Heagar

There is an other option too: I mounted the heatshield upside down on the top of the craft, it worked well. I think that the new aero design in conjunction with the old parts - it may be influenced by Near or FAR - has it flaws. Computed is - in my opinion - the hole craft, witch will automaticly point with it's end with less drag into prograde. But computed should be the COW as well to allow a normal reentry eather with some corrections or/and to allow spinning the craft to stabilize it (at the moment the spin stops with SAS disengaged).

I had build once - for test purposes - an spaceplane consiting of one jet fuel tank, an advanced jet engine, two intakes, four xenon containers and two ion-engines. I found it funny, that this little thingy was able to go to mun, minmus and return to kerbin in one launch. So, for small systems an ion engine is a good choice in my opinion. For example: if you want to do a "grand tour" (visiting every (outer) planet in one mission) assisted by slingshots around the planets an then go interstellar like voager if you use any life-support mod, you can use a ion powered unmanned spacecraft to deliver the goods for a spacestation/base and return to kerbin.

@Keras To embed pictures/albums from imgur you use the following code without the asteriks: [*imgur]Alphanumerical_Imgur_Code[/imgur]

As you said before: Activate the to test part when the conditions are met, not before! Witch means: KSP is counting not every stage, but the first one with the to tested part. If you use a booster - witch already is the test subject - to lift your craft to an altitude and speed to meet the test conditions, you have already activated it for KSP under the wrong conditions --> test failed. For a "landed" test subject: You have to activate it on the lauchpad/runway. You simply put an extra stage as first stage for the to tested part on your craft. That's it!

It depends on what your plane should be capable off. For a plane with a basic jet engine one intake is enough, since this engine starts to loose power at about 15 km altitude anyways. With the advanced jet engine and one intake you can go up to 26 km. But in case you are planning to build a STTO: with three intakes per engine you are on the safe side without problems with two intakes per engine you should hit at least 1800 m/s between 30-36 km, then it is not important, if your air-intake reading is zero. You can achieve altitudes up to 56 km with working jet engines with sutch a plane. BTW: Very important is to mount your jet engines seperatly, not in symmetry mode. The same with the air intakes. That reduces the ammount of uneven thrust/flameout for a multiengine plane. That means, that you mount your first engine. Then mout the air intakes for that. Then repeteatly the same procedure for the rest of the engines/intakes.

It's essentially to know, if you are playing the sandbox mode, or a career game. In a sandbox game you should see your trajectory, but: If the second option is the case, Starhawk is right when it comes to manouver nodes, tracking targets and so on.

Shuttles - NASA-style - are at liftoff winged rockets and their rocket engines consuming fuel at an alarming rate --> therefore they are a costly choice. Because the SRB's and the external tank aren't reusable in KSP (you can fit them with chutes, but they will unspawn at a certain distance), only 1/3 of the craft lands after an mission. The NASA build the shuttle at an time, where reusable seems to be an good choice for cheap space access. The HL20 progam (some kind of Sänger approach) was shut down in favor of the shuttle because that had an chargo bay. And as always with new ideas some assumtions were put into the calculations for the feasability. This new spacecraft should be able not only to release sattelites, but also repair them or catch them for repairs on the ground. Well, i've only heard about the "repair"-mission for the space telescope hubble. Nothing about that an shuttle brought back an crippled sattelite. Of course the military was interrested in the shuttle at that time too, because it could be usable in the SDI program. And two third of the hole missions of the shuttles where military ones. But i doubt that they transported a single component for the SDI project, more likely spy sattelites and so on. The problems for the shuttle where it's high maintainance costs (e.g. ceramic plates, where everone had an unique shape). But it was the only way at that time to build an partially reusable spacecraft. Only years before the X-15 was tested up to Mach 6, and an spaceplance seemed not to be an soloution if you look at that damage caused by heating (sprayable ablative coating partially gone). Annotation: Sorry for an external source, but NASA's NTRS server doesn't responds.

