Starglider

So, SpaceX has said their rocket died due to a strut failure... http://www.iflscience.com/space/spacex-rocket-exploded-due-faulty-strut I think all of KSP players share in that particular pain.

I've just run into a problem, and would like to propose a solution to it. Probes need solar panels to gather energy, and radiators to eliminate the waste heat they generate. All this is fine on the surface, but in career mode, the Advanced Electrics tech (where the first radiator is) is unreachable until you upgrade the R&D facility, and that is prohibitively expensive. Another problem is the part count limits you have to deal with in the early game - the artificial limitations the stock game provides don't take into account the extra complexity that mods like this provide. Meanwhile, there are "position satellite" contracts that you can't properly take until you get radiators. My proposed solution is to provide a small radiator to the stayputnik, something that could handle a pair of 6-panel arrays. I took the code for the small radial radiator, and knocked the radiator area down to 0.04 (this in turn provides 2KW heat dissipation in the game), then added it to the "probeCoreSphere". Originally I had the upgrade-related lines removed as well, but the game really wanted an upgrade option (which isn't something this entry-level piece needs). I would rather it not be upgradeable at all, but I'd rather avoid bugs more. Does anybody have a better solution than this, and if not, is there a way to work around the upgrade issue? Before anybody asks, the info screen for the stayputnik showed the "upgraded" waste heat performance to be 0MW, then I put the code back in; I didn't actually test the upgrade.

Even before the issue of dead weight, "taking off" at altitude violates the concept of SSTO. How about some new technologies to (somewhat) solve both these problems: 1) Provide a turbocompressor bypass to your "main" ram air intake, take off in "turbojet" mode, and switch to "ramjet" mode in-flight. The bypass will be less able to handle high airflow rates, but should still be able to go supersonic (since true turbojets can make Mach 4). 2) Provide a variable geometry combustion chamber, so when the combustion flow goes transonic, you can switch from "ramjet" mode to "scramjet" mode. 3) Since we're using something similar to a valve system to switch from "turbojet" to "ramjet", why not close both valves and supply your own oxidizer? So now you can switch from "scramjet" mode to "rocket" mode. You'll probably need to use something like a toroidal aerospike instead of the normal exhaust nozzle, as this would operate at all altitudes. Also, you can't put turbine blades in such an exhaust stream (they'd melt), so you'll have to bleed off fuel and air to run a built-in generator (to run the turbocompressor for the air and the turbopumps for the fuel and oxidizer). Finally the variable geometry will interfere with the regenerative cooling system used to keep high-performance engines intact, so perhaps a combination of new materials (carbon nanotube - tungsten composite?) and a "shield" of unreacted air between the exhaust gasses and the chamber walls would do. Still, when I look at how technology has progressed, I think this might be doable in a few decades. Provide a dedicated computer system to monitor and switch between the modes as needed, and you could call this a "Reflex Engine".

Quoted from the FAQ: If the file GameData/ModStatistics/settings.cfg contains a line with "disabled = true" the plugin will cease all recording and reporting functions. This file is created on start-up, and it also contains instructions on how to opt out. Note: You may remove all the ModStatistics DLLs, but do not remove the settings.cfg file if you wish to stay opted out.

Ah, I get it now. Thanks.

I was looking through various engine cfg files, and noticed something I didn't understand. The velocityCurve section has several keys. I understand that the first number references the speed at which the key applies, and I understand that the second number is a thrust limiter for that speed. What I don't understand, are the last two numbers in each key (typically 0s, but I've seen other numbers in some of the B9 cfgs). What are those numbers supposed to do?

I absolutely love these things! They are ... precious to me ... yes, precious ... As for a suggestion, how about being able to tweak the individual lights in the VAB/SPH via their context menu? Start on/off, select flash, double-flash, interval, RGB. You can do all this via actiongroups, but if all you want to do, is set them up once and forget about them, why waste a hotkey? Again, great job with this. They make a huge difference.

Reasons... 1) They want planets with Nitrogen/Oxygen atmospheres, that are warm enough for liquid water. Yes there are annoying inhabitants, but an engineered virus can take care of most of that, and the survivors can be shipped off to a reservation/zoo, or killed outright. 2) Xenophobia. 3) Fear of humanity advancing very quickly and thus becoming a threat in the near future; better to squash the problem now than to wait until its worse.

