Wemb

One other thing to mention is that while this will maximise your returns, it isn't the fastest way to proceed - it takes a long time to convert science like this, and you'll be able to complete the tech tree faster by bring the data striaght back home. If you need cash - then launching satellites and driving tourists around will help. Wemb

Been playing with this mod, Univeral Storage and the community tech tree for a couple of days now - and am loving it. However, I've just tried to use the new 2-man 'VA' command pod and, I'm not sure if either I'm missing something obvious, or I've managed to install someting incompatible. It works okay in the VAB and looks fine, but on the pad, I see no kerbal protraits in the corner, the 'C' key doesn't go to an IVA view (not that that's particularly necessary) - so cannot EVA (the whole reason to take 2 Kerbals alone.) - am I missing something silly and obvious, like that part doesn't allow EVA's? Though that doesn't explain why I can't see the portraits. Right clicking on the part suggests the two kerbals are inside though, just can't do much with them. Any ideas where to start fixing this? NB: Have just noticed that on the pad the command module is listed as 'Status: Locked' on the context menu. Thanks Wemb

Sure, it could - the challenge is designing a plane that stable and with enough tolerances in it's aerodynamics and flight characteristics that would allow a computer programme to fly one. I'm not sure if KOS is Turing-complete or what other limits it's language may have - but regardless - that would be as much an exercise in computer programming flight simulators as spaceship design - that might be appealing to some folks. I'd prefer the light the blue touchpaper and stand well back approach. Wemb

Right, I should qualify this. For -me-, by the time I get the tech-tree opened enough to build usefull SSTOs, I'm already doing interplanatery missions. For me, the SSTO is about as much use as the Buran was to the Russian space programme - it'd be a tech demonstrator and a prestige project (with possibly useful technological spin-offs, Energia?) - rather than a meaningfully useful spacecraft. Now, that's the way I'm playing KSP. Some players may wish to play a more Kerbin-centric game - for all I know, you could make a really interesting and challenging game in Hard mode using thinks like Remote Tech which would really, really suit re-useable LKO launch vehicles - but it's probably not the game most people are playing. Wemb

For a given value of 'superior' - it really depends on what you're trying to achieve... Long term cash savings within the game - go SSTO, especially if you 'simulate' the testing via liberal use of 'revert to ...'. If you regard use of 'revert to...' as 'cheating', I doubt the R&D required to build a usable SSTO will be worth it, unless you can design and fly a working one out of the box. Otherwise, if you'll enjoy the challenge of building something as complicated and fine-balanced as an SSTO, it might be superior. Same if you really enjoy planes and the challenge of flying against aerodynamics as much as gravity. Alternatively, if you don't want to spend the time having to (mostly) micro-manage the ascent and, even more so, the descent of your vessel, then capsule's are superior. I've occasionally flown SSTOs, and while they're a lot of fun to fly occasionally, and provide a real sense of achievement compared to lobbing a Spam can up on a firework; you could hardly call them efficient from the player's point of view when with a sound design and, perhaps a bit of KOS or MJ, you can almost entirely automate a launch and descent with a traditional rocket/capsule. Finally, by the time you can really build SSTO's I suspect most players most significant and important launches will be for interplanetary missions, in which case, I'm not sure how much use an SSTO would be. If we return to the Moon, or ever to go Mars, it won't be in a Space Shuttle, or anything like it. Wemb

Well, depending on what probe core you're using they may already have reaction wheels. A small fuel tank and a very small engine would do the trick without the need for thrusters/RCS, etc. Having said that, as others have said, you can certainly build a multi-satellite launcher - though don't do what I did and take my entirely capable single payload launcher, double (or triple) it's payload and expect it to work just as before. I'm not entirely sure it saved me a lot of money, to be honest. Wemb

My survey sats are more or less the same, and I don't have a huge amount of problem launching them - they do produce a huge amount of drag, but I've not installed the fairings fix as yet. Having said that, taking them up on a reasonably sedate launch seems to go well - plenty of control authority on the back end will do the trick. The light show as one of these things goes through the upper atmosphere is pretty terrific, but there's no damage to it, You may want to strut the joints between the scanner and the probe core, and again between the spark (?) engine and whatever launch vehicle is under it - the size of these could make a wobble a big problem. Wemb

Oh, it's me - trying to put node attachment points into my inventory. Just haven't quite got to grips with the UI yet and I keep letting go of them, rather than putting them in my inv. They they just seem to explode when they hit the ground... My entire Mun mining operations need revision though - I've realised my combination miner/ore carrier which was ferrying 900 units of ore back into orbit for processing was costing slightly more than 1800 units of fuel/oxidiser mix to transport to orbit full and back down empty. Thx, Wemb

Ah - hadn't thought of using the claw... Erm. That going be particularly explodey? I'm already getting spooked with KAS seemingly to cause random explosions around my engineer. The ore tanks, cooling and power is on it's way in another transport. Thanks

And the latter was designed by BAC and Sud Aviation - apart from the canards - I'd forgotten that Concordski had those. I assume they were Tupolev's contribution to the design. :-) Wemb

Argh! I just landed, with some difficulty, an ISRU next to my nascent base on the Mun. And then my engineer, using KAS, discovers he can't bolt anything onto the side of it... Is there anything I can do, other than send another one out with a tank or something else attached underneath it? There's nothing else attached to it now, since I'd decoupled it from my delivery ship with a separator, rather than using a docking port. Wemb

