British_Rover

How so? I was able to do my first interplanetary missions now with .22. I tried back when I first started playing but I had no luck doing it. Now after spending a ton more time messing around in Kerbin's SOI I have learned more and I was able to land put two probes into Duna's system. I am waiting for the launch window to open up so I can send my first manned interplanetary mission out. And Sub-assemblies yeah I have so many subs saved in the sub-assembly mod using them now is even easier.

I sent a two probe mission to Duna. I inserted one into orbit around duna and then used to Duna to bend the other into an orbit around Ike. Commenced science at both then landed the Ike probe. After landing the Ike probe and breaking a solar panel I landed the Duna probe on Duna. The Duna landing went fine and I started more SCIENCE. Then I took off from Ike to drop my second probe on Duna's north pole. TIL that Duna's polar caps are really tall. I came down to steep and too fast and didn't realize that the ice caps were 5,000 meters high. Boom goes the probe.

I was working on something for a challenge where I orbit the equator of the moon at right at 6km which only gives you a 100 odd meters of clearance in a couple of places. Going that low on the dark side just as you hit the terminator line in some of those places is just plane creepy. The way the light plays off the peaks and falls into the valleys throws some real odd shadows going that low and fast. It makes it even creepier when certain parts of the music come up.

@boolybooly I didn't drop or add any engines on this flight. I tried doing the flight with a Nuke engine first but all that mass hanging off the back made landing impossible. I used the a tri-48-7S powerplant attachment from takeoff to landing.

Used action groups and everything still comes apart. It was the first thing I tried after the decouplers caused the command section to come apart. On my initial design something might have been clipped because their was an explosion but I went back double checked everything and built a whole new command section. Using an action group to decouple the command section still broke apart into three or more pieces. I am going to try and rebuild everything from the command section down to a new Mark2 kethinterplantery lander and see if maybe the craft file was corrupted. After using my Mark1 design between the Mun and Minimus there are few things I would like to change. I think I can knock a couple of tons off the lander and give it Tylo capability after refueling with Kethane.

The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation and money. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition30/tryanny.html Good post on how hard it is to get stuff into orbit. NASAs budget is less then $18 billion dollars for FY 2014 and without looking at what Russia spends on their Space program I would guess the US spends more then any other nation on earth. To put that in perspective the US Federal Budget for FY 2014 is a little over 3 trillion dollars, 3.03 trillion dollars to be exact, so even rounding up the US spends 0.59 percent of the federal budget on NASA. Imagine where we would be if NASA's budget was say just double what we spend on it now so 1.2ish percent of the federal budget. Lets say that level of funding had been fixed since after Apollo. From a technical standpoint we can obviously get the Moon successfully and if we had spent the last 30 years working on increasing our knowledge base about long distance manned space flight over that time instead of spending most of our time in LEO we could have probably advanced to Mars by now.

Is HAMsmith said Scott Manely is Scottish it says so right on his youtube page. Best not to get Scots, English, Welsh and Irish confused. They sometimes get pissed about that. Yes they are all from the United Kingdom but its region has its own culture and particular differences. Just like someone from Texas is a bit different then someone from Connecticut or Oregon. http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxzC4EngIsMrPmbm6Nxvb-A Cool that Arthur C. Clarke worked on that. His TV show used to give me the creeps as a kid.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/49803-the-cyclers-difficulty-inane It seems to be possible but very, very difficult with patch conics.

That is pretty cool. I don't spent a lot of time EVAing Kerbals but I can see the benefit to something like this. It would also be great on low gravity moons and I bet you could even use it as an escape system to get to orbit on them. Add Robotic arms and legs and make...

Really there should be a screenshot of the EOM report so you can get maximum velocity over the surface and not orbital velocity by mistake.

So I am trying to put together an interplantery kethane mission. A Kethinterplantery mission if you will but I am having an problem. I got the lander/drive/refinery portion up into orbit no problem. It is currently on space trials between the Mun and Minimus. Here are some shots of the lander under power and then the last three shots are the craft I am having a problem with. My command section and fuel storage section keeps exploding when I go to undock it from the lifter. I built the lander/drive section first launched it and tested it. Then I went back and built the command section second removing most of the lander to save weight. It was the only way I could get everything to line up right so all three senor clampotrons can dock. The problem is when I get the whole craft into orbit and go to separate the lander section which is basically just a construction jig my command section explodes. Well sometimes it just separates into a bunch of bits with no explosion. I have tried using, docking ports on both sides, docking ports on one side, seperators, decouplers and every combination in between. Everytime the command section breaks apart. Is there a way to fix this or is it just a function of the way the ships were built? I have included the craft file. The staging for the lifter is a bit out of order. I have to watch the tanks draining to make sure I adjust it in flight. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1b53G-UMsskazFJcnU5aWxPazA/edit?usp=sharing

I have made a couple of SSTOs but never got to posting one in this thread. This my new modular SSTO based off an older design from a couple of versions ago. It is ridicliously overpowered from a jet engine standpoint but I originally modified it to compete in that blackbird challenge. I kill the four inner turbojets once I hit about 25,000 meters. The docking port on the back lets me swap rocket engines in orbit. Landed on KSC runway for a Advanced pilot precision award. This plane is part of my Blackbird series of SSTOs and high speed aircraft. It does look vaguely like a SR-71. Sort of. This particular one is Blackbird_MOD for the modular nature of its rocket propulsion.

