Razorforce7

A picture with your craft in map view please that includes your current orbit. But my bet is that you require temperature readings near the polar region and your orbit is not inclined enough so you'll never pass over them. The moon has no tilt so the day/night border on the poles is the exact geographical north. If your orbit line is tilted away atleast slightly from this point your will miss some of the surface area. Either that or you go below instead of above. I had that a few times as I mixed certain temperature reading missions and tried to go below a certain area while I had to aproach from above. It may be worth to verify this yourself to rule out such a mistake.

It happens to me regularly. Got my "space bus" with 1 pilot and capacity for 9 tourists that involved 4 tourist missions all the way from KSC to orbit Duna only to find out I didn't load "any" tourist aboard. I had this 2 days ago. It's one of those moments that make you force quit the KSP application put on a movie and forget about what just happened.

I voted yes because I like the idea and it deserves "yes" and likes and whatnot. Honestly, it's the idea itself I like, just not the stock suggestions and development kinda thing. The planet Duna (any planet) are hardcoded objects in the game, right? So they cannot be edited, right? However, they can be replaced, right? or not I'd prefer a graphical environment that is completely moddable. But if changing planets in the Solar system is possible someone could make i.e. Duna with Volcanos. If it is not possible, then please make it so. I also like to see more modders invest time in graphical addons. Things like user defined autogenerated objects (trees, rocks, snow patches, gravel and ocean whales) < Just to name a few I basicaly want anything that allows filling up the bare Landscapes with objects and maybe even make them dynamic with i.e. Volcanos. And yes this eats ram and cpu, but hey, it's a option. Why isn't this here yet?

1st thing is to make sure that you don't dive in to shallow half way around the planet.. That way it is hard to pinpoint the exact (Pe) at your target since you'll be spending more time in the atmosphere. And any guesses in that case as to where you'll end up become unreliable. You will need to have only a little more Delta V and I would recommend that you start your re-entry burn 1/4th the way to your landing spot. This makes sure you start entering more steeply rather then shallow. And you'll have a better "feel" sense of your vessels ballistics if executed this way. And estimating your exact landing spot is easier 1/4th distance from your landing spot rather then 1/2th distance from it. I personally use "wing" parts on almost all my vessels including rocket launched crew pods, but especially my spaceplanes. I make sure I have atleast a small amount of wing parts on all my vessels oriented with my CoM to allow full attitude control on re-entry. That means if I use a 70 degrees pitch up attitude in the atmosphere I slow down more. But with a 30 degrees pitch up attitude I slow down less. So if you see your overshooting, I just pull the nose up and hold it there and suddenly I deccelerate twice as fast. Basically it allows me to control my decceleration rate with relatively large variations through attitude control depending on my own piloting skills. I rarely miss the KSC these days with all of the above included.

It wouldn't work according to Veeltch due to graphical anomalies (A) And it is a "unnoticeable" thin atmosphere according to Firemental and thus a useless feature (B) It is also "contra" productive because now you need to do your capture/circulation burn at a higher altitude to avoid overheating. Which is what will happen from interplanetary Eeloo encounters if it were to have a atmosphere (C) (aren't they all) If such a atmosphere is a reference to Pluto's atmosphere then it is to thin to allow aeronautical vessels of any kind even close to orbital velocity which further renders the idea useless (D) You also shouldn't lay awake from the fact that pluto has a atmosphere. It's 1/100.000th of Earths troposphere. It could go well below that figure depending on where pluto is around the Sun. Its atmosphere may look like a bright glowing disk on pictures from New horizons. But thats because these pictures are often enhanced and because of the light refraction through plutos Nitrogen based atmosphere. Long story short: The argument to let Eeloo have a atmosphere because pluto has one makes no sense. Because a exact replica would do nothing more game wise except being there for no usefull reason. A thicker atmosphere would be usefull. But I wouldn't be the one to recommend it because Eeloo is in fact a challenge to get to and get back from. I wouldn't make it easier as it is. Especially because it is my opinion that the effort to get to any place including Eeloo is very well balanced in terms of construction requirements in the current state of this game. I wouldn't want to make it either easier or harder.

