Raptor9

All this stuff is making me want to build bunch of Thunderbird replicas...they certainly look Kerbal in design (loosely at least).

That's not what she said...(borderline? )

So I built a Mk4 spaceplane with these parts. It consisted of the cockpit, crew cabin, four cargo bays and a tail ramp, with a cranked delta-wing and four separate engine nacelles under the wings. Each underwing engine nacelle consisted of a large structural intake with 1.25m mount, and a SCIMITAR mounted behind each. The IntakeAir resource had a total capacity of 16.00 (each intake 4.00), but never dropped below 15.00 until above 30,000m. I know this is v1.0, but I think the intakes are a little overpowered, especially when coupled with the SCIMITAR. As soon as I hit the dark blue mesosphere region of the barometer the IntakeAir resource went down really quickly, but up until that point, barely a decrease. All stock intakes provide a fraction of the intake air by the time you get to 15,000m, so not seeing a noticeable drop-off until above 30,000m was a little wonky.

I think the most value of an opening nose, or a cargo ramp midway down the fuselage, would be the ability to still put MkIV components (like fuel tanks and/or engine mounts) in the rear fuselage, instead of shifting them to the wings. The tail cargo ramp precludes this. Not that I'm complaining about the tail ramp at all, I love it. But I see the value of having alternative ramp and cockpit locations.

No, I had a similar layout to yours, and used TAC fuel balancer to level all tanks. From front to rear, my components were exactly the same, except no docking port, and the drone core was on the front of the cargo bay. My wing construction was exactly the same amazingly, but I used two Mk1 Liquid fuel tanks on the engine nacelles instead of the LFO tanks. IIRC, my issue was that the RAPIERs were dragging the CoM to far back, but if I moved the wing/nacelle assembly forward, it would throw the lift vector off. I'll revisit the concept from scratch, maybe I just needed a fresh start. Thanks.

It has higher thrust in atmosphere, but also a greater intake air requirement, and better efficiency. Higher thrust in Closed-Cycle, but less efficient compared to the RAPIER. Also, the SCIMITAR is slightly heavier obviously. SCIMITAR: Mass: 1.5, Drag: .2, Atmo Thrust: 290, Atmo ISP: 900, CC Thrust: 280, CC ISP: 305(ASL)-350(Vac) RAPIER: Mass: 1.2, Drag: .2, Atmo Thrust: 190, Atmo ISP: 800, CC Thrust: 175, CC ISP: 320(ASL)-360(Vac)

Some really nice Skylon replicas here. Question: does any of your spacecraft have center-of-gravity issues when low on fuel? Mine looked almost exactly like Rune's, but the CG would move too far aft with low fuel, causing it to want to tumble in the atmosphere. If you all don't, I'll have to go back and revisit my file. EDIT: I should note that I used TAC Fuel Balancer to balance the tanks, so fuel drainage from front to back wasn't the issue.

Yeah, I tried wheeling my mobile surface lab in there, you have to design a 2.5M-based rover with the bay-width in mind. It might be doable, but you have to really consider your wheel selection and placement. You ever see a Humvee inside a CH-47 Chinook? You're talking inches on all sides, and driving it up/down the cargo bay ramp like an inch-worm. EDIT: @Rune, you might be interested to know that Nertea is considering making lift-fans for a possible atmospheric propulsion pack in his Near Future Tech thread. They might be a good addition to your QuinJet. I'm gonna make a QuinJet with those myself if he decides to do them.

Sweet stuff Nertea. I forsee people making B-52's with those engine pods, lol. I like the coffee mug on the instrument panel.

The link to his release thread for the MkIV is below the photos of the 'X-19'.

Most Recent Updates Section Most Recent Updates (Last 7 days) ----------None since 16 Jun----------

[Withdrawn.]

