Hotel26

Beautiful looking rocket! Looking forward to seeing your further exploits as you post... ---- Lately. I did a docking experiment with an SSTO mock-up in space. The mock vehicle consisted of an Mk-3 cabin with 700k RCS tanks and senior docking rings at each end and I placed two of these 150m apart. One had a belly ribbon of 4 RCS thrusters girdling the CoM (my standard approach to SSTO maneuvering) and the other had 3: one top dead-center and the other two under angled 120 degrees away down on the lower-side, symmetric to each other. Docked one with the other; returned to save file; docked the other with the first. Measured time do dock and MP consumed (limiting max speed to 1 m/s) and concluded (unscientifically, non-rigorously) that only 3 RCS thrusters confers no significant disadvantage in maneuvering. But just 3 belly RCS thrusters can look a lot better rather than having lateral RCS thruster blocks placed between two cabin windows...

I had promised a surprise location, so here is one. Mun Tower 1 is located roughly at 0N 98E on the Mun. Here's a refueling operation in progress on the surface of the Mun: Unfortunately for the Escort, its pilot landed it 90m from the target, MT1 (Mun Tower One). The tower is a Telemagic tower (marked out with 4 flags indicating 2 "runways" on a relatively flat site) with a refueling apron 30m in radius. Refueling the Escort would have taken a total of 10 seconds if it had landed within 30m of the tower. A pair of Vodka Daiquiri fuel trucks, doppelganged, had therefore to be employed to shuttle fuel to the Escort, requiring a total of 7 trips.

My final revision of Escort sporting the landing "legs" that enable it to land in lo-grav and take on full fuel has arrived at the Mun and has made 2 and a half fuel trips to the surface. And I've assembled a small collection of Escorts now at lunar station MX1. I have another two out at Munar Park which is in munar orbit at an altitude of 2,000 kms. Duna Beach Head Charlie is enroute for Munar Park now and will be my first Escort-assisted launch from the Mun (via an Oberth dive on Kerbin). At this stage, I am starting to worry that the rendez-vous penalty (days waiting) for such a high-altitude, long orbital period base is going to be problematic for some operations. [Well. Just an excuse for some pics.]

I understand your sentiments most precisely. My ten year-old questioned me about this a few years ago when I first installed MechJeb because my household had a strict no-modding policy (mainly about Minecraft)... When/if one outgrows MechJeb (which has been a great teacher!), KER is the natural replacement umbilical for information. I had to make an exception for KSP mods because the KSP biological culture is mod-rich but I try to limit the number. I have a shortlist of essential exceptions: KER and KAC are the prime examples. Both are informational. KER also has a straight-line distance stat that can be used with Law of Cosines [2nd citation in OP] to establish exact spacing in an orbit (if one wanted to be that precise) [although the same number appears in the Map View in stock]. The rationale with orbital period is that all participants return to the same position/speed at the same moment and this is what "freezes" drift. And it's directly and easily adjustable.

With KER installed, there is a read-out on orbital period down to the millseconds. The orbits don't have to match perfectly (geometrically), but if you use RCS or ions (especially thrust-limited for the final tweak) and you note the orbital period of your lead satellite and then you tune the followers to have the same orbital period right down to the millisecond or as near as you can get... you will have done the job as well as it can be done.

The new guys in Marketing have overruled me... fins are back... "Better gas consumption..."

I added fins to my Escort rocket sled. Well, fins (with outboard T-800s) looked too retro, not to mention the unnecessary weight. So I went with the tail cones instead. This means I can land it on the Mun. Refuel it. Re-orbit to tag a twin. Refuel that too. Then push both out to the Munar 2Mm outer orbit where I intend now to assemble interplanetary expeditions. (Will probably have a station/fuel dump at 25km to buffer fuel and one out at 2,000km.) Then use a fully-fueled Escort to do the interplanetary transfer insertion... THUMP!! Using what I learned with the Escort project (particularly the first usage of Rhino engines), I did a make-over on my old Minotaur fuel tanker tech. Result is Titan... (click the first below for a slide show) It looks so far like it can loft at least 75K kallons of LF + a few of OX into LKO. (I'm wondering also if, with elementary wings and chutes, I could lob the second stage back over the KSC and control it well enough simply to land it on the green for recovery... separate project)

OK, I see your total fuel is 4000 units, which indicates the front Mk-2 fuselage is the short fuel fuselage and NOT an inline dock. And why I was having fuel starvation problems. I also missed that the tail cone was a chute. (Must change my monocle!)

