Sauron

Sixth'd In addition to re-sizable fairing bases it'd be nice to have a stretchy-SRBs-type display that tells you the radius of the fairing base.

True, but that's in large part due to excessively powerful jet engines (and the associated ungodly TWRs), and a very unrealistic aerodynamic system that lets you make a flyable brick of wings. In any event, the point was that the runway should be larger than 1/10th because parts (and gravity, thrust, etc.) are not also at 1/10th. We're actually on the same page.

Not quite true. While Kerbin is 1/10th scale, Kerbals and their spacecraft aren't. The Mercury capsule was about 1.8m in diameter compared to the 1-man pod's 1.25m. (Am I a bit sore that there still isn't a stock 1.25m 2-man pod? Yes. Yes, I am. )

I understand that the Devs don't want people extracting models from .mu files, but I'd really like to hear a principled reason for why this is. Not having access to the stock parts (and not having immediate access to the stock textures without considerable fuss) makes stock-alike modding (Which there isn't nearly enough of) quite a bit more difficult. It'd be great to be able to take the hatches(for example) from the stock meshes and put them on other things or tweak the shape of pods. Since the better part of KSP is not it's models, I really don't understand what the reason for this decision is. If there is a reason I'd love to hear it, but this is also a complaint of sorts--I think the policy is rather silly and I'd really like to see it changed so the community can do more to expand the pool of stock-alike parts.

I'd obviously check with you first (and make sure the HL octopus is somewhere on each of the reskins ). I'd love to help out with textures since it's one of the few useful things I'm good at--I have a draft texture for the probe envelope at this point though it still needs some tweaking. Some more questions: -The Una and Ray envelopes use .mbm textures, yes? Is there a way (on my end) to change them to accept .pngs or .tgas? -Is there anything in particular I can do to help out with textures (after you've seen my work, obviously)?

Two requests: 1: What does the license say about reskins? The stock textures are...not so hot. While I'm going to make a reskin for my own personal use regardless, I want to know if I can share it. 2: Is there a remote chance of improving the deflated envelopes so they're a bit less chunky and so they actually fit stock 1.25 and 2.5m fuselages? A fully remodeled base would be nice, but realistically just making everything thinner and slightly smaller would be good too

Can I just repeat the request for doors that open automatically? I use these on probes rather a lot. (Can this be done with a config edit? If so, how?) Also, I have an unapproved use: as a very bare-bones lander cabin to provide slightly more protection to a kerbal in a command seat. However it'd be nice to be able to open the hatch rather than clipping a kerbal through the side of the container.

I just accidentally docked a CSM and lander! The lander was out of electricity, so I used the CSM to rendezvous with it at a safe distance of ~25m. I went EVA to move my kerbal over to the transfer stage and to do some fiddling with parts and the the CM somehow managed to dock with a spinning lander without me controlling either ship. I didn't even realize for a bit because I was on the night side of Bop--too dark to see that they'd docked. Also, a payload survived an 800 m/s impact into the Kerbin's ocean 100% intact--so the kerbals are probably just going to stick it on the next rocket

Ah. It's a pity about that. Collapsible fins would be incredibly useful and grid fins are awesome--I'm going to use them a lot Also, a thought since you have a mostly complete plane fuselage complete with textures and an airlock: would it be possible to make a 1-kerbal crew container with the exact same textures, hatch style, etc. as your cockpit? Only differences being that it'd be half-length and perfectly cylindrical--it's a really irritating gap in stock aircraft, and you've clearly got the modeling chops to pull it off.

Do the grid fins actually pivot or fold up and whatnot?

It works passably well. The trick is to double down on your gravity assists at Eve (especially). Obviously a bigger system would make for a more exciting grand tour. Also: as a point of interest, I've just made an 18-ton universal (except Eve and including Kerbin) lander. It's SSTO everywhere except Tylo. So the optimal flight plan would involve Eve first (to dump a larger Eve lander as soon as possible) followed by Laythe, then Tylo where the outer stages are ditched. At that point it doesn't particularly matter where you go next since the core stage can land and return on every other body in the Kerbin system, but aiming for fuel-intensive places first is probably wise).

I have seen 1-ship, no refueling grand tours before. It's very much possible! Gravity assists are mandatory though Ideally you want to use one very bare-bones lander that sheds parts as needed. Personally, I would consider sending the Eve lander separately to be very reasonable--an almost-grand-tour is still an achievement. Edit: That 17k DV limit is for single-stage LV-Ns. You can do much, much better by staging.

Refueling ships kind of defeat the spirit of a grand tour Some suggestions: -Aggressively stage LV-Ns--you need less DV for your transfers than you think you will, and staged LVNs provide more than enough. -Aerobrake where possible. -Gravity assist where possible--a roundabout route that uses Eve, Kerbin, and Jool well will save a lot of DV (if not time) -As much as possible, make one lander that can handle everything, and that gradually gets smaller as you need it to. -Since Eve will probably require a very large dedicated lander, you want to go there first so you're not lugging that deadweight around. Everywhere else can be done with the same lander.