Try to ensure a lifting balance between your front and back wheels. If the front or back generates excess lift, that reduces the sideways friction between the wheels and the ground; thus you see you start veering when you get up to speed. Also, at 100 m/s you should be able to lift off by pitching up (actually, if its a spaceplane then 50 m/s is preferable); if not, your rear wheels may not be close enough to your CoM, or you simply need more lift somewhere on your plane. Pics would help.

I had this problem once. I think the back end of your plane is trying to take off before the front end does, due to all that lift on the rear. You want the front end to take off first. More your aft landing gear forward, or add lift to the front. If you move the aft landing gear forward, you may need to lower them further on cubic octagonal struts in order to get the takeoff and landing clearance for the back end of your plane. If you add lift to the front you may encounter issues with the center of mass. Its all a balancing act between sometimes conflicting requirements. I found adjusting the gear to be the simpler solution.

Yep. Take a look at the second pic on this forum page: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52257-SSTO-spaceplane-won-t-gain-enough-speed-without-losing-altitude/page2 If it had mass, the test rocket wouldn't have flown straght with the gear hanging way off on one side like that. Personally, I think the gear should have "true" mass, and that it doesn't is a bug, but that the "design" mass is still way too high at 0.5 tons (or maybe that a typo in the text field?). Maybe it should be a tenth of that? But it won't matter until they fix the "true" mass.

That's a great pic. I wish I had thought of doing it that way before I launched two spaceplanes into orbit. Its much simpler than my experiment. Now I've got to figure out what I'm doing that's making the wheel-less spaceplane fly better. As an aside, this also means you can't deploy landing gear as an airbrake like you can ram air intakes (something I hadn't tested, but should stem from it being massless). In fact, this means the only reason to toggle the landing gear at all, is asthetics, doesn't it?

Re: numerobis, on my first spaceplane, pulling the gear off was the last thing I needed to do, to get it into orbit and back. I'll grant you that it was a fairly crappy design; I've since moved on. I don't remember doing anything else on that last design change, but maybe I did? It was awhile ago. The stats in the assembly building say each gear weighs half a ton, and Kerbil Engineer adds 500kg for each one of them (but Kerbil Engineer could be looking at the same thing). I think I'll experiment with my current design, and compare the highest apoapsis I can get for each version to see if there's a significant difference.

The weight of each landing gear is 0.5 tons. On a small plane, the three you need total 1.5 tons. The three decouplers you'd use to get rid of that weight, plus the parachutes you'd need to float back down to Kerbin on, weigh half as much. "Weight is not your friend" is rule #1 for spaceplanes. Having said that, I have to admit I hate to use this strategy. The first reason is, is it really an SSTO if you have to jettison anything - even the landing gear? The second reason is, I enjoy the challenge of returning to KSC and landing on the runway. But my first spaceplane used this strategy to reduce weight, making it easier to achieve orbit. After that, however, my skills had improved to the point I didn't need to do this anymore, so I've not done this since. So it is a viable option, even if (like me), you turn your nose up at it. Please don't call me a troll; I'm only trying to help.

Tip #1: Weight is not your friend. A heavier plane flies lower, encounters more drag, and has a lower top speed. My first SSTO actually decoupled the landing gear and parachuted back to Kerbin because the landing gear was so heavy. Tip #2: Start small: one turbojet to get your initial speed up and shoot your plane into space, and a pair of Rockomax Radial Rockets to finish up your orbit. One radial would work fine, but then you have unbalanced thrust. Tip #3: Bring only the fuel you need: one mk1 fuselage for jet fuel, and a FLT100 for rocket fuel (that's right, the small one - you don't need much). You'll probably have enough fuel left over to make a powered landing at KSC. Tip #4: Drag is not your friend either. While weight causes drag, so do wings. Yet you need wings for lift. You will need to find a balance, but for a really small plane, a pair of delta wings, a pair of small control surfaces on the delta wings, and a pair of forward canards should be sufficient. Tip #5: Rudders work best in pairs. I've seen some strange yawing action when using one, that seems to be canceled out when using two. Tip #6: For your first SSTO, airhog to the max. Many find it objectionable, but your first attempt needs a large margin for error, and having a couple dozen ram air intakes for that one turbojet gives you that that margin for error. Once you're used to how things work, feel free to tone it down. Tip #7: Start with getting a stable airframe that you can easily fly. Part of this is in design (CoM should always be in front of CoL; be aware CoM shifts around during flight so compensate for the shifting), but part of it is in flight testing before you send it into space. Tip #8: Practice your landings. Nothing hurts quite so much as to have a completely successful mission, before your plane crashes on landing.

