Aegolius13

You can also use the cubic octagonal strut, or any similar part that's surface-attachable but comes with a node. Then stick the engine onto the end of the strut, and if desired, clip the strut into one of the parts so it looks normal. This is not great for drag, however. Some engines, like the Vector and (IIRC) all of the Making History engines [EDIT - but not the Wolfhound apparently] are surface-attachable themselves. Engine plates are good for this, especially if you want an interstage, but oddly they don't seem to shield the parts inside from drag. Your other option are the structural parts - bicouplers and the like. Though the options here are limited and they're a bit on the heavy side, they might have better drag characteristics.

I've found it works well to set the thing up with motor disengaged, have an action button to toggle on and off, and then bind torque or RPM to the throttle. (Some people seem to use the throttle for prop pitch as well). Having the engine default to "on" seems to cause problems as physics kick in.

I like to do this with at least one electricity source on unmanned craft, so I don't accidentally time warp without solar panel coverage and end up with a dead ship.

Here's one quick idea/concept, but by no means optimized or the only possible architecture. Notes: The fuel lines are only to show accurate delta-v stats; you'd want to use crossfeed to reduce weight and drag. This is way to get rid of the landing legs relatively quickly into your ascent. You could also take it a step further and leave all the landing stuff on the ground, Apollo LM style. You can SSTO in a rocket from Laythe, but you'll pay a mass penalty for it. Might be better to put the parachutes on the radial stacks, and a nosecone on the center, to save some weight/drag later in flight. Can be modified for docking by putting a Jr sized port under the chute / nosecone. I've chosen Sparks as they're appropriately sized for this small craft, and have decent stats in both atmo and vacuum. The Cub from Making History would be a good fit too. The solar panels aren't going to do a whole lot. If you're bringing a probe core or otherwise expect to use more than a minimal amount of electricity, a fuel cell might be a better call.

Yep, if it's reasonably aerodynamic. Laythe is pretty close to Kerbin. The gravity is a little lower, and the air is a little thinner at sea level, but it doesn't thin out as quickly as you ascend. If you're going with a rocket approach, you can generally build like you would a Kerbin launch vehicle, but you can skimp a bit on the TWR and total delta-v requirements. Vacuum engines are useful lower in the atmosphere, but still not great at sea level. You should try make your craft reasonably aerodynamic, but it's not as crucial as something like Eve. Though since you'll be carrying the thing all the way from Kerbin, you'll probably want to go as light as possible. If your craft can reach orbit from the launch pad on Kerbin, you should have a good safety margin for Laythe. The biggest problem I've found with a conventional parachute-assisted lander is getting it to either (1) land on one of the small patches of dry ground, or (2) be able to stay upright on a water landing. Laythe is, however, a paradise for spaceplanes. Finding a landing spot is much easier. And a Rapier-powered plane can get you almost all the way to orbit on jets alone, with just a couple hundred m/s needed to circularize from a suborbital trajectory.

Does it spin? I hope it spins.

Not sure if this is still a thing, but it sounds like an ancient evil known as the Gryo Kraken, which can indeed be awakened by clipping parts into each other: Gyro Kraken is when a spacecraft will spin around and vibrate so intensely that the spacecraft will be obliterated. The rate of spinning is so extreme that it is impossible to be replicated manually. This is actually a bug with parts clipping through each other and colliding with each other, causing what is also known as 'ghost forces'. On occasion, it will appear as though something is hitting your craft at high speeds rather than just spinning out of control. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Deep_Space_Kraken#Gyro_Kraken

Did you set the propellers to "deploy"? If they're not deployed, they will spin uselessly since they're aero/hydrodynamically inactive.