Pictures please. Your craft may be based on Matt Lowne's or Mark Thrimm's SSTO designs but it is not any of those so videos or links of their craft are useless to us. Obviously this makes answering your question nearly impossible. However, based on what you've said I wouldn't go straight to raising my Apoapsis to 20km. Try a more gentle ascent profile. Dunas Atmosphere is very thin. You want to go as fast as possible throughout all the parts of Dunas atmosphere. If you don't have alot of TWR and you just burn on a steep ascent to raise your Apoapsis you will be needing more thrust then necessary to circularize. Instead use the atmosphere of Duna itself untill you got sufficient speed. If that doesn't work I suggest to install a one or two extra Nervas. Above might be completely useless to you because...... you forgot to upload a picture. But I hope the suggestion was usefull either way.

This thread made me think. Isn't it a fun attribute to a future KSP edition to add patched conics difficulty settings by changing the planets (any bodies i.e. moons) inclinations, tilt and ecliptic to make the game harder this way. I've read threads that already pointed out the bogus state in which "difficulty" is defined in this game. Which difficulty settings are only multiplier sliders imo which defined the "grind" state rather then the difficulty. Above idea obviously concerns career mode but also sandbox. Doing this allows players (meaning you) to actually feel a change in difficulty playing this game. And guess what, it creates a actual equinox day instead of ....... every day!? How eeehhh-bout that?

@Veeltch As per your Ideas, I would add them to the game, not create a new one. They will never go for that anyway, since it is to much work. And if it is the same concept as KSP then not the same amount of people would buy it as it would basicaly be a improved copy. Usualy sequals take years, so don't expect it to soon. I agree completely with "EVERYTHING" you say though, and I like most of your suggestions. I would even like to think and add to them. However, let's be down to Earth for a moment. KSP is audience specific. The audience target this game appeals to has been reached. The game is out now in its full release for some time now and the sales are starting to fall. Marketing is a psychological game. And whether Squad says, agree or comment upon what I say doesn't really matter. The following is true for anybody selling a product. Companies have salesman, business (wo)man and as for KSP the appropriate departments have one of each, of that I am sure. When they make money off of something and the sales plummet the producer of any product will do everything to fill their coffers. Whether it's the government tax collectors or KSP's SQUAD. This "DLC Stuff" is one of such examples to fill those coffers to the limit. It's perfectly obvious that this is a money harvester as I like to call it. Doing nothing really of importance and great achievement but harvesting up the profits on their couch. Now don't get me wrong. Like I said, everyone does this. So this is not a insult to any of the developers of KSP. I'm even sure Veeltch would do this in a similar scenario (assuming he got a product for mass sale) Although I'm sure hes morally superior if he didn't.

The screwing up part is simply you forgetting. I do it to as does everyone else. I've been in similar situations where I've done the same. During these times I ironicaly realize, "what if I had Kerbal alarm clock" (mod) Then this wouldn't have happened. Oh, and one thing I want to point out which is partially of topic. Change the cheat menu to another name please. Cheating is a unfair advantage against someone or based on predetermined criteria "rules" There is no opponent nor are there criteria that state what is cheating or not. And since cheating is a english word with a definition that doesn't fall under above 2 criteria in this particular game, I expect it to be renamed. If there is such a thing as KSP cheating then it is based on your own gameplay criteria. And yes, from your point of view it would be cheating if your situation meets your own criteria. But if there is a online rule list concerning the KSP gameplay I want to be notified. The question by the OT reveals my point as he asks for other peoples opinion whether it's cheating or not. As if we are to define what is or isn't. The TS decides and so does everyone else on their part, which is why differentiating opinions may be stated. I hope I proved my point. I would rather call it the "Supernatural menu" or use another and better alternative english term. But you probably got a much better one.

