lIAceI

try this http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118872-Look-rotation-viewing-vector-is-zero-Black-screen

no. go through the past 50 posts and very few of them will have solutions EDIT: might-as-well try to be helpfull, try this http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118872-Look-rotation-viewing-vector-is-zero-Black-screen

im gonna see if they can survive 100m/s landings now lol edit: jeb's badass trait didn't save him

might aswell keep this on each new page till it's fixed...

i screwed around with the distribution on github, added more planets. not sure how to test it, or if it'll even work though. Edit: everything i did was useless and was deleted lol

found a fix for the experience go to your save, search "dead" remove those lines from the kerbals load the save

their the only contracts available, went through 50+, all surveys. there were no part contracts. the crew reports were suppose to be done under X altitude, with no plane parts, and multiple objectives. i was able to break out by grinding science with what i had, but since these are entry level contracts i wouldn't expect a newbie to complete them. imo, launching a rocket then letting it fall on the marked spot, with the beginning parts/facilities is more challenging than most later tier contracts, with far less rewards.

so i just started a new .9 game with NEAR, and the only contracts i can get are visual surveys. to make matters worse they all have eva requirements, i can't get the jet engines, or eva upgrade this early in the game, so my progress has completely stopped. with KPS's aerodynamics and the plane parts far up in the tech tree (for starting out anyways) these contracts are incredibly difficult to achieve. my problem: get a rocket to fly under 20k at a specific point land at that spot get a eva report (70 000$) can you change them, so they only appear when we get relevant tech options unlocked? or give us options to block some types of contracts from appearing? i hated survey and asteroid missions in fine print, they were not difficult, but very annoying for meager rewards.

can you test it, to see just how significant the Dv savings are? i gave up on LKO and orbit awhile ago, if i need more fuel i just send a fuel drone the next day. this way i only need to worry about fuel capacity and TWR. completely inefficient, but i don't need to screw around in kerbin.

sorry this has been debated to death, but i can't get a definitive answer. so, everywhere i read LKO+Oberth is the best way to get out of kerbin's SoI. the reasoning behind this is while going straight up the rocket has to fight gravity for the entire trip. however, your doing the exact same thing when gaining orbit, just in a different direction, to get a "constant fall", and increasing apoapsis is fighting gravity so you fall back to the planet. i decided to do some testing to see which method will have the greatest effect on the sun's periapsis and deltaV at escape. same craft in each test relevant mods: NEAR and kerbal engineer redux(for the data) 1+TWR 6405 total DV 400SI engine a few small wings to keep foreword here are the results target was lowest sun periapsis. LKO to escape DV at escape 1881 sun periapsis 5 300 042 585 (after all fuel was used) note: i had to burn several times in lko, all at periapsis. straight up DV at escape 1671 sun periapsis 3 041 693 328 383 (after all fuel was used) i am by no means a expert, or even an enthusiast space engineer, but both results are fairly similar. with the straight up approach sacrificing some deltaV into lower periapsis. the straight up method has it's drawbacks, needing 1+TWR for the entire burn and you cannot rendezvouses with other crafts. the LKO+Oberth method is interesting compared to straight up, i had more periapsis, and more fuel after leaving kerbins SoI. LKO+Oberth is much more complicated to get out of kerbin's SoI, needing several precise burns at just the right time to be effective. then there's the difficulty of getting orbit. many steps that need to be done with little room for error (which is bad in any situation). i prefer the straight up method for it's simplicity. since im burning at the suns AP or PE from the start. just for kicks, i decided to do LKO+straight up, gaining 1 000 000 altitude, then starting my orbit maneuver followed by a escape maneuver. sun periapsis 7 748 530 240 DV at escape 1481 these results are probably skewed by my inexperience, as i got frustrated by LKO+Oberth very early on and started shooting straight up instead. can anyone else post results? this is the only one i could find, from reddit: voneiden Actual research results: 3 stage craft. Each stage burns for 70 seconds. 1) Standard launch. At 10km, tilt 45 degrees east. Circularize at ~100-125km. Burn everything left and coast to escape. v∞ = 5037m/s. 2) Launch straight up. UP UP UP. Coast to escape. v∞ = 5112m/s. Conclusions Delta-v was probably lost in case 1 due to slight burning to assist in vessel rotation. As such, I conclude both methods to be equal in their efficiency. Method 2 suffers from burning at high altitude, while method 1 suffers from the extra cost of circularizing (but gains boost from lower altitude final burn). Low thrust vehicles should stick to method 1 so they can benefit from oberth effect. High thrust vehicles might wanna stick with method 2.

sorry to necro an old thread but this is the first thing that Google shows. rockets can be off balance, or have more drag to one side. asparagus staging can throw it off, the fuel lines don't always keep up with demand, or you may have placed 1 fuel line instead of 2+, or the other fuel line is attached to something without fuel crossfeed. i think in stock, there is more drag (unrealistic amounts) at the front and center of rockets, so when flying up the drag will err, "pull" these areas more, throwing off the CoM/CoL/control balance you put into your rocket. a thruster may wobble too, struts will solve it. more prevelent with smaller parts attaching to larger ones and radial thrusters with nothing to push up. straying too far from prograde will usually destabilize the flightpath in atmosphere. if sas is pulling one way when you turn it off, you may have accidentally added trim to it (alt+wasdqe) alt+x will reset it. if you put wings on your rocket your on your own... the aerodynamics are very bad...