Rezolution

First off, let me say that overall I am very pleased with the .24 update and feel that it has added a great deal of depth to the overall Kerbal experience. With that said, I have a few small, constructive criticisms that I would like to put out there. Please let me know if anyone else agrees or disagrees. 1. Lost in translation: I know this doesn't really impact the gameplay of .24, but I am curious why the contract descriptions are, at times, almost unintelligible. It is not so much bad writing that is to blame, rather it seems more as if the paragraphs were written in another language and put through a translator program. The syntax is odd and words are in places that just don't make sense. Is this caused by a random descriptor generator? If not, I'm sure you could find a fledgling writer to work for next to nothing to at least polish the entries before submission (ahem, cough, cough, ahem). Everything else in the game and on the forum is written well by the devs, which is why I am so perplexed. 2. Landing Gear: This isn't really a critique specific to .24, but I am still wondering why jet engines, wings, fins, winglets, intakes, and the Mk 1 Command Pod are all unlocked (at least for me) before the wheeled landing gear. I was given a contract to test the jet engine and I had to make a VTOL with LT-1 landing struts (looked somewhat like the Pogo plane from real life) in order to make something that would get off the ground and land again in one piece, which doesn't seem to flow logically. 3. Hardcore mode/too much money? I just found out this morning that a hardcore mode was available as an option, but I definitely think implementing this option in a more obvious way might be a good idea. I've actually never reached a point where I was low on funds (but I do use the revert option quite a bit; I know that makes it easier but it's just so hard not to!). Maybe varying difficulty modes could be implemented, but so far I feel the challenge could be a little greater, at least for those who have been playing Kerbal for a while. 4. Probes/unmanned flight: I still don't see much use for the probes/satellites in the game. Would it be possible, perhaps, to start out by requiring the player to send unmanned flights into space first before unlocking the capsules? This would more accurately mirror a real life space program progression system and give purpose to those oft unused probe pieces (at least for me). That's about it so far. I know this is the early version of the contracts system (the first in fact!) and more tweaks are, I bet, on the way. Thank you for a great update and I look forward to my continued .24 experiences as well as future iterations. Thanks for reading!

Here is another one of my SSTOs, the Tachyon. It is a VTOL craft that can reach a 120K orbit with enough smash left over to land safely back at the launch center. It also has docking capabilities. Let me know what you all think. I love this thread!

Impressive. I'm not great at big SSTO designs and it's always interesting to see ones that work well.

So, I came up with this... And, it can do this... It can almost make it to Minmus with the fuel load, though not back home. It does reach high orbit without any problems. Practical? No. Fun to make? Yes. Enjoy!

I love your little landers. Very unique and neat design. Might have to steel the idea .

Classic look, Captain Sierra. I like it. Looks like it has enough smash for an SSTO. Keep us updated.

I posted this on the main Spacecraft Exchange thread, so if you've already seen this I apologize. This represents my first attempt at creating an SSTO around the new R.A.P.I.E.R. engine. As you can see, it is capable of reaching a 200K plus orbit with fuel to spare: Additionally, it has docking capabilities and a VTOL atmospheric flight profile. I'm not sure how I feel about the efficiency of the RAPIER engine. It did well in atmo, but overall ISP in space did not seem to be as good as other rocket engine alternatives, despite the raw numbers. At any rate, I was happy with the overall results and will probably continue using it in certain designs, though I don't think it will replace the classic jet/rocket hybrid in all circumstances. It does offer some new design options, as can be seen here with the radial mount rear RCS port. Please feel free to let me know what you think. Thanks for the look!

Thanks spaceman! I submitted a few crafts to Ingima and the Shuttlecraft team some time back, though I don't think any of them quite made the cut; not that I blame them- aesthetics aren't my strong suit. Might try again with this one. Either way, I had fun with it and it flies well across the full range of fuel usage and flight environments. Thanks again.

T.L.A.R. Industries is happy to present Quark Mk. I. This represents my first attempt at creating an SSTO around the new R.A.P.I.E.R. engine. As you can see, it is capable of reaching a 200K plus orbit with fuel to spare: Additionally, it has docking capabilities and a VTOL atmospheric flight profile. I'm not sure how I feel about the efficiency of the RAPIER engine. It did well in atmo, but overall ISP in space did not seem to be as good as other rocket engine alternatives, despite the raw numbers. At any rate, I was happy with the overall results and will probably continue using it in certain designs, though I don't think it will replace the classic jet/rocket hybrid in all circumstances. It does offer some new design options, as can be seen here with the radial mount rear RCS port. Please feel free to let me know what you think. Thanks for the look!