@AeroGav Hmm, I know what your saying and all. But here comes the point and reason why I won't go there. I place several restrictions on my gameplay. One of them is to never use drills and ISRU, even for tylo and such places. While I have made them I don't like to use them. And they are part of other savegames where i'd like to add near future/future mods. But yes, it will work that way obviously. And no, I don't use stage recovery on this particular install of KSP although I certainly used it at times. Although I'd rather invent a way to get them back in stock. But you couldn't possibly know all that:D Although I still find your suggestion about dropping whiplashes useful. They are indeed dirt cheap. And my terms are not necessarily to recover everything as long as it is financially efficient. In fact, I think I would end up with quite a bit of surplus vaccuum Delta V if I were to do that. Anyway, you caught my interest about LF only spaceplanes and thats what I'll work on later today. I'll sure share some pics once I'm done.

@AeroGav Nice:d Mine was from a career save so I have no Nervs yet to pull that stunt of. I think yours is alot cheaper even although I can recover my 1st stage. Unless you use stage recovery that is. It is pleasing to see that you can basically go anywhere with a TSTO design. Personally I would want things recoverable, always. So that makes things a bit more difficult for my personal playstyle. Gorgeous wings btw.

If I build purely on the basis of functionality it would take several minutes to 30-45 minutes depending on what I'm building. Some builds however... Like very complex spacestations in the VAB. I like to build the whole station and then put many segments into subassemblies. I then reconstruct the whole thing over to test whether everything fits. Then I hyperedit in space to see if I got everything right and then I reload and actually launch the segments on my launchers. This can take hours, even days. Or, My spaceplane designs can be huge. First making a sketch design, then building it. Then I don't like it and rebuild it. Then I hyperedit the vessel through all the test phases of its intended operations. Like reentry, earodynamic stress, part stress. Checking and changing action groups. Control surface and gear wheel settings change. Playing part of the mission and then see how I can perfect the craft. Where can I put gimbal of, how much control surface deflection do I want. Do I need/want wing incidence or AoA for that matter or not. How safe is my craft? Is it stable during takeoff, ascent, high atmospheric speed, vaccuum, reentry and landing. If not, design....sign....redesign.....redesign. Above list could be 10 times longer my brain tells me. I can create a SSTO to orbit in several minutes. But some of my designs litteraly take a month or even longer because I'm mr perfectionist. Some builds I never finish.

@AeroGav I've been doing some tests to compare with your data. I guess your spot on, but the differences between both engines are not necessarily minor but hard to implement in a design where I find that they are really making difference except LF only designs that is. I've been trying to build my own LF only planes yesterday and it's definitely the only real reason (for me atleast) to make whiplash designs. I do feel I'm limited to certain spaceplane sizes to limit part count because you'll soon need alot of nervas to assist all that extra weight if you go bigger. But they're very good for cool crew transfer vessels from KSC to LKO and back. @Whisky Tango Foxtrot A rapier hater,... guess we are all different then. I made a TSTO with Wheesleys/Junos and LVT30 Reliant rocket engines. Got me out of the atmosphere and then took a 2nd rocket assisted cargo or plane to orbit. With TSTO designs using normal jet engines I can actually put a reasonable amount of cargo in LKO. Only level 1 runway/sph and 90 science node requirements needed. Do you accept 300+ part count it could probably be done with Junos only, albeit you'd need a SPH upgrade. It can actually glide 200km back to the KSC at mach 1.5 only several clicks from the runway. Oh and don't let me Hijack my own thread:d

@MrBonk Click this link. Then pick a video. Preferably one with 1.2 in its name (current ksp version) But older ones also give good information.

I'm sure it is just your expression, but are these "greedy children" really paying 1 to several dozen bucks for cellphone games but complain about KSP? How are cellphone game prices not to be complained about but KSP or other desktop platform games are? I mean hallelujah, is that even serious? Do these gargoyles originate from the inner core of Ceres itself on a trip to Earth or something? Most cellphone games are crap anyway. Why even pay for it anyway? Got nothing better to do with your life not saying cellphone games are neccesarily bad though. Oh, and Facts are Facts. And that is that KSP happens to be in the lower price spectrum for new game releases. That's like saying "we are kind and generous and free water, food and blankets for all of you" If there is to be a discussion about this then the more reasonable argument would be to raise the price rather then lowering it. @ greedy children. I hope you all lose your wallets.

