Magzimum

I realize that I created a few problems. But I have not been able to solve them... All I did so far was learn to live with it. @Signo, how would you solve my problem of needing the XL landing gear at the back, and medium gear in the front, leading to a nose-down-on-the-runway-design? I'd rather not turn the wings, because then the wings and main fuselage do not line up anymore. I considered to put the gear on a structural pylon, but it looks a little funny, and I am one keystroke away from decoupling my gear. [edit] and other girders are out of the question to me because of drag. I'm risking that we derail this thread from wings to landing gear, but in a way it is all part of the same issue: if you build big you find new problems. Ideas for wings and wing-attachment tricks are still welcome!

Planes have more variables that you need to take care of, so to a new player, they seem a lot harder. Once you know a few basic tricks (turn on the COM, COL, and know what those should look like) you can put together a working airplane in no-time. Other than that, planes are more difficult because anything with wheels can still be a bit wonky in this game... that says nothing about the physics or complexity, and a lot about the wheels in this game. [Edit] I think that landing a rocket is way harder than landing a plane, unless you discard all your tanks and engines and just strap a parachute onto it...

The advanced answers are already given above: move the CoM around, improve the gravity turn. But the really easy and basic solution is to just stick giant fins on the back of that rocket. If it still flips, make them bigger. Obviously, if you manage to somehow make the rocket behave itself without the need for extra fins, that would improve the efficiency, as fins in the end are nothing but a source of extra drag. But post pictures. Imgur is really easy to use, and with some pics you get far more feedback!

Thanks for the feedback. I think I'd rather just disable the tanks manually, then quickly enable two tanks (one on each side) before activating the rockets... and then click quickly through all other tanks to enable them all. A decoupler on the ship means that I will eventually decouple whatever it is holding on to. Also, putting in a decoupler now would mean I have to redesign the whole thing, as that should be put in between the main tank and the two side tanks. Regarding "too much wing", that may be true, but this one still does not take off before the end of the runway. One main reason is that I need really heavy landing gear at the back (I use a total of 6 extra large gear in the back), but I want to be able to steer the plane on a runway, or for example on Minmus' flats to face the way I want it to. That means steering on the front gear is needed... and that limits it to the medium gear (3 of them). And that in turn means that its nose is pointing slightly down on the runway, because the medium gear is so short. I could obviously tweak that too... but as you saw this is a work in progress. For now, I am happy to report that v1.1 also flies (pic below, only small changes to v1.0). She's a little unstable on the controls... if I pull up, she also turns to the right a bit, but it is workable. She made it to fly at around 700 m/s, and 9 km altitude before crashing my game. Will try more later. Gotta run now Also, Burson, Bill and Bob were enjoying themselves tremendously. Pity that Jeb is already in LKO. He would have liked this.

@Empress Neptune, thanks! You have me some inspiration, and good ideas (at least, I haven't been proven wrong on it). Current model looks like this. Note that my payload is mostly fuel... I am bringing a little more liquid fuel than strictly necessary (yes, the entire length of that Mk3 is regular fuel tanks for liquid fuel, and a tiny cargo bay for reaction wheels, monoprop and batteries). I have thirsty a mothership and very ambitious overly complicated plans. It doesn't make it to LKO yet, as the jets consume the liquid fuel from the rocket tanks, and I cannot pump it around quick enough to replace that. Newest model (not this pic) has slightly larger rocket fuel tanks, hoping that will help. Looking for a solution or workaround now to be able to consume all the rocket fuel... but that is a different topic, probably already answered somewhere else. But at least she flies. And that's a big improvement from earlier today/yesterday.

I am considering a 100 ton payload - mostly fuel itself, so if it is completely unfeasible I can cut it in half and just fly twice... but I consider it the Kerbal way to try to do it in 1 single impressive fireball. Not really sure how much the take-off weight should be for that, but probably a little over 250 tons. I do like the Big-S wings. Not just because of the fuel, but they also just seem stronger (less bendy). @Empress Neptune, what is the take-off speed that you need with 8 such wings and that weight? Did you add any other winglets or canards? (Do you have a picture? I am curious how you distributed 8 Big-S wings over a plane). My initial choice if I needed 8 wings would be a tri-plane in the back, and 1 in the front as a giant Canard/Winglet. But again, I am not really big on the looks of a tri-plane...