I think we're talking about different instances of "invert." The one I'm referring to is "Invert Direction" on the right-click menu for the part in build mode - see picture below. I did some more testing, and as far as I can tell, it does reverse the direction the motor rotates - so "clockwise + normal" and "counterclockwise + invert" result in the same direction. Based on the italic text under the button, it appears that this lets you change the direction of only one engine in a symmetrical set -- allowing you to do counter-rotating props without removing the engines from symmetry for other purposes. In that case, seems pretty handy! [EDIT - on second thought, this might be problematic for reversing the propeller direction. But could be useful for other contraptions - a pitching machine comes to mind.] Guessing my original error involved using the two commands inconsistently, maybe in combination with the props ending up extending in the right direction. But at any rate, the plane is now working as expected with no net torque.

With the BG hinges, it seems like now we can emulate the function of the AIRBRAKES with basically any part, which means the potential for bigger sizes and much better heat resistance. On the other hand, since robotics tend to be a bit floppy in the best of times, the extreme aero forces could do some odd things. I got to thinking about what parts might work well, and was wondering if anyone else has experimented with this, and what the results were in terms of effectiveness and survivability. Untested thoughts: Heat shields - obviously very high temperature tolerance, not all that heavy when emptied of ablator, cheap. But still quite a bit heavier than an AIRBRAKE. The regular ones seem like a better fit than the inflatables, since the latter are still bulky when retracted. Wing pieces - cheap, could generate lift while retracted if designed correctly, BigS parts can store liquid fuel. Structural panels - dirt cheap, excellent crash tolerance (there may be potential for some kind of combination aero surface / landing gear as in one of the Starship designs). Engine plates - pretty light for their size, excellent heat tolerance. Increasing the node count might increase drag? Inflatable airlocks - excellent heat tolerance, retractable, can store extra Kerbals for a wild ride. Static radiators - very good heat tolerance, theoretically able to cool themselves and their parent part. But not terribly large.

Agreed, while the LFO engine seems to use a lot more fuel than expected. I guess it's realistic for a fuel cell / electric system to be more efficient than a mechanical engine (as we see with hydrogen cars, etc.), but the difference seems rather stark. [EDIT - forgot that the engines use atmospheric air while the a fuel cell / electric system requires oxidizer. So that should be a major point in favor for the former]. My first flagrant abuse - this ugly little plane has ~16 RTGs inside the fairing. It can fly forever, for the low low price of ~500k funds. A tad excessive for Kerbin, but the concept may have potential for biome hopping on Eve / Laythe.

Does anyone know what the "invert" option on the rotors/engines does, and how it's different than changing the rotation direction? I think my original problem trying to mirror might have had something to do with that.

Hello, and welcome aboard! I'm far from an expert on this subject, but that said: what you're seeing is an inherent issue in single-engine propeller planes. Due to the principle of conservation of angular momentum, if your propeller spins in one direction, the rest of your plane is going to want to spin in other other direction -- basically so the two balance out. You can eliminate this by using multiple propeller that spin in different directions (so that the torque from each cancels out), but that's not an option if you want a single-engine for replica purposes. I believe real-life planes largely manage this through the control surfaces -- i.e., using the ailerons to counter the roll force. Unfortunately, control surfaces don't work well at very low speeds. So you may want to try to throttle up gradually, so that by the time you're applying full torque, you're at least going fast enough to have some roll control. You can also try using more/bigger control surfaces, or increasing the control authority slider. Another, less authentic way to deal with it is to use lots and lots of reaction wheels, which can apply a compensating torque. Also, the more massive your plane is, the less effect you'll see from the torque - but if you have to scale up your prop to get to the desired speed, that may just cancel out.

Thanks. I had a nagging feeling they needed to go opposite directions, but thought every other combination of engine and prop direction failed. Must have messed up some other detail, though.