@ the topic title Answer: I really don't care. Sorry if I'm the negative person around here on this subject but here I go. Mars one is a joke. And while I don't know or believe it, it could indeed be a scam as this is claimed. I just say that this argument goes around, I don't even believe that personally, but in light of that argument I would go as far to say that they are not automaticaly to be taken seriously. I before warn you that what I'm about to write is purely a moral aspect defence talk concerning morality involving mars one. What they're basically suggesting is for any crew member out there to have a very limited, closedly defined LIFE. Trust me that I'm all about noble sacrifice up untill death itself. In this case for science and exploration obviously. Mars one may seem cool to you and to me to regarding the main aspect of mars exploration but you readers and many other people alike must know that it is basically sacrificing your whole life. And in detail I'd say it's defined by having a life spent in several square meter space, danger of life support failure and other such things. Burying your own men instead of taking them home. Crew death due to equipment failure or life support danger. Does the crew have to bury their own men next to their camp in case they die? It sure isn't different compared to the medieval ages if that were to be the case. Look, I know we are all very focused on the experimented data about having crew being confined in tight spaces for years on end. Heck, this is being tested on the ISS itself and it works. Yes it works! My point however is that we rather raise money to put people on a one way trip to wherever basicaly where they will be destined to have no life at all. Say all you want about the wonders of Mars! I'd say it is wonderfull. People can argue that the exploration aspect or the scientific aspect is motivation enough to go on a Mars one trip. And yes, these are valuable arguments. But do know that this means you'll be confined to a igloo hut in terms of personal space, ..... for the rest of your LIFE. It's like living in a tent on the Sahara for all your life where you'll only be allowed to take small trips outside in a spacesuit. Is that worth it just so you can be the first to physically touch a mars rock? I'm bring this point about because I saw a video advertisement of Mars one a while back with initiates who volunteered to do it. And they all talked big about the wonders of the expedition and were eager about the pros. Obviously since it was a advertisement (duh) But not one of them said that besides it's thrills that they realized they'd be imprisoned in a alien landscape for the rest of their lives and whether they would or wouldn't be able to handle it. Look, I dream about meeting the inuits to myself some day on a polar expedition. But don't ask me to spent the rest of my life their in a continuous snow storm. I wonder how much the mars one expedition realizes this. Going along with a one way trip expedition that includes a "settlers" attitude where environmental conditions are preset by the artificial quarters present is absolutely delusional and a dream state at best. The psychological and mental aspects of that are completely overlooked, no matter how much tests are done on ths ISS. Then I'd rather have a space company (of any kind) being honest with themselves and say that there should be a way to get them back. I'd rather wait for SpaceX ITS to do this job then Mars one. I actually know that this is a common argument but I just wanted to say it. I also want to point out that I'm not driven on the basis of national motivation. The project leader is dutch as am I. I hope the guy has a million + bucks or more and gets to raise his familiy well and beyond such treasures. But honestly, I hope his Mars one company goes bankrupt. And I have very much doubt whether the volunteers are completely aware of what they put themselves into.

Nothing much to add to the comment sections. I very much agree to the stupidity of this idea (no pun intended) And I want a complete career/ranking system overhaul. That's a big game expanding feature, and I doubt but hope that the developing team is willing to still go that far besides adding minor plugins. What the topic starter is basically asking for is a virtual pilot efficiency system while the player himself is the pilot. Is this topic a request for substituting lacking pilot skills with engine bonuses? If yes, then watch some videos on learning to be a better pilot and practice. I may also advice the TS to use either engine mods or edit the part file. If you can do that personaly with a few clicks I see no reason to suggest it as a game implementation anyway, despite all the other reasons.