First of all: There aren't stupid questions, only stupid answers. Don't hesitate to ask a question, if you are uncertain about something. Aaand: Everyone was a noob as a newbie, without exeption! The "cheat sheet" provides you already an dv-map, witch you can use. You have to read it from the bottom to the top. The values provide you with a rough estimate how mutch dv your rocket should have to reach a certain goal. For example (all values in m/s as dv): Liftoff and go to LKO (Low Kerbin Orbit (about 70-100km)) is about 4550 m/s dv (delta velocity (the change of velocity your rocket must be capable of)) Mun intercept (you are going into mun's SOI (Sphere of influence) is about 860 m/s. You reach the AP (Apoapsis=highest point of your Orbit) of your high eccentrical high Orbit arround Kerbin at the same time as the mun. For that use in LKO a manouver node witch you manipulate until the projected course fit your needs. low mun orbit (30 km) is about 210 m/s Mun is about 640 m/s, you are landed on mun When you add all those values (4550 + 860 + 210 + 640 = 6260) you have the dv needed for a rocket witch lifts off at KSC (Kerbal Space Center) and is landing on Mun. And for going back the same values in the other direction? Not quite. Because you need: to LMO (Low Mun Orbit) 640 m/s now it will be different: ejection course (retrograde (against the direction of movement) to Muns orbit) about 250 m/s estimated. Now you are in a projected excentrical high orbit around Kerbin again. Burn retrograde unless you have an PE (Perapsis) of 30 km. And that's it for the return. You will have an aerocapture at Kerbin and hopefully an successful splashdown in an ocean. By adding this values to that of before (6260 + 640 + 250 = 7150) you have the dv requirements for an rocket that will be capable of landing on mun and return to Kerbin. Mounting an part of Kerbal Engineer to your rocket shows you the dv your rocket have in the different stages. Oh, and the stages on the right side of the editior you have to read from the bottom to the top too. You can shift the parts into an other stage, e.g. a rocket engine into the stage with the decoupler for that engine. Or creating a new one by klicking on the "+" button (is valid for every stage after the stage labeled 1st (even if it is the last)) I would suggest small rockets for your start with the game, because for getting to orbit, test docking, fly to mun or minmus doesn't require huge rockets. And these will be more controllable. Speaking of this: The shorter and "not so wide" a rocket is, the better it turns in space without using the engines. Don't forget a power source (solar panel, thermoelectric genrator) and batteries, otherwise your spaceship "dies". And if something is wobbeling -> strutify these parts! You will find that there is plenty of room for trial and error, a key part of KSP. Because spaceships in KSP acting not exactly as in the reality and have some "features" you will find out. E.g. that: spacships can rotate in space without using RCS. rockets with a center stage and a few boosters around it will tend to rotate after liftoff when the gimbaling of the outer engines is engaged. the athmosphere is bit basic (four layers), with restrictions of speed in them and so on. At the same time KSP provides you with soloutions witch are thought of but not used in reality yet like e.g. an "asparagus" system (one outer tank feed into the next outer tank and this into the core tank (with symmetry of course)). Each of them (up to 3 pairs, if the outer tanks have the same diameter as the center tank) is jettsioned with it's engine after it is emptied. That's really exiting, isn't it? Therefore: Develop a functioning simple orbiter [table=width: 400] [tr] [td][/td] [td]Stage[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Mk16 parachute[/td] [td]3[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Mk1 capsule/pod[/td] [td][/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]TR18_a decopler[/td] [td]2[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]T_400 tank with three solar panels on it[/td] [td][/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]LV_909 engine[/td] [td][/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]TR18_a decopler[/td] [td]1[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]2x T_300 tank[/td] [td][/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]LV_T45 engine[/td] [td][/td] [/tr] [/table] . Then alter the design (e.g. With boosters (liquid/solid)). Maybe it's more stable, uses less fuel or looks simply better. Each variation may have it's advantages witch you will find out. The best craft for you alter into a craft with docking capabilitys (maybe many trial and error at first, so mount a fairly large ammout of RCS fuel on your craft) or witch can do an mun flyby. If you have done a mun flyby expand your craft that it is able to land on mun. BTW: The trial and error method is the reason why everyone have a "design catalouge" for her-/himself and every construction looks a bit different, because everybody have other prioritys. So: Happy "craft"ing (even when KSP isn't Minecraft) and lot's of kerballike explosions for you.

When i perform the gravity turn really depends on the rocket i use. It may be at 5k up to 15k for various reasons: an asparagus design, witch is maxed out and the second pair of tanks is not equipped with engines a week upper stage, so that i have to accelerate horizontal as soon as possible a "normal" rocket without any weeker stages a design without an upper stage where the transfer stage (especially LVN) have to perform the circularization burn

That Tex_NL got, believe me. What he assumed is that the wing should be the center piece in your construction? If so, he suggested to begin with the wing, and then add the fuselages to both sides with the symmetry mode. Or do you want a construction like this with the first fuselage in the middle? Or did you have a tank clipped inside the fuselage and mounted the wing to that part. And if so, is that's the root part? Is the reason for that to have the wing mounted as high as possible in respect to the fuselage? Please: You should provide us with slighly more informations about your intentions regarding your design. Because we are guessing and an answer like "wing not root piece" doesn't help out to veryfy your problems corretly.

