Jimbimbibble

Thanks! Mine can do 1430m/s...until it explodes.

Daxworks Lightning Cruiser The Daxworks Lightning Cruiser is the fastest goddamn airplane in it's class (supersonic). With a maximum cruising speed of Mach 4, your passengers can meet those tough deadlines while traveling in luxury. Unlike other supersonic aircraft, the Lightning Cruiser has a large, aerodynamically efficient wing that reduces landing speeds and provides plenty of lift for low-speed maneuvering. Additionally, the Lightning Cruiser is equipped with best-in-class safety features, including ejector seats for all passengers and crew, complimentary barf bags, emergency parachute for short landings, and water landing capability. While the Lightning Cruiser is somewhat more expensive than the competitor's aircraft, it offers unparalleled safety and performance. No other aircraft comes close. An ER variant is also available. Now taking pre-orders for delivery in Q2 2018! Disclaimer: Parachutes for ejector seats sold separately. Warranty does not cover water damage. Specifications Maximum Cruising Speed: 1350m/s (1250m/s ER) Range: 1900km (3900km ER) Cruising Altitude: 18km (19km ER) Takeoff/Landing Speed: 60m/s MTOW: 25721kg (30221kg ER) Fuel Capacity: 1030kal (1830kal ER) Passenger Capacity: 40 Price: Lightning Cruiser $57,225,000 Lighning Cruiser ER $58,325,000 Link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fljzwkmnspt77bs/AAD3AZsc3gcbLHiJ6SC5Uo4Ka?dl=0

So, we've established its cheaper to go from kerbin to eeloo, but if you have a craft that can get to moho and you can refuel it there, then maybe you will have enough dV to get to eeloo and refuel again? Sounds like an interesting mission to me.

On a side note, if you go really far from the sun it will crash anything in a low orbit because of floating point rounding errors.

You could nudge it with RCS but that just sounds too tedious to be worth it.

Have you disabled yaw on the ailerons?

Or, build a station and blow it up with KIS explosives.

This was in sandbox. Turns out, it's hard to fly up 302 kerbals when they start costing 10 Million a piece!

But some of the contracts would force you to do things that are impossible with your current tech, or have very little reward (test a mainsail on the surface of Duna for instance).

You could use both sticks for control. I can imagine some situations where you really want all 3 axes on the sticks, especially when flying planes. Also, just personal preference, but I like to have pitch/roll on the right stick and yaw on the left. It would be nice to put throttle on the left stick too but that could be difficult because the stick is spring loaded. In model aircraft, we have the up/down axis of the left stick not spring loaded so we can leave throttle set in one position.

There isn't a bug here. What's happening is you have a lot of sideslip in the wrong direction. The plane is flying crooked with the side of the plane exposed to the airflow and that's causing the sideways body lift. Look at your navball. You can see it yawing away from the turn a lot. You definitely don't have enough of a rudder. Try a larger rudder (like a large delta wing with control surfaces) and put it as far back as you can. That should prevent the sideslip.

Also get the stage recovery mod. I think it makes a pretty good attempt at realism and feels non-cheaty. This will make a huge difference in your budget and enable you to design non-ssto rockets that can be fully recovered.

Lol, no crosswalks, but I spent over 100,000 funds to have the docking ports spray painted by union workers.

Built in 26 launches, this station has a mass of 301,000kg, with 320 parts and a crew capacity of 302. It rotates at 35deg/s to simulate sea level gravity (using the Persistent Rotation mod to keep the station pointed at the Sun and rotating through timewarp). All the docking ports are actually connected! Call it luck or skill, but somehow I managed to align everything and make this work. Enjoy!

I'm not sure if it would work with RSS but MechJeb. Without mapview you're going to need computer guidance (NASA does).

Most people go with the full realism overhaul. Procedural parts and RealFuels will enable you to produce rockets with similar performance to real rockets.

I think you've pretty much answered your question. You can either switch to a different ship and warp (cheat) or bring more power.

Well, orbits are going to be eliptical or hyperbolic and there are equations to get orbit based on velocity and position. So, you can use a numerical method to calculate the result of a burn. Get current acceleration, velocity, and position, then compute your current trajectory. Increment velocity and position and recalculate orbit. With a small enough time step you should be able to get a decent answer. You're going to have to write code to do this, of course, but it shouldn't be too bad if you restrict it to 2D. Adding plane changes is possible with this method but it would be nastier.

The gravity is also extremely low there, so it doesn't take much to tip your craft. I'm not sure what the drill's collision mesh looks like but a potential issue I see is the drill tipping you when you deploy it. If the drill is not a solid object this wouldn't happen, of course.

There may be an easier way, but you can go to the astronaut complex and look under "assigned". It lists all your kerbs, so if you know which ones are on your outpost you can figure it out.

I would design it so that the first stage (plus any boosters) will almost get you to LKO. That will allow you to send up almost full tanks with minimal effort during launch.

I don't think it's possible. They designed it to fall apart exactly as you described.

You would have to use numerical methods to evaluate the trajectory given a set of parameters and then iterate on those parameters to find the best solution. A genetic algorythm could be useful for something like this. But now we're talking about graduate level stuff here. It's doable for sure, just not easy.

Now that they changed how Isp works, the kind of calculations you want to do are no longer possible to do explicitly (that is, without solving a lot of differential equations). Your best bet would be to solve iteratively using a computer. You would have to write the code to do that, but it should be possible.

You may have heard this suggestion before, but perhaps you can create a PID auto-tuner that sets gains based on actual flight performance. I know that the algorythm to do that is fairly common (you can buy an auto PID controller on Amazon for $20) so I bet it could be implemented in KSP. You could even have the gains float a bit in flight as it tunes itself for different speeds/altitudes.