I was thinking. Wouldn't it be a good test to make two "LF" only spaceplanes. They're both identical, but,,, "your guessing it" one has rapiers and the other has whiplash engines at its engine attachment nodes (just switches engine type basically) In this test the "rapier" may not enter rocket mode obviously, and fly it to orbit with a assisting nerva. Obviously the spaceplane design must be able to get to orbit with both whiplash(s) engines or rapier(s) @AeroGav I see what your saying. However, I have a rapier only cargo SSTO. It's the biggest SSTO I got (about 1360Tons with cargo and it's stock) I tried your advice by eventually removing some of the rapiers. I went from 70 rapiers to 60 rapiers and 12 Whiplashes. I did had to put in extra oxidizer but not much though. Yes the spaceplane goes through mach 1 faster and spends less time in the lower atmosphere and saves precious LF in the process. However, it takes more time to burn that LFO because I got less Rapiers and it doesn't go as high and fast as with the rapiers only. Like I said, I had to add oxidizer to make the rapier/whiplash combo work, meaning more weight. The mass to orbit was eventually identical. But for the Rapier/Whiplash combo I had to add weight in oxidizer. So the weight fraction on the rapier only design is higher. Obviously my aim with this thread is to clarify the difference in total weight to orbit by using both engine types. It is nearly the same in my test. But the starting weight of the Rapier+Whiplash design needed more oxidizer because the rapiers needed to burn longer. So on this particular design I use rapiers only. Obviously this spaceplane used rocket mode on the rapiers. So it doesn't serve the test I devised written above. Something that I want to test tommorow. It will also be my first LF only spaceplane, yay! If I can pull it of lolz never failed

I've been building spaceplanes for years now in KSP and the topic question has been pondering me for quite a while. I just want other peoples opinions to see how I could put the Whiplash to better use. All my spaceplane SSTO's have rapiers only, and Nervas ofcourse if I want to go elsewhere, but never any whiplash, except for some career saves. However, I see alot of designs out there with whiplash engines, always in combination with rapiers and or nervs unless it's just a supersonic aircraft ofcourse. I see it on forum posts, KerbalX, videos and such. Because they use a combination of both engines it means that peoples spaceplane designs are not limited to Whiplash only designs (due to i.e. unmet science node requirements in career mode) Yet they use a combination of both engines while my supposedly vast or limited experience says that the rapier is the only choice you can make. The answer is probably that they're less knowledged? Or am I? Let me simply ask, why do people do this? I can only think about 2 reasons, but hell, I'm asking here so please feel free to expand my list. 1:Aesthetics 2:Flying on laythe with better airbreathing ISP over a Rapier in airbreathing mode. (or Kerbin for that matter, but those usualy aren't spaceplanes) But furthermore, I simply don't know of other reasons. When you build "efficient" spaceplanes the Whiplash limits you, or atleast in all my designs. If that shouldn't happen then please tell me in what kind of spaceplane designs the Whiplash is useful with it's higher efficiency. Yes its lighter and more efficient then the rapier, but that is it. It has less thrust overall and thrust falls steeply when reaching 18-22km or thereabout and usually can never go faster then a rapier anyway. This also means you will need rocket engines sooner. Then why would you care if you have spared a few units of LF for the cost of inefficient LF/O expenditure at altitudes up to 10km lower then with a Rapier setup. Do you not want a spaceplane that is very aerodynamic and can go as fast and high as possible before switching to rocket engines? The Whiplashes don't help in that regard. Then I'd rather have 200kg per engine more in dead weight but can go 300+ m/s faster and 5-10km higher While it is (A) less efficient it also has (B) no rocket motors like tha Rapier does. So while the rapier seems less efficient it doesn't require secondary rocket motors to get any further and also goes higher and faster. The Whiplash is definitely in game for a reason. Even under current understandings it will serve always a role in career play or for fooling around with atmospheric aircraft. But if you only go to space, and have unlocked the rapier engine then are you not destined to never ever touch the Whiplash? Blow me!

