SofusRud

OK, here goes, and for the sake of brevity I'll only post the spaceplanes that are still in active service, as all of these have their own full pages . Thunderlane Mk-5 seen here after delivering two nuclear engines to a tug. It handles most of my 1.25 meter part deliveries. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65968-Thunderlane-Mk-5-Becausethe-old-one-needed-an-upgrade Kylon-1 Seen here doing a space probe launch and crew transfer mission. It handles shorter 2.5 meter cargoes and various other things. Can lift 19 tons. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/79535-The-Kylon-my-best-high-capacity-SSTO-so-far Kylon-2 Seen here delivering a full orange tank and a tug core. Handles the heaviest and longest cargoes in my fleet. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82913-Kylon-2-The-Re-SSTOening Thunderlane mk-6 Done mostly for aesthetics, but handles smaller cargo. rarely in use. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/79994-Thunderlane-Mk-6-With-apologies-to-Reaction-Engines Fluffles Mk-4 (right) and Mk-4C (left) the mk-4 is my laythe shuttle, ferrying crew from orbit to the surface of laythe and back, the mk-4C is a cargo variant for small cargo. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66332-Fluffles-Mk-4-and-his-chubby-cousin-the-Mk-4C

While I agree that a lot of the challenge can be mitigated with a better gui and removal of the "oddities" as you put it, I must ask you, and I'm sorry if I'm getting off-topic, but where in world did you get the idea that ascending till 100km and then making a 45 degree turn is in any way a good idea? Or did you just mean 10km? (even so it can be done better), if so I take your point as being about the soupy atmosphere.

given that Kerbals can survive in deep space without life support for years, it may be that they actually feed off of radiation and such. Perhaps one should stop applying ones' filthy human standards to the superior Kerbal beings.

I'm kinda split on this issue. On one hand it would add some cool stuff to do and add reasons to go to various places, assuming that there planet specific resources. One could imagine it tying into career mode, what with going to a place to aquire a specific resource that can be cashed in for lots of money back on Kerbin. On the other hand, in regards to making fuel and stuff, it just doesn't seem necessary for any of the planets we currently have. If Squad implemented a some more planets that required way more delta-v to get to then I'd be all for it, but as it stands nobody needs to make their own fuel in order to go anywhere in the Kerbol system.

I threw this together a couple of days ago, and got it working, but not with cargo. Anything more than empty and it fails to reach orbit, then again I have only attempted that once. (this is from my attempt with cargo) the shuttle itself carries only monopropellant and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been able to do this as easily as I did without the new Vernor engines. I honestly don't think that I'll actually end up using it, seeing as I have cargo SSTOs that are both easier to fly, can carry both more cargo and cargo of variable mass and are 100% reusable.

I decided to try that shuttle stuff that everyone is banging on about and threw together a thing. First attempt made orbit, empty, with enough fuel to deorbit, but I had forgotten to add landing gear so I had to try again. The second one was with landing gear and cargo, but failed to make orbit. second one and in other news, my duna mission is now on a return course for Kerbin

I use it, quite a bit actually. I use it on my space tugs, both for cargo and engines. This is because all my stuff is assembled in orbit after launch by spaceplane. I'm running a 100% reusable space program you see. Here it is on two of my tugs in both of the mentioned configurations: for cargo, on the sides for engines putting the enginess on And I recently built a, wouldn't call it station, more like a depot for fuel tanks, that also uses the inlines extensively. Here they were useful because its one less part than putting a docking port on a structural piece. The Snr ports would have had to be added that way anyway. So yes, inline ports are used. However, if it's for spaceplanes I use the regular kind, what with mass and everything. Its mainly because I have a set of volume (space plane cargo bays) and part count parameters that I either have to or wish to stay within, and in that way I find them useful.

In trying Scott Manleys latest infinite fuel challenge, I made an unexpected discovery. apparently atmospheric flames only happen over a certain altitude, I think it's 10k, regardless of how fast you are going.

