[1.2.2] B9 Aerospace | Release 6.2.1 (Old Thread)

[BudgetHedgehog]

I don't care about B9 engines or anything, I just wanted big cargo planes so I could put things bigger than a 0.625 probe into space. That's why I'm using B9 and frankly, I find it a little offensive when people say that I shouldn't use a mod because I play my single player sandbox however I want. Yes, I have FAR installed (with it's stock tweaks) and I deleted the B9 stock tweaks (and it's engines) because that's how I enjoy playing my game. Who are you, who is anyone, to tell me that I shouldn't be using B9 if that's the case? Like I said, I don't care about engines, OP or otherwise, I just wanted big cargo bays for big planes so I can take useful stuff into orbit.

[AetherGoddess]

[...] ("Okay, I'm gonna uninstall this mod now, I need the RAM and I never used it anyway - wait, why are all of my crafts behaving differently now?")

Deleting the mod will delete the MM Config; therefore, no issue. stop hunting for ways to pick apart decisions someone else has made as part of their universe, and be thankful they put all the hard work in and then are willing to share a piece of it with you.

We're adding a note about the change to stock jets next version. (Though frankly I think it should be rolled into FAR, I assume only reason it's not is that ferram has lower salt tolerance than Tav).

Probably, but i don't think Ferram is in the business of creating and balancing parts, he's his hands full making aerodynamic simulators with massive maths. thou, given this conversation, i can see how high-v rocksalt might be a consideration.

I don't care about B9 engines or anything, I just wanted big cargo planes so I could put things bigger than a 0.625 probe into space. That's why I'm using B9 and frankly, I find it a little offensive when people say that I shouldn't use a mod because I play my single player sandbox however I want. Yes, I have FAR installed (with it's stock tweaks) and I deleted the B9 stock tweaks (and it's engines) because that's how I enjoy playing my game. Who are you, who is anyone, to tell me that I shouldn't be using B9 if that's the case? Like I said, I don't care about engines, OP or otherwise, I just wanted big cargo bays for big planes so I can take useful stuff into orbit.

This is the correct method. note that this person has no interest in dictating back to BAC9, Tav, Ferram, or anyone else who donated time to making the game better what they can and cannot do with that time. see similar discussion on KSPi ("don't change my thing!" vs "Here's a MM patch to put it back for those who want it".)

In Conclusion, please be respectful of the work that went into all mods, and remember,

here, as everywhere.

[StevenJ]

Just a thought in case if anyone else was having crashes. I use active texture management and after I updated from B9 5 to the patch B95 the game would load then crash hardcore after flying a vessel for a few minutes. I had no idea what it was and it kept getting worse and worse. So I found an update to Active Texture management, and I don't think I really needed the update to be honest. What I did was I deleted the cached texture folder that it makes for all installed parts to force it to redo all the texture compression and it totally made my game stable so far, even after three reverts, no crash. If anyone else is having problems, I'd say go to your active texture management game data file and totally delete the cached texture folder. Before I did that I was getting error reports with access denied memory violations left and right even though physical in game memory use was 67%. Just a tip for other players.

[iamzac]

The Scimitar engine can achieve the stock turbojet performance and it's no more or less "magical unicorn-pixiedust-and-friendship" than the SABRE engine included in the B9.

Personally I am using it to replicate a hypersonic plane similar to the proposed Lapcat plane from the link I have included.

I think it's perfectly balanced compared to the SABRE S engine from the point of view of thrust and weight.

The only unreal thing is the name and the design but maybe you could make a B9 one.

It would basically be a slightly lighter SABRE-S, with the same thrust and velocity curve and a slightly funnel shape.

Maybe you could reuse the old SABRE model which was already slightly funnel shaped and put a modified texture... like the jagged texture around the F119 nozzle... or we can use the existing stock turbofan and imagine it's an scimitar engine

I "made" a test version of the Scimitar engine for the B9 mod team to use it as a starting point in case they wish to do so.