Du stellst konträre Anforderungen an Dein Raumschiff: Möglichst kurze Brennzeit bei gleichzeitigem TJB außerhalb des launch windows (mehr Treibstoffverbrauch). Hin- und Rückflug mit der gesammten Konstruktion (mehr Treibstoffverbrauch) Du solltest Dir vielleicht mal die Videos von MisterFlagg anschauen, der alles in einer Mission machte. Was also nicht die Notwendigkeit beinhaltete, genug Treibstoff für den Rückflug für daß komplette Raumschiff mitzuführen. Du kannst Deinen lander für das größte Ziel (z.B. Tylo) optimieren, dann funktioniert der auch bei den anderen Monden. Beispielsweise: Landung auf Tylo zweieinhalbstufig (2 Raketenstufen, 1 Paar Jets) -> Rückkehr anderthalbstufig (1 Raketenstufe, 1 Paar Jets) Landung auf Lathe anderthalbstufig -> Rückkehr einstufig dann die Landungen auf Vall, Pol und Bob. Dieser ist das letzte Ziel, da er außerhalb der Äquatorialebene Jools liegt. Apropos lange Brennzeiten: Ich hatte ein kleines STTO das bis Jool kam mit einem Jet und zwei Ionentriebwerken, Brennzeit 90 Minuten!

It depends on the system i use for the launch: Usually my rockets tends to have an TWR of 1.2 to 1.5. If they would have less TWR at liftoff i use solid boosters unless the consumed fuelload allows that TWR. Witch means i am able to stage engines and launch clamps at the same time. But when i use a system where jet engines are involved - supporting the launch or alone in the first stage: The jet engines are fired up first to onehundred percent thrust before i release the launch clamps (and fire up additional rocket engines). Besides: Before this version i tend to lower the base of the rocket slightly above the ground. If it tended to have not the estimated TWR it would sink a little and then easyly "rest" on it's engines on the launchpad. Using this scheme in this version something unexpected happend (bad for my first carreer game at the start): When the physics kicked in the launchpad exploded, but the rocket still stands on it's launchclamps and was able to liftoff. Looks like the collision boxes for the parts or/and the launchpad are a bit rough when the game is initalising. Since then my rockets are placed somewhat higher above the ground, giving rocket engines enough time to "rev up".

In my opinion you are right. Because that store download you only have to unzip and doesn't inflict the registry. Besides: Steam would automaticly update the game...

Sorry, but Unity don't uses CUDA or the like, witch means: The calculation if the emmited light is hitting an surface witch would reflect it and how mutch that surface will reflect is done by the CPU. Only the result is passed to the GPU. @ Zekes: What you can do - if you have to reduce the framedrop - may be to reduce the values for the "pixel light count" and the "shadow cascades" in the settings/graphics tab. Because that would reduce the ammount of calculations needed for a light source.

The nice thing about ion powerd crafts is that they only need a tiny ammount of fuel compared to a "normal" rocket engine. With it you can build very tiny crafts. I had build an STTO - consited of a Mk1 Cockpit, one jet fuel tank and jet-engine and two ion engines with eight canisters of fuel each, if i recall it right. This craft could go to Duna and back or (one way) to Lathe. The downside was that the burn times where about 90 minutes though...

There are two rules if you want to change an orbit with minimum DV requirements: direction changes you make as far as possible away from you target -> is valid for a planechange too (midcourse correction burn). For that you mark your destination as target and burn at the AN (Ascending Node) in the direction of 180 degrees and at the DN (Descending Node) in the direction of 360/0 degrees of the currently orbiting gravitational source (star/planet/moon). speed changes you make as near at the target as possible To see if you are on the right side (90 or 270 degree course for example) you can look in map view on the estimated course after leaving the SOI of the target. For example a course to Mun. If you have an orbit around Kerbin on the 90 degree course and plot an manouver node you can see that the ejection course is: prograde to muns orbit (can go strait out of Kerbins SOI) = you are on an 90 degree course at the target retrograde to muns orbit (maybe even in an figure eight pattern back to Kerbin = free fall return) = you are on an 270 degree course at the target For fine adjustments you can switch the view to your target and look at the estimated course inside the SOI of the target.

