KerrMü

Made this I hope they proceed.

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen My Eve mission made some progress over the last few days. First I took the Evetta rover down to the surface and cruised around a bit to find a suitable landing place for Leia (the ascend vehicle). The widest almost flat area I could find at a reasonable altitude was at 4390m. I still think that could work, so i deposed the landing beacon and drove the rover to a save distance. Then I landed Leia. Wow, that was the most nerve wracking experience I had in this game for a looong time. The piloting was done manually, but with the readouts from MJ. It actually took me 3 trys, but with a little practice I could keep the landing prediction marker over the target, and the horizontal thrusters did the finetuning while parachuting down. I touched down pretty close to the beacon (that little bug between the landing legs is it) Now I just have to get a Kerbal there. Just before the weekend I´ve already designed the ship for that mission (still hasn´t got a name). So today I assembled it in orbit, docked a landing capsule and a gilly lander/rescue-tug (to hopefully catch Leias head in low orbit), and then filled the whole thing up. In this pic my asteroid tug is still clawed to the ship. It turned out that it is very versatile and so I use it for fuel transfers, deorbiting debris etc. Tomorrow I´ll take the crew up (Bill, Jeb, Bob and Rayden) and send them on their way to Eve. So long, Mü ( I think this thread morphed into a mission report, so if any moderator decides to move it, it´s fine )

or this just ignore the ladder

Building and flying my K-33 back then was pretty cool and a lot of fun. I think I have to rebuild it, now that the parts are stock. Got quite a few ideas to improve it.

Hey Folks Ok, first here is the file for the subassembly of this: http://www./view/vwftdcn4xt8kisq/Solar_Glider_mediafire.craft Retrorockets are included. Warning: If you detach the nose section, it won´t attach again. The attachment points get lost. (subassemblys...) Also the staging gets messed up a bit. sry. And now... too late, I´ve launched it. Hell yeah! that was expensive. I admit I felt the urge to revert the flight, but meeeh, at least it looked pretty. (walks off and does some science missions to earn some funds) Thank you for your supports and doubts. I´ll keep this thread up to date, so if anyone is interested, you can see me fail miserably. (may take some time, cause I´ll be probably away for the weekend) Have fun, cheers, Mü

Wow, that was fast @ EdFred: Jep, I´ll consider that when my rover doesn´t find any flat spots in the area. thx @ Stratzenblitz75: you may have a point there. I just tested it. Changing the 24-77s to 48-7Ss gave me 7 more dV and a bit better initial TWR. THX. I use them on the last 2 stages, so I don´t find them too cheaty. And thx for the compliment. I love that little plane. It replaced my spacestation as desktop picture. And it flies surprisingly well. @Starman4308: Stock aero. the depicted TWRs are for Eve. On Kerbin the TWR is well above 2 for the first 6 stages. In principle that is an asparagus pancake. I just put the outer tanks on top to fit with my landing cage idea. Edit: updated the VAB-pic Nope, those tanks with the 48-7Ss on are ejected first. Tested it, without the seperatrons they just sit on the lower tanks and lead to mayhem. And now I´ll try to get some sleep and dream of purple explosions.

Hello KSP-Players I´ve got a little question. Recently the Plant-a-flag-on-Eve Contract popped up in my carrer save. And this: ... was a complete and utter failiure a few months ago. Really, it was a disaster. So I´m a bit scared of Eve. But now I´m tempted to try again. So far I sent out 2 drones, and they found a plateau like spot at the hight of about 4500m about sealevel. At the moment my Evetta rover is on its way to look for a relatively flat spot to land on. It also got a little landing beacon aboard. From an altitude of 4500m I need about 11000dV I think. So this is what I came up with: It´s a much more simple and lightwight approach to the problem. Just one passenger this time. The landing cage carries all the equipment that isn´t necessary during the launch phase (probecore, chutes, landing legs etc) and shall protect the ascend vehicle at impact. It also should be able to finetune the point of touchdown via horizontal thrusters, and set the vehicle upright by raising single legs. Tests on Kerbin went pretty well and the whole thing takes an unpowered impact at 15m/s with no problem. I´m guessing on eve this would be more like 10m/s at that altitude. Now the launching vehicle: As said,I guess I´ll need round about 11000m/s dV, so I´m pretty close to that, right? And I think the TWR isn´t too bad either. So here is the question. Do you see any major flaws with this craft? Otherwise I would try to get this thing into Eve orbit at the next transfer window. And then try to get it down to the surface in one piece. The Crew and scince equipment would follow. The mission shall be completed with stock aerodynamics and stock parts (with one exeption: I´ll use mechjeb for the landing predictions, long rover rides and as backup. So if I mess up, I´ll give MJ a try) Thx for reading and feedback would be appreciated. Cheers Mü

2.5 hours with 0.25... it´s glorious: @giggleplex awesome rocket

Tried the new parts first... oh god i´m in love! And now I´m going to blow some stuff up... and maybe start a new career. and then blow that up. THX Squad for robbing me of my sleep.

Perfect timing The new girlfriend, who kept me from playing for the last few weeks (how rude), is out of town for a couple of days. so... Choo choo indeed?

(yawning and drinking some coffee) Yep, good morning and greetings from Cologne.