Since I have no idea how to do 3d modelling for KSP I took your model.mu from the B9 4.0 SABRE S engine (since it is more similar to the Scimitar because of it's slightly funnel shape), put it over the new one and made the following modifications to the B9 5.2.1 SABRE S part.cfg:

Changed name and description, removed all the Rocket Mode parts, decreased mass from 1.5 to 1.4, decreased cost from 3750 to 3500, increased thrust from 215 to 220.

Everything else is the same and I tested it and it works.

Here is the link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gw2xctyw7z78m2a/Engine_Scimitar_updated.zip?dl=0 (edited, in the first upload I had accidentally deleted the alternator)

This is 100% B9 material, I only modified the cfg.

Edited September 12, 2014 by iamzac

[Zerp]

Su-32/34:

Plenty of side-by-side cockpits in modern fast mover aircraft, as demonstrated by now.

I wrote that almost all fighter aircraft are single seater, and this is the case regardless of a few fighter-bombers exceptions.

Look for example at the Su-32/34s role:

"it is intended for high-precision strikes, including strikes with nuclear weapons, on land and sea targets at any time of day."

Basically a fast bomber that can carry air-air missiles for self defense.

Douglas F3D (F-10):

Basically had a two seat setup to be a good platform to test, improve and deploy the first homing air-air missiles and radar/night fighting in the 50s. Was built in fairly small numbers compared to other models 265 compared to 9,860 for the Sabre or 895 for the F2H Banshee.

So yes, there are fast aircraft that look a bit like jet-fighters with twin seating, but 99% of all real models of agile, small fighter aircraft are still single seaters.

Sorry if someone thinks I am derailing the thread, my point is simply you could model so many many more real aircraft models with so little extra work from your side, compared to how much work is needed to build good quality cockpit/bridge models and interiors for increasingly huge spaceplanes or sci-fi behemoths. For me this mod will never feel complete without a single seat cockpit.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Zerp

[StevenJ]

I wrote that almost all fighter aircraft are single seater, and this is the case regardless of a few fighter-bombers exceptions.

Look for example at the Su-32/34s role:

"it is intended for high-precision strikes, including strikes with nuclear weapons, on land and sea targets at any time of day."

Basically a fast bomber that can carry air-air missiles for self defense.

Douglas F3D (F-10):

Basically had a two seat setup to be a good platform to test, improve and deploy the first homing air-air missiles and radar/night fighting in the 50s. Was built in fairly small numbers compared to other models 265 compared to 9,860 for the Sabre or 895 for the F2H Banshee.

So yes, there are fast aircraft that look a bit like jet-fighters with twin seating, but 99% of all real models of agile, small fighter aircraft are still single seaters.

Sorry if someone thinks I am derailing the thread, my point is simply you could model so many many more real aircraft models with so little extra work from your side, compared to how much work is needed to build good quality cockpit/bridge models and interiors for increasingly huge spaceplanes or sci-fi behemoths. For me this mod will never feel complete without a single seat cockpit.

Just do what I do. Build the trainer or tandem seat version of the fighter and call it a day .

[Taverius]

I suppose this doesn't count as a pixiedust-powered futuristic device then.

http://puu.sh/buWRV.png

Lots of fluff text, but its just there to lump you with the extra mass so that the second mode on the HPD is (worse than) a properly scaled up LV-N.

HPD Mode 1 is just the average of a mainsail and a skipper (well, the KW 3.75m versions thereof, anyway), scaled up with the same exponents, and then given a 10% penalty to thrust, and a 5% isp bonus.

HPD Mode 2 is just an LV-N, scaled up with the same exponents, given a 10% penalty to thrust, and given a further penalty in TWR on top (see below) - the URC is the extra mass a fully scaled-up LV-N needs to be "balanced" with the rocket engines from stock/kw, where, unlike jets, squad takes the time to be roughly balanced.

It produces ECharge at exactly the same mass/cost/rate ratio as the stock RTG, so is in every way equivalent to sticking a ton of them to your craft - the only difference is you don't take the FPS hit from having a bazillion parts.

