capi3101

Yep. #ignore_this_hashtag_10_characters.

Got one in the works to do a Mun landing - spaceplane launch, spaceplane transfer stage, seperate lander, lander docks back up and the whole thing lands at KSC. If it works I'll probably make a second entry here...and a 0.25 entry for the K-Prize too. Gotta get it in orbit first, of course...

Was sick most of the day yesterday. Farted around with a Munar mission spaceplane design I intend to use for a 0.25 K-prize entry; the initial design failed to make orbit. Just needs moar intakes, me thinks...it's what I get for relying too heavily on radial air intakes. Probably oughta put some RCS capability on the lander too, especially if I want to be able to dock the stupid thing back up to the plane when everything's said and done.

DocMoriarty specializes in transporter spaceplanes. He had a pretty comprehensive guide on the subject going for v0.24.2, located here. The guide focuses on the use of the RAPIER engine (largely to keep part count and mass/drag down) in stock aero. So far the only thing I've seen that's undergone major changes between 0.24.2 and 0.25 is that the new Wing Connectors are functionally equivalent to Delta Wings, Shock Cone Intakes are equivalent to 1.2 Ram Intakes and 4 of the new Structural Intakes are roughly equivalent to a single Shock Cone Intake. I have heard that the RAPIER was nerfed as well but I do not know how. The Doc utilizes approach number 2 - designing around the spaceplane. His guide includes numbers you can utilize based on the number of engines in the design; from there you have a "maximum take off weight" for which you can set the rest of the plane's general attributes. In his guide he builds a three engine craft - he knows his maximum takeoff weight will be 39 tonnes simply based on that general design premise (13 tonnes per RAPIER is the guideline he gives) and he designs the rest of the plane based on the assumption that it'll be 39 tonnes when it's done. His final plane winds up with an unloaded weight of 27.39 tonnes, leaving 11.61 tonnes for payload. He does have a design capable of lifting a 27 tonne space station core, if you're curious. Biiiig plane. Of course, the big issue is making sure the CoM of the payload aligns with the CoM of the plane - shifting CoM in flight can (and occasionally has) rendered aircraft unflyable in mid-air in RL, with the expected outcome. RCS Build Aid is a powerful mod tool when it comes to spaceplane design for this very reason (I would consider it an essential mod for anybody who spaceplanes frequently, much like I'd recommend Docking Alignment Indicator, KER or KAC).

Dunno.....in KSP, "winning" is subjective and "losing" is fun (seriously, when a design of mine fails spectacularly I usually sit there cackling at it for at least a minute).

I used the wiki pretty extensively in my early days of the game (ca. 0.18). Try Senshi's Basic Rocket Design tutorial followed by the Intermediate Rocket Design tutorial (this one mainly for guidelines). After that I'd suggest going through the Real Life Missions tutorials (except for ISS and Mars One) in order. Those are a few versions old now but the only real tweak I'd suggest is to add a pair or a quad of OX-STAT panels up by the command modules. Lots of useful info on the wiki - I still refer to the Stock Parts page regularly.

Alright then. Here she is - my K-Prize winning entry from 0.23, the Auk-IV. Earned the Kosmokerbal Commendation (Mün), Advanced Pilot Precision Award 1stClass for this entry. Total flight time was 29:42:49 by the old system of reckoning, and the plane weighed in at 25.686 tonnes. From a time before Kerbal economy was in effect - so cost is N/A (though I still have the design and could probably stick it in 0.25 to see what price tag comes up). I have done a flight in a similar plane recently - the Peacock 7 - wherein Bill was sent to repair a poorly designed FinePrint satellite in orbit between Mun and Minmus. I'd've put that one up here instead except I didn't grab any screenies from that run. Might do a different run if folks take issue with the age of the entry.

Here's what I mean - set the wheel this way: Basically, all this does is ensure that it's the bottom of the wheel that makes contact with the ground. Any other part makes contact and the game's going to assume some camber is ongoing. You're right in that you can acheive the same effect simply by moving the gear onto the fuselage - and if it gives you some positive AoA at the onset of your flight, that's not a bad thing (you don't want too much though, or landing's going to be a chore; 5 degrees is where I max it out as a rule). Really, go with whichever setup works best for you - just make sure that wheel is perpendicular to the ground. Well, my evidence IS due to the lack of a change of the center of lift when those parts are removed... ...and the fact that this discussion came up in another thread just the other day. If I remember the conversation correctly, it was that the part could be attached backwards and still generate lift, but it couldn't be attached sideways. So the A is not oriented the correct way to do the job. Plane flies perfectly well without it - - though that does put you below the recommended 1:1 lift-to-mass ratio. I didn't try replacing the Structural Wing A with another Strutural Wing B to see how/if it affected performance. You might be interested to know that RCS Build Aid is showing the position of the "dry center of mass" in those screenies - and your CoL is right on top of it. I couldn't tell if it might've in fact been in front of it. Your plane might become flip-happy when it gets low on gas. I'll have to test it again to say one way or the other. No problem. Hopefully I've been of some assistance.