Like many of you, I'm messing around with the brand-new propellers and engines. I have an ugly but functional 2-engine plane - pic below. After much trial and error, I have everything set so that the plane goes the right direction when I hit the throttle. The engines and propellers are symmetical and both spinning the same direction; the propellers are "deployed," and their yaw/pitch/roll options are inactive. The plane does OK on the ground, but after I take off, I get all kinds of strange yaw and roll, always in the same direction. I have plenty of control authority to counteract it manually. But SAS seems to have no idea what to do, and if anything makes it worse. If I turn SAS off, I can mostly correct it by setting some yaw and roll trim, but the thing still won't go straight. Once I turn off the engines, the plane appears to fly correctly, both via the SAS and manually (if I set the trim back to neutral) Really not sure why I'm getting any net roll or yaw since the two engines should be cancelling each other out, and everything else should be symmetrical Any thoughts? Is this just one of those things where the game calculates physics for the two engines slightly different for the two engines?

Is it thrust you're missing, or lift? Aside from the smallish effects of the props themselves, lift should work the same as on a jet plane. If you're unable to get off the runway, you may want to trythe following: Add more wing area Reduce weight Increase angle of incidence (rotate wings so that the front end is higher than the back end) Adjust landing gear so that your nose points up while on the runway Increase pitch authority -- add more controllable surfaces, use bigger surfaces, slide the authority limiter up, and/or move your control surfaces to the front or back of the plane for better leverage Add MOAR POWER in case you haven't reached your stall speed

Agree. I tend to do one-piece stations, but if you're going to build modular, I'd do it in LKO. I'd much rather send one, assembled station than set up and execute maneuvers for every single piece. Also, if something goes wrong, it should be easier and quicker to fix it from LKO. The other way might make sense, however, if (1) you're concerned about the structural integrity of your entire station while in motion, or (2) you're using aerobraking (e.g., if assembling a station at Laythe or Eve or something.

I kinda think the shield is more valuable for lithobraking purposes (i.e., absorbing some of the landing energy, even if it breaks), so don't usually find it worth it to ditch. The exception might be some unusual design where it doesn't land with the shield on the bottom, but that's pretty rare for me.

Do you have any fuel left? The really important thing is capturing on the first trip through atmo. Once you're in Kerbin orbit you can slowly bleed off speed in pass after pass. So it's generally worth it to use almost all your fuel on a capture burn, and just leave a bit left for maneuvering. Are you angling your plane to be as draggy as possible on your atmosphere passes?

This was a proof-of-concept project for deploying a vertically-stacked rover from a regular lander. Can be pretty tippy unless your lander is heavy and/or wide, but otherwise worked well.

Cool, thanks! I was thinking the same thing about the onboard antenna. Doesn't entirely make sense that the regular and onboard experiments transmit differently, but KSP gonna KSP.

I'm still confused about this part, since a normal pod / probe core CANNOT transmit normal science results, even if you're in CommNet range. Are we sure the deployed experiments work differently?

Since getting the new update / Breaking Ground, I've run into a strange error from time to time. When it happens, the game just crashes to desktop - no error message or anything. I've noticed it only happens when I'm trying to rendezvous with a target, and I think it only happens when I use the rendezvous tab on the new maneuver editor. The end of the log file is full of zillions of lines of this: CheckEncounter: failed to find any intercepts at all Which sounds like it corroborates my hypothesis about rendezvous problems. Mods: KER, KAC, Transfer Window Planner, SimpleFuelSwitch. I thought for a bit that it was related to PreciseManeuver so I uninstalled that, but no luck. Tried to verify local files via Steam, but that did not help. Thanks for any thoughts you can provide! Log file: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sNRmYmyQ2npHM_i2w3yFbW9FojWO3J30

Made a contraption for deploying two large drills from an Mk 3 cargo bay. Getting them to fold neatly back on themselves was the trickiest part, but double alligator hinges (along with much trial and error) did the trick. What you do mean, I can just flip the cargo bay upside-down? HERESY. This way I can build an equally practical mechanism to deploy some solar panels. Stowed: Deployed:

Just had an interesting idea for use on a VTOL, or any other craft where the COM is a big deal. You can attach something relatively heavy to a piston (i.e., a smaller fuel tank inside a cargo bay), and use the piston to move that weight fore and aft in order to trim COM.