the lander and into the Tug and the lander is jettisoned, the whole thing is only 40 tons I think

As the SLS is being put into a glass case at some museum, SKYLON will be carrying stuff into space for just as much as a plane ticket. Seems like SLS is really going to be the last heavy lifter of them all with SKYLON and private spaceflight coming into being That being said it will not only be the last, but also be the best

depends on how you apply it I'd say if it is applied via discarding-sabot tungsten shell then it would just tear itself into confetti at 4:13 in this video you can get an idea of how paper fragments during high speed impacts If the bullet were going fast enough maybe it might cause the paper fragments to catch fire too. If you mean to apply this pressure by slapping it onto a spacecraft's heatsheild then it would just vaporize like anything else

Hey Rareden I finally found the right caption for this poster I don't always mix fuel and oxidizer... But when I do you better run

It's not necessary plus there is a mod for it, and failing that, there is a Dv calculator on the internet For what it's worth this is my space program if the caption was: I don't always mix fuel and oxidizer... But when I do you better run Full credit to Rareden for this great poster

Most of the countries have a name which makes me think that they are not so democratic "United Federal People's Democratic Kingdom" is a naming scheme more complex than Ghadafi's fake military decorations were

Hmmm Surely you could mute it with a small radio panel Also it is true that this would get annoying if it happened all the time but I think it could be coded such that it would have less things causing screaming I'd say if it's too complex link the Kerbals behaviour to the amount of G forces they experience Re entry flames could also trigger screaming

As I was launching Bob for the first supersonic flight of my new campaign, I thought it would be really funny if you could hear him freaking out as he is propelled into the stratosphere I was thinking that, having heard the sounds which Kerbals make in the videos which the developers have made, they would be really amusing making muppet inspired noises whilst in flight, with Jeb giving approving murmurs while on other occasions Bill and Bob scream, whilst mission controllers interject occasionally.

So recently I built a Soyuz rocket at full scale and I had a thought, that since I can't spend the time to fit it out with every single payload which has ever launched on this venerable rocket (That is 1000 or so different builds without even thinking about concepts) why don't I turn it over to the community to build the payloads? With this in mind I built the rocket accordingly, I considered that some will not have the computer to run a very accurate Soyuz lifter, and a very accurate payload, all at once so I built a version with similar stats but with simpler boosters So the idea is that, because the two rockets have interchangeable statistics, that any payload built for one will work with the other, so that even those with small computers can build and fly highly detailed payloads, and since the only difference is the boosters, even those who don't have great computers will not have to look at the booster for more than 90 seconds into the flight anyway the download is in the sig btw