JoCRaM

It has put a framework in place that modders will be able to use, and I think there are some things I will enjoy that will come out of that.

Those large reaction wheels always used to be really flimsy.

The apollo guidance computer was programmed in metric, and did conversions for the display

thought my ears were burning ... It's a small thing ... pleased with where it landed Obviously grid fins which double as radiators.

Possibly related to fairings -

In older versions I used action groups to toggle - I'd have intake A always open, action group 1 would toggle intake B, action group 2 would toggle intake B , C and D, action group 3 would toggle intakes B, C, D, E, F, G, H. before launch I'd hit "3" to go down to minimal intake, When I started running low I'd hit "1" to have two intakes, then hitting "2" would give me three intakes (A,C,D) hitting "1" again would boost to four intakes, then "3" would give me five, "1" six, "2" seven, and finally "1" would give me all eight. I eventually realised this was overkill, and used just two action groups with out the complex toggling to give me three levels of intake 1->3->9

The cup currently used in the United States for nutrition labelling is defined in United States law as 240 ml. 1 U.S. "legal" cup = 240 millilitres = 16 international tablespoons = 12 Australian tablespoons ≈ 8.12 U.S. customary fluid ounces ≈ 8.45 imperial fluid ounces To add to the confusion, as I'm British, there are 2.4 American cups to my pint, and 2.27 European.

The computers work in binary representations of metric values. They translate these to and from arabic numerals, and apply a scaling factor. To a computer, dividing by 1000 is as sensible as 1852.

Any system that uses "stick" as a unit of measure for butter is insane.

like this? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/120678-craft-stops-in-orbit-apparently-at-launchpad

Have you tried opening and closing the bay before launch?

The SR-71 "Blackbird" wings are mentioned in relation to the corrugation of the body panels

The original SiC fibre reinforced glass ceramic is no longer available, the current material of choice is Pyrosic. page 3 http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/tech_docs/The%20SKYLON%20Spaceplane-Progress%20to%20Realisation,%20JBIS,%202008.pdf shows the front to back corrugation and texture, but the pitch will take a little fiddling to determine from the forced perspective because they weren't considerate enough to include a full width shot. That's the state of play in 2008, but references to Pyrosic and Pyromeral are still being made. That PDF also a very nice visual reference for the space frame, to allow the "cuts" to be textured in your model. The Sklon bay is designed to match the shuttle bay width, does your model match the MK3 bay width? No, I don't think you need to change the proportions. From memory the C2 engines were 7 degrees below horizontal, in which case the D1 being only 5 is (I think) the most significant change, but this is all fine tuning, and I think the C2 is as good a reference as the D1 - certainly until such time as a real world vehicle flies.

Change the lander to the root part - then the main plane becomes the "expendable" stage and it's fuel is used first.

Kerbal engineer save you fiddling around emptying the tanks to get a dry weight*, and typing a few numbers into calculator. I use the windows one in scientific mode. * and remembering to fill them again. How Jeb laughed when we found the return stage was empty

I wouldn't buy KSP 1.0.x I fell in love with the 0.18 demo, and I absolutely adore what it has become, but I know I would have passed it by $40 is too much, but the sale price is fine. If it was priced at $20 I'd only pay $10 in a sale - so I think the price is right. OF course, having bought a store copy and a steam copy I have spent more than $40, so you must treat my testimony as unreliable.

As far as I can tell this has the same mass as your original (the canards are slightly heavier than the winglets on the tail they replaced, and the strakes slightly heavier than the winglets on the tanks, so it's roughly even) By moving the wings to the back, and the control surfaces to the front, I've moved the sidelift closer to the centre of mass, and the control further away, where the extra leverage helps. It is still unstable, but well within SAS abilities It seems to fit your mission profile - I escaped from Kerbin with almost full tanks - I doubt I was efficient as I've never done it before - I just kept burning prograde. It also glides with empty tanks (and SAS)

works fine for me, unlike steam cloud

You fix that by putting even more lift at the bottom of the orange tanks.

While the Nacelle material is still (AFAIK) undetermined, the external skin of the main body is to be comprised of 300x300 mm panels. The RCS is 32 point, but still no real indication of where they are.... hypothetical ISP and thrust curves are on page 10 of this http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/tech_docs/JBIS_v56_108-117.pdf The D1 dimensions are in the latest manual, but the overall don't seem significantly different from the C2 model you have on the front page - the canards and nacelles are a little bigger than yours and the rudder a little steeper. The ailerons much bigger and the whole rudder is the control surface. The rear undercarriage is slightly further apart and the cargo bag a smidge further forward.

You need eight times the weight of oxygen as you do hydrogen, so it's "only" a weight saving of one part in nine to use atmospheric hydrogen. Hydrogen has very low density, the compression drag on your scramjet would be high. As you would be injecting oxidiser rather than fuel, in the "not yet burnt" regions there would be hot oxidiser. This is very corrosive and would likely lead to increased weight (and possibly inefficiency) in order to stop the engines destroying themselves.

In addition to the centre of mass and centre of thrust, you have to account for the drag and lift of your craft. The drag will tend to pull down the side with the shuttle attached. The lift is a whole lot more complicated. Unfortunately, the direction of the thrust indicator is broken in version 1.0.0-1.0.2 (the suggested workaround is "have all your engines pointing the same way")

Hold "Alt" to force node attach.

you can make the rendezvous happen in fewer orbits by changing the orbit of one of your - if it's catching up with the other, then burn retrograde, if the other ship is catching up burn prograde. A few m/s makes a big difference.