I wonder to what you attached the main gear? If you're attaching them (logically!) to the wings, you may get a machine that is a fussy lander. I always (cough) attach stuff such as gear and engines to the fuselage and then (cough) gizmo it out to where it is supposed to appear. Result is a robust lander. Love the appearance of this one!! (It's awfully tempting. Hmm, do I need another 2-Kerbal SSTO. Well I learn something every time, so...) Update: @Triop: that's a real kick to fly, sir! With just two RAPIERS and a total of 3600 units of LFOX, I struggled to get it supersonic until I realized I could light the rockets to get it over the top and begin a nice healthy climb. The kind of plane pilots love to commune with due to the care & attention required!

And I quote from my original citation: Constellations Each system needs its own constellation. Kerbol A set of six evenly space relays at around 4,000,000km. A set of twelve evenly spaced relays at around 25,000,000km. A set of 24 evenly spaced satellites at around 50,000,000km. Use RA-100 relays. These relays are for connecting with deep space probes. You may omit the third ring but deep space coverage in the outer system may be a bit spotty. (For satellites around a planet, the orbits are small and deploying 3 or 4 at once using the harmonic resonance method is entirely feasible. But not for Kerbolar orbits...) I'll take it under advisement, however, that the above may be just not necessary.

Wrote this article about putting relay sats into concentric rings around Kerbol at 4, 25 and 50Gm... would estimate it's well-known to probably most of us, but I've only just worked it out for myself... (slow learner) Really love my new Escort. It's a cyclic transit booster. [I don't really know what that means.] I had been happy to guide it with a pilot tug but I've just put a 750-unit MP tank on it [not pictured] to make it more independent for docking. How can I explain Escort? It's basically a rocket sled... Attach it to an interplanetary expedition. Make an Oberth dive to 70km Pe. THUMP!! Separate. Turn around. Burn back to recapture home. Second screenshot shows it's then pretty easy to capture the Mun (depending upon its position). Escort is fuel & engines. (The Kerbals are calling it "Blood & Guts".) And, in a related idea, I want to see if I can land the last stage of my Aquila booster on the Mun, fuel up and then see if 12 nukes will be sufficient to boost it and the fuel high enough (about 2Mm) to make it economical to use for this purpose.

This tutorial, Setting Up A Commnet System, suggests placing 6 satellites into a 4Gm Kerbolar orbit, 12 into 25Gm and, optionally, 24 into a 50Gm orbit. To do this in a finite amount of time requires launching them all individually at specific time intervals. I've calculated the following: To launch 6 Comm Sats to a 4Gm orbit, launch each with 13.48 day separation. To launch 12 Comm Sats to a 25Gm orbit, launch each with a 59.30 day separation. To launch 24 Comm Sats to a 50Gm orbit (optional), launch each with a 20.69 day separation. The 3 formulae used in this computation are: v = sqrt(G * M / R) p = 2 * PI * R / v / (6 * 3600) dt = 1 / (N * (1 / p1 - 1 / p2)) where: v is orbital speed G is grav:6.67408e-11 M is mass of Kerbol: 1.7565459E28 R is orbital altitude p is orbital period (days) PI is pi dt is launch separation (days) N is number of satellites to occupy an orbital altitude p1 is orbital period of Kerbin (days) p2 is orbital period of the target orbit (days) Note: dt for inner orbits will be negative which merely indicates the satellites will arrive in counter-revolutionary order 1/p is angular speed expressed as radians/day and subtracting the speed of the target frame of reference from the launch frame of reference is the insight that makes this achieve a full orbit with even spacing (your mileage may vary depending on how timely your launches are) I plan once arriving at apoapsis to not worry too much about the orbital parameters or spacing but to have the exact same orbital period for all sats in the orbit. This will keep them locked in their relative positions over a very long duration. If you're more picky about getting exact spacing, this tutorial, https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:Ideal_Orbits_for_Communication_Satellites, particularly the treatment of the Law of Cosines, is quite fascinating. It's most relevant to low altitude orbits, e.g. spacing N space stations around a body. [All of the above may have been covered elsewhere but I haven't seen it/didn't find it and I've just had to create all this from scratch; so I hope it's useful to someone else. Please let me know if you find any errors, as I have not executed this yet.]

What my vague recollection might have been about was how to put 2-way symmetry (2 parts) onto another part and then place that part in 4-way symmetry (including its 2 subparts). That one is an order-of-execution problem. OK, so maybe you can't do it. In which case, "the stock way" (thank you!) would work but if one got really fussy about the symmetry of the 2 and 2 (small tanks in my screenshot), then one could place 4x Octa struts in 4-way symmetry, and then place the prepared tank-and-item individually 4 times (1-way) but rely on NightGuard's "grid" (snap to location) suggestion to get perfect symmetry -- with good use of the Mk-1 eyeball...? Thanks (so far), guys.

