EtherDragon

Yes, it is absolutely fun because I get to learn why things behave the way they do in a realistic setting that doesn't cause real people to die for my foolishness. Why does my rocket flip over without tail-fins? Oh - that's why and that's really harsh. Ok I add fins. Now why is my rocket so hard to steer? Oh, fins are hard to steer, huh... Ok I have to think about this differently. What happens when I try this ascent profile, or that one, or a different one? Interesting - turns out two is most efficient and easiest to control with fins. Now - what happens if I apply what I learned to a rocket without fins? Neat, I'm much less prone to flipping! ^^^ It's this kind of discovery that I love about KSP, because it applies to the real world. Now I have a better understanding why the Apollo Rocket was built the way it was.

No, it is not a bug and all due to real-world phenonema: Here's a handy Tutorial in the Tutorials sub-forum, that explains it all, with pictures! Also - on how to safely fly your finless rocket into Orbit on "National Don't Use Fins Day." =D

Here are a couple examples of interstage fairing - for my Apollike rocket: VAB - Fairings "closed": VAB - Fairings "exploded":

Actually, practicing on Minmas is much better. If your rocket has what it takes to land on the Mun, it also has what it takes to land on Minmas. Here are some reasons many prefer a Minmas first approach: 1. Minmas has lower gravity, meaning you have more time to correct any mistakes. 2. It take s much less Delta-V to land and depart Minmas than on the Mun. (Enough DV is saved that it makes up for the extra DV to get there). 3. Minmas might be made of snacks! 4. Minmas has huge flat lake-beds which have no slope - very easy to get a level landing.

I'm working on a new video that compares three ascent profiles. In filming it, just gathering data, I could already see how huge a difference a good ascent profile makes on available fuel after reaching circular orbit.

Yes, yes it really is one of the best games ever made. So simple: Take some "LEGO" parts and use them to build rockets ... So deep: ... so you can explore a physics accurate representation of a tiny solar system.

It's Thursday already? Well, better post a couple new videos! To the Mun! And the Build:

Greetings, and welcome!

Hi! You've made it farther than me - of course, I'm doing all of my playing On Camera.

Hi, welcome! Check out many of the excellent Tutorials in the Tutorials Sub-Forum, also any of the amazing Videos available in Live from Mission Control.

Part of it might be your flight profile, too. Just FYI - I'm not sure we've figured out how much DV is actually required to get from a 20km trajectory to 75x75km orbit, yet. I've noticed, if I don't pitch up enough for Rocket mode, I lose way too much speed in atmosphere, and at 20km it's hard to pull up hard enough to affect your trajectory much. So I've taken to starting my hard-pull hack at 17.5km and trying to establish a nice 30 degree (or steeper) climb angle before my turbojet cuts out. Then it's rocket mode to get Apoapsis to 75km - then circularization. Not sure how much Dv is required, for that...

My most glorious craft, thus far, was the Jool Explorer - the crowning achievement of the first "Career Mode" (now Science Mode). I started KSP on my first ever YouTube Channel called "Korbital Mechanics" and this was the epic two-hour finale to the 0.22 season. The Jool Explorer was my biggest ship, thus far, and was assembled in orbit from three separate launches. Here's the old video (still hosted on my old channel)

I Agree! All of the Explore Contracts for the First Record Keeping Society should be automatically given and completed. But minor niggle.

Greetings! Be sure to check out the fine videos available over in Live from Mission Control.

Hi liquid hand! You had some good ideas, and are seeing results that aren't (yet) making sense. Your hypothesis, "add more Rocket Motors should give me more Altitude!" was a good one to try, but the experimental result was - it didn't. That's excellent and exactly the kind of Science I love this game for! Now you know something you didn't know before - more rocket motors does not necessarily mean more altitude. Here's why: More rocket motors produces more thrust. More rocket motors adds more mass. More rocket motors consumes more fuel (per second). If you look at the statements above, and think for a bit, you'll probably come to the same conclusion I do: "If I have three rocket motors, I use three times as much fuel - which means it lasts 1/3 as long, but I go 3 times as fast... hmmm..." Essentially (an oversimplification) you end up going just as far, but getting there in less time. Think of it like a car... At best your car can go so many miles before needing to fill up gas. If you go faster, you can get where you're going faster, but you still only have so much total range. Now, if you pile on a bunch of engines, so you can go really fast, you're still limited on how far you can go based on the gas you carry. This applies to rockets, too! What you need to do to scale up to larger carrying capacity is find a way to add more fuel along with more rocket motors. More motors for power, more fuel for distance. Good luck!

The issue you are facing is due to drag acting on the body at different angles compared to the center of lift for the wings and you are entering stall conditions at high angle of attacks where the wings no longer provide lift, but only produce drag. Given equal surface areas, the wing furthest away from the center of mass will have the most torque. Your planes body also has drag and will apply torgue trying to flip it out, much like a rocket would if it didn't have tail-fins. End result - your forward canard, and rear-heavy rocket, gives the front end a lot of torque. This is manageable until you get too high an angle of attack where the nose-heavy drag/torque overwhelms your controls.

I'm also late to this conversation, and I have not noticed an issue with them being nerfed. I used SRBs in all of my launches for Career Mode. They offer a metric-butt-ton of thrust early on in the launch, right where the LFEs are really weak. Most of the time, I'm tuning down the SRBs thrust limiter, so they burn longer and don't get me to terminal velocity just as quick. I also make a habit of using a fully automated (i.e. control free) gravity turn during my launches. After the initial push to 5degrees off of vertical, I turn SAS off and let the rocket fly itself. The only control I have is the throttle, to hit my milestones (e.g. 60degree pitch by 15km, 45 degree pitch by 25km, 30degree by 30km...) so I have to make sure I don't get too much thrust too early or I get too high too fast.

In Episode 5, our space agency has attracted the interest of some passengers: Building Episode 5:

Really the main thing is you want your center of mass ahead of (i.e. higher than, for rockets) your center of lift (or drag, depending on how you think about it).

It's for these reasons I gave KSP mid 80s in my non-professional (and admittedly Fanboi) review.

Yea, most of the center section is lifting body - so yea, there's wing there. @Goomblah Welcome aboard!

Hello, Codexus! You should spend some time making maths tutorials in the tutorials section for this stuff!

Welcome aboard! Also check out Live from Mission Control for a bunch of excellent video creators!

Welcome! While it is rocket science, it's really not that hard (once you get used to some core concepts). Be sure to check out the excellent Tutorial section for text and video tutorials!

Welcome to the community!