I'll reserve judgment of the Mk3 system until I see the whole lineup. There were no cargo bays or docking ports in the preview linked by Maxmaps, but he did say some parts weren't included in the preview because they were still being worked on, so bays and docking ports may be what he was referencing (I'm just speculating). However, if the Mk3 collection in the next update doesn't have cargo bays, or the cargo bays aren't big enough to fit 2.5M parts, Nertea's Mk4 will definitely have a leg up in that regard. EDIT: Apparently Maxmaps tweeted that there will be cargo bays in Mk3 update, and possibly medium- and large-sized landing gear as well (current ones being small-sized). Even so, like I said before the edit, I'll wait and see how they stack up. EDIT 2: Meanwhile, on Kerbin... Fully fueled, this thing weighs just over 28 tons, but is surprisingly nimble when flying at low speed in vertical flight mode. In horizontal flight at low altitude however, it doesn't go over 200m/s and has the turning radius of a B-52. But that's ok, it's purpose isn't speed or maneuverability. Thanks Nertea "Runways? Where we are going we don't need...runways." PS: And if anybody thought the design looks familiar, I got the idea from the VTOL's in the first-person shooter "Crysis".

Good lord, can't believe I just found this thread. Downloading now...yoink (In my surprise, I accidently posted this in Nertea's NearFutureTech thread, lol. Calming down now)

In case you guys didn't see this linked by Maxmaps in Tuesdays dev blog: http://imgur.com/a/Nm7yy#0

If you want a complete evaluation and comparison between different propulsion schemes for SSTO's, look at this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/68030-RAPIERs-don-t-suck!-A-complete-performance-evaluation This guy does a very good job on the pros and cons of running with just RAPIERs versus a compound propulsion system. The main selling point I took away from it is how efficiently it uses intake air compared to a turbine engine. You're able to achieve a much higher airspeed/altitude energy state before switching to rocket power. It's not the best rocket engine, nor is it the most powerful air-breather, but for a craft with a main function to get from the surface to orbit, it's the most efficient powerplant choice. The rest is up to designing a good airframe for the mission as well. Biggest drawback: no alternator, so you'll need enough battery power to last you until you can put out some solar panels in orbit. (unless you're launching in the daytime with OX-STATs) If you're looking for ideas on a spaceplane design, my most successful layouts were SR-71-like in appearance. Shameless plug: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=965HnZvKp4s

To emphasize what the above posters have said, if you can build an SSTO to carry payloads to Kerbin orbit (or bring them back) the cost savings (in career mode of course) is worth the investment. I launched a SCANsat to survey Kerbin; used an SSTO to put it up there, and when it's done I'll bring it back, getting money back for the expensive probe core and scanning equipment. The only costs I incur are the fuel costs of the SSTO itself for two round-trips to space. If you can build some small efficient trans-orbital ships to go to and from the Mun, and keep them in space by transferring Kerbals and science back and forth via SSTO's, all you really have to do is worry about how you can cheaply refuel them. That way you're not buying a new capsule and/or lander for every Mun/Minmus mission launch.

If you can think it up, try and figure it out. Very little is impossible in KSP.

Just my technique... First off, the only non-space station vessels I make that are big enough to require orbital assembly are interplanetary. It will depend on your specific ship design, but I can normally separate it into several modules joined by large (2.5m) docking ports. This is practical if your ship is of longer shape. If it's a wider design requiring you to place modules radially around the main module, it will start getting tricky with multiple docking ports and such. Anyway, after I have my ship assembled (all docked together), sometimes I will use the EVA-placeable struts from Kerbal Attachment System mod to reinforce certain key areas while in orbit. This helps with the wobble of your ship and it also adds to the realism of actually going out on EVA and assembling a craft in orbit. The main consideration I have to make on how many modules I can separate it into is the weight of each section. Fewer modules means fewer launch vehicles, and less wobble of your finished ship, but those individual modules may be very heavy, requiring extremely robust launchers. If it's a heavy module and contains fuel, defuel it in the VAB and launch a fuel lifter later to fuel the ship after assembly is finished. Defueled modules are also easier to move/manipulate during docking. It's all about cost vs benefit of your designs. It's why KSP is so fun. Hope this helps EDIT: BTW, wolverine I noticed this was your first post. Welcome to the forums, and welcome to Kerbal Space Program.

xtoro, all I can say is wow. I can't imagine how much work has gone into the story with custom built scenes, interiors, screenshots. This is an incredible undertaking, in gameplay and documentation. Definitely need more rep than what I can give.

