MarvinKitFox

Not that often. Sure I start over, now and then. Its not like I *have* to, I can stop at any time. Really I can! I have less than 14 games, in my KSP\90\Stock_3 folder This one has Clock and Engineer mods in it. the Stock_1 is pure stock, and Stock_2 is for my BTSM series. Then there is my Kethane universe. With its Interstellar subfolder. . . and the folder for challenges and wierd stuff..... So, less than, ...... 157 games. (under .90, of course, we won't count the several previous versions, with their own hierarchies)

Add a "K" to *every* word???? Kood krief, khad wilk sounk kompletely krazy!

With this current launch of yours, with your current level of skill, I would not advise it. A Mun flyby is quite doable, but there is very little margin for error. Using the same basic design a bit more optimally, you could do it easily. You are burning a *lot* of your launch thrust in punching a hole in the air. Slow down a bit. If you ever see visible speed lines while ascending, it means you are WAY over speed. to do this: Drop the thrust on those SRBs. You need less than half the thrust. With less thrust on your launch, you will actually achieve a better resulting speed by the time your first stage burns out. The reduced thrust will also allow your stability controls to keep a better grip on the launch. It looked like the slightly off-straight power from those SRB's was giving you a hard time.

If you are running pure stock, and you have a 4Gb machine, you should not be ram-crashing more than once per about 6 hours / 20 entries into VAB. The game *does* leak some memory when entering & exiting the space center view, and also when loading surface textures. And during overuse of F5/F9. With a mere 2Gb machine, I can quite happily build 600-1000 part rockets, do a manned mission to Duna and Ike, and return. And only really worry about a ram crash when parachuting back onto KSC at the end of the mission. And then only if I never exited the game at all during the 4-hour+ mission.

Yes, the first stage can use jet engines! Jet engines deliver some very, VERY good fuel efficiency, but they tend to be a bit heavy and only operate while in at least some density of atmosphere. Jet engines also tend to have somewhat low thrust-to-mass ratios. Thus, you want to have them operate as long as possible (to make up for the low TWR) and to stay low enough to have access to the needed air for intakes. "Brilliant Idea" says I. Lets use a much more horizontal flight profile! Now of course it is a bit hard to fly your rocket on a very horizontal flight while it is picking up speed, that pesky thing "gravity" keep on trying to pull you down. How about using some of this air that is whoosing by? If I put a flat thingummy in the wind, and angle it just right, it might help me fight gravity. A flat thing that uses the Wind.. hmmm.. a wind thing.... lets call it a "wing" for short. Now as all this is some very plain straightforward thinking, let's call the whole contraption just that. A Plain! Oh no, a plain is a flat piece of earth... Lets call it a Plane!

If you wish to be *that* persnickety about alignment, then please submit two pictures that are taken from the same angle, distance, orientation and zoom factor. Which the submitted two pictures most assuredly are *not*

I am trying to parse what you are saying there. It is "defiantly" water... Definition of defiantly in English: adverb In a manner that shows open resistance or bold disobedience: Ok, so we have very deliberately disobedient water, which is making the action of hitting water. So it is hitting... itself? Sounds kinky!

Mostly, it's because of the rather extreme nerfing of the game difficulty. Back in .19 or so, this feat would have been ludicrous^2 Now it is just very very hard.

Want a challenge? Ok, lets start easy and simple. Plant a flag on EVE, anywhere on the sealevel shoreline, and return Kerbin. Do it using only one launch from Kerbin, no outside assistance. (no refuels from previous launches, etc) p.s. This is just about the absolute pinnacle of my own achievement....

Ok, sometimes this game generates quite ludicrous contract requirements. Or more specifically, ludicrous contract *locations* In the pic below, I have to make an EVA report on the surface at location OT-W Alpha The entire region covered by this location is on a cliffside, with a minimum incline of 30.3 degrees. Jeb cannot walk on that slope, but fortunately my Science Explorer plane can "hover" on the slope with the aid of its jet engines. Fun, eh?

