arise257

Does anyone else just add tiny fins at the front of boosters they need to clear outward? You can even control the speed at which they peel outward from the stack by increasing the angle of incidence of those fins.

It's easily one of the most useless parts in the game. They should either eliminate it or make the joint connection so stiff and stable that you'd never need to add struts -- and make it lighter.

Without cost as a factor here are my thoughts: Small, flat decoupler: I use this every/anywhere I can, and usually only on rockets. It hardly weighs anything, fits on almost every surface, and can hold on to any other part. I use this part 95% of the time. Medium decoupler with standoff: I only use this for the standoff feature, so that I can clear bulging stacks or other radially attached parts. I use this part 4% of the time. Large, flat decoupler: It's too heavy, decouples (by default) too forcefully, and does nothing that the small decoupler can't with a little thoughtful strutting. I'm curious about whether or not parts jiggle as much when held by it, but the weight of the decoupler always keeps me from investigating (or caring). I never use this part. Small hardpoint: I only use this on airplanes, but very rarely since I almost never need to jettison parts from them. I use this part <1% of the time. Large hardpoint: Again, only on airplanes, even more rarely than the small ones. I use this part <1% of the time.

I'm gonna complete five contracts in one go: Rescue Will Kerbin from LKO so that he can join a "school bus" of 7 other Kerbonauts on their way to a... Munar flyby, to complete a spacewalk contract there. Next is... Solar Orbit, for science and a space station contract in said orbit. Then they... Fly to Ike and Duna to fulfill exploration contracts and... Establish a Duna Space Station to complete the final contract. I should be able to generate a sick amount of cash and science with this mission. Wish me luck!

You could design something like this as a lander: Stack it on top of the mobile laboratory. I made this back in the pre-1.0 days, but it still works fine. Some aspects of it are overdone and could be removed to save mass, but it has the nice wide stance for low-gravity landings and enough dV to get you down to the surface (from Mun/Minmus orbit) and back to Kerbin in one go. As for your design, it's not horrible, just overbuilt. You don't need that much fuel to get where you're going with that lab because you're wasting a lot of energy hauling extra weight. The first stage of your center stack is the right size, but you don't need the second stage. What is currently your third stage can become the second stage (with a Skipper) under your lab/lander to push it the rest of the way to the Mun. Get rid of all that stuff sticking out on the sides. Take the legs off the lab and pack 3-4 radial chutes instead -- being sure to leave yourself just enough fuel to soften your landing with a power-assist from the engines. Get rid of the heavy pod on top and replace it with a lander like what I've made above. It's heavier than the pod, but if you lighten the whole launcher you can gain significantly more utility (and science for less total mass) by being able to land on the Mun while your mobile lab stays in orbit. EFFICIENCY!

If you make it to space with that, you've earned ALL the gold stars for piloting.

Well said. Another reason that was just plain wrong is the "efficiency" argument: If you assume the only function of a space station is research, and to a far lesser extent, refueling, then this is almost ok. However, I look at space stations as an opportunity to consolidate many launches into one. It's obviously far more efficient (and dramatically less expensive) to combine several vehicles in space, then send them as an exploration package, rather than flying each piece to the destination individually. For instance, my Minmus mission included 3 landers, 2 fuel modules, the lab/core hub, and a power boom with 4 popcorn-style satellites. I moved 11 vehicles, stripped Minmus of science, and completed several satellite contracts in a single trip. From an efficiency standpoint, you'll never in your life come close to that without a space station.

Generally speaking, as I move through the science tree, I prioritize new science instruments over most other technology. If you're consistently adding new science parts, you're consistently collecting new data, which makes further gains easier to attain. If I remember correctly in my current career game, I didn't launch to Minmus (or Mun) until I had the barometer, thermometer, goo, and Science Jr in tow.

Oh, I missed that detail. Once it goes green, like you said, he should be good. I second the call for screenies!

It sounds like the contract is asking you to activate the Swivel when you reach a certain altitude and speed range. Your problem is that you're getting to the altitude, activating it, then getting to the required range of speed. You need to be within ALL the contract parameters BEFORE you activate the engine. Try that and tell us if you're successful.

Don't spam struts, they're draggy. If you use them, connect one end as close to the tip of your wings as possible, and the other to the fuselage. You may need two per wing to keep things stable. From the width and number of segments to your wings, I'd assume you're getting some floppiness. A good way to check for it (without turning) is to crank up the physics warp. If your wings bow up or down, add some struts.

Blackrack, you might want to add the EVE Ocean shader trick from this post to the front page: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/103963-wip-scatterer-atmospheric-scattering-v0021-03122015-ocean-shaders-get-them-while-theyre-hot/&do=findComment&comment=2307022

My biggest problem in the game isn't the style/aesthetics of the parts, but the construction within certain classes of parts. For instance, I don't understand why we have about 20 different types of wings and 15 different tanks instead of creating them procedurally. I think it would be much better if the build process for a wing went something like: Select wing shape (rectangular/triangular/sweep) --> Select Fuel (L/OX/Mono/None) --> Select texture --> Form dimensions w/ mouse --> Commit to part or tanks/fuselages: Select tank shape (cone/cube/drum/polygon/sphere) --> Select Fuel (L/OX/Mono/None) --> Select texture --> Form dimensions w/ mouse --> Commit to part That alone would dramatically expand the aesthetic foundations/horizons of any design. Almost no one would create identical crafts with those two changes. Sure, any craft becomes less reproducible for newbies, but it frees everyone to create more "alien", "cartoony", or "realistic" designs, all without violating the concepts of a Kerbalized universe.

Practice makes perfect, but once you get your first piece down, targeting it and orbiting to a convenient point of descent with the rest is all there is to it. It's really just like trying to land precisely on Kerbin, with less gravity and thinner air -- maybe even a little easier since the parabolic path of descent is less affected by air and gravity. If you want to make it easier, you can put wings on the base modules to give them a bit of maneuverability -- affix them to radial decouplers so that you can get rid of them you land. You can also put wheels on your modules so that you can drive them up to each other.

Can't emphasize this point enough. I spam decline contracts until I get an offer which matches up with existing missions. Right now I have 3 missions lined up involving Duna, and I'll accomplish every one of them in a single launch.