Markus Reese

Can I get one rule clarification, I think it might be written backwards or I cannot read clear. Should it be x2 if less than 4, x1 if less than eight Halved if more than eight? Current way written on the map is a bit confusing. You have more that greater than eight is x1, and less than eight is 0.5 and greater than four is x2

Guess is time to do Top Kerman 2! Mwa ha ha haaaaa!!!!!! I wish youtube didn't break my audio :-(

Decoupler Suspension, Fantastic XD. That thing is just silly awesome!

Polar orbit and get back to kerbin? Easy! Just need to do your de-orbit burn so your pole becomes your gravity departure point. Usually this will be a bit before you are at the equator. You will slingshot out into a slightly off dunar orbit, but nothing slight burns while returning to kerbin wont fix. The other way is to get yourself a really high altitude, almost escape orbit of Duna then correct to an equatorial, but where is the fun in that ^.^

Sweet! Now to get to work, my initial idea didn't go so well so will need to try something new... hrm....

Hiya, breaking the ice for this one. I have the vid of the rocket uploading so will update when that is done. I am sure it will be beaten quick, but figured is a good place to start. No FAR (2880 fuel + 25 SRB only) * 135m/s ground speed = 392175 points!

Aaah. Interesting point. Minmus toss... ^.^ Or throw from gilly onto eve.

Yup, I agree on the struts as well. Something else you can try is if that top section is wide enough, add tower supports there as well. It could simply be the connections or other part braking simply due to mass. Used to happen to me all the time.

That is when people just start ignoring. In any sort of challenge, there can be what is considered "implied rules" The challenge is titled "Rocket Sled to LKO" There are some core rules to what the challenge is. It does not matter the "technicalities of the rules. End of they in anything in the world: If I ask for THIS And am given THIS You will not get paid since it would not meet the required usage. Called project scope. You can argue, but it is quite clear what the desired product is. People can try and win by technicality or clever. I see "Know it alls" try it all the time to be clever. In the end, EVERY person I have met with that attitude ends up being disregarded because they are not presenting actual value or contribution. If I made a challenge for an amphibious car in KSP, and the rules say it can only have four wheels, Then am given a space plane with 4 landing gears, then you gave me an amphibious plane. Not a car. Rules include definition. @RandomJeb Love your design! That is the fun way!

Ahh, I love flying. So will address a couple of your problems ^.^ 1. Pulling off to the side is usually caused by slight roll when you have lift, this is a bit relate to your trouble nosing up. Easiest solution is to widen the stance of the landing gears. I do this on single fuselage craft by using that /__| style connector at the wing with the gears on the end of that. Strutted to stabilize. 2. The pitch up is really all about getting the gears forward more. Mount them onto those tail wings a bit more forward than current, the plane should pitch up easier. 3. Tail slap. This is usually caused by trying to lift off at too low of air speed and a bit due to kerbal "lift" physics. Once you are able to get that pitch up, let the SAS do some of the work and hold the nose pitch upwards. If you have enough lift, once you get to speed, the ground will just start to fall away...... Pretty much all of my planes have alot more tail overhang (from COG) with the same clearance as yours does. Just let it lift... oooooooooommmmm -v()v- 4. With the COG that far back, how balanced does it stay as you burn off your aviation fuel? Guess if you get into the liquid fuel early, should stay stable?

Here is the way I do these sort of recoveries. If you hold shift (or is it alt) and hit the timewarp hotkey, you can do up to a 4x timewarp with physics enabled. But there are concequences. The best thing you can do is get your burn for escape, release your captured ship, timewarp and end timewarp a bit before you need to do your next burn. Re-capture then do your next burn.

As apposed to timing, I used a different method to get all my proper spaced satellites. Timing, if your launch angles are different at all, then your spacing can end up way off. First, Get the one into as close to perfect circle at altitude you want. Second, launch one at a lower altitude. Set the first one as your target to burn to. You can use the Target position, and closest position to get the approx 60 degrees apart. This should get you close, and you can do fine changes to get it more exact. Most important part though will be ensuring that they are as exact as possible to eachother in height or will slowly change spacing. You will want some ion propulsion so you can fix spacing as needed.