I recently started playing around with Mk3 fuselages. I want to build a large SSTO, which can lift large cargos into LKO. After many failures I compared my designs with successful Mk2 ships, and found that I just needed more wings. I compared the mass of the plane on take-off with the amount of wing. Basically, I need to put around 100 "generated lift" on my ship (which is a dimensionless number?). I was looking for tips, as I so far found only 2 options which I both do not like: Put lots of relatively small wings on the plane. It will look like a Stegosaur, or a Porcupine, but it will fly. Even using the Big-S with Big-S elevons, I need about 14 such wings (7 on each side!). That would make it at least a biplane, if not a triplane. Combine several structural wings into a single large wing. I failed to make this work, because my wings were too floppy and bendy. I failed to put a strut between two wing-segments. It just would not connect. Any tips to put a metric crapton of wings on a plane is welcome. Pictures too.

When in the VAB (or SPH) turn the camera so that you look at the spot where you want to put the docking port from the side. Then put it on. It will snap to the center by itself. Alternatively, use the ALT key (Windows users) or right shift key (Linux) to force-snap onto the node. It will also change the rotation of the docking port, so DO doublecheck it is not put on wrong (which is a typical newbie mistake, and is really annoying).

My approach is not exactly rocket science: Tiny probes get 4 of the LT-05 (the tiny one) Pretty much everything I build gets 4 LT-2s (the big one) Exceptionally huge landers get 8 LT-2s. I also experienced the legs blowing up when Jeb walked into them, so my advice would be: don't do that. I am against McGyvering my landers. Girders are not landing legs, so I shall not use them for that purpose unless it is absolutely unavoidable. (Note, I am not saying others shouldn't do this - just my playing style...)

Totally agree with the above quote. Newbies should start at the beginning, and it all starts with "getting there", so go to the Mun first. And probably crash. Then start working on step 2, which is "landing", and realize that you may want to try Minmus first. All of you experienced players fail to realize btw that from the Map view Minmus' Midlands, Lowlands and Highlands look just as flat as the Flats... newbies are quite likely to land their top-heavy lander on a hill on Minmus too - with just the same consequences as on the Mun. Lower gravity of Minmus makes it easier than the Mun, but the Flats only make it easier once you realize what they are and what they look like so that you can aim for it... and by the time you can "aim for a landing spot", and you also know what the Flats look like from above, you're an experienced player, not a newbie.

I had exactly the same problem. So I asked a similar question in this thread. The most recommendations I got were variations to the theme of adding more drag at the top: fins, wings, airbrakes, etc. The option to use engines on the descent is not so appealing to me: I think that I need enough dV as it is, and I don't particularly look forward to adding another 2500 m/s worth of dV. That would just mean more refueling, or an even larger rocket. On a sidenote, I did add a lot of airbrakes at the top in a later version, and while the descent into Eve's atmosphere became smoother and the lander slowed down a whopping 1000 m/s to around 2200 m/s, it then still flipped. So, I am now building version 6.0 of my Eve lander... Jeb still has not made the return trip to Eve successfully. [Edit] You should not ask yourself the question "Why does it flip?". Ask yourself instead the question "If it turns 10-20 degrees, what happens next?". If the answer to the last question is: "It will correct itself and turn back retrograde", then you got a good design. Because in Eve's atmosphere, it will start to tumble a bit.

