Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
But a "normal" engineer would try to place something useful in that lip. He could place
Yet another long mini fuel tank there.
Place batteries there.
Electronics.
Extendable solar panels etc.
There could be some tiny multi purpose bays there where you could place things so they become drag free. The space would definitely get used for something IRL.
A simple parts mod would be welcome.
They get SERIOUS lifting body bonuses, s'why they're ♥♥♥♥♥♥ on fuel and heavier on the dry mass.
Mk3 is even worse for weight, but once again is a lifting body.
I don't really use mk2 stuff for normal planes, but it works really well for a passenger shuttle for moving up to 6 kerbals at a time.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=700709905
I've tried a mk3 version of that, but I don't really ever need to move 20 kerbals at a time and the extra size makes it much more difficult and expensive to launch. (you need a long thin rocket to stabalize all that drag at the top)
As for the lifting body bonus, so what? That might make it heavier for the extra internal structure, but it should still have room for more fuel.
The cockpit has room for more kerbals than the mk1 cockpit. The passenger compartment has room for more kerbals than the mk1 crew cabin, but the fuel tanks can't use any of the extra space?
The cost and dry weight are already higher, that should be enough of a disadvantage.
This one went to Minmus. If you switch one tank with MK2 cabin, you can get 6 kerbonauts into orbit easily.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=793226757
You shouldn't make MK2 SSTO with rocket engines. That won't work well because of how vertical launch is wasted on MK2 (lift=>drag, also steering drifts) and rocket engines are wasted on horizontal launch.
You actually don't need Nuke you see in my picture for LKO. For short LKO visit RAPIER in short closed cycle will be even more efficient in my experience due to weigth savings at launch. Just switch some tanks for that.
http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/33004-tweakblendedpasta-stock-tv-and-far-will-it-blend-reqs-modulemanager/
Mine is a simple spacecraft meant to be launched on a rocket. It can go to the stations at the mun or minmus and return to the surface of kerbin with 6 passengers. It doesn't fly and those stubby little winglets only allow you to direct your dive to a chosen landing spot. I reenter level with the horizon with a descent path of about 45'. I quickly fall through the upper atmosphere till the large surface area slows my descent. Once I'm subsonic, I point the nose down and pick a landing spot. When I get close to the ground I pitch up till it stalls and deploy the parachutes for a nice slow, soft landing.
It can glide in to a landing without the parachutes, but it's much more dangerous.