KerrMu, that first screenshot is awesome! UPDATE: I'm on Mk3.1 now (yes, design modifications have taken to sub-Mk numbers now ). I've managed to knock off a couple hundred remaining delta-V remaining at the apoapsis. I'm gonna take a page out of your book with that lander in your signature and use a Hitchhiker storage container instead of the Mk1-2, it'll save me a couple tons, and give me the option to return four Kerbals instead of three. Among a number of other small revisions....getting closer. EDIT: Mk4 down to 880m/s delta-V left

An atmospheric SSTO and a long-range interplanetary ship capable of going that far is a tall order since those two requirements are damn near polar opposites in engineering requirements. Especially if you don't want it looking ridiculous. At a minimum, I would say an orbitial fuel depot around Kerbin would be a minimum (maybe even pre-stage a fuel tank cluster at Laythe ahead of the SSTO), and putting LV-N's on it would be a serious consideration, if not a requirement.

How I designed a working spaceplane was I designed a straight airbreather that could go as high and fast as I could get it, with some of the equipment required for a spaceplane installed (reaction wheels and/or RCS thrusters/tanks, docking port, payload bay, whatever you'll need for what you want to do with it). I'd tweak it to the point I got the most performance out of it in the atmosphere, then I would save it as a new craft file and start retrofitting it. RAPIER engines (my preference), oxidizer, adjusting the wings slightly to compensate for any shift in Center-of-Gravity. The new spaceplane parts are in an indirect way, helpful in this manner. If you want to use the streamlined Mk2-1.25m adapters, they only exist in LFO versions, forcing you to defuel the oxidizer portion if you want to use them for just airbreathers. When you switch to the full spaceplane model from the straight-airbreather, you already have the oxidizer tanks on board. The most invasive things I had to do to my spaceplane derivative is swap out two MK1 Fuselage fuel tanks for two FL-T400 and add canards to help with the initial takeoff. Another useful tip I recommend is adjust the fuel sliders in the SPH editor and watch where the Center-of-Gravity and Center-of-Lift indicators are when your spaceplane (or any plane) is empty on fuel. If the CoG is aft of the CoL, you'll spaceplane will topple during reentry and at best be unstable in aerodynamic flight in the lower atmosphere. A plane that handles great on takeoff might not handle great later on as you burn off fuel.

LOL, only on Kerbin would that tactic work. On planets with inhabitants of common sense, not so much.

UPDATE: So I've tested the second version of my ascent vehicle. As of this post, I launched from an elevation of 5691m above sea level, and was able to make a 102km apoapsis with 1553m/s delta-V remaining (at fuel exhaustion) on the gravity turn to circularize the orbit. My ascent vehicle still sports a Mk1-2 Command Pod, which I know is the heaviest, but I'm intent on sending three Kerbals to the surface and back. Logic would dictate landing three smaller ascent vehicles on the surface (one for each Kerbal), but I know this design can work. It's just a matter of getting into the grinder about getting the right engines for TWR vs ISP at certain points along the trajectory, weight-saving, and making sure I keep it as close to terminal velocity as possible. Call me stubborn, but I know I can make this concept (proven by KerrMu) work on a 2.5m pod as heavy as the Mk1-2. It's not impossible, I just haven't quite figured it out yet. EDIT: My favorite part of the testing process is the initial launch, seeing the gantry towers explosively blow away as the ascent vehicle lifts off is so cool