There's an Apollo 11 tutorial on the wiki. It's a number of versions old now (0.19, I think) but should still work if you stick a quad of OX-STAT solar panels on the sides of the CSM and LEM. There's also a link to a Youtube video from 0.23.5 if you want something more recent; I always had issues building that honkin' booster from the original tutorial...

It didn't just ferry Kerbals to orbit...it ferried them to the Mun, rendezvoused with a space station there, came back to Kerbin and landed on the runway......

Flew/tweaked your plane (stock aero). Can confirm the damn thing is unicycling; KER registered a constant downward velocity of a about 100 mm/s the entire time it was heading down the runway. Wheels in KSP are tricky. If you don't get them exactly perpendicular to the ground, they start exhibiting weird behaviors; rover wheels won't impart power to the ground or keep traction, and small gear bays develop camber. In their default mode, small gear bays can't steer, so once it does start to tilt, there's usually no way to correct it. Fixing the problem is simple - turn the front wheel perpendicular to the ground (which you can do without moving it from its current spot), disable the brakes and enable the steering on it. She'll still start to veer - because all your lift is in the back - but by the time it does you'll have take-off speed. Incidentally, moving those rear gears forward a bit will reduce your takeoff speed by a great deal; I did that and the plane took off at 70 m/s. Did get it a bit too far forward - the plane popped a wheelie when the physics engine released. That pair of Structural Wing As on the front of your wing assembly is doing you no favors (by which I mean you've got it turned it in a direction where it generates exactly no lift). You can save yourself weight by eliminating it; you can gain lift by replacing it with a second set of Structural Wing Bs.

Uh.............................................................................................................no?

I'm pretty sure this is the most original idea for a challenge I've seen in quite some time. December's busy for me, so I don't know how much I'll be able to participate, but count me in anyways.

Can we put in entries that have been used in other challenges? My K-prize entry from 0.23.5 delivered Kerbals to a space station in orbit of the Mun, came back to Kerbin and landed successfully at KSC; that's why I ask.

Okay then...the next challenge is to land a Kerbal on Minmus, plant a flag, put the Kerbal get back into orbit....and, after the Kerbal is in orbit, have the ship he came to Minmus on rendezvous with him, pick him up and go home.

Well, if y'all are calling it...no harm in putting mine up then. Stock, unmanned, no mods used (though plenty installed). Final speed 2246. Should've tried a little harder - could've got a True Machingbird with another 50 m/s. If the leaderboard was being updated... "Phoenix Challenge"? This does seem to be one that keeps being brought back from the dead...

That's a good question. Meantime, just so y'all will know I wasn't blowing steam... I have an idea for a new challenge but I'll save it for next time.

Yeah, I still don't know why that happens...

Did a couple of challenge entries. Not much more than that. Probably the first time I've ever crashed into the Mun deliberately...

You don't necessarily have to load a rover into a cargo bay unless that's how you want to try to deploy it (or unless you're using one of the advanced aerodynamic models). If that's what you want to do, you'll need to put an attachment point - a BZ-52 or just a Cubic Octagonal Strut - somewhere in the bay's interior, stick a decoupler on that, and attach your rover to the decoupler. You'd probably want to strut it down for extra rigidity of the delivery craft. I suppose you could just go with a radial decoupler too...a TT-70 would probably work okay. Assuming you have yet to build the rover, Taki117's already given you the advice you need.

Really? That's a damn shame...I just discovered the challenge the other day, and I have an unmanned craft that would've took second place in the stock unmanned category. Might post it anyways just for the hell of it.

Ah. Makes sense. Meanwhile, I've fulfilled the conditions of the next challenge...but I don't want to hog them all, so I won't post my entry just yet.

That would be awesome...has anybody actually done that? (Videos or pics...)

Or a Kerbal. Why? I dunno...might make for a really cheap rescue ship option or some such. You wouldn't get full money for it if you did. Grappler will grab anything - it's useful when you want to dock with something that you ordinarily can't dock to.

Right. Okay...I won't give you my full spaceplane newb advice, but I will go ahead and point you to DocMoriarty's KSP Space Plane Construction and Operation Guide. It's slightly out of date (by slightly I mean it was designed for 0.24.2 and he hasn't yet updated it for the changes in 0.25), but so far the only thing I've seen that's major is that the new Wing Connectors are functionally equivalent to Delta Wings. Shock Cone Intakes are equivalent to 1.2 Ram Intakes and 4 of the new Structural Intakes are roughly equivalent to a single Shock Cone Intake. Big focus on transporter spaceplanes there. I think the guide comes with the planes he designed in 0.24.2; they probably aren't directly useable in 0.25 but they could give you a few ideas at least. And I know there's at least one there that can handle thirteen tonnes. If you want my full array of advice for stock aero spaceplanes, it's here. I'll mention that a good payload fraction for planning a transporter spaceplane is about 25%. For the record: engine power = more than enough, lift generation = nowhere close to enough. And the plane is a bit heavy for the job.