Shrike42

Aw, it's over? What a shame. I'd broken my hand and couldn't fly for months. Pity.

Whoa, numbers have seriously gone up this time around. Guess I'll need to make a new challenger in sandbox, 'cause I'm just plodding through career. Heh.

My thoughts exactly, but i'll check it out.

Ah, I see! Can you tell I don't drive in real life? Heh. I'm having a heck of a time trying to get it on a rocket, though. It won't play nicely with subassemblies. I had intended to mount it radially, but now that I've rebuilt it in that configuration about five times from scratch with no luck, I'm thinking I'm going to need to get more creative and drum up a skycrane system, or grab enough science to get aerospikes and try to build a SSTO transporter around it. Which would be rather cool.

Oh, hey, Hodo. While you're here, I spoke with someone claiming to have managed to break mach 9 in FAR by using parts modeled after the SR-71, and the 'realistic ISP' mod. And he 'knew' someone who managed mach 6.2 in vanilla KSP. I'll see if I can find it on his stream, but thought you'd be interested. It's certainly gotten me curious about FAR, but I think I'll try another stock speed run first.

Well, a pile of intakes hidden behind a very nice frame (25.6 intake air is more than I used) is still a pile of intakes on a jet engine. Still, a very nice design!

I made a PSA while testing a new rover design.

Thanks. It was in (four wheel drive) the entire way, and I did need to ascend the slope by a very shallow spiral. Once you get to steep inclines, can't stay in time compression or you'll start going backwards.

This isn't quite an entry, because it was a prototype. The thrust is imbalanced when fully loaded, the energy drain is greater than the regeneration, and there's no recovery mechanisms. However, it was able, not using the high-traction wheels, to get to this point (2300 m) at the mountains behind KSC with a full load of scientific equipment and 4 Kerbals. It was able to safely traverse fields, hills, and rough ground at 4x compression, and took no damage from this roll over. All in all, pretty darn good. The thrust imbalance enables wheelies. If I can tweak the design a bit, it should be pretty darn effective, and mountable on a rocket.. (Yes, that guy is suspended by his backpack.)

Worth remembering that KSP, even with FAR, is not reality, and using your aesthetic sense to determine what would or wouldn't fly based purely on the simplified simulations within KSP's code doesn't mean they'd work worth a darn in reality. Engine efficiency, intakes and compression are all very different because of how tiny Kerbin is vs. Earth. Typical jet airliners cruise at 32-38,000 feet (11.5 km), with one intake per engine. That's the point at which stock KSP jets just start to get 'good', but then the intake air starts dropping off dramatically for everything but ram scoops. The U-2 spy plane routinely operated at 21 km, which is about what you can squeeze out of the turbojet with a single intake. Anything beyond that, and you're entering the realm of fiction. Heck, the U-2's maximum velocity was about 223 m/s, which is a slow walk compared to what a turbojet can do (because we don't have friction that'll rip the craft apart if we go 10 knots higher than 223 m/s. Kerbal material science is quite good, despite finding all these parts by the side of the road). Basically, stock KSP is already going well into the world of fiction. Perhaps FAR's variant atmosphere setup brings it more in line with reality (and gives a greater challenge), but you're still sending little green men to the mun and back in about seven days. Not saying you're wrong, I'm not aesthetically pleased by my air-hogging designs (though they still look like planes). But the ability to push a fictional craft to its theoretical limits in a fictional environment is 'fun' to me. It's a 'what if...' scenario where I can just play within the artificially imposed ruleset and just see what I can do. I'm an engineer and do a lot of my work in simulation programs, but I'd never try to use KSP's simulated environment as a proof-of-concept for an aircraft.

This time around, in career mode, I haven't lost a single one, and I just rescued Bob from a Kraken attack.

I did three major things: 1. Built and launched the 'Electrocradle' a long-distance rescue craft with xenon engines to rescue Bob from a Kraken-attacked ship out by Duna. However, I barely needed the Xenon as I went most of the way on the dual LV-Ns of the transition stage. I was really pleased at how I managed to use docking methods to get the Cradle close enough to the capsule for Bob to EVA his way the final 9 Km and safely return, landing just across the mountain range from KSC. It wasn't as intricately ambitious as creating a fuel-tower rover to refuel a stranded Mun lander, but dang, it was satisfying to do! 2. My probe reached Jool and was captured pretty much in a polar orbit. After lots of burns to get my orbit more equatorial, discovered I'd managed to make the orbit direction in reverse of the moons. I've now done high-velocity swings past Tylo (9000 m periapsis), Laythe, and Vall, and I'm wishing I'd waited to have a gravioli detector. 3. Designed & launched the Deep Space Command Module, which is a sort of proxy for the lab that we'll be getting in .23. It's built with three Clamp-o-tron Sr, and 2 regular, arranged so that the module can be used either as a space station or, with the appropriate modules, a long-range vessel with room for 5. I think I'll leave this one around Kerbin as a refueling stop, and launch another for a leisurely grand tour attempt. Haven't finished my tech tree completely, but I've only got about 4 nodes to go. PROGRESS!

Nice design, from what I can see! However, 2307.1 is your orbital speed, not your surface speed. As you're heading due east, the speed of the planet rotating away under you makes your orbital speed significantly higher than your surface speed. Getting the flight data with F3 is vital, and it can help to fly towards the poles.

When designing planes, you can try putting all your fuel tanks in the same plane (all in a row), so no matter which one drains first, the CoM doesn't move. It can be a bit awkward to look at, but hard to argue with the results.