The 'further penalty' comes from the fact that the URC is the mass needed to make the HPD have the right TWR for a scale-up LV-N ... but it only supplies power for 66% thrust, and that only in a vacuum. We then give it a small (5%) bonus to ISP, same as the conventional closed-cycle mode.

The HPD looks cool and we use fancy words, but its nothing special, in terms of game balance - two absolutely ordinary rocket engines (with stats based on apollo-era tech) with some severe penalties on top, squeezed into a single engine and an electrical generator we needed anyway, all in the name of keeping our ballooning part count in check.

---

Back to the real thing...i tested my config for the nasa kerbodyne F1 engine with following values:

*SNIP*

But...there is no frigging flame in space... <.< what did i miss? i have the fx from hotrockets installed ofc.

No idea tbh, but to start with, try deleting all the stock FX outright.

Change all the MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE stock stuff in the FX Groups that are receiving MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE_PERSIST, the stuff like this I see up top:

@MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE
{
@emission,0 = 0.0 0.0
@emission,1 = 0.5 0.0
@emission,2 = 0.7 0.0
@emission,2 = 1.0 0.0
}

Into:

!MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE {}

(note the space, that's important)

Stock particle FX are best avoided outright, except where we have no alternatives - nobody's made a decent flame out spark single-shot FX for SmokeScreen yet.

---

The Scimitar engine can achieve the stock turbojet performance and it's no more or less "magical unicorn-pixiedust-and-friendship" than the SABRE engine included in the B9.

Personally I am using it to replicate a hypersonic plane similar to the proposed Lapcat plane from the link I have included.

I think it's perfectly balanced compared to the SABRE S engine from the point of view of thrust and weight.

The only unreal thing is the name and the design but maybe you could make a B9 one.

It would basically be a slightly lighter SABRE-S, with the same thrust and velocity curve and a slightly funnel shape.

Maybe you could reuse the old SABRE model which was already slightly funnel shaped and put a modified texture... like the jagged texture around the F119 nozzle... or we can use the existing stock turbofan and imagine it's an scimitar engine

Anyway, it would be nice to mention in the original post you modify the stock engines and also write how to undo this modification by deleting the MM file, otherwise people will find out their stock planes don't work no more and have no idea why, as not everyone reads the changelogs.

I've been thinking about the SCIMITAR.

It would still be a 25% nerf in top speed to the stock turbojet engine - the SABRE velocity/thrust curve reaches 0 thrust @ 1850m/s - Mach (Sea Level) 5.34, translating to an effective top speed at switch-over altitude of Mach 5.5-5.6

The stock turbojet reaches 0 thrust at 2500m/s. That's Mach (Sea Level) 7.35!

Subsonic combustion without precooling has theoretical limit of Mach 5.0-5.5 - in a ramjet, turbines stand to chance of reaching this speed.

Reaction Engines had to invent the fancy precooler just to stand a chance of actually getting there from the 4.5-ish max anyone has been able to get out of an actual ramjet.

Its a turbine, its a ramjet, its a scramjet, its everything at once, its SuperJet! There it goes to save the day ...

Edited September 12, 2014 by Taverius

[bac9]

I have updated the front page FAQ, adding explanations on why we have replaced the stock jet engine configs, why we don't respect "stock balance" as the baseline, and why we are using realistic values while adding nonsensical sci-fi parts at the same time.

The current balance is there to stay. We can't please everyone, and the currently used values make the most sense to us.

Edited September 12, 2014 by bac9

[ModZero]

The only thing that bothers me about messing with stock engines is that there are at least two mods (TVPP and FAR, you might have heard about them ;-P) that do the same, and without poking at the code I'm kinda worried they and B9 might get into each other's way  I'm going to "guess" they wouldn't, but I'm an anxious mess as it is.

And as a fan of the nuclear reactor mods I'm a bit bothered by that one, but yes, it's equivalent to the stock RTG.

