## Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Blaarkies said:

Yes exactly. Like being in orbit heading east...and deciding to change direction to north, ending in the same Ap/Pe.
I actually want to try it myself, I am curios how much the difference would be, since the math doesn't seem quite that obvious(integrate a sinus function and find the seconds of thrust for 90 degrees turn? I am unsure though)

I tried my method and used about 3650 m/s, measuring by the delta-V in my ship. Have you tried your method and found that it uses less delta-V?

##### Share on other sites

I recently started using the Precise Maneuver mod, which has a button to turn the orbit without changing the apses. This makes inclination changes super easy and saves a lot of fudging around with the node.

Edited by StrandedonEarth
##### Share on other sites

12 hours ago, cubinator said:

I tried my method and used about 3650 m/s, measuring by the delta-V in my ship. Have you tried your method and found that it uses less delta-V?

That's way better than I expected!
Yes, i get 3170m/s(+- a few due to this explanation ↓) for a LKO Inc. change towards polar. Basically the same value that is displayed on the Maneuver node. @StrandedonEarth, that mod really makes these kind of stuff easy, thanks!

There is a major disadvantage on this straight burn method: Midway through the burn, my orbital velocity was only about 1580m/s. If you can maintain a TWR of 2, then it will still take 161 seconds to do such a burn(+-50 of those seconds will be at below 1800m/s orb velocity...that will definitely add some gravity drag). It just gets far, far worse with realistic orbital craft(TWR < 0.5)

So the stats result as:
- 0% savings -> 4480m/s two separate burns
- 18.5% savings -> 3650m/s continual aim at vector
- 29.2% savings ->3170m/s straight burn

But the 10.7% extra savings is only possible where TWR doesn't matter, like Ap of high elliptical orbits

##### Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Blaarkies said:

snip

Cool, I'll have to keep that in mind when I'm doing my next inclination changes.

##### Share on other sites

On 6/19/2016 at 11:11 PM, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Okay;

1. Holding alt while attaching something forces it to attach at a node, rather than on the surface.

OMG, THANK YOU!  That's been a source of endless aggravation.

##### Share on other sites

Some people don't like the cargo bays because, let's face it, they're not exactly user friendly when it comes to attaching things. Using docking clamps to secure your cargo is sometimes meh, let alone actually getting it out of said bay.

I use radial decouplers in my space planes. Upon attaching one to the bottom floor of the bay, you'll probably have to flip it to the correct orientation (and even then there will be slight clipping outside your spacecraft). Attaching things is still difficult, but a Micronode as your satellite core will allow you to build onto it with relatively little hassle and some modicum of stability to boot. Get your space plane out of the atmo, open the doors and thump! Screw that graceful departure. Kick your cargo out with absolute certainty!*

*Certainty not absolute. Stability may exhibit instability. Your milage may vary. Batteries not included. Do not expose to sunlight.

Edited by Ozzallos
##### Share on other sites

Connect EVRYTHING with a Cubic Octagonal Struts.

...Need moar boosters? Grab a Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3 and weld eight of the COStruts to the underside of it (do not force the node), turning them upside down once they're riding the surface so that the free nod of the strut is now inside the adaptor itself. Position them as close to the circumference. Alternately, you can use a TR-38-D decoupler for the base structure, but either way you'll be able to comfortably hang eight of whatever the heck you want off of them without a gap between structures.

For example, mounting eight S1 SRB-KD25k "Kickback" Solid Fuel Boosters with room in the center for a couple more. Make sure to use maor struts to keep Mister Wiggles out of your new mega SRB.

 ...You can also mount the COStruts to the outside radius of these structures, then turn them on their sides. This is particularly useful for annoying little one node engines such as the IX-6315 "Dawn" Electric Propulsion System, as it allows you mount a multitude of the little buggers assuming the exhaust is exposed.   Yes, this all involves a bit of clipping, but I'm not opposed to a reasonable amount when it should have been possible to mount in that manner to begin with.
Edited by Ozzallos
##### Share on other sites

For faster (though jumpier-looking) framerate, I sometimes timewarp to 4x and warp back. Most of the time instead of one second in KSP taking 4 real seconds, it's usually one KSP second becoming one real second. It doesn't look smooth, but is really helpful when you want those flights as fast as possible in real time, or just want your rocket laucnh to be done with.

And don't worry about time-warping with fragile ships, you can spawn another ship, timewarp with that and it will be retained until you close the game.

On 6/20/2016 at 2:22 PM, Majorjim said:

THIS.

I have done this for years now and it has saved hours of work many, many times. Every builder should do this. I save anytime I do something tricky or that took at least 15mins to do. Save save save save folks.

I do that a lot, except instead of, say, saving something as Consolidated B-24D Liberator, I'd save it as "b-24 wip" or "Consolidated B-24D Liberato" and stuff. I also save something as that when I need to stop building midway and I know there's a large chance of abandonment.

Maybe that's why it takes me so long to load my ships in KSP..

##### Share on other sites

for large carrier-type crafts, you can turn a cargo ramp upside down and clip it, then put it on the BRAKES action group, and you've got yourself Mk3 sized AIRBRAKES without using TweakScale.
Please note that the huge amount of drag these induce will make SSTO operations highly improbable unless you're using mod parts. I learned that the hard way because all those Rapiers shown below weren't enough to push it to supersonic speeds.