Ahh, true if it is relative distance and requiring a relative velocity of zero. If you try and get it up high then detach, you cannot switch unless you are in orbit. Not in orbit, no switch or launcher will not survive. So yup, stock then the game mechanics would not make a difference on the landing part. At least it used to be that if two parachuting objects got too far apart, one would despawn? That would set maximum range of 2.3km with a mobile launcher. Fair enough. Hrm.... now I am thinking..... Question for the rules then. Can you launch powered if the powered section has no controlling unit or would that still be considered a launcher?

I don't have time to do this but will give a survival suggestion. Probe core and parachute. After launch, switch to the beams. Deploy the parachutes as late as possible to maximize distance and survive landing? Or as the game host decide that your conclusion wasn't within the implied spirit of the competition and.... Not.... Especially since you do not meet rule number 3. Final resting point. Measure it up when your beam comes to a rest? I recommend for this rule that the Launch vehicle and any stagings cannot leave the runway area? Reason I add the last is that I have made before an intercontinental unmanned craft that could theoretically survive the flight.

The main advantage of probes is the low weight of them. I use them for two reasons. The first is to get science by making flyby probes. I sent them out to different planets to get science and return it from mun and planet orbits. The second usage, that I do lots, is use probes for tiny and lightweight scouts to use as target beacons for safe landings. I have three ways. One is standard leg landings, second is mini fliers, and last is the rover.

My main project was my modular interplanetary craft. Got the main hull done, now I just replace components as I get more science. Send up a new lander when it gets back into orbit of Kerbin! Boy was it fun! Way more enjoyable to dock main components together in space then send up a single craft ^.^

Ahh yeah, I know the shutter bug I try moving and it just shakes... I have had it happen before and only way of fixing is by of course leaving to the tracking centre. Here is something to try. Try your SAS either on or off and swapping between space craft components with the [ and ] are my hotkeys?

It is less a roll, but more of a capsizing. The main problem is that you have a mass far above COG as well. Without drawing force vector diagrams, you have an upwards inertial momentum, and a downward gravity force, then applied a rotation. Throw in the drag of the air, and it flips. Remedy is quite easy. 1. Have some fins. They do wonders in your low atmosphere. 2. Secondary high thrust gimbal engines. LV-45s are what I usually use but try making your inner engines skippers instead of mainsails. I think those should act to the same effect. Sides, if your turn is right, you don't need the heavy and high thrust mainsails during final staged. I usually am running off just LV 45 or skippers once I reach 45km

Hiya, if you have done a few minmus and mun encounters, but need more science, I sent out probes to scout the planets. Don't need to land, just flyby and return. That gives a good science hit to build the interplanetaries.

Hiya, as Tank said, learning by errors is the best way. However, you are probably like me, and poof Kerbals makes me feel sad. That said, when I first started my moon missions, I planned for always having an escape route. Therefore I always make sure my landing engines, and launch engines use separate fuel supplies. In the early days before I had my lander design exactly how I wanted, I would attempt landing. If I got too low on lander fuel, I would jettison and just abort mission, returning to kerbin in my launch vehicle. To start, the MK 1 pod, medium 1m tank, and that 1m efficient engine which I can never remember the name of gives plenty of fuel for goofing around on your return trip or abort.

I remember finding the desert pyramids by accident ^.^ I was flying my trans-continental supersonic jet, when I noticed something on the ground. Memorized location on map, then flew back with a different plane!