You mean asexually.

Here you go Top speed 2,162 or so. I screwed up and didn't get an end mission report. Plus one NERVA dropped and circumnavigation. So 50 plus 50 plus 10 plus 100. 210 points.

I actually building up to something like this a while ago. I wanted to do a grand tour minus Eve and have a large, 150 plus ton, lander that should lander every where but Eve. Having a problem with the mother ship I want to use though as my spherical tanks keep exploding.

Still haven't been able to decide and won't be able to do any more test flights before the time for voting runs out. I do like the To Aeris Kerbal 3a but the no controllable rudder is a big negative for me. The only Yaw control is with the reaction wheel so pinpoint landings are kind of hard. I did manage to fly everything but for some craft all I got in was a take off and a quick spin around KSC before a landing attempt. Before I started out testing I was thinking of a few things are good for a trainer considering that most new players probably are not using a joy stick. 1. A dead stick take off should be possible. 2. One engines preferred over two for a trainer. 3. Good yaw control via a proportional rudder for precision landing. 4. Stable flight at cruise altitude. 5. Limited maneuverability without being jerky or twitchy. After I did some flights I modified that list some. 1. Dead stick takeoff preferred but if the chance of a tail strike is minimal then slight pitch up is ok to get a nice take off. 2. Twin engines ok if a flat spin is fairly easy to recover from. That means you need a good sized rudder. For example the Mayfly recovered very quickly from a flat Spin because of the good rudder. 3. I would accept more maneuverability then I thought because of the combination of fine controls and then SAS off or on. Those combos gives you more options if a plane is too quick to roll or pitch. My plane the Bullfrot for example needs more pitch and slightly more roll control. I should have left the small control surfaces for ailerons. In short I am still thinking and I am open to blatant lobby attempts. How much time do I have left to vote?

Manley used infinite fuel and Sepratrons enormous delta V as part of a Redit challenge. When empty their TWR is 120 plus so 50 plus on a small craft got him 100 plus m/s of acceleration.

Hmh ok will have to fly their in a plane to try and find it.

I don't even think you need the second set of upward facing docking ports. I have attached parts a few times with just a single docking port directly connecting to a node and it still holds fine. Just make sure to disable fuel crossfeed if they are no decouplers around in the way to stop fuel flow. If you do that you need to either create an action group or manually stage the decouple node on the docking port.

I started test flying them last night then we had a huge thunderstorm plus power outage and loss of internet. I would love to go through and do a detailed list of pluses and minuses but because of the loss of testing last night I don't think I will have time. I will do general impressions of what I thought would be a good trainer and then choose what I think the plane that best fits that role.

Any chance of someone who has downloaded the planes already making a zip file for all of them? Also on the bullfrog if you hit action group 1 it engages only the rear brakes, kills engine and deploys ladder. I haven't had any problem braking on a fairly level surface from relatively high speeds. I always forget about that stupid description window.

Hmh I read it that way too I was trying to drop a Nerva last night set up the same way that theA-5 Vigilante was supposed to deliver nuclear bombs but I couldn't get to 2,000 m/s below 25,000 feet with the extra weight and drag. Now I will have to try it again at just a little above that height as I am sure it will work out this time.

Is there a KSC2 in the current version of KSC? I was trying to find it for a challenge of my own but I didn't see it after landing in what I thought were the right coordinates. I need to take a space plane to patrol the area I guess I just landed in a simple one man lander.

Side note I initially that that Messerschmitt in the first post was a 109G model, it even says so in the wiki picture link, but now I am pretty sure it is a F model as there are no wing armaments. I only see the center mounted cannon, which could be a 20mm or a 30mm but probably a 20 mm if it is a F model, that through the spinner in the propeller and was mounted in the V of the engine. Plus the top mounted guns on the engine cowling that were synchronized to fire through the propeller. A F model would use machine guns, forget the exact caliber prob standard 7.92mm , and a G model would use 20mm cannons.

Normal jet engines don't work on Eve but Kethjets do. See this challenge http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/46323-The-Eve-Circumnavigation-Challenge?highlight=circumnavigate