There are a few modern fighter aircraft that use them - SAAB Viggen, some Russian SU-30/35s and the Eurofighter are probably the most widely known - but there's also a few versions of the Mirage and the Chinese J10. . The XB70 Valkyrie bomber also had them, but that wasn't a production aircraft. According to Wikipedia, the Wright brothers Flyer also used them - news to me - so they've been out there a while. Wemb

Interesting stuff. I must say that some sort of subsystem equipment failures that (slightly) break various components could add an interesting gameplay dynamic for career mode. Wemb

Yup, I think this is the key - if you can plan your rockets properly and build an efficient launcher, you can easily double or even triple up on tourist sub-orbital and tourist/rescue orbital missions with really limited tech - you'll rake in the cash needed (and the crew's needed) for the big stuff - and you get a perhaps surprising amount of reward for (relatively) simple missions such as a munar flyby - which can all be done with the same tech as your basic rescue/orbital. Don't worry about getting -all- the science in one hit as well - once you can go to the Mun, you can get the science at anytime (since you'll be a regular traveller) Wemb

Yup - you wouldn't do that in KSP - on the other hand, how many of use have had to use our RCS systems for propulsion when we accidentally ran out of fuel? Let alone using the jetpack to get out an push.That's pretty common in KSP, but I can't recall that even being in done in IRL. Wemb

^ This. Thankfully you can do this 'research' while your docked vessel is in orbit and it will work without having to send new docking ports up. I assume by 'research' what they really mean is they finally found the missing manual page and have now figured out where the engineers put the crossfeed valves. Wemb

Indeed. I think I mainly use it in first stages if I need to provide a bit of additional thrust to enable me to use asparagus staging/saddle tanks but where the T30 or T45 would be overkill. I can't think of a good reason to take it into orbit most of the time. Wemb

I asked a similar question recently - it looks like they're somewhat broken in the stock game and will probably make your rockets considerably harder to fly, and, consequently potentially less effecient as you may need more care/equipment needed to keep them on course. I've given up on them at the moment. Not sure if putting a big nose cone at the front of a rocket with a separator provides any protection to the parts underneath it or not (I don't deploy my antenna in the atmosphere), but it's aesthetically pleasing. Wemb

Well, duh, please ignore - somehow I managed to accidentally turn on Stage Locking... Wemb

Trying to build a sort of skycrane to help me deliver modules for my Munar base. Never really done much engineering like this before using struts and the like - and I'm a bit stumped about what I'm doing wrong. Essentially, and regardless of any other design flaws at this stage, why doesn't this stage? E.g. when I mash space, why don't the engines fire? I can manually fire them - but that's obviously not ideal. Thx. Wemb

Good luck - personally, I wouldn't try it without some sort of alternate navball or docking indicator, but my eyes are rubbish and the Navball is too small for me to comfortably rely on. RCS thruster placement shouldn't be too hard on a small vessel. You won't really need it for rotation as your reaction wheel will probably be able to handle it - so just slap four on exactly around the ships CoM (or CoM that the ship will have when you've gotten it wherever you need it to be, e..g with a half-empty fuel tanks at one end, etc.). Nothing worse than trying to use RCS on an unbalanced ship. You should be able to simulate your ship at this stage in the VAB and use the CoM button to determine where to put them. But, hey, if you can do confidently do intercepts to within 500m of a target, you'll have no problems docking, I bet. Wemb

Buzz Aldrin wrote his thesis for Doctorate of Science in Astronautics about docking in space. Yup, even the bit you need to do before you're able to dock is not trivial either - rendezvous was first attempted by manouervre in Gemini IV and the pilots (well, and NASA) got it all horribly wrong and failed completely. It's not intuitive, and it's not easy to do the first time. I think the key here is taking it one step at a time and doing it slowly, and doing it right. Get into a stable orbit. Get your orbits circularised (if possible) Getting co-planar with the target Intercepting as close as possible (and 4-5 km out is not nearly close enough - aim for less than 1km) Matching orbits / velocity Final approach Orientation Docking All of these are probably best approached, by the newbie, as discrete steps, and all require getting the previous one done right. None of them are automated in the game; and all of them require practise. The only two-penneth I'd add which I'm not sure has already been said is that remember you're docking two ships - so don't hesitate to switch between the two ships and point their docking ports at each other if it helps. Sometimes the trickiest bit - especially if you're not got tonnes of monoprop to spend - is if you approach the target and realise their docking port is on the other side. If you get trouble doing the final steps, do what you can to avoid having to deal with translational and rotational movements, and concentrate on the translational aspect. (this is the only step where I do often use MJ - the PAR+/- SmartASS assist will keep you two ships aligned axially, which can be a big help) The good bit, though, is that (for me at least) - my first docking was and is my proudest moment playing KSP - way beyond that of my first Mun landing[1]. Wemb [1] Direct Ascent, of course - Werner was right, it is the least difficult way to do it

Like others have said, a cmd pod on it's own will re-enter at the correct attitude automatically. The science Jnr pod can be enough to flip it arround due to the change in the CoM - but this is where the heat shield be your friend. If you're coming in from a LKO and are't are at a shallow enough angle, you absolutely do not need the heat-shield to protect your ship from heat, but what it -is- useful for is as ballast - it's a relatively heavy part, and can help ensure you have enough weight on the bottom of your craft so you don't come in parachute first. Wemb

Congratulations! Now you know all about orbital rendezvous! Next step - docking! Wemb

Or in the dark... But, yes, the stock indicators came in an update a while back. I think the tech I've found most useful is the PAR+/- functions in SmartASS which allows me to stop worrying about rotational movement. Having said that, I wouldn't use it the first few dozen times you dock as you'll benefit from doing it more manually. Wemb