@Vegatoxi Why don't you create a excel spreadsheet and log daily forum activity from now on until.......DEATH...? I'm sure they who log in and post also play so there... Also, what is your definition of dead? And I mean yours only!? Because death has a standard definition and the fact is, it's terminal. So as long as search engines makes no more references about KSP, I can't find it's website without 404 not found errors and steam stops selling it, only then will KSP be dead, or any other game for that matter under those criteria. So by the definition of "death" KSP is still alive. By your definition of "death" god knows?

I got exactly the same card as you. I maintain playable FPS all the way up to 350-400 parts. Ram is plenty, that one is obvious. But in all honesty, your cpu sucks because its a octo core.. Don't get me wrong, I mean that relatively opposed to other cpus. Physics calculations in KSP's sandbox environment over encumber gameplay performance when part count is higher. KSP may support multi processing, but its one core doing one aspect of calculations like physics calculations. You'd have much better framerate by installing a AMD processor with a higher core clock frequency (like 4-5ghz or more) but with less cores. Even better would be a Intel. And no I'm not intel biased, I had and still have a AMD computer. But intel cpus are just better on most areas, especially gaming.

@ZooNamedGames So your hell bent on needing a replacement? Not sure how broad your spectrum of acceptable alternatives is. But I just gave you (several) Just saying since you reply to the "wooden'' undercarriage part of my reply. I actually gave you "plenty" of ideas on how to fix your early career issues past that part. If these ideas are totally useless to you then I rest my case. If I see your aircraft picture all my ideas are implementable and probably solve your issue. But I get the feeling you stopped reading past the "wooden undercarriage" part. Sorry if my post was to long for you.

I don't agree, even although I suffer from the same problem when building early career aircraft. The difference is that I understand why I'm suffering from this. Remember what the counterparts might be of these "early" landing gears. I imagine aircraft undercarriages of world war 2 aicraft. Many of them were wooden, and plenty of them were wooden and simply reinforced. The LY-01/05 state of the art seems comparable with said undercarriages. The LY-01 and LY-05 simply have reasonable stress limitations. Do you add any more fuel or science experiments to the necessary setup of command pod + fuel tank + single juno, wings and control surfaces then don't be surprised when your scootmobil gear breaks on a level 1 runway puthole bump. What to do? In the very early career scenario? If the wheels fail when spawning on the runway then your to heavy. So reduce weight! Can be done by simply draining fuel from the tanks in the SPH. On the early crew report/ temperature reading missions you don't need a full fuel tank to get there and back to the KSC as they're closely located. So take some fuel out of your fuel tanks to reduce weight further. Or add more wheels if under 30 parts. If not do the above, upgrade the SPH or unlock better parts. You can also put the wing incidence on a angle with the rotate tool on the wings in the SPH. This way the aicraft already makes lift when rolling at lower speed and thus reduces gear stress. This is especialy useful if your gear tends to break just before or at takeoff or if you can't manage to touch down softly enough. I would recommend a WW2 design like a spitfire. With 2 wheels at the front raising the nose to a fixed point (prevents pivoting at takeof) This way the rear wheels touch down first at lower speeds spreading the touch down impact if you were to have a center gear made of LY-01 or 05. This also further adds the lifting effect because you automatically have a positive nose up attitude. You are also more likely to spread the total vessel weight between front and back opposed to a aicraft design with a center undercarriage and a single nose gear. Oh yeah, takeoff and land from the grass next to a level 1 runway. Or land on the tarmac next to the runway near the facilities (without crashing into them:P)

