Raptor9

Or you can click the "Insert other media" button at the bottom right corner of the reply text box and paste the image link there.

Yeah, I've been trying to figure this out as well. I've been putting a few tables into my showcase thread, so instead of a user wading through all the "Reveal Hidden Contents" expanders to find a craft they want, they look at the directory table to find some basic information about the craft (ex: user wants a Mun lander, finds a craft file that is both a "lander" and capable of landing on "Mun" in the directory, and then scrolls down to that specific expander). The problem is, when I add additional craft files to the thread as I publish them on KerbalX, I have to create an entire new table, and copy and paste individual cells one at a time to the new table. This can get very tedious and time-consuming. Is there no keyboard hotkeys for adding additional rows and/or columns??

Very nice. Not bad at all.

On another note, I assume the OP is posting an older screenshot, or not using the current version of KSP. Judging by the model of the Whiplash turbo-ramjets.

Using a multi-dimensional asparagus design (yes I made that term up) was how I was able to lift a Mk1-2 capsule off of Eve (this was in 0.25 or 0.90, haven't tried since). I had eight 1.25m boosters clustered around a 2.5m core. The first two booster pairs to be jettisoned were powered by LV-T30's for greater TWR at launch, and the last two pairs were Aerospiked; with a Mainsail in the core. However, each booster was sectioned by stack decouplers with an FL-T800 on the bottom with an engine mounted under it, FL-T400's mounted on top of it, and FL-T200's mounted on top of those. At launch, every ~5 seconds the top mounted 200's would jettison a pair away, and then another, like any other asparagus rocket. But the last two 200's had fuel lines feeding the first two 400's to be jettisoned, and on through the 800's. So i had the asparagus jettison scheme wrapped around the rocket in 8 stacks, and 3 levels, so i maintained high TWR while dropping empty tanks for as long as possible before even losing any engines. The bad side is I had additional mass for all the decouplers and Sepratrons used for the upper tanks, but I mitigated this by using 0.625m decouplers and reducing the solid fuel load in the Sepratrons so they only gave a brief burst to throw the tanks away. It was a slow craw at first, but eventually the Mk1-2 capsule and all three Kerbals made it to a 100km orbit over Eve (caveat: launch was from a 6500m summit, no way that ship would make from sea level ha ha)

Oh I've been wanting to, believe me. At the moment, there is an apparent bug at zero airspeed in that one engine robs intake air from the other, causing the craft to flip over to one side when you throttle up. I have one last trick I'm gonna try this evening; but after that, I'm afraid the XV program will have to be put on indefinite hold again. I'll update this post with the test results tonight. -----UPDATE----- I have some good news regarding the XV series. After messaging @Cupcake... about this issue, he asked to double-check to ensure the engines/intakes were mounted symmetrically. While the engines were in fact mounted using symmetry, that made me think to try mounting each engine assembly individually. Throttled up and no flipping over this time, so I'm going to try to rebuild one of the XV designs and mount the engines separately. Hopefully this solution works. -----UPDATE----- Another update: for some reason I cannot reproduce this solution not using symmetry when placing the engines, using symmetry, using symmetry when placing the intakes but not the engines, vice versa, (a whole bunch of other ways of building the engine mounts). I give up for the night; too frustrated. Wasn't the asymmetric thrust/flameout issue fixed several KSP versions ago??

At the risk of bringing the moderators in to this thread to weigh in, I would point out that your statements are a bit overbearing in the fact that what you see as poor decisions, others would not agree with you Further, indirectly calling the KSP devs ignorant is seriously poor taste. Your particular play style may not see a significant difference in these parts' usage, but others (to include myself) utilize these components quite differently in how we use them in our gameplay. Ever since the Engineer's Report feature was released in the SPH & VAB, people have been asking for a delta-V readout, as well as a more comprehensive aerodynamics overlay. Squad has said multiple times that these features are on their radar for addition, but until they get them polished and/or working well enough to be implemented, they will be held back from release. The importance of such features aren't in question, the priority of them are. Bug-fixing and optimization for Unity 5 is the big fish on the plate. The argument for removing a single part (by combining the features of the pre-cooler and nacelle intake) and then adding another one you listed to "help" those users with lower end PC's is ridiculous, as this will in no way help those players' KSP performance. Also, since the upcoming Unity 5 update will bring a huge optimization boost utilizing 64-bit and more RAM, that will help those players with low-end PCs. I would venture a guess to say Squad's decisions are sound.