KSP is fun because it allows the Adventurer, The Builder, The Tinkerer and The Scientist in each of us to work together to achieve their Dream. (and have a lot of fun in the process) It allows us to Boldly go where our Imagination has never Gone Before. ======== Today we lost one of the founding Icons of the Space Dream. Live Long and Prosper, Spock, Wherever your journeys may lead you. In Memoriam: Leonard Nimoy March 26, 1931 – February 27, 2015

Without fiddling with gravity assists, etc... The most efficient way to do a 90 degree plane change from a circular orbit to another circular orbit at right angles would be: 1) accelerate prograde to escape velocity - 0.000000000001 2) wait until apoapsis is achieved. Enact your plane change, the cost should be ZERO (or a very good facsimile of it). Adjust desired periapsis height and angle. 3) When reaching the desired periapsis, circularise. This maneuver will allways have a cost of exactly: For initial circular orbit velocity A, and final orbital velocity B (for any starting orbit, any ending orbit, circular. Plane irrelevant. Orbital radii irrelevant!) cost = A * (1-sqrt(2)) + B * (1-sqrt(2)) = 0.41421 (A + Whereas brute-forcing the plane change, for A=B but 90 degree plane change: Brute force cost = sqrt(A+^2 = 1.414 * A in this case == 1.707 times as much.

Your idea is perfectly sound, although by putting the landing legs on the droptanks you are somewhat limiting your options on when to drop them. i.e. cannot drop before landing, as you lose your means of landing!

Don't worry, this is no uglier than your first design. Nothing could be! ;-P Your original design has 3 flaws. None of them lethal, but they add up. 1) the yaw control(rudder) is much too close to the center of Mass. Indeed, I'm thinking that when your fuel is about used up, it might even be ahead of Com? 2) Your wingspan vs length ratio is ideal for a low-speed glider, NOT for a hypersonic spaceplane. You want long and narrow. 3) Your center of drag is WAY too forward. Air intakes are very high drag items, and especially that intake on the nose causes problems. the effect of these are: 1 - > your ability to control yaw is very much reduced 2 - > unneeded drag, under FAR 3 - > your plane's natural orientation is backasswards.

1) Dont use the propelled "rover" wheels, just run on airplane undercarriage 2) use some other means for propulsion. A favorite is angled control surfaces. They *look* like spoilers, but they provide thrust via physics/fizzics interaction. Rover wheels have a speed limit over which they cannot provide more acceleration, and a second higher speed limit over which they self-destruct. Landing gear wheels have no speed limit, only force limits.

That used to work until about version .23, at which time the turbojet's curve was adjusted to be fully zero over a certain speed. That speed is about 2400m/s, not enough to get to Mun orbit any more.

With turbojets, the most fuel-efficient is a suborbital hop. With only basic jet engine, the most fuel-efficient is at something like 11.5k alt, and as low throttle as you can while maintaining that alt. Boring, though. flying at 16k alt at full throttle is only about 20% less efficient, and you get there four times as quickly.

No beta? just what do you think you are playing right now?

You are heading in 180degrees the wrong direction.

Atilla thrusters need pure vacuum, and 60+Mw of power. I'm thinking you are a wee bit shy on power there. sonny. Is that rig capable of more than about 2Mw, in space? Those are puny reactors, and the stacked radiators only really work in air.

Lack of imagination Basic fallacy. The nose does not need to pitch up during takeoff, your flight path must simply be more up than down. By *forcing your design to this criteria, you are forcing it into a very limited range of designs. This is the only true statement you make. Try constructing your plane so that, while resting on its landing gear, the plane is at optimal angle for level flight/very slight climbing. You do NOT need to rotate to takeoff. This is merely a tool used to shorten the runway length needed, and to reduce noise footprint after the runway. You want a spaceplane's wing design to be optimal at high speed, high altitude. It should only barely be able to take off with a full load. If you are *capable* of stunt flying at low altitude, then by definition your vehicle is not optimised as a space plane!

Do you want a semi-realistic space sim, or do you want an adrenaline-overload arcade game? Complaining about a 20 minute (4-minute under timewarp) burn!!! We should make you do a real life ION engine burn, live! 3 months of waiting for the burn to complete would teach you what a slow burn is!

Complaining about the presence of Jool's moons when navigating to/in/from Jool is like complaining about the multitude of highway choices and on/off ramps when driving between distant cities. Would you really prefer a single lane road with no on/offramps to get from NewYork to LA? The moons are there to **HELP** you, not to hinder you!

The only time it does not make sense to use Nukes, for a high delta-v trip, would be if you had even more efficient engines. Such as the Ion Drive. As great as the performance increase from Rocket engine to Nuke is, the increase from nuke to Ion drive is four times better still. (The pains too: Price. Minimal TWR. Difficulty of build)

SSTO rocket will still outperform SSTO plane, for all but the very lightest of cargoes. Easier to build, too. Just not as pretty.