[bac9]

B9 supercedes TVPP jet configs (both were made by Taverius and afaik have the same values), and FAR does nothing to the configs directly, but is assumed to be present for all our aerodynamics-related config values to work properly, so there is absolutely no conflict, quite the opposite.

You can install TVPP, B9 and FAR simultaneously and have a good time. More than that, it's pretty much a recipe for some good time!

As about the reactor, yeah - it would be more interesting if it had more complex mechanics with heat and fuel like in Interstellar, but we can't really bundle a huge plugin like that and introduce new resources and mechanics for just one part.

Edited September 12, 2014 by bac9

[iamzac]

I've been thinking about the SCIMITAR.

It would still be a 25% nerf in top speed to the stock turbojet engine - the SABRE velocity/thrust curve reaches 0 thrust @ 1850m/s - Mach (Sea Level) 5.34, translating to an effective top speed at switch-over altitude of Mach 5.5-5.6

The stock turbojet reaches 0 thrust at 2500m/s. That's Mach (Sea Level) 7.35!

Subsonic combustion without precooling has theoretical limit of Mach 5.0-5.5 - in a ramjet, turbines stand to chance of reaching this speed.

Reaction Engines had to invent the fancy precooler just to stand a chance of actually getting there from the 4.5-ish max anyone has been able to get out of an actual ramjet.

Its a turbine, its a ramjet, its a scramjet, its everything at once, its SuperJet! There it goes to save the day ...

Just wanted to mention since B9 is already made mainly for FAR, the turbojet in FAR is actually weaker than your SABRE, maximum thrust is 110 at 900 m/s and zero at 1800 m/s.

And in case you didn't already knew that I hope you will not nerf the SABRE since they are already realistic, they should be able to reach around Mach 5.5.

And about the Scimitar sounding a bit too good to be true... well, if SABRE will become real one day then Scimitar will work too since it's actually a simpler technology, SABRE minus the rocket mode.

Also the Scimitar is designed for a longer life than SABRE so maybe it's not necessarily a simpler technology...

In KSP we have to look a bit further in time because if we would be 100% realistic we would have no spaceplanes and kerbals would only be able to visit Mun

I hope you will add a Scimitar engine since the stock turbojet doesn't look that pretty when paired with B9 components and using my own custom version of scimitar I showed earlier feels kind of cheaty somehow, I don't know why I prefer not to use custom components modified or made by me.

[K3-Chris]

As about the reactor, yeah - it would be more interesting if it had more complex mechanics with heat and fuel like in Interstellar, but we can't really bundle a huge plugin like that and introduce new resources and mechanics for just one part.

I think it would make more sense for plugins that does that stuff to tie into the part, MM out current engine and fuel stuff and replace with their own mechanics.

[forsaken1111]

What real-world technology are the big power generators based off of by the way? With the shift towards realism it would be nice to know what you guys have in mind for power generation as currently it's just an oversized magical RTG

[Taverius]

The only thing that bothers me about messing with stock engines is that there are at least two mods (TVPP and FAR, you might have heard about them ;-P) that do the same, and without poking at the code I'm kinda worried they and B9 might get into each other's way  I'm going to "guess" they wouldn't, but I'm an anxious mess as it is.

Nah, they don't. I've submitted a few patches to the FAR MM patch, and of course I do TVPP, so I made sure the proprer checks and exclusions are present.

And as a fan of the nuclear reactor mods I'm a bit bothered by that one, but yes, it's equivalent to the stock RTG.

So am I, but KSPi is a massive plugin that's currently being heavily reworked, and in any case we try not to add plugins for a single part unless its absolutely necessary.

When its stabilized, I'll probably submit a patch that turns the URC into a KSPi reactor if you're running both, but for now the patch I sent in for .12.3 is where I'm stopping.

Just wanted to mention since B9 is already made mainly for FAR, the turbojet in FAR is actually weaker than your SABRE, maximum thrust is 110 at 900 m/s and zero at 1800 m/s.

And in case you didn't already knew that I hope you will not nerf the SABRE since they are already realistic, they should be able to reach around Mach 5.5.