Hello Rocketeers and Rockets With the spaceplane section of the game getting some love now, it might be a good time to bring this up. Let me get straight to the point: In KSP every wing part produces lift... and that´s a bit problematic sometimes. On many RL planes the stabilisators/tailfins don´t provide much/any lift. They just keep the aircraft in ballance. Like this: So the CoL is located between the main wings and not pushed back by the tail. To demonstrate this issue in the game, I built a plane we all know and love My suggestion would be, to make the lift, which each wing part produces, toggleable or even tweakable. Basically just turning the lift off via dropdown menu would be fine. Or rather a slider? Advantages: - Easier plane building. Just build the body, find the CoM, put some wings a bit behind it, there you go. - Relocating the COL would become less difficult. - With the current system, if you angle your wings to a positive angle of incidence, but not your tailfins, then the center of lift is pushed further to the front, the faster you fly. Nearer to the CoM. Possibly resulting in unstable flight characteristics. Wouldn´t be the case with only the main wings providing lift. ( I know it´s a bit more complicated like that ) - The ability to use wings as structural elements without messing everything up. You could build whole fuselages out of wings. - aircraft would behave more intentional. KSP can be a brilliant tool for understanding how planes work, and why they look like they do. You can build reasonably acurate replicas in KSP, with the correct distribution of wight, the right kind of propulsion (partly with mods), but you almost always have to cheat some controlsurfaces into the nose to get the right behavior. Personally I got into planes through kind-of-replicas, because my first own designs have been utterly, utterly bad. Then I thought, what works in real life should be good in the game, right? And yeah, it worked... kind of. But most of the time the designs were a bit nose-heavy. Now that I know the reason for that, I wanted to make my first suggestion ever in this forum. If you made it this far, thank you very much for reading. Please leave your opinion and thoughts. And if you have a clue about programming (which I have not), tell me if this would be possible at all. cu in space, Mü

That moment when you land on Duna, extend the ladder and want to step out and: "Hatch is obstructed, can´t exit" and you shout to your monitor "NO, it´s not you bloody..." and the game says (in this super self-confident Jeremy Clarkson voice) "Yeees, it iiiiiis".

Ok, it´s not stock, but will be soon. Does that count? And partcount is a problem with saucers.

Could you post the craft files? Then we could give your planes a try and make suggestions how to improve them. So far they look pretty capable.

Thank you Hmmmmmm:(... ok, I can wait (sits down on the floor) Nice, that they are still considering reentry hazards to get part of the game. Thank you even more for answering this so quickly.

Here you go: The cargo bay isn´t actually that big. Here you see the rover the plane was designed to carry (held by a claw). And sorry, no cargo bay doors so far.

Hello Rocketeers and Rockets (my first thread, I´m a little nervous ) In celebration of Spaceplane+ becoming stock, I´ve renamed my latest attempt to make a nice little cargo plane, posted it with my congratulation in Porkworks SP+ thread, and soon I got 2 requests for the craft-file. So here she is, the PORKULES 555 parts built with NEAR. Actiongroups in the description. Pretty much no further instructions needed, cause she´s pretty stable just a little sluggish on roll-maneuvers. If you like to give her a go, below you´ll find the craft-file. Mods required: SP+ and NEAR. Without near she´s a bit nose-heavy, but you could "cheat"-in a few control surfaces into the nosecone. I hope all the struts and settings stay intact. (There are a LOT of struts) http://www./view/6w5r5rorufzsbc9/PORKULES.craft Maybe, you´d like to leave an opinion, or even better, share/showcase your own SP+planes in the comments. Have fun and (I can´t say "fly safe" dangit)... something

Congratulations Porkwork Sir, you very much deserve it. So happy about this news, that I renamed my latest project. It´s now called the "Porkules". Can´t believe she´ll be stock soon If I may, I´d like to ask 2 questions: 1. Will those parts you showcased lately be included? I´ve been a bit premature ´bout them, and there are two designs in my hangar waiting on them already. 2. About one month ago, we had a (very) little conversation about the abillity to toggle heatshields on and off on the wingparts. Did you manage to sell that idea to squad, too? Somewhere inside me, there is still that 8 year old boy with spaceshuttle-bedclothes, who wants the belly of a spaceplane to be black. Edit: http://www./view/6w5r5rorufzsbc9/PORKULES.craft

Dear Sir, it was a lot easyer to be honest. I just surface-attached the I-beams directly to the SAS-module (a bit wierd, cause the surface is invisible there) with 8x-symmetry and rotated them til it looked nice. Made a subassembly of it, et voilà. The only reason I used the rapiers for that craft is, that they were new and shiny back then, and I thought they looked a bit cooler on that particular design. (and if I remember correctly, I hoped, they wouldn´t react so sluggish on throttle input... nope) THX for the flowers

For landers I typically use the sr. docking port instead. Smaller, lighter (half the weight) and... shibbyer. That big decoupler isn´t my favorite either.

Dear, beloved KSP. *Why does the direction of lift of my planes switch upside down, when i turn it around the vertical axis (???)., or sometimes in other very funny directions if I do something, that you think is wrong? *As I can´t simply transfer a craft between VAB and SPH without using the subassembly manager, why on kerbin can´t I change the root-part? * Why can´t I toggle between VAB- and SPH-building-mode? *Why can´t you calculate the correct duration of a burn when your small cousin Mechjeb can? (I´m very sorry for this comparison KSP. I hated them too, when I was small and still in development) *Why does the nose of my airplane need to point up by 15-20° in LEVEL FLIGHT?... ???... what the (Beeeep)! In other words: Why is your aerodynamic model that bad? EDIT: @ Maxwell: you´re right. I feel better now. I can live with the rest of small issues.

Did somebody say TopGear? Nice idea btw, hope you get it done. (I mean, how hard can it be?) Edit: With the roads around KSC you could make a great track. "And across the line!"

Yep... ambitious but rubbish.