iueras

I apologize if this has been answered but I couldn't find it in a search and this thread is long... Is there a way to use the control surface axis assignments in FAR to make a plane roll when I use the x-axis of my joystick instead of the twist, instead of having to exit and reassign them when I switch between rockets and planes? I tried using the assignments but the ailerons did not respond to the x-axis input at all.

Thanks! I probably will move over to the Sabres now, I had just set a goal of doing this with the stock turbojets. I did use the Sabre intakes mainly cause I liked the way they look.

So, I took Tex_NL's advice and laid a line of nav beacons outside my runway. I made a vehicle expressly for this purpose: In the SPH Here it is getting ready to drop a nav beacon Here we have dropped one and raised the dispenser back up in preparation for movement And here we have dropped another for comparison, activated the systems on one, and rotated the dispenser hub, ready to drop another beacon. Sorry if this was too image heavy, I just wanted to show off my little beacon layer. I would mark this thread as answered if I knew how.

275s, 420Kn at sea level. It uses 9 of these Merlin 1D engines. And it only weighs .63 ! EDIT: Oops. Those are the stats for the Merlin 1C. Ralathon's post has the correct stats for the 1D.

I know this is not particularly impressive compared to the mission reports I am reading, but I am proud to report that after a couple weeks worth of effort and "I lost count after 100" test flights and design tweaks (and a couple redesigns), I finally figured out what I was doing wrong and got my first spaceplane into orbit. Here she is, the X-2 "Prometheus" SSTO in LKO: I had the solar panel extended in this shot to maintain power while the engines were all shut down. And I made the node just fine, I hadn't cleared it yet is all. I know this is done every day by you vets but I am excited! Donly is pretty pleased with himself too, he finally beat Jeb at something.

Ok, now I am truly confused. LOL Should I attempt to account for the extra mass on the bottom of the plane in SPH when attempting to line up the CoT properly? I've been putting one off stuff on top to try and balance the mass of 3 wheels on the bottom (i.e., RCS fuel, a single solar panel, radial mount battery, etc.). I will fly under the assumption that it does cause drag and should be stowed in flight. If it doesn't make a difference, I'm not hurting anything, and if it does... The main issue then is whether or not you should try to balance the mass of the wheels to line up your CoT (or try to use them to shift CoM forward or back like I have also done). EDIT: Chevron, could you launch that rocket one more time with all (but ONLY) the gears stripped off? That should settle the question of if it counts as 0 mass in flight for balancing purposes. If you don't want to let me know and I'll run an experiment myself, figured I'd ask since you have the rocket and the baseline numbers already. EDIT 2: Never mind, I just reread your post. I misunderstood, on second reading it appears you DID launch it once without any gears on it. Thanks for that, and apparently they are indeed massless in flight.

I was thinking using a system like yours for the long range lineup, and slope approximation, then setting up a series of VASI lights closer to the runway for the final 2 km or so for final glide slope. Not that something that is really needed but still would be cool if I can pull it off, I think. Excellent, thanks very much for your help.

The biggest reason I can think of is Mars and other bodies (asteroids, moons, etc) where a spaceplane is not practical. The atmospheres, if any, preclude the use of any kind of air-breathing engine for assistance to orbit, and the different atmospheric densities and varying gravities mean your wings that worked fine on Earth don't work elsewhere. For to and from Earth orbit, spaceplanes are great. But for general purpose travel to and from a general target in the system, rockets are just more versatile, while being cheaper to design and maintain right now than a complex spaceplane. At least, that's my thoughts on it. EDIT: All this is assuming you want to land and take off again, of course.

Like these?‎

Well, now I feel dumb. I've tried that but honestly even though I've been up to orbit probably 30 times and even put together some structures in orbit, I'm always concentrating so hard on flight and maneuvers that I can't remember exactly where the base is... Or even which continent for that matter. Seriously, I feel really dumb right now. That's a fantastic idea. Sounds like a really good use for the Aviation Lights mod I just got downloaded. I am just OCD enough to set up the strobe timing to sequence towards the runway too, LOL. Wonder if I can make some sort of rudimentary VASI... structurally shielded light sections and patience... hmm... So there is no issue where you have to "empty" the runway before each flight parking rovers/probe bodies/whatever close to the runway? Or is there a certain range clear of the runway I have to be before it stops interfering? Thanks for the responses guys, you've given me some ideas. Off to experiment (I am seriously going to try and set up VASI Since moving parts seem to have issues maintaining locations, I'm going to have to make a different light beacon for each marker with slightly different angles... hopefully the SPH has a small enough rotation increment).

Agreed. SpaceX in general is doing amazing things, and doing them for so much less than NASA -- no disrespect intended. The original and VERY expensive research could not have been done without NASA and the brave astronauts and test pilots who went first! But no one can argue that the NASA bureaucracy is entrenched, expensive, and very slow to do anything, especially change. I've said for years and years that commercialization is the key to getting off this rock. Spaceflight for the sake of it is great, but a government funded institution like NASA is not who is going to make it cheap and profitable. Organizations like NASA are GREAT for the original research and bleeding edge breakthroughs (i.e., JPL, etc.). As a science and research organization, they work fantastically. But companies like SpaceX are who will bring spaceflight to the commercial level.