And about the Scimitar sounding a bit too good to be true... well, if SABRE will become real one day then Scimitar will work too since it's actually a simpler technology, SABRE minus the rocket mode.

Also the Scimitar is designed for a longer life than SABRE so maybe it's not necessarily a simpler technology...

In KSP we have to look a bit further in time because if we would be 100% realistic we would have no spaceplanes and kerbals would only be able to visit Mun

I hope you will add a Scimitar engine since the stock turbojet doesn't look that pretty when paired with B9 components and using my own custom version of scimitar I showed earlier feels kind of cheaty somehow, I don't know why I prefer not to use custom components modified or made by me.

Nah, the SABRE curves are ... as close as I can make them to what the pdfs by reaction engines say they would be. I'm not changing them, and if we do make a SCIMITAR I will probably just copy the air mode from the sabre to it.

My main problem with making the SCIMITAR is justifying it - it would essentially be just like running a sabre and never switching mode, only with slightly better TWR, and slightly lower cost. With 211 parts already in the pack we like there to be a damn good reason for any other part we add, and the SCIMITAR doesn't feel distinct enough.

[ModZero]

I think it would make more sense for plugins that does that stuff to tie into the part, MM out current engine and fuel stuff and replace with their own mechanics.

The thing is, both existing reactor plugins use *radiators*, which are separate parts. It would probably be easy to MM in something using the converter from MKS/OKS/Karbonite to replicate the FTT reactor, though. That one uses fuel (don't remember which one), liquid helium and the latest in suspension of disbelief technology. Probably would make the most sense from the radiator-less options.

Edit: to make it clear, I perfectly understand the choice and am not against it. I'm somewhere between idly musing about stop-gap solutions and planning to actually read a config or two. I'd probably create hopelessly unbalanced numbers, though.

Edited September 12, 2014 by ModZero

[Taverius]

The thing is, both existing reactor plugins use *radiators*, which are separate parts. It would probably be easy to MM in something using the converter from MKS/OKS/Karbonite to replicate the FTT reactor, though. That one uses fuel (don't remember which one), liquid helium and the latest in suspension of disbelief technology. Probably would make the most sense from the radiator-less options.

Edit: to make it clear, I perfectly understand the choice and am not against it. I'm somewhere between idly musing about stop-gap solutions and planning to actually read a config or two. I'd probably create hopelessly unbalanced numbers, though.

I'm planning to look into a Karbonite patch for the URC, but right now I'm already busy getting R5.2.2 ready, getting TVPP 1.7 ready, balancing the Karbonite jets for RoverDude, making a DRE patch for Karbonite ... I'll take a look at it eventually

As far as balance, the only important thing - if you feel like taking a stab at it - is that the mass and energy output of the part don't change.

[K3-Chris]

I haven't actually played KSP (properly, in career etc, done testing in sandbox obviously) since .23.5~ with Interstellar etc and I always shot past the low/mid part of the tech tree. Started playing a new career save this week with these mods:

(RSS is used to re-style something using better atmospheres, doesn't actually re-scale stuff).

Basically going for a post kethane post KSPi endgame with karbonite, USI fineprint etc to add complexity and more long-term goals needing infrastructure.

I don't know why but infrastructure is my primary goal in KSP careers and have been for a long time, basic idea is that you set up bases on celestial body surfaces, stations in orbit, crew, consumables & hardware transport solutions generally don't go straight where they're going, instead they use dedicated re-used transports to go one hop at a time, from KSC to LKO station, from LKO station to duna station, from duna station to duna base etc, idea is to make as little of the space program one time use disposable stuff as possible, no idea why but that's what I like to do.

One important leg of this chain is KSC to LKO, which I prefer to do with SSTOSPs, idea is that almost everything I send into the kerbol system at large once time was shipped up into orbit in a cargo bay on a plane, only exceptions are parts too large to fit inside the cargobays I currently have (or even HL) or similar situations when using a spaceplane isn't actually that beneficial.