A real skycrane NASA-like (as for the rover curiosity) i wouldn't suggest. You then would have to have four ropes to release at the same time. Resulting in a "slightly" more wobbely craft to stear. If you would use one rope only the payload would twist beneath the crane, makeing a save landing impossible. If you want to build a skycrane kerballike in KSP you have already one under the stock crafts. But because the burntime is too short and the propulsion too strong you can alter that design to something like this: Something for you to notice, if you plan to drop "whatever you want" on the surface of a planet/moon: A skycrane itself have mostly a limited fuel quantity. My example could land on a Minmus sized planet/moon on it's own. On the Mun if a beneath attached retrorocket have delivered the payload to a distance of 500 m to to ground to be on save side. On Kerbin if at least 2/3 of the fuel is used up, Otherwise the crane would not be strong enough to lift the rover in the last few seconds. The ammount of fuel and the power of the engines should be planned for one or two possible kinds of "gravity sources" (planets/moons) for a given payload. One thing you should test on the launchpad during WIP is if the engines are damageing the payload or not, especially if your engines have more thrust and a wider gimbal range. Aaand: Test the seperation as well! The flying is simply as every other rocket, exept the landing: Slightly above the ground or on it you release the crane witch should have enough fuel for at least a few seconds. Because it will afterwards descending again the crane should: be high enough that due to the rotation of the planet/moon an chrash onto the payload is avoided or - if the payload is a rover - you can drive away at landing tilted slightly to one side in a manner, that he will accelerate in that direction and crash beside the landing site

A " grand tour" as mentioned before means indeed to visit (flyby) with a space probe like the "Voager" multiple planets and then take it into interstellar space (Maybe above the nothern/southern pole of Kerbol). But the fuel on this probe is not sufficient to get there ... You have to perform multiple slingshots to accomplish that task. Bon voage!

I didn't try it with a big craft. I tried it when the 64bit version was released. When ever a new version is availible, i test old rockets/spaceplanes with flights to mun to check out, if the general behavior of crafts have changed (buffed/nerfed parts and orbital physic rules). Because the 64bit version was that buggy i went back to the 32bit version at that time. An reason why the 64bit version have the same framerate performance may be that KSP don't uses a hash sort for the - linked and assembled - *.craft file (for calculating the physics). May be that even that is not done, and the *.craft file is translated on the fly (over and over again for each line of code = runtime execution). This would mean that you have to live with the 5 fps margin in my opinion. Mmmhhh... It seems so, i have to do some tests: Editing a *.craft file while flying the craft.

If you don't want to change the design, but want an better framerate you have to use the 64bit version of KSP, i guess. I know (i tried it out) that that version is buggy. But a new graphic card changes nothing, because the CPU have to calculate the graphic (KSP uses no CUDA or the like). More RAM changes nothing too, because Unity will not use it. An 64bit task on the other hand will accelerate the command fetching witch will give you at least 15 fps, i suppose. Thats far from an comftable framerate (25-30fps), but have to do it in your case.

can happen

From your writing i can't figure out, how your rocket behaves at witch point of a flight. Therefore it would be nice to to put a clean and exact discription and - if possible - a screenshot of your craft to our disposal. However, there may be several reasons why a craft don't react as expected: Can it be that you have some sort of analoge input device connected with your computer (controller/joy-/flightstick)? In case you have mapped it as input source, ensure that the deadzone have an decent value. In case you are using an asparagus/multiengine design: You can before liftoff (or tweak it in the VAB/set it to an action group) turn off the gimbal for the outer engines if the center engine is strong enough to stabilize/steer the craft. When gimbaling is engaged, the outer engines can force a rocket to rotate. If you have build something unsymetrical, the drag as well as it's weight will cause the rocket to steer off.

In my opinion it is the best, to set a goal for a plane and then develop it. Building a plane around a cargo isn't the right way for me. Because i want a plane witch i can use whenever i want and don't have one risticted only for one mission. I had the some problems, when i first tried to build a sort of space shuttle with the new parts. The first plane sucked really. Then i had an idea for getting the payload bays in the vincinety of the CoW/CoM. Pairing them beside the fueselage of the craft. The result is the Excalibur: However, the payload bays are smaller (shorter) then i wanted them (they consist one big and one small one). The plane is designed as an shuttle to an 150 km orbiting spacestation, witch it have to refuel and realeasing small sattelites/spacecrafts. Issues of sutch a design: Due the weight out of the center it isn't as agile then other crafts. Witch causes a slow docking process for example. If you want to launch an single sattelite e.g., you have to have a counterweight. For me a fueltank in the opposite cargo bay. After releasing the sattelite the fuel from the conterweight is pumped into the center of the craft. The remaining difference can be handeled. Depending on the fuel and payload - witch alters the CoW - the tank in the nose is used for trimming out the plane. The outter tanks are usually empty, but can be used in to have the max fuel ammount availible - the craft weights then 60t (normal weight 50t, dry 29t). With sutch an configuration i flew to Duna, using up all that fuel (i barely made it). But if i would refuel it at the spacestation, it would be easy. The screenshots where made during the WIP process, i can take new pictures if you like.