(I thought I used to know a way to do this involving Alt-Right-click or Control-Right-Click... but it's very elusive.) I've placed 4 tanks around the big one in 4-way symmetry. Now I want two solar panels on two of those tanks in 2-way symmetry. And then I'll put e.g. 2 fuel cells, in 2-way symmetry on the other two tanks. I've resorted to 1-way symmetry to place each solar panel separately but then the symmetry isn't perfect. This is just an example. I'm looking for a general technique. I'm pretty sure this is possible in stock. (I'm not too interested in mods for this.) Anybody know the trick?

Jool Beach Head Bravo is probably L.I.S[1] so I sent out a replacement, Bravo 2 My first "career" with CommNet (and it's not yet fully deployed): in the rush to get the Bravo replacement in transit within the window, I forgot to EVA a Kerbal onto the jump seat on the fuel truck in the payload[2] @Atkara posed an invitation and asteroids have been on my bucket list, so I prototyped my first 'roid-catcher: Mosquito. [not pictured] I'm rethinking my launch strategy in an R&D project with working title "Thumper" (see below) Escort is fuel and engines, or engines and fuel, if you like. Rhinos, to be precise. My first use of this little beast. It's a cyclic transit booster. I have pretty much been using NERVs and Dawns exclusively in space (except for landers) but Mission Control is expensive. So the idea is to assemble and fuel an interplanetary train around the Mun. It's about 190m/s to escape the Mun. Plant an Escort on the back. There's up to a six-day wait for a transfer via low perikee to maximize use of Oberth and to do so at the correct prograde angle for the interplanetary transit ejection. Then Escort lights up and burns more than half of its fuel, which doesn't take long. I saw a TWR on the test train of 11+ during the test (admittedly a small payload). But it only takes about another 190m/s for Kerbin escape trajectory. So I kept burning... Then separate. Turn retrograde. And burn back. The fuel ratio for separation will be quite a bit less than 50%, naturally, after jettisoning the payload and can be calculated. The important thing is only to recapture Kerbin. On the way back, I'll adjust the return perikee to scrape Kerbin's atmosphere (but not so much as to cause a spontaneous explosive event). One more adjustment then, depending upon fuel available, to lower the orbital period. Interplanetary launches are fairly rare and any number of Escorts can be kept on standby for multiple launches for a window. After use, if rescue assistance is required, it can be done on a very leisurely basis. Escorts are then returned to lunar orbit for reuse. Escort carries no MP (although it has RCS) and requires a command tug to be used as a pilot if any detailed maneuvers are required. [1] Lost in space [2] Yes, in a pinch, I send Kerbal volunteers on a 2-year journey to Jool riding in an EVA seat... space is a tough business.

Yep!! Well, note that I also have a NerfJet/Aquila combination for vertical launch. Aquila is my standard lifter. If I recall, Aquila can do the whole job to orbit and NerfJet is just passive payload in that scenario. A rocket guy might decidedly prefer to launch standing up -- which then relieves you of the fun of bringing the ... you-know-what ... back to KSC. Incidentally, I think that forward-assisting rear-mounted thruster likes to keep at least 150 m/s over the threshold, landing, so it's generally an exciting return and Bill has spilled his popcorn a couple of times already...

Thank you! Well, you raise a technical question -- and I'm sure we'll get an answer in this forum!! (Possibly, many answers!) The picture depicts the NerfJet at the fore and the F.A.R.T. in the rear. The NerfJet (which I love!, but it is so easy to underestimate), only has 4 NERV engines, so there is no way it can get to orbit by itself. The F.A.R.T. can easily get to orbit alone but has no role there; it's purpose (thank you, @Brikoleur) is only to assist with the ascent to orbit. Now, to complicate the picture, the combination of the two are capable of reaching a low, circular orbit together without shedding a stage. So, in this view, you are technically correct, that the combination is an SSTO. Interestingly, note that the F.A.R.T., in this case, cannot do the job alone as it needs to borrow oxidizer from the NerfJet to complete its duties. Even then, there is not enough fuel to circularize, so at some stage the NerfJet's engines also kick in and wind up completing the orbital insertion solely on its own power, dragging the F.A.R.T. with it. It is then a mandatory checklist item to have saved a small amount of oxidizer somewhere to pump back into the F.A.R.T. to enable it to de-orbit after separation. Altogether a very complex and fun scenario! The NerfJet is designed to operate in space in the local sphere of influence. (I have not yet consulted KER about d/v for Duna, say.) But in a pinch, it can be used to bring Kerbonauts home. (Typically, I use my Peregrine SSTO for taking crew up and down to orbit.) Add that NerfJet is not exactly "reusable" after returning home. I would make the argument that since the NerfJet cannot make orbit alone, it's not an SSTO. Clearly, the NerfJet/FART combination is. But I think you have reason on your side, too. I conclude I could have used better terminology(??). In any case, with 4 NERV engines only, it's too easy to underestimate this package. Yet I must love my own child, of course.

