Raptor9

Wow, I didn't realize 8th grade was as rough on other people as it was for me too. I mean I figured others would chime in and say "yeah, 9th was bad" or "11th was bad for me"...but I guess 8th was a common place for us all. Once I got past the 8th hump, things started to get better. @huntingpickel, a lot of us have been there too, but it gets better, even though sometimes it doesn't seem like it. Two statements that always stuck with me were from a mentor of mine: "Tomorrow could always be a brighter day." and "Keep your eyes on the prize." Always go to bed knowing that good things can happen the next day, and never give up. That may sound trite and clichéd, but when you're after your dream, it doesn't matter how many times you hear "no"...you just need one "yes".

^^^This...angle of approach applies to interplanetary transfers, you want that shallow orbit intersection so you're not trying to change direction AND slow down. @justidutch, congrats on the successful rescue mission

While I would like to set up some Kerbin-Mun or Kerbin-Minmus outposts, the problem I see in a patched conics setup is how to enter or exit them without requiring huge shifts in velocity or having a dramatic orbit shift.

@Streetwind Yeah, I like this idea too. Hopefully someone from Squad takes notice.

Yeah, that Science Jr bay that looks like it fits perfectly inside the 2.5m service bay...careful

Throwing in my 2cents, cuz why not. - Modules and parts optimized for surface bases (horizontal IVA's, utility/resource connectors like in KAS) - Cargo/Tail ramps for Mk3 - Jet engine more powerful than Basic Jet Engine (J-33), but non-ramjet so it doesn't go into overdrive mode like the Turbo Ramjet engine (J-X4) - Heat management parts - More to do on EVA (again, KAS/KIS is a good example) - And just for the sake of conversation, piece-able Mk3-sized wings like the Mk2 size from Space Plane Plus (now stock ) Either that or if the Mk3 wings need to be a single piece, a Mk3-sized delta-wing that's more like a XB-70 or SR-72 concept than a Space Shuttle replica. - (Not a new part, but do the medium and heavy-sized landing gear need to be so tall?)

That sounds awesome. Those service bays and heavy RCS pod especially.

Never used FAR, but I'm fairly certain in stock the air is calculated as a stream. Case in point: first plane I built in the new aero was an aircraft with a similar layout to the F-86. Single cylinder-shaped fuselage with low-mounted swept-wings, and the horizontal tail plane was mounted high over the engine nozzle at the base of the vertical tail fin. Whenever I would pitch up, the nose would want to tuck upwards even more, and it was hard to push out of a positive pitch maneuver. Couldn't figure out why it was doing this in the pitch up maneuver cuz the CoM and CoL were set properly, the fuel burn wasn't affecting the CoM, and it was extremely stable, almost flew itself straight and level. After looking at it from the side, I suspected that when the plane started to pitch up, the airflow to the horizontal tail surfaces was getting blocked by the wings when it got to about 10-15 degrees AoA. I used the offset tool to move the horizontal tail about 1/3 up the length of the vertical tail fin, and it flew just fine. No nose tuck, no issues pushing out of the positive pitch. I couldn't come up with any other reason than that, so I suspect that the air, as a stream, wasn't reaching the tail after being blocked by the wings. After I moved the tail plane to keep it in the airstream in all maneuvers, no issues.

Three tips unrelated to engines and TWR that might help: 1) Try to get the spaceplane balanced as much as possible in regard to where the CoM and CoL is. This of course is a basic principle to experienced spaceplane builders in KSP, but with the new aero it is even more important. Whenever you deflect your control surfaces, it creates drag, just as they do if used as speed brakes. If your spaceplane is properly balanced and doesn't have a heavy nose, the control surfaces won't be "dragging" the tail the whole flight just trying to keep the nose up. 2) Proper fuel tank placement helps as well. As you burn fuel, the CoM will obviously shift, so you don't want all of your fuel in the front or all in the back, or your control surfaces will have to work that much harder to maintain attitude (reference previous tip). Similar thing with payload bays. The larger the payload, the more of an impact it will have on the CoM after you jettison it (or if you test fly your spaceplane empty and get it tweaked just right, and then you throw a payload in it and it throws off the CoM/CoL balance). 3) Going back to the first point again, use gentle control inputs. If your doing the dive down and pull up method, be careful on how aggressively you pull up, the combined drag from control surface deflection and the increase in Angle-of-Attack as you pull the nose up will cause a huge increase in drag. You may punch through the Mach and start accelerating rapidly, only to have your airspeed slapped back to subsonic on an aggressive pitch back. Bring up the aero-forces overlay and watch the drag indicators grow and shrink as you maneuver the spaceplane around. If you don't have a joystick, you can use trim to get the same gentle effect (Alt-W,A,S,D,Q,E for trimming and Alt-X to reset). Hope this helps some people.

Scott Manley never reads the Engineer's Report...he writes them.