And I'm at the same time evaluating how B9 slots into career now, biggest stuff that stands out to me are these:

First airplane part nodes you get some B9 stuff, but mostly stock, including no B9 cockpit, my first plane I made to do fine print aerial survey missions:

It's pretty painful using a non-B9 cockpit IVA at this point for me, JSI/RPM does add MFDs to the stock IVAs but there is no APFD, just a PFD and a HUD, no integrated cameras and the ASET and JSI ones snap off when flying.

I know I made the B9 MFDs to they're quite literally exactly to my own taste (well the complete parts, I want to go over the text on most pages, the font, making the lines to buttons light up/not light up to show if that button is active nor not etc etc) but I still really don't like the stock MFDs, I think my primary reason for not liking them is that almost nothing is labeled and most of the views don't seem designed for airplane use.

Stock basic jet engine, air intakes, lights, control surfaces on the trailing edge etc, B9 only gives you the subsonic cowled airliner style engines at that tech level, and fine print asks you to go all over kerbin with target altitudes 1.5km-23km~ without fine print I'll agree low tech 1.25m planes are pretty useless from a career mode standpoint, but a lot of players seem to like to re-create real planes or make their own designs just for fun, which a 1.25m cockpit is nice for.

I find it weird you can cruise kerbin at 23km at mach 2 without the "supersonic flight" tech tree node, a bit misnamed, I'm not sure if B9 should aim to make stock aero parts completely optional or if b9 should slot in after the first set of stock parts to act as an upgrade more or less, but having the basic jet engine from stock and airliner engines from b9 on the same node is a bit unbalanced in favor of stock.

Main thing standing out to me though like someone said before and I've already talked about this with Tav, it makes no real sense for Mk2's cargo bays to be unlocked on the same node as the S2 parts, means there isn't a window where the Mk2 is useful, it's outmoded at the same time you get it, I've suggested we change that. (Edit: just saw that Tav has committed a change to put the bays in the same mode as mk2 cockpit)

What would a mk2 cargo bay be useful for? USI, early space stations aren't self sufficient and it's expensive to send disposable launches to the station to top up consumables, sending up a Mk2 SSTOSP with a cargo bay, yeah the sabres are still a fair bit up the tree, but you can do the jets and rockets approach, I obviously don't agree with squad's tech tree layout with airplane parts coming after/at the same time as most rocket stuff (they invented rockets before planes, wha?) but going forwards with the option/mods of making costs actually relevant and mods like fine print that makes non-cargo airplanes actually useful.

I think we need to think about what role B9 should have in low-mid career, currently it feels like a mix of stock replacement and at some nodes stock clearly leap-frogs B9's capabilities which is a bit weird, the squad tech tree is a mess, but I don't know of any popular mod atm that re-organizes it to be more sensible a lot of people use, KSPi did that to a degree, but I'm not sure it did much to planes.

Edited September 12, 2014 by K3|Chris

[Taverius]

Let me know anything that you think needs a different tech node, I haven't really played career since 0.22

[yohuan]

Are the RBM and RNM Air Intakes meant to slow down the plane alot when taking in air with FAR/NEAR ?? It seems my plane flies alot faster when i close those intakes.

[Taverius]

Are the RBM and RNM Air Intakes meant to slow down the plane alot when taking in air with FAR/NEAR ?? It seems my plane flies alot faster when i close those intakes.

I'll check it out.

[StevenJ]

Ok I hear you guys, a lot of requests for a 1m cockpit, but I'm pretty busy atm with a long list of tasks I'd rather do first, but I realized the Mk2 cockpit is pretty much a 1m cockpit with a Mk2 rear end, took me less than 10mins to make the rear round and adjust the rest of the mesh to fit that somewhat:

It's using all mk2 assets so it adds almost nothing to the game's RAM use (I tried to get fancy and use MODEL{} to give it it's own folder and point at the Mk2 assets but it's fighting me, so I resorted to putting the files into the Mk2 folder) I spent literally 90%+ of my time making this part on trying to get that MODEL{} part to work...