Thank you for the information and the kind offer!! My second try had gotten to space doing precisely as you suggested: lifting the nose. One learns a stack by reverse-engineering other people's work -- but I only bother with the really pretty ones! [You hadn't mentioned a name, so in my hangar, it is Atkara.]

May I ask a couple of questions, please, good sir? Does this craft have RCS thrusters and, if so, where placed? The wingtip leading edge strakes: I was unable to identify the part; please do tell. Nice work, I must say. (Getting from the end of the breathable air to the Karman line on nukes only was a new challenge for me; awfully good fun. ) Well done.

(I love KerbalX and thank you very much! Really great to learn from others and to share.) All the Markdown documentation including the github doc says use a blank line to get a paragraph. Makes sense. Doesn't work. I'm missing the trick to get this to happen. (Take a look at any of my craft or this in particular: https://kerbalx.com/Hotel26/NerfJet-G20-N) Sorry if the answer to this is obvious but I'm just not seeing it. [I'm on a Linux system but don't think Windows works any better. I'm using Firefox as well.]

Nothing better than designing a ship for a purpose and finding its measure entirely satisfactory. I intended NerfJet to be a Vet jet for navigating the orbit lanes, holding conferences, and ferrying execs to space station inspections or quick trips to the local moons. Nothing better unless it's discovering a bonus mission capability: NerfJet carries a super-abundance of fuel that enables it to easily act as a fuel rescue ship in an emergency. NerfJet is standard 2.5m gauge for launching and docking but also bears an inline dock for dexterity. It can be landed vertically at a moon base as well. NerfJet is not an SSTO. Once in space, it's meant to stay there, although it actually is a lot of fun to bring back down: keep it high, steep and hot! It can be launched vertically atop a booster, if preferred, but it comes with a rev-eng'ed version of @Brikoleur's Forward-Accelerating Rear-mounted Thruster (F.A.R.T. propulsion) for a conventional, if somewhat tricky, take-off.

Beachhead Alpha is on the way to Jool. (Charlie launched first and, due to assembly errors, will arrive with little fuel. Bravo had a coupler hang-up and is awaiting salvage in LKO. I'll attempt to get replacement boosters under the payload and still go.) Alpha is carrying 4 Hitchhikers, 2 Hawk landers, 2 fuel pods, 1 Superhawk and 1 Ladybug explorer. Onboard, the following intrepid: Edski, Ferfield, Samden, Sheprey, Bobsy and Melbart. And since deployment of my deep space relay network is not yet complete, the RA-15 relay device on the Omega ion drive will be a great benefit, assuming it has the range for Kerbin, at least for a while(?). I'll try to revive hopes for Bravo (and Charlie was redundant) but after that, I think I'll probably launch a brace of Gizmos in a broadside.

1d 3h 22m to Jool launch window and ... same hang-up [1.3.1.1981] The Undock button was there and I clicked it. But although the UI has been updated, we do not have separation. I went into the .sfs file and programmed Custom05 onto one of those ports to manually unhinge it, but no separation. Can't see anything else odd about the dock states either. Also noted that the port was staged. Found its coupler in the staging bar and separated it into its own stage and dragged it down to stage next and then fired it with the Space bar. Well, there's always Duna opening up in 46d...

Yep, I can now confirm that the target intersection markers in the Map View will show closest approach (of course) and when that distance bottoms out, you can coast (or begin making course adjustments). Thanks for your input.

Very early on, I saw a video of someone flying directly from launchpad to immediate rendez-vous downrange in which the latter stage of the launch was cued directly by the navball alone. My skills weren't up to that back then. So, for a long time, I've just launched into LKO and then gone through the usual steps: circularize, align planes, expand the orbit if necessary, plot the transfer to r/v, match speeds, putt-putt to the green, dock with the pin... But in my post above, I'm talking about coasting directly from the launch burn to rendez-vous with the target overhead, without first circularizing the orbit. (Of course, rendez-vous with a target already in a circular orbit implies your own circularization.) The missing piece was the information which trajectory was going to pass as close as feasible to the target's (without non-prograde inputs). Needless to say, I will be doing it this way every time from now on. Of course, from there, it is a short step to flying the final part of the launch burn (plus adjustments) on the navball.