It's no math behind it. Call it trial and error (an key element of playing KSP) or simply "experiance" in building spaceplanes. That are similar expressions for the same fact. CoM is Center of Mass, CoW is Center of Weight. Stress on the weels is not the reason witch causes the problems i guess, because plane wheels are nearly so rigid as the radial air intakes. The problem may be the joint beween the small and the big tank, witch will bend a little, as well as the wings. Some "experiance" here too: I once build a large rocket for an challenge (The ladderless challenge) with an (IS) interplanetary stage. The IS consisted of a center tank and two more directly (all 2,5m parts) attached to it as well as two with seperators mounted. On the launchpad all seems ok. Even the first part of the liftoff went ok. But when i hit 180 m/s and was performing the gravity turn (a staging at that point causes the same as well), one of the attached tanks fell simply off, destroying the remaining parts of the rocket underneath. Even heavyly strutified there where some issues remaining. And the wings. Well, look at the Albatross 3 (stock) while flying. So the joint points are week. Witch means: Strutify the small tanks with the big one and from the small tanks onto the wings as far as possible. Maybe the issues with the plane on the RW are solved then. BTW: Experiments with your planes and the stock as well are very informative. An example: The Aries 4A (stock) is a poor designed plane. A taildragger, CoL in front of the CoW and not good placed RCS thrusters. Try to fly it. Then remove the jet fueltank in the middle and mount an LV-909 rocket engine as well as two delta deluxe winglets as vertical stabilizers (on ther outer tanks or on the wings). Tweak the fuel in the outer tanks/control surfaces/front landing gear and voila - a flyable plane with even slightly more DV in the orbit than before.

From the wing area your plane have, it should have an V1 (take off speed) from 60 to 80 m/s. But because you decided to build it as an delta plane there are several reasons wy it have an so bad performance: The rear landing gear is too far in the back, forcing the plane to speed up even more on the RW to be able for V0 (rotational speed). If you think of an "lever", the distance between the CoW and the elevons is too small. The elevons you have available itself have only an lift ratio of 0.33, witch makes things even worse. Because the CoW is - when the plane used up it's fuel - behind the CoL you will have an plane witch will go very likely in an flat spin. Possible soloutions: Mount the rear landing gear on the small fuel tanks. Then you have more ground clearance and the chance to move it slightly behind the CoW. You can of course mount the wings under the main fuel tank/small tanks and the landing gear underneath it, if you like. That would give you the wider track back. mount the jetengines not in symmetry mode, but single. The same for the intakes: Witch means, place on jet engine with it's intakes and then the next one. This reduces the ammount of uneven thrust when running low on airintake. Elongate the plane and use canards (on the nose mounted winglets). Because winglets don't act as an stabilizer (they are rotated as whole), they have an mutch higher impact than an combination of wing/control surface. And mounted in the front (especially on an longer fuselage) the "lever" is mutch greater too. On planes with mutch longer fuselage you can even mount in the back a wing inverted (their back points to the front). In this manner they don't produce any lift, but enabeling you to mount the elevons mutch more in the back. [*]Tweak the control surfaces (Set them to pitch/roll/yaw). If they are acting on all inputs, their impact is an fair ammount less than it could be. [*]Engage the steering of the front landing gear. To show what i mean i have heavyly modified your plane. It doesn't look as good as yours (quickbuild), but it does the trick. I used the same ammount of fuel tanks (witch are carrying more oxedizer), less wing area but more control surfaces and - not really neccecary - fuellines. The result is a plane witch is able to reach an 150 km Orbit. The ascend path differs from a "normal" SSTO a lot, because there are only basic jet engines: After loading the plane on the RW stage once. Pitch up to 45 degrees after takeoff. At 20 km altitude engage the rocket engine. At 23 km altitude you may pitch down into the vector pipper. At 26 km altitude disengage jet engines. By reaching 30 km altitude you can go almoust horizontal (you should have nearly 500 m/s vertical speed at that time). The craftfile is here availible.