This design owes a lot to Mareczex333's crane design, as found here :http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/88566-100-Reusable-SSTO-Cargo-with-Satelite-Crane-download This design came about from seeing and being impressed by that crane. My kerbals decided that they had to have it. However, looking at it I came to the conclusion that a lot of parts were used on aesthetics, and being the pragmatic and utilitarian designer that I am I decided that this would not do. As such my design has a similar mechanism but with a significantly reduced part count, 34 (I think) versus about 80. Here it is: For some reason the fuel lines attach to nothing after you re-load the craft From inside Picking stuff is a simple matter of placing the Claw above the thing you need to carry, and dropping it. Action groups: 1- first set of landing legs (for lifting crane) 2- second set of landing legs 3- toggling claw 4- releasing claw The download: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ifcsju3l7tdb382/Detritus%20mk-1.craft

part count on the crane?

what kind of stuff do you want specifically?

Really ought to post this here too. This is my Duna rover, "Ice Dentist", featuring a self-righting mechanism that allows it to be recovered and returned to Kerbin or some other place or whatever.

Killed Jeb? What kind of casual do you take me/him for?

Not too long ago I decided to start a new save, wherein I would run a space program dedicated to 100% reusability. I have basically been flying everything with cargo spaceplanes, but thats beside the point. Point is, Bill and Bob were going on a trip to Duna, and couldn't leave anything behind. Their mission included a lander and a rover. That rover is the Ice Dentist (ZP reference). This rover had to be light, small and able to both land on Duna and reattain orbit and rendezvous with the mothership. In order to do this, the rover features a self-righting mechanism that I am quite proud of, seen here on both Kerbin and Duna. And then it's simply a matter of blasting off and reaching the mothership ' The action groups: (These are in the 8-0 region because the aircraft that brought it to orbit had its own action groups and I didn't want them to overlap) 0- self righting mechanism (demonstrated) 9- Landing gear (rear wheels) 8- main engine the craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cwn48n6q8di7dtv/Ice%20Dentist%20Mk-2_1.craft

A few questions: Have you tried fitting other cargo into the bay? If so, how? Are there some specific things that you have to remove in order to attach it? What are the size dimensions of the cargo bay? How does using a different cargo affect COM versus COL? How well does it handle empty? Do you have to pump fuel around before reentry and if so, where? Is it practical for more than lifting Jumbos is what I'm getting at here. Oh yes, and have some rep from me too and welcome to that elite group of people that can SSTO shuttle a Jumbo to LKO.

I have now worked out the problem thanks to taking another long look at the persistence file. something to do with the Deploy => "Active = False" and changing the false to True. It now works.

yes to both questions. I have never had my repacked chutes be reusable on the staging before, they only look like they should but don't. - - - Updated - - - I know that, the problem is that the right-clicking isn't working

I did repack them, but do you mean I should check the persistence file for having repacked them? If so, what should I do about it?

I have a rover that I have landed on Duna, returned to orbit and intend on landing on Duna again. The problem is the chutes on it don't seem to want to redeploy, when I right-click on them I just get the min-pressure and deployment sliders but no "deploy chute" option. There are no action groups for the chutes but I intended to manually deploy them all before hitting atmo. I have checked, and this problem is unique to this one rover, the lander which came with it can manually deploy its chutes after repacking. I checked the persistence file, and the only difference between the chutes on the different craft was that the rover had "Staged = True" and the lander had "Staged = False". I tried going through the file, manually changing all the chutes from Staged = True to False and then saving, but when I checked in the game nothing had changed and the persistence had reverted my changes. Can anybody help me out? Here is the persistence file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gsmsmnaidgo93ji/persistent.sfs (It's the craft called "Ice Dentist")

I was under the impression that you'd be charged on a craft-by-craft basis, in which the price of the craft is equal to the sum of the price of all its' parts (maybe with some unlockable modifiers perhaps?)

I'm all in favor of this. I think it's a clever way to make the player consider different and more varied design solutions. In a way its not actually altering the way the parts themselves work but rather a matter of incentivizing the player to use all the different tool available. As for "changing parts", I think this is an acceptable place to do it, because the economics of the parts is a career-exclusive feature. This is of course dependent on how this is implemented, but I for one think this could be a valuable addition to career mode.

Second one is very "Macy-y"

I should also post this one here, my Kylon-2 (such an original name amirite) Capable of lifting a Jumbo and whatever else fits inside the bay. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82913-Kylon-2-The-Re-SSTOening

Been a while since I last saw a VTOLSSTO on this thread, so this thing will have to do for the time being. It hit a snag on the way to the runway after the first orbital flight, somehow hitting the launchpad whilst 2km in the air and loseing the tailplane. Thanks to the VTOL engines and Jeb being a badass pilot it managed to land safely though.