Ion engines... I suppose that would work. I was sorta-kinda toying with the idea of sending a new mission to duna and picking Bob up on the way, but that really would require a ton more effort and waiting. Heh. Thanks!

As the subject says. My first encounters with the kraken happened twice in quick succession as I sent a manned and unmanned mission to Duna, launching them both from LKO and out into Kerbol's SOI within the same general window, give or take an in-game day. However, when I switched to the probe, all my science stuff fell off... and when I went to check on Bob, his entire craft came apart! So, he's now orbiting Kerbol and passing Duna. I want to rescue him legitimately, no killing, but I'm at a loss as to how to best do this. I'm thinking a probe with an empty single lander can and plenty of fuel (and ladders), but I need to get an intersection. As Bob has a 19.7B/12.8B orbit around Kerbol, (currently 19.2M, heading towards periapsis, closest Kerbin encounter 22M Km), how should I do this? Just wait it out and move when I see he's getting close in several hundred days, or can I try something more direct, like a Kerbol-assisted slingshot? Thanks!

numerobis did a similar challenge to that before the great forum kablooie, and it is more difficult. Really up to hengeprophet if he wants to alter the leaderboard, but it would be a minimal effort on his part to add the category and to judge it. I do take a bit of exception to describing these runs as somehow 'less' because we're taking the in-game rules to the limit, and my flight profile is VERY carefully controlled, thank you very much! Seriously, even if you're intake spamming, squeezing that last 0.1 m/s out of your engine(s) takes careful attention to altitude, fuel, attack angle, intake air, drag, center of mass, flight characteristics, geography (navball turning during the poles can be disorienting and lead to a flameout). It's just as hard to keep yourself under control when 'airhogging' as it is when you're playing 'realistically'. Not to mention that any flameout or loss of control can easily make you lose 50-100 m/s and push you past the apoapsis, meaning you have to work harder to catch up and level out/climb back to your sweet spot, running out of fuel the whole time, not to mention the psychological impact of getting SO CLOSE then losing it. Heh. The landing part would add a significant challenge, given that for my flights, I'd have to make sure to be able to circumnavigate and get a line-up, much harder since I take a polar route so that my surface speed isn't artificially inflated by Kerbin's rotation. Easy enough to go east, but it's also easier to wind up on a sub-orbital hop, if I remember correctly.

I sent a three-kerbal pod to the mun two days ago; it used a poodle, and while I raided the polar and the farside crater with it, I realized I couldn't get back to kerbin, or even to orbit! So, I did the following: http://imgur.com/a/z8yyt (Haven't figured out how to make an album show up) I used the original ship, which I had thrown a clamp-o-tron on for good measure, to build a refueling rover that would roll over the top of the stranded science base. I managed to land 7.7 km away, the closest landing I've ever done, and drove the rest of the way, braking constantly. I refueled, launched, and got everything home safe and sound. I love career mode. I feel like I'm finally getting the hang of the game, and with science to drive my interest in getting out there and making sure I can come back, I'm learning about the true possibilities of parts because the mainsail isn't available, and really having to work on launch efficiency. Soon, I'll be doing orbital refueling missions, since I managed to put a full rockomax half-tank on the mun, showing I can definitely do it.

Got to the Mun and back with a landing! Yay for fuel lines and solar panels. Lots of solar panels, since I managed to land on several and slide down a 45 degree slope before getting upright. Made around 350 science with that flight! Loving this update. Now, I have all I need to make basic jets for better Kerbin exploration!

SCIENCE! AND THEN MORE SCIENCE! And I've managed to keep all my kerbals alive!... though I did revert a flight when I realized I'd messed up the staging...

It was dark and quiet... then, for a brief moment, it was bright and loud. Then dark and quiet reigned.

Try building it on the pad, or in the space plane hanger, making the station core a rover. Drive it a little ways out, then make another vehicle that can dock with it and see if it works. I've heard that the Clampotron Sr. Ports are quite stable for docking, though. Haven't yet built a station with 'em. Oh! And it's INCREDIBLY easy to put the clampotron sr. on backwards, so make sure you've got the correct side(s) facing each other. One side looks a bit 'simpler' and flatter than the other. That's the non-docking side.

So, you can orient the station's docking ports from north to south, and this will let you have an easier approach as you won't have to worry about station rotation. To put it another way, it's the difference between trying to touch the end of a meter/yardstick spinning about the middle of it's long axis (1' 6" or 50cm) versus trying the same thing when it's spinning on its end. Of course, if this is a polar orbit, then you want to orient your docking ports due east or west. But to the question, mass in space (in KSP) only matters when you are trying to move it around.

I think starwhip's on to something; asymmetrical fuel drain would shift your Center of Mass and cause torque that would result in nose over. Also, if it's corkscrewing in the atmosphere, maybe a few control surfaces would help.... but first, definitely check into the possibility that your lifter isn't draining fuel from all the tanks quite right. Save it as a new ship, then take the save and remove as much of the payload as possible, see if it flies straight, or if you keep seeing this bad behavior.

And as I'm looking at it... Seriously, I have the unhappiest pilot. Derden Kerman: The fastest Kerbal who didn't want to be there! I'm gliding in for a landing, in daylight, south pole, haven't touched the controls for over 10km of altitude, and he's still This is my best landing ever! Show some joy in your work, or at least your survival! And... of course, he only smiles once he's at a complete stop. Derden, you are the worst Kerbanaut.