OK, some general pointers that I've found work for me: 1) If your plane can't take off at low speeds (50 m/s or so) you will have trouble landing it, even with nearly empty tanks, due to high stall speeds. Note this isn't the "let it gain speed and maybe it will lift off" takeoff - if you nose up at 50 m/s but it refuses to fly, you may find yourself having issues later. 2) Line up your approach at least 5 km away (you can reduce this number as you gain experience). Try putting some sort of beacon 500m out from the runway in each direction, that you can target with your navball. Then, aim to fly over the beacon going due east (or west). 3) Your altitude should be one-tenth of your distance (so if you are 5 km away, your altitude should be 500m). If you are using the beacon for your distance calcs, be sure to adjust for the distance between the beacon and the runway. Also adjust for the the height of the runway. I usually go for +200m to cover both, and if I dip below that a little bit I know I'm ok. Also, remember you don't have to land right at the start of the runway; even commercial pilots like to aim one-third in, so if they're coming in a little low they don't have to react as much. 4) Due to #3, your (negative) vertical speed should be 1/10th of your horizontal speed. So at 50 m/s horiz, you would have -5 m/s vert. This is why the low speed is important; if you have to fly at 150 m/s horiz just to stay in the air, you're vert speed is 15 m/s, which will result in destroyed landing gear and a crash, every time. Don't have these numbers? Kerbil Engineer Redux is my friend, and can be yours too. Why would you want to fly without the instrumentation that is commonly available in private planes? If the answer is "for the challenge of it", then I'd advise mastering normal landings first, before adding in the extra challenge. 5) You can alter your "glide slope" to be less if you are moving faster, but you will be flying closer to the ground, making it more difficult to stay visually centered on the runway as you approach (again, the beacons come in handy, as when you get close they both show up, and you can line them up even if you can't see the runway well). IRL, you would deploy flaps too, but we don't have them implemented yet. You can try to "flare" by pulling up just before "impact" to reduce that negative vertical speed at the last moment, but if your computer suffers from low framerates you're asking for trouble (and its not an easy maneuver unless you're using a joystick). 6) That last bit of #5 reminds me; keyboard flying sucks, even with precision controls enabled. Joysticks give you much better control, and this is critical when your plane is about to touch the ground - that last moment can ruin the entire mission.

Its been my experience that too much wings slows you down too much, yet you may need them due to having too much weight. From the looks of it, have you tried less fuel, and less rockets? I think all you need for rockets, is a pair of Rockomax radials. There's other things I see as well; do you really need all those RCS thruster blocks (can you make do, placing the bare minimum at your CoM, and relying on SAS for rotation)? Can you make do with less RSC fuel? Weight is not your friend. I have a spaceplane with a similar mission profile that clocks in at under 10 tons - Kerbil Engineer says 8.124.5 kg. It has one mk1 fuselage for jet fuel, an FLT100 for rocket fuel (yes, only that much), a turbojet and two Rockomax Radials. For lift, its uses a pair of delta wings and a pair of canards - and that's it. I can consistently get it to 150km circular orbit (where my station is) with fuel to spare for re-entry and powered landing at KSC. I could do better by decoupling landing gear after takeoff and parachuting back to Kerbin (believe it or not, parachutes + decouplers to get rid of the gear actually saves weight), but I enjoy the challenge of proper landings on the runway.

