Veto Aerospace Ibis

[RedDwarfIV]

Following the recent spate of unfortunate losses of Kestrel and their salvage variation Kestrel Responder type spaceplanes, primarily due to control failures with the presumable cause of pilot error on account of the obscenely heavy weight of the craft, Veto Aerospace\'s design department drew up plans for and built a newer, better version. The Ibis-type.

Whilst the prototype Ibis was a total failure - with as much stability as a mental health patient in a heavy-duty padded-wall affair of a cell for a good reason - the complete version has shown itself not just able to carry itself to 35,000 metres and drag itself into a decaying orbit needing constant attention of the crew, but to be able to power up to 45,000 and rising before ploughing with ease its way into a perfectly stable 115,000 metre periapsis orbit. All that with two and a quarter tanks to spare, an entire three quarters of a tank more than the Kestrel, which must use more fuel to pull itself around. The vessel sports the same high-power gimballing engine as the Kestrel Responder, which itself proved slightly better at lifting both heavy objects and itself.

And lets not forget reentry. Whilst parachute drogue systems and final Advanced Decent Heavy chutes have yet to be added, the Ibis boasts a much larger wing surface area than the older Kestrel. And its smaller weight gives it less to be concerned about during touchdown. For munar landings, like the Kestrel, it carries an extensive RCS network, which should also assist during maneuvers and act as turbulence suppression.

[RedDwarfIV]

[Spandaxe]

I\'ve expected EVE\'s Ibis. ):

[Tim_Barrett]

Red, y u no make VTOL/gliding capabilities to land?

Y U USE PARACHUTES

[RedDwarfIV]

EVE names a lot of ships after birds.

So do modern day militaries. And in any case, KSP is set with the Kerbals having near-modern day technology, so quite why you think they might suddenly have a ship capable of hyperbabblespace jumps [or whatever EVE calls it], I don\'t know.

Anyway, this image was taken on a Munar testing flight, eight hours before Veto announced it would be grounding all flights.

Whilst the low fuel - half a tank remaining - is a concern, it is not greatly less than that which a Kestrel would have to return from the Mun with, and the Ibis\'s light weight and powerful engine gives little to doubt that it can make it back to Kerbin. The craft is currently preparing to return to Kerbin on account of the grounding order. It will give Veto their first chance to find out exactly how the Ibis fairs at landing from an uncertain orbit. If it loses the functionality of the main engine before it begins deorbital thrust, then RCS is in no way a reliable means of dictating exactly where the vessel comes down. It may be forced to make a sea landing - of which there have been no tests performed on the Ibis-type.

[RedDwarfIV]

And Time, the parachutes are fitted to decouplers. It is entirely possible to jettison the parachutes after using them as drogues before landing as with an orbiter.

[Tim_Barrett]

And Time, the parachutes are fitted to decouplers. It is entirely possible to jettison the parachutes after using them as drogues before landing as with an orbiter.

Yes, but then are you capable of landing on Kerbin once more? If so, why have the parachutes in the first place? ???

[RedDwarfIV]

Yes, but then are you capable of landing on Kerbin once more? If so, why have the parachutes in the first place? ???

So what you\'re saying is NASA should never have launched the space shuttle because they would have to put all the parachutes back in?

And like the Space Shuttle, the Kestrel nor Ibis launch with SRBs.

[Tim_Barrett]

So what you\'re saying is NASA should never have launched the space shuttle because they would have to put all the parachutes back in?

And like the Space Shuttle, the Kestrel nor Ibis launch with SRBs.

Well since these parts are so OP already, why not make it take off by itself? Because it already does as is.

What I\'m getting at here is add VTOL, because a ship this small is easy enough to manuveur in a hovering position for long enough to land and take off several times.

[RedDwarfIV]

Well since these parts are so OP already, why not make it take off by itself? Because it already does as is.

What I\'m getting at here is add VTOL, because a ship this small is easy enough to manuveur in a hovering position for long enough to land and take off several times.

Note the RCS. It has VTOL.

But it only needs to use it to make a Munar landing. You carry the Space Shuttle on a lorry, you don\'t make it fly to its own launch pad.

And the SRBs are to give it as much fuel as possible for Kerbin return.

[Tim_Barrett]

You don\'t have spare RCS fuel?

:/

[RedDwarfIV]

You don\'t have spare RCS fuel?

:/

It has lots of spare RCS fuel. But the parachutes give the option of an easier landing. Surely you should be happy that it is an S/VTOL? The Kestrel only had parachutes, because the wings were far too stubby to do anything. The Ibis was actually developed because of this - among a large number of other problems - failure of the Kestrel to make a proper atmospheric landing.

Whilst the parachutes can land you the wrong way up, or on one end, they are usually safer than landing properly. Which is why they are there.

[Guest Flixxbeatz]

Was that the 'stick anywhere' parachute?

Link pls

[RedDwarfIV]

Was that the 'stick anywhere' parachute?

Link pls

No. Its the Veto Aerospace AD1 Heavy, something I made. Its essentially a cfg modded Mk16 with a new texture I made for spaceplanes. Funnily enough, when you release jettison them and they open, they create so much lift that they start going upwards.

All you need to do to get them sideways like I\'ve done is use the Probodobodyne struts, and hover them over the end. They turn sideways automatically. They don\'t glitch off like larger modules do, so I may use this to build a better looking Tri-Station at some point.

[Tim_Barrett]

It has lots of spare RCS fuel. But the parachutes give the option of an easier landing. Surely you should be happy that it is an S/VTOL? The Kestrel only had parachutes, because the wings were far too stubby to do anything. The Ibis was actually developed because of this - among a large number of other problems - failure of the Kestrel to make a proper atmospheric landing.

Whilst the parachutes can land you the wrong way up, or on one end, they are usually safer than landing properly. Which is why they are there.

If you cant glide at all, turn RCS on, press \'k\' translation key, roll to the left/right, and pitch up. Instant brakes.

[RedDwarfIV]

If you cant glide at all, turn RCS on, press \'k\' translation key, roll to the left/right, and pitch up. Instant brakes.

N translation also does good braking. It works especially well with K.

[Tim_Barrett]

N translation also does good braking. It works especially well with K.

Meh, using RCS as retro thrusters causes too much instability

[RedDwarfIV]

Meh, using RCS as retro thrusters causes too much instability

That wasn\'t the biggest problem for me. Its more along the lines of it taking five minutes to slow the craft by 20 m/s.

[RedDwarfIV]

The Ibis, with careful guidance to keep it level, will make a perfect splashdown landing, with no damage whatsoever sustained in the process.