Glad you like it. Meanwhile, back at the SPH RAC Cell, some blueprints that have been around for quite some time on my hard drive (since KSP 0.25) are about to make a "resurrection"...

Yeah, it's the lifter for bringing the NTR stages to orbit for assembling the EV-3 'Clipper'. You can see the sub-spoiler in the EV-3 expandable section. Another update to the craft file list, the LV-3B. This one I've been working on for a while, just couldn't get satisfied with the design until now. Its purpose is to compliment the LV-3A 'Bullfrog' later-generation Mun landers, and provides a long-term research facility, as well as a pair of rovers. It's sent ahead of the crewed lander to autonomously arrive at the proposed landing site, preferably where two or more biomes border each other to maximize scientific value.

The time it must have took to create that internal engine and cowling...awesome!

Deleted

1) No clipping resources inside each other; unless it's very minimal for a streamlined design, and in that case, the clipped part will probably have some sort of nose cone or other adapter-like part to blend its contours into the parent part. This increases cost, weight, and at times drag, so it's not like I'm helping myself in any way . And I absolutely will not clip engines inside each other. 2) Any craft files I publish are strictly stock. I may toy around with parts mods to check them out, but I keep them out of my career and "official" craft files. 3) No Mechjeb, Kerbal Engineer, Atmospheric Trajectories. I've used these in the past (last time I used MJ was 0.21), but I've forced myself to learn to do my own calculations or estimations. This usually leads to my designs having a margin of error in fuel capacity to account for a little wasted delta-V from hand-flying everything. But I end up learning a helluva lot more about orbital mechanics and such. I used to sweat Mun landings and trying to figure out how to use the navball, now it's a breeze and the navball and symbols are second-nature. 4) No reaction wheels except for maintaining space station attitude and stabilization. 5) To go along with some above posts: - No stranding Kerbals - No long-expeditions in single-cockpit craft, plausible living space is needed. Kerbals are crazy enough as it is without locking them into a Mk1 Capsule for a round trip to Duna. - No internal transfers through fuel tanks or non-plausible ship components Finally, function and aesthetics are both important, but only in that order: Functionality is always first, aesthetics is second. I don't care if it looks pretty if it can't perform it's job efficiently and effectively.

@TheWanderer After much design, redesign, testing, and redesign again, I'm finally satisfied with my economical shuttle design. It's not 100% reusable, but it is 40% the cost of my Mk3 fuselage-based Space Shuttle analogue. The SVR-20A is about 80,000 funds at launch (minus the payload), and the SVR-20B is about 84,000 funds at launch. Assuming you land it safely back at the KSC, you will of course get the funds back for the spaceplane itself, losing only the hardware from the booster rocket and fuel expended during the mission. Download links available in the Raptor Aerospace thread link in my signature.

Next round of craft file uploads is the SVR-23 'Raven'. It's way more economical than the SVR-16 'Ranger', about 40% the cost. It can't build space stations like the 'Ranger' can, but it provides a more focused design strategy per different spaceplane model. The A-model can be used for placing (or retrieving) small satellites in LKO, perform quick science experiments by transporting a materials bay and other sensors to orbit, or provide small equipment payloads to space stations already in orbit. In contrast, the B-model is strictly a crew-carrying variant, with a six-Kerbal capacity. The only other spacecraft with six seats is the SR-19B, but as an SSTO the SR-19 can't achieve as high of an orbital altitude as the SVR-23 (without refueling in orbit of course). You could also place some crew cabins in the SVR-16 cargo bay, but that's a comparatively expensive way to ferry crews to orbit. SVR-16 Launch Cost (minus payload): 204,544 funds (return of 114,999 for the orbiter at the KSC runway, not including any remaining fuel) SVR-23A Launch Cost (minus payload): 80,682 funds (return of 26,760 for the orbiter at the KSC runway, not including any remaining fuel) SVR-23B Launch Cost: 84,418 funds (return of 30,496 for the orbiter at the KSC runway, not including any remaining fuel) Actual expenditures: SVR-16 89,545 funds vs SVR-20A/B 53,922 funds Even if you take into account the funds return from the recovery of the spaceplane itself, it's still cheaper