EDIT: sniped by DanceswithSquirrels...but yeah Alright, can I simplify this argument a little? The number of landing legs you have is a secondary factor compared to where your center of mass is in relation to your landing leg base diameter. If you make a tall 3-legged design and land it on a slope it will be less stable than a short 4-legged lander with a wide leg base. And if you land a tall 4-legged lander, it will be less stable than a short 3-legged lander. If the lander center of mass is above or beyond the downslope leg, it's going to tip over, I don't care how many legs it has. It's the same concept as "dynamic rollover", which is a term used to discuss slope-landings in helicopters. Granted, helicopters have more forces acting on them than a direct-thrust lander, but the CoM over the pivot point priniciple still applies: If you reference the above picture, imagine the center of mass (CoM) was toward the top of the helicopter. The higher up the CoM is, the closer it is to being directly above the downslope point of contact. If you make a lander with a CoM low when compared to the relative width of the landing base, the argument of how many legs you have is of no consequence. Although from an economical outlook, one less landing leg is slightly lighter and cheaper, but as a design principle it's not nearly as significant as where the CoM and landing base compare with each other.

Forgive me for coming at this from a lowest denominator perspective, but a lander's leg geometry and spacing should be designed for your target landing environment. There is no one size fits all. Further, the pilot will play a big part in the success or failure of the landing. If he lands on a slope when there is a relatively flat gradient nearby, or lands with lateral velocity, I don't care how stable his craft is the pilot is the factor increasing the chances of tipping over.

Everything you just said I was about to type...although I thought Squad said they fixed the asymmetric jet flameout. If the fix didn't make it into the 1.0/1.02 versions, I know Squad is aware of it since they mentioned it a while back. I've been rebuilding all my craft files from scratch instead of importing old ones, just to make sure. - A personal preference, I wish the Basic Jet Engine had a little more oomph, or maybe a non-ramjet engine that fits somewhere between the J-33 and the J-X4. I used to be able to build VTOL-capable spaceplanes with the J-33 in Mk2 Cargo Bays. Now I need twice as many J-33's and the craft can still just barely lift off after 30 seconds of extended spool up. A sometimes small bugfix released relatively close after a major version update. It's to rapidly address significant bugs that directly affect gameplay for most players.

@KrizzGaming: Nice, lucky you. Wish they had that when I was in school...of course, didn't have KSP back then either. Each meeting/event, you should end it with DasValdez's "Later NERDS!"

My first landing was horrible. I didn't know how to interpret the flight ball retrograde maker and take corrective action during final descent. I landed with too much lateral velocity and you can use your imagination. Sorta reminded me of this fanwork vid: As soon as I learned how to use all the flight ball vector markers and how to correct them using RCS and burns, my rendezvous', dockings, and landings are a breeze. Learned stuff...

+1 I had a similar issue when I was trying to make a 7 Kerbal pod for LKO ferry flights. It was a Mk1-2 pod with a Hitchhiker at the bottom, and a small tank and 'Poodle' below that. During testing if I didn't get the parachute-assisted impact to around 4m/s in water, the only part to survive was the Mk1-2 and anything surface attached to it. The rest of the ship broke apart and disappeared. If I used a set of thrusters or the main engine to ease into the water, everything was fine.

Seeing as killing Kerbals is an acceptable gameplay mechanic, I don't think your argument holds much weight.

That might be what he's afraid of.LOL...Nice

Ohhh, nice word

+1 That is exactly how I see it. However, if anybody really does want LF-only rocket tanks aside from using spaceplane parts, there's a mod for that. You can use Interstellar Fuel Switch or Modular Fuel Tanks.

There is actually a separate line that pre-designates a Kerbal as BadS=True or BadS=False when generated. Jeb and Val however, by default, are BadS; Bill and Bob are not. I believe it primarily governs their facial expressions, independent of the Courage & Stupidity factors.

Not to mention he's collaborated on projects like Karbonite, Bobcat Industries' Community ISS project, and the Community Tech Tree (which I think he manages). He also recently released Cryogenic Engines mod, which is relatively brand new compared to his others, but looks really cool. Be cool if Squad pulled some (or all ) of his stuff in to stock like they did with Porkjet and Roverdude.

I don't recall exactly what was said or when, but I believe Maxmaps was saying on a Squadcast months ago that the name generator creates names with syllable-sections of the names. So if you have the name "Loddas Kerman" in your Astronaut Complex (one of my 0.90 Kerbalnauts), that was most likely generated from "lod" and "das". I would speculate that could also have come out as "Daslod" or even with a third syllable if the algorithm spit one out. Assuming I'm correctly remembering what Maxmaps said, I can't fathom how Squad tweaked the system to pair up syllables in such a way that it made a "female" sounding name. Having said that, when I started a new career in 1.0, the list of available recruits were all female with the exception of two males...really?? Only two? I'm not sexist or anything, but that's a bit of a disparity. Then again it could have been a statistically possible, however completely random generation that one time, which might never happen again.

+1 All this drama simply over a version number? How many times has it been officially stated that development of KSP would NOT stop after 1.0? Not to mention that Squad is one of the most forthcoming and community-friendly game developers out there. You think community input and feedback is taken into account by other developers to the same degree? All this uproar simply causes Squad to think twice about being forthcoming about future dev plans and announcements. I've seen other developers stop releasing dev updates all together cuz everytime they did, the pitchforks would come out.