Parachutes are nice for SSTOs imo, but only if you're going to decouple the landing gear after takeoff. Seriously - each landing gear weighs 0.5 tons, for a total weight (assuming 3 wheels) of 1.5 tons, while the parachutes you'd need to float the plane to the ground (and the decouplers required to drop the wheels) weigh much less. I have a personal distaste for doing this (I like to do proper landings) but on my early spaceplanes I couldn't argue with the weight savings. As for rockets, I like the Rockomax radials. They're very light, and their low thrust values are compensated for by no drag, so the thrust adds up over time (and once you're in space, you have time). Typically, one mk1 fuselage tank is sufficient for each jet engine, but for multiple engines, you may wish to look at the mk2 and mk3 fuselages, which pack more fuel for their mass. Also, RCS thruster blocks and RCS fuel really do add up. Your design is obviously meant for docking, so I can't argue with their inclusion, but you should minimize the RCS fuel, and optimize your thruster block placement. Each thruster block adds weight, and you don't need many given the low net weight you're going for. If you can, put them straight on the center of mass (well, where you expect the center of mass to be, once you reach orbit); you lose some rotational ability this way but you have SAS for that and you retain translational ability while cutting down weight. Remember you're having to lift all that stuff into orbit; it doesn't contribute anything at all to getting you out of atmo. Take a close look at the weight of each of these parts, and ask "how much do I really need?" The constant consideration here, can be summed up as "weight is not your friend". More weight means you need more lift. More lift means more wings, but that also means more drag (lift being created from drag). There is a balance between too much wing (which impacts your top speed) and too little wing (which impacts your top altitude). Too much weight disrupts that balance. Adding engines often just makes the problem worse (another engine needs another tank and set of intakes; the heavier craft needs more wings; more wings means it flies slower); the only gains are when the mission your spaceplane is designed for requires it (I've seen a spaceplane deploy full orange tanks to orbit; it had lots of jet engines, and deserved every one). Another consideration is jet engine flameout. Even numbers of jet engines can be problematic because when an engine flames out, all of the sudden you have unbalanced thrust. This can be a problem too with odd numbers of jet engines, although if you add the center engine last it seems to flameout first, which gives you warning. Single jet engine spaceplanes seem to be the easiest to start out with, as you avoid this issue entirely.

Don't. They got that way either through book-research, training, or both. Classes in orbital mechanics and such are taught; there are textbooks available. Anybody with a large enough combination of intelligence and drive can learn it. I expect most that play KSP have enough intelligence; its only the drive that may be lacking.

If you don't want to do canards, you can move your wings forward (imo canards are better though). Also, if you have any fuel mass left, shift it aft before entering atmo. You have to make sure your center of lift is in front of your center of mass, and that is complicated by how your fuel drains out of your plane.

Rudders do have an impact on rolling. This is true IRL as well as ksp. The issue is that the forces they produce are not centered vertically with the CoM. To do that, you have to have equivalent rudders underneath the plane, and this vastly complicates landings. IRL, planes bank before turning; the banking angle helps to "center" the rudder so it can be used effectively (this is an oversimplification, but close enough). If you don't want to bank before turning, you need to minimize the difference between where the rudder acts vertically, and the CoM. Start with multiple, smaller rudders, placed on the wings - the center of smaller rudders aren't as far away as bigger rudders from the CoM, and the wings are right on the CoM instead of above it like the tops of those tanks are. You can also place the wings lower on the tanks, then angle them so they're still horizontal - this places them below the CoM, which can bring small wing-mounted rudders mostly in-line with the CoM.

For me, it was landing Jeb on the Mun and returning him safely to Kerbil, using the demo. As a reminder, there was no docking and the part selection was very limited. I couldn't even plant a flag (that came after the demo), but I got there. It was a beast of a rocket too, with row after row of solids just to get it out of atmo.

I've got 3: 1) A probe-deploying mothership is putting probes into geosync; it has an elliptical orbit, detaching one probe per orbit, which engages its own ion drive to circularize on its own. Probe detaches fine, I use its RCS to thrust away to a safe distance, switch to the map screen, plot my burn, switch back, accelerate time to get to the burn point, and engage. The probe then encounters and scrapes by the mothership, destroying solar paneling on both objects... 2) Kerbilnaut gets out of his rover after stopped. Later, Kerbilnaut tries to get back into the rover, but manages to push it instead. Rover rolls away without anybody in it. Kerbilnaut tries to chase it down to no avail. Yes I now know you can engage parking brakes by clicking on the button in the HUD, but I thought the 'b' key did that already... 3) Airplane built and ready to fly...send to airfield for takeoff...everything looks great...physics kicks in...and the airplane tilts to one side because bilateral symmetry wasn't on when I added the wing...

lol, so no guncotton-based solid rocket engines? Too bad. You can use them to power the model rockets you buy online.

Oh yeah, Kerbil Engineer Redux is your friend. Its one of the few mods I use. I tried MechJeb but it was too laggy for me.