Gnite! The FAR also promotes more complex rockets. Check my sig for the link to my Kerbal video. I roleplayed the Aerodynamics. it sorta gets into the whole make the mission more engaging. Back in 0.19, it would have been easier to build and launch a rocket as one big mass without all the cones and complex shapes. But for the roleplay, was the most fun I had. Also it took me a fair while to do the mission. The actual rescue was needed from when I did oops an atmo burn around Eve. Because of my comp specs, I did have to slightly mod the save file to reduce ship size a little bit. Was real good fun. I do have a bit of a long (and badly voiced over by me) intro into the video. Can skip to the musical portions by this link instead. Starts with IVA of Lars Kerman's ship "crashed landed" on eve. I did the vid as a story to show the dramatic tech evolution if KSP from 0.17 to 0.19 but represents how I pretty much do all of my missions. http://youtu.be/OLDXaEyR_LM?t=2m37s

Myself, I found two things that quickly killed my enjoyment of KSP back in the 0.1# areas. 1. Powergaming. Using all sorts of OOG tools to make perfect every launch. 2. Mods - Not all mods. Just ones that can make things simpler. Mostly the large boosters and engines really.... To solve this, I really play only vanilla, I used to have stuff like the Bobcat rovers, and fairings, but the clutter in science sorta took away and now make the similar out of Vanilla. This is especially handy during career play. I try to make a real mission out of everything. Usually my crafts are more complex because of the roleplay. There is no option to quicksave and no editing of files. Not using any calculators enhances in the fact that I need to actually experiment with every launch. Starting from the manned early missions, then getting probes to launch test flights and scouting planetary systems. I even purposefully pushed the atmos and altitudes from my mind, and run a test to see where I should come in for atmo braking with probes. To add to the challenge, for me to consider the test, I must also land the probe and deploy a communication report. After determining what the planet is like, I then will launch the manned mission. Now, there are no overly advanced satellites in my parts, so instead, the exploration craft carry a scout probe with them. These are designed to be able to scout a surface area of any planned body to pick a suitable landing area for any lander. My self challenging doesnt end there however. I also dislike wierd and infeasable rockets. Stuff like my interplanetaries. Sure, I could design and launch them all at once with some extremely wierd setup, but hey, if cost was an issue that wouldn't work. Instead, I send up my ships in sections and assemble them in atmosphere. All my boosters have to be designed to be recoverable, and I do. Instead of 20 boosters, I might have four, that I re-use multiple times. In roleplay. It helps keep me from making all my interplanetaries right quick. It takes a while to assemble the ship, and then once in space, I made the design reusable. I can replace the lander section, then refuel or replace the engines in space onto a main hub. Once the science tree came out, this was even more fun! Now I return the science vessel, and I make upgrades to the ship. Send down the old nuke engines that are a bit wobbly to replace with the bigger tanks and better engines! Mwa ha ha!!! The free cost on parts is probably the biggest killer for fun since it is easy to make overly expensive rockets and have a ton of fail missions. Is like playing a game with god mode. You do it all really fast and burn out. Plan some limiters, take a break, and will be like a whole new game. In fact, I still havent maxed the science tree since it's release because my missions are such a challenge, combined with flying by the seat of my pants, that one interplanetary can take a week or more to complete! Sure, it is slow, but now getting there is 90% of the fun!

As above. The shaking is due to kinetic resonance to be overly technical. One of KSP's little technical treats is that non thrust force is applied solely at a module. So what happens is if you have a strong reaction wheel force, the force will apply itself at that module first causing it to flex. Much like grabbing a flimsy ruler then swinging it. This builds a spring force in the rocket and the opposite end of your module force will spring down, and it just starts reverberating. Solutions are opposite end reaction wheels (which can be clumsy to fit to the bottom of boosters, but using the side attachment node thing can help) or by adding more struts. To stabilize with a blip of time warp, make sure all engines are off, and turn off your SAS system. the ASAS in large rockets can cause a wobble by alternating the force back and forth. If off for a second, your rocket should start a slow rotation, but once you blip time warp, it will stop since physics calculations will cease.

Saw you swapped it to answered, but I will say how I did both my upper and lower eva early in sciencee. Is a bit fun, but does require some good rendevous skills. Simply get speed up, then drift. You eva, fall off, but then use your RCS to keep your relative speed matched to the craft. Do the eva report, then simply RCS back to your capsule. Can make you nervous, but is fun! RCS cannot lift you off, but it can keep you with a coasting spacecraft.