I've never seen that mod about on the boards? Do you have a link by chance?

I've put drag chutes on it now and that's looking promising--never really had the need for them before. But I interrupt my struggles with a bug (maybe?) on reloading a quicksave and reentering kerbin's atmosphere I'm getting outrageous--as in actually impossible--terminal velocities. On the order of 70 m/s at 40000 m. Is this a known bug? If not, I'll see if I can replicate it tomorrow.

Okay, the more aggressive (and powered) landing approach is working a bit better, but even a very flat touchdown at ~150 m/s is not quite survivable. Any pointers on how to land at very high speeds? Especially, what's the optimum way to use of airbrakes etc. to slow the plane down) ...On that note, an Edwards AFB-like site in ksp would be awesome!

It's very much a pitch issue, but it's actually performing very well at high speeds (also, those airbrakes help with any stability issues on the high end of things). I'm running into problems at the very end of the descent at around 150-100 m/s since I can't maintain enough lift without an outrageous AoA (which would produce a stall or a flip on account of being so far off-prograde)

@taniwha: There's certainly a nasty stall around +/- 25 degrees, but I'm reentering at a much shallower AoA (on the order of -5 - -10 degrees)

It does! I felt very clever when I decided to hide an inline docking port under the hitchhiker with a cubic octagonal strut. You can see it in the third picture. (Again, no 2.5m stockalike cargo bays--if there were I'd do things shuttle-style)

Another question: I'm having some trouble with reentry and landing. The ship below should be orienting itself nose-prograde in atmosphere, but regardless of how I tweak fuel (full, empty, front tank full rear tank empty etc.) I'm always reentering tail-first and struggling to glide safely. Even with all the airbrakes open. Landing aside, this plane works perfectly fine. So 2 questions: What's the best way to approach landing something with a fairly low L/D? Why can't I control it near the end of the reentry?

After considerable research, a UKS congressional committee has concluded that a worryingly high number of new kerbonauts (and Kongressmen) struggle with numbers higher than one. Because boosters are cheap and training is expensive, the committee has recommended that crew transport should be done by vehicles with a number of stages their crew can reliably count. The CCTS (Crew & Cargo Transportation System) is the result of this new initiative. The CCTS is a fully FAR compatible SSTO, stable, easy to fly, and oh-so-stylish. It can put 4 kerbals into a stable 100X100 km orbit with over 1200 m/s of delta v and a substantial amount of RCS fuel to spare. Reentry in FAR can be a bit dicey--it is important to balance your COM before re-entering. Because of the extra space inside the fairing and the excess DV, more cargo or crew is probably possible (if only we had a 2.5m stockalike cargo bay!). Personally, I'd stick with the ability to do a 1-way trip to Duna or Eve . Mods (IIRC): FAR (Duh) RLA Stockalike (offset RCS, 5-way RCS) Firespitter (airbrakes) Procedural Fairings Procedural wings Stretchy SRB Aviation Lights Self Illumination Lights

So, a question: this plane seems to pitch and yaw fairly well, but right after takeoff it tends to roll uncontrollably. To provide a bit more information, the flaps are for roll and pitch, the rudders at the end of the wings are for roll and yaw. The two tailwings don't control anything.

This launcher can carry a respectable payload in a side-mounted payload pod (the pictured mission had an 11 ton pod which can easily be launched on an (Altenis Kerbol) Laythe trajectory. The November LV is fully compatible with FAR. In fact, it flies better with FAR than stock aerodynamics (very exciting!). Maximum payload is usually limited by balance issues rather than weight, but a 15 ton pod is quite doable without any fuss. Larger payloads may require some adjustment to the placement of the Skipper and/or more power on the core stage. To fly without FAR, swap the skipper for a mainsail and add some more tanks to the core stage. Just be careful, and throttle down to a safe speed once you are in the upper atmosphere. In theory, you could also attach a Buran-style orbiter to the stack. Just mind the wings!

Whoah! Awesome. I may have to return to the stock solar system to test that out

It's too late! I've put the payload into a stable orbit already at this point! (I suppose a smaller rocket would've done well enough for a ring. That's what those little Rockomax engine are for, right? ) I've also created a much more attractive, fully FAR-compatible version that can put a 15 ton payload pod on an (Alternis-Kerbol) Laythe trajectory. It flies surprisingly well with FAR. I was expecting the usual 'parts flying everywhere' dealie, but I put it into orbit on the first try with even less fuss than the stock aerodynamic version. Part of that would be the fact that I could just barely downsize from a mainsail to a skipper--much more controllable. And FAR's preference for lower trajectories suits the launch profile really well. So I suppose this is resolved now. See you in the showcase!