These engines are good for. A:Very small craft. B: Thrust assisting ION stages for meeting thrust requirements in whatever scenario you can come up with. And hereby the clarification of what I consider to be the usage of said engines that describes the "B" answer given above. Since it might be vague what I mean by it. For example! I made a very low weight single lander/ascent stage for Moho in 1.02. This topic reminded me of rebuilding it and I will. Maybe I will post a pic if people wanna see how it looks. Which is alot better then a long explanation ofcourse. This is a Mk 2 lander can with 2 x mk 1 crew cabins (5 seats) It can get to Mohos surface from LMO and back to orbit with a much lower weight if I use a combination of ION engines and low thrust LF/O engines instead of just using LF/O or LF for that matter. 2 ant/spider engines will give this design the necessary extra thrust for soft landing and for getting back of the ground. Furthermore the Xenon fuel is reduced in the tanks as is the LF/O to give it just enough delta v to do the trick and less weight to get the thrust right. This design uses the same ion engines with fuel crossfeed from a undocked xenon fuel core left in LMO I use to decelerate at moho arrival and for rendesvouz to get back to kerbin further reducing initial launch weight. Yes, I am a as light as possible kinda guy. The xenon fuel left in LMO can be docked with again. Some parachutes, wing parts and a eve gravity assist make the whole setup recoverable. Yes the interplanetary ION transfer stage is painfully underthrusted, and yes the xenon fuel core left in LMO has....lots of xenon fuel (relatively speaking ofcourse) :p. The "Twitch" in this design would have to much thrust when combined with the ION engines. And that is because Ion engines and the Spider engines burn in tandem. The LF/O runs out by the time I raise my moho AP just enough to maintain altitude with the ION engines on ascent. Using a "twitch" for more TWR really doesn't do much nor does it suffer the design. But the well dosed TWR with the spiders give the ascent part of this design a more fluent feeling if I toss the twitch and use 2 spiders. The point in this design is that these engine combos allow me to make very low weight moho landers for a multi crew lander stage. (not necessarily for just moho ofcourse) But especialy in mohos case since lower weight is so mo-holy crucial. Substituting the Twitch for the spider/ant simply gives this design unecessary amount of TWR. That is good, but unecessary because it assists the main ion engines and it would only require more of both fuels due to added weight albeit margineable. The LF/O rocket part is just for assist since the ION setup is just below the required surface gravity of moho. Or better said, I haven't yet found a way to do it on ion thrust only. In case "you" did, then I demand explanation. The total LF/O delta v is about 250 m/s. With which I need to both assist landing and ascent. Also, some engines in KSP are of smaller scale, some are of bigger scale. And yes, some are better for some purposes. Like, Gimbal vs no gimbal, light vs heavy, atmosphere vs vaccuum, and/or efficiency versus thrust. But it's still limited within the LF/O range a.k.a. "chemical engine range of posibilities" I think the Spider/Ant are closest to being a seperate category among LF/O engines. They are relatively heavy for their size. But if you only need 2 of them for Thrust assisting, the twich is less of an option. Basically the engine need is determined by the scale/size of your operating stage. Puzzle long enough and you'll find uses for every part in the game. Are you operating a stage that is very light to the point where spider/ant engines become the better choice, then that is the engine of choice.

I think I created THE heaviest stock airbreathing spaceplane SSTO thus far posted. Only intended to deliver cargo to LKO. Its been a long held dream of mine to create ever greater STOCK SSTOs then the ones I've build before. This time with the goal of getting as much payload in orbit with a airbreathing spaceplane. I'm very certain I succeeded in this with my last build, and so I will share this one with ya all. Took me days how to figure out how to attach/strut all parts without the craft loosing parts due to stress during all stages of flight. I'm done puzzling And I am very sure that its the heaviest, largest and with the most payload capacity to orbit of all the stock airbreathing SSTOs She has 70 Rapier engines. Almost as long as a 747-800 She weighs over 1300Tons on launch and has 453,445kg or 453Ton jettisonable cargo in 3.75m format. Thats a fraction of 35% payload to orbit. As for TWR or Thrust/drag ratio she is actually capable of doing over 500 Ton to LKO. Although I might need to squeeze some extra LF in somewhere. Can rotate in vaccuum with vernors and can perform controlled aerobrake and powered landing. Requires 5 Vector engines within a front cargo bay to pivot the nose up to enable a controlled takeoff. I used Mechjeb autopilot for ease of control but she is very stable and doesn't require that at all. 323 Parts including cargo. Full Album