Just extract:https://www.dropbox.com/s/v1q1g07t936a6t9/b9m1v2.rar?dl=0 into GameData to install...

Just wanted to says thanks before I forget for creating the 1m cockpit out of the MK2 Cockpit. I've managed to make several good fighter replicas already.

Like this F-5F Tiger II replica I made with B9 and new Firespitter v7 parts

It's not exactly exact but it's pretty good. It also flies pretty close to prototype with the redoing of the basic jet engine configuration. I also made an F-15 Eagle and F-4 Phantom with the resized 1m cockpit. Thanks again.

[The Pink Ranger]

The last time I tried it (not recently) I didn't get any crashes in x64 when I forced opengl on it.

[NathanKell]

Presumably because OpenGL mode takes you below the 32bit process limit.

[BubbaWilkins]

I'll check it out.

While your at it, check the S2 Wide body intake. It's not generating any intake air.

[K3-Chris]

Some pictures of my first cargo SSTOSP in my new career play-trough (click to enlarge):

Jet-climb to 25km~ and mach 3~

LV-N and 24-77's used to push my Ap

Once the LV-N is enough alone to not fall back down I turn off the chemicals

Ah the Mun, it's big it's gray, it's full of science.

My USI/OKS based Mun station

Too lazy to dock, KAS pipes is less hassle, and less dry mass than a docking port and RCS thrusters and monoprop.

Baibai, heading home, 2 crew rotated out, large volume of oxygen left behind.

Halfway point between Mun and Kerbin

Cheap I know, but sunsets/sunrises are purdy.

Shallow re-entry with airbrakes meant that was as bright as my re-entry got.

ILS helping me land in the dark.

APFD to get lined up properly.

Touchdown, was very smooth, low vertical and forward speed.

Full album: http://imgur.com/a/40lsm#0

Reason for the somewhat weird wing design is that I'm too low in the tech tree still to have pWings or the big square block B9 wings, only got wingtips, winglets and stabilizers.

Solar panels on the oxygen hexcans because... that's where they fit, man I wish you could attach stuff to the carbo bay doors' insides. Not a fan of the hexcans but PP for some reason limits how large I can make life support tanks really severely, can only make them 1m diameter and 0.5m long, I assume I can make larger ones higher in the tree.

Cargo bay also contains some universal storage racks with extra provisions for the plane and had US KAS boxes for stuff for the station, moved em over to the station's empty US racks. Can see them in-place in the picture where I arrive at the Mun.

Specs:

Mk2 cockpit, Mk2 crew tank, 2x D-30F7 jets, 4x 24-77's, 1x LV-N

Mission:

Carried 459960 units of oxygen to my mun station, station can process oxygen but I wanted more of a buffer, went from 8 days of oxygen reserves for the 12 crew to 270 days. Also swapped 2 crew, I like simulating crew rotations ISS style in my careers, don't think leaving the same kerbals in orbit for very long periods of time is good for them. Also brought some KAS parts like the pipes I used and other odds and ends in KAS containers, like the 4 round RCS pods on the water drill miner visible in one of the pictures, it has 2 PP tanks, big center one is for water, other front one was meant for RCS for docking with the station, but I forgot to change it to RCS, so I had to dock RCS-less, that's always fun... So retrofitted it with external radial RCS tanks.

I'll be doing many more missions like this rotating crew, adding supplies etc, next mission will send some food, the station makes food in it's greenhouses, aeroponics etc but only has a 45d buffer, point of sending all these excess supplies is also to make it a way-station for future missions elsewhere, particularly missions to the mun's surface, I'll build a ground base using MKS later, will be a lot easier with a station already in orbit.

NERVA shrouded using pFairings interstage to make it more aerodynamic and shield it from re-entry heat somewhat, I play with FAR and DRE, a nerva sticking out on the back isn't ideal in either really. Same reason the oxygen tanks, US and solar panels are inside cargo bay that's closed during atmospheric interface.

Edited September 13, 2014 by K3|Chris