Sigh... yet another must-have mod to add to my rapidly growing list. But seriously, thanks for that, blizzy78. I had no idea this existed. Getting it now! EDIT: And when I went to get it, I discovered that sub-assembly loaders exist! Holy crap it's Christmas in August!

So, now that I am getting into spaceplane designs, I have a need for finding the runway again from orbit. Does anyone know of a stock or modded way to show me the spaceport on the orbital map, and ideally target it and/or light up the runway a bit so I can actually see it at night for approach? I have wanted this for a while for landing rockets and such as well, but only since using spaceplanes has the smooth runway as a landing site become critical. I tried debarking a Kerbal and planting a flag at the launchpad/runway area, but the flag "flight" has to be removed before I can launch the next one, which removes the flag and makes it pointless. Same goes for parking a ship or anything else at the spaceport for visibility purposes. Any other ideas? Apologies if this has been answered before, if it has my search-fu was weak.

Honestly, the only antagonistic person I have seen in this thread is you. Two jokes, both met with hostility from you. No one else said a word except the one guy that didn't get the pun. If it wasn't your intention then I apologize, but it really does seem like you are trying to start a fight, or at least coming across as hostile. And with that said I will say no more on the matter, because otherwise I am getting dragged into it and I don't want to fight.

Why are you trying to start a fight? Just accept that everyone's sense of humor is different and move on. I watched the video just now, and I must say the landing particularly impressed me. I honestly thought it was coming down WAY too fast, then it just.... settled. Something to be said (good things) for that kind of precision.

Props for the battlecruiser, man, that's awesome! Although it saddens me to see another independent world fall to the Confederacy.

Alright thanks for the answers guys. I guess right now it doesn't make much if any difference so I'll go with that

Thank for all the answers guy, you are all awesome! I will work on it some more with everything that has been said in mind. and let you all know when I finally make it EDIT: I redesigned some after taking into consideration what everyone said in this thread and I am happy to report I made it to orbit in my little spaceplane.

Off topic but holy crap they are making Ender's Game into a movie? When can I throw my money at them? EDIT: Just found the release date, Kingsley as Mazer? Perfect. Can't wait, thanks for the mention, I had NO idea this was in the works (I don't watch TV).

I apologize if this has been answered before. I searched but couldn't find the answer. Does raising/lowering your landing gear have any effect at all on the drag or aerodynamics (like making it pitch up or down) of a plane at the moment?

How do you guys actually get into orbit with one? I have a spaceplane that can get to about 1.6-1.8km/s at 28-29km altitude, but I can't quite seem to finish the get to orbit part. Have been trying to a week now. I thought I was going too slow for this type of spacecraft LOL. TWR is about 8-9 with the jets on, 7.2 on the runway before burning any fuel; this thing SCREAMS. But I can't get that last bit to orbit after cutting the jets. Sorry if I am hijacking the thread, let me know if it's an issue and I'll start a new one.

Thank you so much for this! Can't wait to try out some of these hinges and speed control is a godsend. Quick Question though: Will the speed control be OK on existing spacecraft that use the docking washers? I built a station around them and want to make sure that it won't break before I install this new dll.

Thanks for the info about the stuck docking ports. LOL I actually just got a LOT of experience docking with dead things. Some Kerbal forgot to put solar panels or even a battery on the command section of the launcher I sent up carrying the power generation module. So about 10 seconds after I launched the entire power generation system for the station, my ship went unresponsive from battery death. And the first rescue ship I sent tore itself in half with the winch and was left with no engine at all. AND the third ship I sent ran out of Monopropellant cause I neglected to turn off RCS assisted turning and it is a heavy beast. So I had to dock two two dead ships, recharge one and tow the otehr out of orbit with no RCS thrusters, nothing for fine control except the Skipper main engine, and both targets were dead in space. Talk about a PITA. Got it done though, everyone lived too. EDIT: How can I mark this thread as Answered?

Now that I have the connections fastened the right direction KAS is working great for me on 0.21.1.

Hmm... I'm in EVA right now trying to grab the winch plug to connect to a dead ship (guess who forgot the solar panel ), and I have the option to unplug the connector, which lets it drift off into space apparently unrecoverable, and no other options. No option on the winch either. I attached the vertical stack winch to the side of my rocket and put a connector on the end of it, then went to rendezvous. Did I maybe forget a step or is there something wrong with my install? EDIT: I zoomed way close and unplugged the connector. I think that it may have gone in backwards. Is the large end of the connector supposed to be inside or outside? Detachable ports detach and reattach fine for me, and I was able to grab the magnet disk out of the storage but not attach it to the winch. EDIT 2: After testing it seems there are 3 ways the connector likes to try to attach but only one works for grabbing it EVA. It snaps to backwards, if you turn it yourself it tries to snap to the wrong node, clipping it into the winch. Only the way with it sticking out a little works.