Tex_NL

Sure, you can reduce max thrust by tweaking. But doing this 'on the fly' for multiple engines during launch is near impossible. Thanks. To be honest I was starting to loose interest in KSP a little until I saw that Energia-Uragan picture. I immediately realized this should be possible in KSP and started working. It totally renewed my gameplay. In the mean time I've build a much larger and stronger version of that shuttle capable of lifting an impressive 50+ ton to a 200*200km orbit with relative ease.

Building and launching shuttles in KSP is inherently hard. The engine gimballing is often too limited and throttle settings can't be varied between engines. To counter the shifting center of gravity due to fuel consumption you can of course launch your shuttle like the Dyno-Soar/Hermes/Kliper but this puts the center of lift in front of the center of gravity making the entire rocket unstable. That's why I let myself be inspired by the Russian Energia-Uragan, putting my shuttle underneath the fueltank and keeping the center of lift behind the center of gravity. Ready for launch. Lift off. Booster separation. Ejection of nose mounted fuel tank. Orbit.

What is there outside the universe? What was there before the big bang? Questions like these are best left to philosophers and theoretical physicists. But it can most likely be captioned in a single word: nothing. And with nothing I mean NOTHING! No space, no time, nothing! It can never be measured or observed. Pretty weird to think about this. We can understand 'everything' but 'nothing' transcends the human capability to comprehend.

He's probably referring to his current career which is only a week old.

I suspect it to be some kind of phantom forces caused by clipping. Infiniglide comes from how control surfaces work. I don't see any of them on that ship. In the topic (currently can't find it) where this images was originally posted you see an explosive failure of this ship. Literally dozens of parts are clipped together in this tiny ship.

Since you're the one asking you're the one who knows best what that topic was about. The only reason I can think of why a complete topic is deleted is if something very disturbing was said or displayed. Something worthy of an immediate perma-ban. Either that or it's just some forum glitch Edit: Got ninja'd.

Thanks. Will give that a try soon. Edit: Awesome. [space]+[F] works.

New to this mod so forgive me if I am missing something obvious. I've added enough ejection seats for all my Kerbals on board. I eject a dozen little green men moments before a rather unpleasant encounter with the ground in a desperate attempt to save them. Even though they all have chutes the majority of them still died as there was not nearly enough time to open the chutes on each and every one of them manually. How can I have the chutes on ALL my ejected Kerbals open automatically?

The large SABRE's are known to overheat quickly. Add a couple of Cubic Octagonal Struts to the engine radially to serve as radiators. They are mass- and dragless so they have no impact on your flight performance but they do reduce temperature significantly.

About 20 minutes ago I started KSP and noticed a new toolbar update was available. I quit KSP, downloaded and installed 1.5.0 and at the same time updated a few other mods while I was at it any way. All things installed I booted up KSP again. WTF? Another toolbar update? Didn't I just update that one?

There is a relative easy way this can be done. As BenHR already mentioned; just have the game take a screenshot the moment you click the save button. .craft files are basically nothing more than text files. The PNG format, which is already used by KSP, can store a lot of information in the back ground. 1 + 1 = 2 SPORE (the most over rated game ever) saved its creatures in this exact same way.

Streetwind is correct, there is no extra science to gain by going faster. But 2225 m/s at 25km is a worthy achievement. This kind of speed and altitude is what you should aim for before you switch over to rocket power when launching an SSTO.

Updated and improved my SSLS, Stable Shuttle Launch System. - The four boosters have been replaced with three more powerful versions. - Nose tank is better centered and is now modular for easier dV adjustment. - 16 nose tank separatrons are replaced by a single KSPX escape tower (looks and performs better). - Lift on the return vehicle is dramatically increased and is now much better balanced. All in all it is now stronger and handles better on both re-entry and atmospheric flight. It launches a 40+ ton payload to a nice 200*200km orbit with fuel to spare. Passing the 'Orange tank to orbit' (36 tons) with ease.

High time to re-visit your biology lessons. Frogs DO have genders! But you're right about Kerbals.

The image I was referring to was smaller, black-white clipart with some Russian text. Even though I am pretty sure yours is not the image I saw I do believe this is the same shuttle design. Both are Russian and look very much the same. Thanks. Edit: Looking closer at the post you linked I found one image that looked very familiar:

You can create those ribbons at http://ribbons.cgagnier.ca and add them manually to your signature. Click settings in the top right corner, then edit signature in the left column. (Please note you can not edit an avatar or signature until you've made a certain amount of forum posts. If I'm not mistaking you'll need five.)

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/68489-Devnote-Tuesdays-The-0-24-Update-Goals-Edition That's all anybody knows. First rule about updates? Don't ask about updates!

No no. Definitely not Kliper. The Russian Kliper and European Hermes are both spin-offs of X-20 Dyna-Soar. Those are all small shuttles riding on top of the rocket. What I meant actually looked a lot like what I build. But it had two large boosters instead of my four smaller ones.

I'm getting close to perfecting my SSLS, Stable Shuttle Launch System. (KW Rocketry, B9 Aerospace and some minor, non vital mods) Few days ago somebody posted an obscure Russian shuttle design. Can't remember who it was or in what thread, I've search to no avail. But it got me thinking. Instead of mounting the external fuel tank on the side why not mount in on the nose, keeping the center of lift behind the center of mass and keeping it all stable. No fancy engine balancing. No exotic gimballing. And certainly no excessive reaction wheel spamming. Just plain old fashioned stable flight. Ready for launch. Lift off. Booster separation. Ejection of nose mounted fuel tank. Orbit. I still need to fine tune it a lot more. The return flight is still a nightmare and I have no clue about maximum payload.

Not bad. Not bad at all. With some Infernal Robotics it would become even more like the the original. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1483013/

Before you use the [noparse][/noparse] tags you first must upload your images somewhere. Photobucket, imgur, any images hosting will do. Linking images directly from your PC will NOT work! No offense if you already know this but you'd be surprised how many people try to share images directly from their PC's.

For Mun and Minmus you definitely don't need to refuel. Putting the fuel station there just for this is, for the lack of a better word, a waste of fuel. For interplanetary missions, stay low. The lower you start your interplanetary burn the more efficient it will be. 100 km is a nice altitude, easy to reach and leaves plenty of room to rendezvous. On the other hand, if you're planning to ignore the benefits from the Oberth effect and choose to leave Kerbins SOI before making your interplanetary burn it might be wise to refuel as high as possible, way past Minmus but still in Kerbin orbit.

You guys do realize this thread has be dead for four months, do you?

Some people have come up with some interesting idea's. I especially like what Nobody said a few posts ago: Failures due to exceeding environmental tolerances. Those kinds of failures are predictable, consistent and avoidable. I also partially liked what minerman30 suggested: Part failure that can be repaired. The part I didn't like in this is the random factor. If that randomness would be changed by degradation over time it again becomes consistent and predictable. Once the part wears out it fails, not before. All this got me thinking and then I remembered the recent "Expanding the Kerbal" suggestion: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/67315-Expanding-the-Kerbal. It talks about different Kerbal jobs; pilot, scientist and of course engineer. See where I am going with this yet? Repairing degraded parts could be an ideal job for the engineer. Regular Kerbals should of course also be able to make repairs. Engineers should be able to repair to the full 100% or perhaps even past that.

True, but what if it does NOT have a conveniently located docking port?