Wow, that was a quick turn around. Looks good. I really like the idea of the horizontal lift-off component. I had originally wanted to implement that into my own design, but I went the lazy approach just to get the ship finished a little faster. Very nice. With those parts it reminds me of a cross between the Viper and Lambda Class Shuttle from Star Wars (another one my favorite vessels).

She's all yours! Glad you like it. Please let me know of any improvements you make if you do decide to reproduce it. Good luck!

Very nice, Cruzan. Love the compact design. How many intakes did you use? Also, nice beat.

Thanks Captain Sierra. Appreciate the compliment. It took several variants before I finally settled on the above profile. I have a few airplane style SSTOs, as well, but I really wanted to try something different (and little more Sci-Fi-y). Additionally, reading some of your earlier posts, I've gotta say that I was (and to an extent still am) a little adverse to the intake spam, as well. Doesn't feel quite natural. Even when I do use it, about 27,000 is the most altitude I can grab before engine flame out on my best SSTO. I'm still searching for those 30,000 or 32,000 meter figures. Maybe next time I'll try to make an SSTO without the intake spam completely, just to see if I can (I know others have made them). At any rate, SSTOs are still fun however they're done. Also, I really like the twin cockpit SSTO you posted. Very unique and something I had not really considered. Might steal that later .

Hello all. I've been playing Kerbal for a bit now, but haven't been much of a forum participant. This I would like to change. To that end, below is one of my SSTO designs, Thunderfire, that I would like to share with the community. It uses vertical thrust for lift, has a jet-engine service ceiling of around 22,000 meters, and is capable of achieving a mid-range orbit around Kerbin. Here it is in orbit: Docked with a refueling station: Once refueled, Thunderfire makes its way to the Mun and lands successfully: Back on Kerbin. Don't let me mislead you; it needed one more fuel up on the Mun before it had enough smash to make it back home: Overall, the design is not nearly as impressive as what I've seen much of you produce. It can't make it out of orbit without a refuel, but at least once it is fueled up, can make it to the Mun or Minmus. Additionally, the ship is very stable in the vertical configuration, but once you begin pitching the ship over in atmo, it does require some attention to keep it centered on heading. This is largely due to the three tail fin layout, but I really wanted to keep the aesthetic (even though in doing so I sacrifice some stability). Thanks for the look! Good luck out there!

So any more than four intakes will not make an appreciable difference? Right now I'm hitting about 21-22Km before I loose my jets. I'll try taking away an engine and/or adding a couple more intakes and see where that gets me.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll give that a shot. My goal in making this craft was to do so without any online help or hints, at least for the initial design. Because of this, I know that I will defiantly be behind the curve, so to speak, and am willing to accept any help that the rest of you, more experienced SSTOers, might have to offer. Thank you!

My first SSTO. It has enough delta-v to make into a low orbit and return for a safe landing. Overall fairly stable, though not much to look at it. Also, it has plenty of jet fuel to make up for any "missed approaches" one might have during the return trip. Hope this helps!

Thanks for the tip!

I just successfully made my first SSTO plane after many, many attempts. The main issue at first was not realizing how the game handled intakes (as in, it needs a lot and it doesn't care where you put them). I think you understand this already. However, the next issue was weight and balance. When using rockets, it is better at first to line smaller tanks up either or horizontally or vertically, directly parallel to one another and close to the CG in order to keep the weight shift to a minimum as fuel burns off, otherwise you will find yourself either too nose heavy or tail heavy during the last leap from atmosphere to space or during reentry. It sounds like you might be having the issue of the CG moving too far aft, thus making your ship impossible to control once fuel is spent. Once I got the balancing and the intakes down, the rest was just tuning. Also, keep in mind that for me I did nothing special between jet engine shutdown and rocket burn, just one right into the other. And, one more thing, for me I realized that I had to shut the jet engines down before leaving atmo. If I let the jets kill themselves, this usually resulted in adverse thrust for a split second, just long enough to throw the whole ship into a spin. Usually not a problem it seems if you only have one jet engine, however. I'll post an image later today if you're interested. I hope this helps.