Jarin

Meh, it's all design challenge. And the nice thing about rapiers is that you don't have to up the part count with fuel lines to keep things running properly, which gives you some breathing room if your computer is a bit... venerable. My current workhorse is a refinement of this Archon (which I think looks pretty decent and not at all silly) and runs with no framerate issues on your average digital toaster.

Yeah, for a once-per-savegame thing, I can fire up textpad.

I meant in options, but that works too. I can get my hands a bit dirty if needed. Thanks

Can't launch 1.2 to check - is there any way to modify this in an existing career? Like @Alshain mentioned, once you get higher in the tech tree, you might want to assume your engineers have found workarounds and disable it.

Another problem that I've seen come up (and bit me repeatedly before I had the problem pointed out to me) is the difference between rotational period and sidereal rotational period. I got pretty darn good with minor orbit adjustments, but precision with the RCS engines doesn't help you one bit if you put up that primary KSO comsat - perfectly positioned over KSC - ... with an orbital period of exactly 6 hours. This worked fine, pre-1.0.5, but now that Kerbin has an actual synodic 6h day, its sidereal rotational period is down to 5h 59m 9.4s, so KSO satellites need to have this orbital period to stay put properly.

Ladder sliding is supposedly fixed in 1.2, so you can do ladder-chairs (think of it as a kerbal holding the smallest ladder like a steering wheel in front of them) again.

Why is Emiko already referring to herself in third person already? I thought that was more of a weird side-effect of the warping she'd been through. Was it the cryo-stasis and genetic mucking about that did it, instead?

Would love to see how you made this work. How do you keep it steady and still control it? Seems like the SAS would go weird when you actually tried to drive.

You managed to break the unbreakable joints with aero forces? I don't have a solution for you, just kudos. I've only ever managed that with phys warp assistance.

Probably part of why the new parts aren't officially making it into this release.

Would love to see what you come up with. Do you plan to post the craft file?

Yeah, it's not hugely critical. I just had an easily-reproducible issue (which is bloody rare for me, regardless of what I'm working with) so I figured I'd let you know.

Okay, pretty straightforward test. Let's take my new crew transport. That file has fuel lines on it, making all fuel reach the rapiers by standard fuel flow rules. - First launch, hit 2 to toggle to closed-cycle, Note the delta-V readout in KER, then start burning fuel. Easiest to just point it straight up and let it run out of ox. Note the way the fuel drains evenly across the craft, all tanks draining at the same rate, just like a jet in airbreathing mode. - Now revert to the VAB, pull off the fuel lines. They're all visible from below; only one slightly hidden is right at the split between Mk2 fuselages on the wing. - Toggle to closed-cycle and make note of the delta-V readout again. Note how it's significantly lower (it's not realizing that the main body's fuel will reach the engines). Take off and note how it drains fuel the same way as before, getting just as far before the ox burns out, despite showing less than half the dV in KER. Basically, rapiers in closed cycle mode use STAGE_PRI (ALL_VESSEL, but sorted by stage) fuel flow rules, just like in airbreathing mode. KER appears to be calculating as if closed-cycle uses normal flow (STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH, I think?), or at least respecting crossflow rules of that mode for radial attachment, where STAGE_PRI does not.

I'm impressed you managed that at all without any mods. I rate Docking Port Alignment Indicator as my second most important mod, after KER. I figure, real space programs don't have to dock by Mk. 1 eyeball and the seat of their pants, so why should I?

Looks like vessel DeltaV readouts are not aware that Rapiers draw from the entire craft, even in closed-cycle mode.

Just a follow-up here. Further testing shows very nice efficiency gains if I climb to around 30km, then lock autopilot to orbital prograde (which is generally just a touch above horizontal at that point). There's little enough drag in that range that burning on rocket-mode doesn't cause too much heat trouble. All told, it moved me from about 4-500dV left in orbit up to about 750dV, so very respectable improvement.

No.

Then you're just fine in the spaceplane definition. Pretty sure I said "can" not "always has to". Edit: didn't say either, but whatever, it's capability we're discussing. Pointing my spaceplanes vertical doesn't make them rockets.

Yeah, once you give up the qualification of "can handle sustained horizontal flight at TWR < 1" you get silliness like this.

That can fly and land on its own. The parachute is for emergencies.

Really pushing the definition of "plane" here. I suspect there's plenty of craft that mostly fall under the category of "rocket" that could glide with body lift.

The Space Shuttle was an ungainly and inefficient mess. I guess it has to boil down to "horizontal landing" as the dividing line, then? This is kind of my feeling on the matter, but I suspect I'd have an uphill climb to make that argument stick.

Good info post overall, just wanted to comment on this section. Isn't it still better to do your example multistage rather than just stacking a bunch of tanks on a single engine? I've always done my first career orbit with a sold-fuel kicker to get off the pad, then a second LF stage to orbit. Since recovery is still a major pain at the early tech levels, that minimizes your cost to orbit since you're getting more of your dV from the high cost-efficiency solid fuel at the start.

That seems to be the order of the day. I like the TWR comment though, with one exception. *CAN* fly with TWR < 1, rather than simply has that. Every SSTO spaceplane I fly has TWR > 1 once the engines hit their optimal range, even if they didn't start that way.

Ha, fair point. "SSTO not intended to return" then? Design, intent, and actual flight do not align nearly as often as I'm sure we would all like.