Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sneakey pete]

Hence operate in space. Not, be a plane in space. By operate, i mean, not let the crew/payload suffocate/freeze/cook.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Hence operate in space. Not, be a plane in space. By operate, i mean, not let the crew/payload suffocate/freeze/cook.

Well, I suppose it can function as a sort of a lifepod, but unless it can actually move in some form, it's not enough to qualify it as space-capable. You could probably seal up a nuclear sub tight enough to let the crew float around for months, but without a way to get them out of the orbit (not to mention land), it won't make a spacecraft.

[dennislp3]

Semantics much? "operates" was a perfectly functional word for the purpose and he used it correctly...why are we picking it apart?

in fact if you look at the definition it uses the word "operate":

A spaceplane is a vehicle that operates as an aircraft in Earth's atmosphere, as well as a spacecraft when it is in space. It combines features of an aircraft and a spacecraft, which can be thought of as an aircraft that can endure and maneuver in the vacuum of space or likewise a spacecraft that can fly like an airplane.

speaking of which if you disagree with a definition put forth by someone...rather than spit back and forth of minor words and semantics...why not just put an actual definition up?

Something that is labeled as a space plane and "operates in space" and does not have a function to return its occupants to a habitable environment doesn't even exist...so I think its safe to assume he includes maneuvering and the like in with the word "operates"

[Sean Mirrsen]

You.. did look at the definition you posted, right? "Endure and maneuver"?

A spacecraft is more than a container for the crew. A spacecraft - a space vehicle - is by definition capable of propelling itself in space. Reentry capability optional, but it has to be able to at least change orbits and move around.

[ank]

I thought my flowchart would have closed this debate.... seems not...

[Sean Mirrsen]

It's come up on the KSP forums as well. Some people have trouble separating the terms "Spaceplane" and "SSTO" in their minds.

[Girlinhat]

My problem there, is that the space shuttle cannot really function as a plane.  It's a Buzz Lightyear - it doesn't fly, it just falls with style.  Which is to say "it falls without exploding" and if that's the definition we're using, then a parachute drop also manages to fall without exploding.  If you're going to say it's a plane because it lands on a runway, then what if a parachute module landed on a runway?  What if a parachute module landed on a runway with wheels sticking out and going slightly horizontally?  Would it become a spaceplane if you added 1-inch wings to a parachute module?

The thing is, the space shuttle cannot perform as a plane.  It generates no lift of its own (I know wings are lifting features) and cannot actually fly.  The space shuttle cannot maintain a cruising altitude nor really controlling its flight beyond very few tweaks.  The only way it even gets to the runway, is that it got a very specific orbital insertion.

[Sean Mirrsen]

It does do more than drop though, and, last I checked - actually lands by negating the Earth's gravity using the meager lift of its stubby wings, then deploying parachutes to slow down. Wings specifically don't factor into it, but it does have more aerodynamics than your average brick, and does have control surfaces that steer it in the air. It has little to no motive power in the air, that much is true. It's a glider, its return stage is even referred to as such. But it's still an aircraft. It can maneuver in the air, and it can maneuver in space, therefore it is both a spacecraft and an aircraft - or, by definition, a spaceplane.

[jocan2003]

By using practice, a gravity turn, and a slight fuel capacity upgrade, I managed to get my hangar engines into a 200,000m orbit, with about 1500 monopropellant left, and over half fuel remaining.

Now to get the hangar modules up, dock with them, and get the haemetite fighters up into the ship.

I may also install that rockets and railguns mod...

EDIT: Well, after trying to delete some debris, I've arrived at the conclusion...

You can't. What kind of idiotic decision was that?

Grab that lazor mod system, just the basic one. It will allow you to target specific parts/debris/ship and self-destruct them from the confort of any ship/capsule. Might take a while to delete everyone of them if you have 300 different part/debris but well... Once you are done simply make sure you delete them as they appear.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Or if they're just debris and you aren't particularly attached to any unpiloted junk you have lying around - i.e. any bases that were dropped off without a probe core or a lander pod - you can just go to options and set max debris to 0. Reload game, save, go back to options, set max debris back to 250, reload game.

[Vgray]

Oi. Maybe three orange tanks or rather, nine considering I was using a tri-coupler, was overkill.

Three Mainsails at full thrust and the thing just drops right down from the tower things that hold the rocket in place.

Just upgraded from 17 to 19 by the way.

[miauw62]

More struts, boosters and mainsails.

[Vgray]

I need less weight not more.

[Nao]

Also, since I can't find this on google anywhere's, what is the best altitude at which to cut engines and start coasting to the apoptosis?

As soon as you're out of the atmosphere.

Or rather, as soon as you're out of the atmosphere, then keep the map open and burn prograde until the map shows you Ap to be your target altitude.  With no atmospheric drag, you WILL coast to that point.

Well to get the most energy out of your fuel the best altitude for burning it is the lowest possible without too much drag (to use the Oberth effect). For Kerbin that would be above 40km. The best way would be to burn at 90deg attitude until you reach your desired Ap. Burning prograde is ok too, but if you want to absolutely maximize efficiency, burning at attitudes below 0deg (up to -10deg max) can give you the best bang for the buck by bringing the Pe above surface of the planet before even you are out of it, this makes the circularization burn at Apopsis require much less DeltaV.

Am I the only person who straps their spaceplanes to a big rocket booster for initial launch?

Boosters are great both for memes and actual performance. I use them all the time. For example an 14t SSTO with 36% mass to orbit efficiency with 372m/s of Dv left

Try beating that with your fancy JATO asparagus monsters huehue.

[sluissa]

Apparently potential leaked pictures of multiplayer in the dev versions. Could just be cruel april fools though.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/48697-Leaked-multiplayer-pictures-or-cruel-april-fools/