Yeah, it was a fully-functional VTOL SSTO spaceplane...in 0.90. I had an earlier Raptor Aerospace video filmed with SPH craft files in 0.90, which included that particular VTOL spaceplane as well as a cargo VTOL spaceplane using Mk3 parts (a screenshot of which is posted on the first page of this thread midway down). I decided to leave those particular shots in the new video because they were really good, and it was the best spaceplane design I had ever produced, the crown jewel of my SPH fleet at that time. These weren't quite ideal for Kerbin use; they could barely make circular orbit. The cargo spaceplane needed an internal aux tank for more delta-V. But they were intended as personnel and cargo shuttles to and from the surface of Laythe, which worked wonderfully since there were obviously no runways. Unfortunately, these designs are now defunct with all the changes since 0.90. Having said that, I wouldn't go back to the pre-1.0.x aerodynamics, I'm satisfied with all the changes made to the game since; aero or otherwise. I just hope that Squad (or Porkjet) generates some dedicated VTOL parts in the future so we can revive some of our early projects. For the time being, I'm still re-learning SSTO spaceplanes, but that's part of the fun of this game IMO. EDIT: In other news, I've updated my X-13 (F-35 derivative) for better performance. Overall the craft looks better; ever so slightly faster, more fuel giving it a huge increase in range/endurance, and thrust-vectoring disengaged due to the improved airfoil performance (don't worry, it still turns insanely )

That sub is amazing looking, especially the inside. The creativity and attention to detail is awesome, down to the wartime red lighting. Well done sir.

First craft file updates of 2016. The first of the two updates is the EV-1C. For those familiar with the EV-1A and EV-1B, which were influenced by NASA's Mercury and Gemini programs, the EV-1C takes it one step further. It's modeled after the US Air Force's MOL (Manned Orbiting Laboratory) concept of the 1960's. This program never became operational, but if you want to know more about it, you can check out Amy Shira Teitel's VIDEO from her Vintage Space series on Youtube. I recommend subscribing to the Vintage Space series since it provides a lot of interesting and useful information about aerospace programs that usually aren't well known or heard about. The second update is my first subassembly I've ever posted. Ever since creating my SVR-16 shuttle derivative, I've been trying to figure out how the best way would be to construct my International Space Station analogue without a RMS (Remoter Manipulator System) robotic arm. I could just undock the modules and redock with the shuttle, and then maneuver the shuttle around to attach the payload where it needs to go, but that is cumbersome and wasteful on the RCS. Not to mention that at some point during the construction, the shuttle can't get positioned properly without smacking another part of the station with it's wings or vertical tail. So, my best solution was to create a small, single-Kerbal craft. It's just big enough to mount a small docking port and sufficient monopropellant reserves for moving station modules around, but small enough to fit almost anywhere, to include a shuttle bay already occupied by a reasonably large payload. Plus, with its basic set of science equipment and a comms antenna, it can also be adapted for various low/zero-G missions, making it quite versatile in its application. Not to mention making the backside of the docking port into an instrument panel provides a well-needed aesthetic improvement over such a compact craft. Both are available for download via KerbalX links on the first page. Happy station building

This stuff needs to be stock.

I've never tried this, but do airfoils work the same underwater? So say we put wing parts and control surfaces on the submersible, and you used them to "fly" underwater. I imagine that if this worked, you wouldn't need to rely on ballast tanks if the craft were neutrally buoyant, but you would need to be moving forward to maintain control. Forgive my rookie-ness at underwater stuff in KSP, just thinking out loud (and online).

I would almost venture a guess to say that was a joke...I mean, who would think the Shuttle should be upside down on the 747, or maybe the crew didn't know what side was the top of the orbiter? Who knows, better safe than sorry I guess. The engineers probably painted that on there to cover their butts during the accident investigation to determine how the Shuttle ended up dropped upside down on the 747.

Definitely need more of this

Very nice, very nice. I saw your aircraft lineup appear on KerbalX, nice to see them in the forums. All of your design principles are pretty much exactly what I use when designing mine, even Action Group 1 for afterburner Tell me, what are your thoughts for standardizing Action Group 3? (he asked sarcastically, rubbing chin) I'll let myself out...

It will probably be the SVR-23. I'm still not satisfied with the lifter configuration throughout the ascent profile, and I still don't have any performance or payload testing done. No timeline on when it will be released unfortunately, I just got back from holiday travels. It's the one on the right (the other being a prototype for the SR-19A):

Yep, while I don't use that mod, i always drain all my tanks to see where the dry CoM is, especially on aircraft. You never know if the thing will fly right as it burns off fuel.

Ha ha ha, that's awesome