But in order to keep the learning curve of interplanetary missions a little less steep, does anyone know of a correct transfer-window calendar? (Remember that for us newbies all the other aspects of getting to another planet is also new!!) Personally, I started using the tools that were linked to: http://ksp.olex.biz/ https://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ But I think it is important not to overload newbies with information... and a calendar is just that little bit easier when you try your first Duna mission. (Yes, yes, I agree that the 2nd tool I linked to here will give you a date just the same, after only a few clicks... that is not the problem. The main issue is that you gotta invest time to read the whole page, understand where you got to click and enter data, then get the result... on top of figuring out interplanetary maneuver nodes, dV calculations, probably docking problems, unknown aerobraking issues, wobbly rockets, etc., etc.) [/rant]

Unless it is an extra fuel tank, and you just think you don't need it. My missions, contrary to those of the professionals, hardly ever go according to plan, so a little extra fuel on the final stage(s) to get my guys home saves me a lot of rescue missions.

Ooops... I did not create the calendar, and I haven't had the chance to check them all. I checked the few on which I launched myself to Eve and Duna, and those were correct... so I assumed that the rest works too. Can you post a link to one that you have verified is correct entirely?

First of all, you can have a look at this website: http://ksp.olex.biz/. It shows you a picture of what the Kerbol system should look like to get to Duna, but on the right side you can enter other planets, and it will update the pic. So, that already allows you to eyeball it. For early career, I prefer the calendar. It allows you to simply warp ahead to the right date, and be on your way. Of course, the one I linked to only lists 10 years. But that's enough to do your first couple of missions (at least Duna and Eve, including their moons) until you are more comfortable with the whole game. I play the PC game, but I have no mods installed either. Just a regular web browser, and a paper print-out.

Ooooh, bragging! COoooOOooOOoool!. A few come to mind, but I will chose one: Actually nailing a real suicide burn onto the Mun. It was not by choice to show off, or because I ran out of fuel, but simply because I hit the throttle too late... or actually, right on time. I hit 0 m/s vertical speed at around 20 m altitude. Lucky that the hills were not a little higher.

In my experience, the game can sometimes even throw your rovers/rockets around for no reason at all, even without time-warp. I've had a rover which was landed on Minmus safely, got parked (brakes on) and after I returned to it flipped itself into the air vacuum, as soon as the focus came onto it. Also I had a rocket which would shake itself apart on the launchpad, but only if I reverted back to launch... not if I loaded it from the VAB. Weird. But physics warp makes everything WAY worse. Planes start shaking, rovers bounce. I use it with care, and I almost always press Quicksave before I turn on a physics warp, just in case.

First time landing a space plane on Minmus! A made an SSTM! Forgot solar, forgot sideways RCS, made the engine too weak (next time I use a Mainsail). But all stock, no mods except KER... and most importantly, I made it! Career game on normal mode, btw. Valentina and Bill are here to pick up some passengers and science (and refueling, at the rigs in the back - pink text).

Regarding how the mining equipment works: My advice would be to just make a few simple rovers with drills, ore tanks, converter and fuel tanks... and run those on the space center. If you do not need to fly it anywhere, you can even put it all on one vehicle. The soil is not too rich, but you will get an idea how everything works, from scanning to mining. Also, note that stuff will get hot (run it for at least an hour, better a day to find out if it is stable)... you probably need radiators. It is not very complicated though, and I think that a single attempt near the KSC should teach you all there is. Here's a trick to make the docking ports line up all the time: you gotta standardize something from the wheels up to the docking port. In my designs, the wheels connect to a girder, on which I put a Mk1 (1.25m) tank, onto which I attach a docking port. That way the docking port will always have the same height from the ground up: I debated pretty much the same things as @tjt. As you can see I went with the option to have a permanent mining rig that stores fuel (the left part), and a rover that can fly (docked, on the right side, notice the little Thud engines tucked in around the center) to carry all the fuel. I answered @tjt's question "How much do I want to lift into minmus orbit each time?" with "A lot", because I only really need refueling for the really large ships that will travel to other planets. I do the refueling not for the funds, but because at some point ships just get too big to launch from Kerbin. The overall plan is still to get Jeb to Eve and back... and this is just one step to achieve that In the back there is another rover that is not so relevant, but also has the same docking system. Btw, this is all stock. I only have the KER mod installed. Onna sidenote, launching this rig was a tricky thing, as it is... less than ideally shaped in terms of aerodynamics. Gently on the throttle, no faster than 150 m/s until 14000m up, and keep it under 300 m/s until around 20 km up, and bring some spare dV! I can say that Jeb was less than enthusiastic about having to fly this thing.

Huzzah! I think it was the resetting of the Control-from-here. I toggled that between the docking port, cupola and klaw a few times, and the wheels got back to life. I had already tried switching my daring Kerbal between the cupola and the command seat at the bottom, but that had not worked. Toggling the brakes on and off was also tried already. I marked the thread title as [SOLVED]...

So I built this (rather large) set of two rovers, to do some mining. All tested and tried on the launchpad as well as on Minmus. They drive pretty well. Stable up to 25 m/s (*). I landed the mining rig first, got it to a rich ore location, then landed the tanker and drove that to dock with the (now full) mining rig. All worked splendidly. And after I undocked the rovers again, the wheels of the 2nd one (left on the picture) did not want to move forward and backwards again. I realize that the picture is rather misleading... but I managed to wiggle the rover a little sideways by just turning the wheels left and right. It never moved forward or backward since undocking. There are no brakes on. I checked all wheels, and none are blocked. Wheels still turn left/right. There is enough battery power. When I press the W or S to get going, the game shows that the motor is running (like in the pic), but no movement happens, and the wheels do not rotate. The major changes between the moment it still worked and now are: (1) the rover is now packed with fuel, and (2) it was docked and undocked. Note: The rover can drive with completely full tanks on the launchpad, so I doubt weight is the issue, especially with Minmus' low gravity. Also, after lift-off (yes, it flies, note the 4 thuds) the wheels still do not rotate. Is the game just confused after undocking? I tried to search for this, but found no useful information (may have been my searching... but a lot of info about rovers online seems rather outdated, and a lot of posts are regarding problems with docking, which is not my problem). (*) although they need 2 minutes to slow down from 25 m/s on Minmus' flats. I have seen oil tankers slow down faster... then again, they pretty much are oil tankers.

I asked a similar question recently, and learned the same: there are no penalties for warping forward. And yes, your program is then essentially more quiet for a few months/years, which is not so different from reality. All the agencies in real also wait for the launch windows to come up, and just maintain some activities (e.g. ISS, other satellites around Earth) in the meantime. I do play some small missions up until the transfer window opens up, but I do not combine any missions parallel to the interplanetary missions, which is different from reality. I do that because these big missions tend to go horribly wrong quite often (I'm also still learning) and I do not want to lose any other progress. I noticed that nice missions do come back in one form or another, so it is OK to pass on some.

If the craft no longer shows up in the Tracking Station, then I agree with the above comments: it probably encountered a mountain. However, if the orbit simply no longer passes over the landing site, then this is because of the eliptical orbit: the Mun rotates under the orbit.

I think @bewing means to literally go straight up, and nothing else (not the straight up to space, then turn 90 degrees to make it to LKO). So, straight all the way to e.g. the Mun, removing the need to turn into a LKO at all.

I am taking a guess here that you are either 300 m above or below the space station (with respect to the planet/moon)? That would mean that you are actually in a higher/lower orbit, and if you kill all your relative speed to the target, it will not stay zero. Your choices (in my limited experience) are: Move closer. The effect is less the closer you get to the target. Try to get to the same altitude as your target (not above or below). That is a more stable position that won't change as fast, especiallly if you are in the same orbit. I realize fully well that if you can control this, then docking is not much of an issue either... but problem solving starts with understanding the problem. Ignore that slight drift. Just aim for the "target" (the pink circle with the dot), and go. If it drifts away at 1-2 m/s, you should just go 10 m/s. If the target moves away from your prograde marker, you have 2 options: (A) to go retrograde, slow your relative speed to zero, and go again towards the target or (B) to point your nose to the other side of the target marker than the prograde marker is, and accelerate. This should (at least temporarily) move that prograde marker back onto the target marker, and make you continue going towards the target. Install enough forward pointing thrusters - e.g. RCS - so that you can move at 10 m/s or so until you are close enough, and still slow down on time. Don't be afraid to overshoot the target a few times while you practice. That should at least give you a better feel for the mechanisms.