EDIT: I haven't tried it yet, but I just got the idea to conceal them inside fairings until you're ready for re-entry, it should reduce the drag I think?

Edited by Xyphos
##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Columbia said:

I do that a lot, except instead of, say, saving something as Consolidated B-24D Liberator, I'd save it as "b-24 wip" or "Consolidated B-24D Liberato" and stuff. I also save something as that when I need to stop building midway and I know there's a large chance of abandonment.

Yeah I should have added I always save two copies and just add a '2' to the end.

##### Share on other sites

On 7/22/2016 at 9:21 AM, Ozzallos said:

Screw that graceful departure. Kick your cargo out with absolute certainty!*

I always orient a 1x6 expanding solar panel under the payload in a 3x symmetry and bind it to the same hotkey as the undock/decouple on the docking port so when it docks, the panel expands and pushes the payload out.

Edited by Xyphos
##### Share on other sites

Want a way to reduce drag, reduce heat and have an airbrake in one lightweight stock part?

Undeployed, a Communotron 88 reduces the bow shock at the front of an aircraft moving at high speed typical in SSTOs (similar to the effect of using a Shielded Docking Port) and it improves the max temp your craft can take...

Then when you need to slow for landing you can deploy it as an effective air brake, especially useful if added to the Brakes action group...

Also very good for re-entry...

Edited by Foxster
##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Foxster said:

oh, so that's what you meant in the other thread, the picture says a lot. I thought you were talking about the extending-rod antenna.

##### Share on other sites

The extending rod also completely bypasses heat problems with the Mk1 and Mk2 cockpits.  At least for me; no problems with 1400m/s in the medium density atmo on the way to space.

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Xyphos said:

oh, so that's what you meant in the other thread, the picture says a lot. I thought you were talking about the extending-rod antenna.

Oh, the rod antenna works well too, except for the air-brake bit.

##### Share on other sites

• 1 month later...

Septratrons too complex? Or annoying to attach? Thrust limit a Flea and rotate it! May cause a bit more drag, but works very well!

##### Share on other sites

On 19/07/2016 at 1:44 AM, Blaarkies said:

That's way better than I expected!
Yes, i get 3170m/s(+- a few due to this explanation ↓) for a LKO Inc. change towards polar. Basically the same value that is displayed on the Maneuver node. @StrandedonEarth, that mod really makes these kind of stuff easy, thanks!

There is a major disadvantage on this straight burn method: Midway through the burn, my orbital velocity was only about 1580m/s. If you can maintain a TWR of 2, then it will still take 161 seconds to do such a burn(+-50 of those seconds will be at below 1800m/s orb velocity...that will definitely add some gravity drag). It just gets far, far worse with realistic orbital craft(TWR < 0.5)

So the stats result as:
- 0% savings -> 4480m/s two separate burns
- 18.5% savings -> 3650m/s continual aim at vector
- 29.2% savings ->3170m/s straight burn

But the 10.7% extra savings is only possible where TWR doesn't matter, like Ap of high elliptical orbits

If you really want to save dV on the LKO inclination change, burn prograde for ~900m/s.  Then at AP, make the inclination change for only ~100m/s.  Then, aerobrake or burn back down to LKO, and circularize for 100-900m/s.  Total cost 1000-2000m/s depending on your patience and ability to avoid mun encounters.

If you're impatient and have excellent aim, mun can help you change inclination in only 2 days for a similar cost.

##### Share on other sites

When you want to have the LES on your ship but don't want to use decouplers because you want to dock you can attach a docking port to the top of the Mk 1-2 pod and an upside down docking port connecting to that. Now place the LES on top of the upside down docking port so it looks flush (for aesthetics you can slide it up a bit to hide the docking port sticking out.)

Make an action group for abort that activates the LES and decouples your pod.

Make an action to get rid the LES by setting it to undock and decouple the node and that it activates the LES.

This way the LES will be launched away without effecting the rest of the ship and you will be ready to dock.

Pic:

Edited by ToukieToucan
##### Share on other sites

WARNING: Has a tiny bit of flashing colors

I'm so sorry for the Comic Sans

Edited by Guest
##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

I sometimes rotate RCS thrusters 45 degrees, from + to X, to avoid their thrust hitting things and maximize use of space.  This also lets me stack a linear thruster right beside them, "OX".  This is somewhat less efficient, since you get sin(45) of the thrust, but may actually be stronger since two fire, for 2*sin(45) = 1.4 thrust.

Edited by Corona688
##### Share on other sites

you can attach parts radially using symmetry, remove their parent part, and reattach the parent part, keeping the symmetry of the child. I've found this especially useful for attaching landing legs on some designs.

##### Share on other sites

On 6/13/2016 at 5:34 AM, Evanitis said:

I'm quite proud of my low-tech, low part-count vertically launched spaceplane designs. The idea that improved my efficiency a lot was to place the main booster on top of the rocket, so the payload plane's wings can act as fins on ascent (and it substitutes heatshields and gears on the way down). Of course that setup means I have to face off prograde to stage.. but it costs a lot less dV than I save with this setup. It can also only land on water, but it's still a small price to pay. Even hard careers start easy when you can take 8 tourists to orbit from 30 parts:

With less seats and more fuel it can bring down 6 stranded kerbals from LKO too.

You say main booster, but it looks like the tank is on top while the engine is on the bottom?

##### Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Corona688 said:

I sometimes rotate RCS thrusters 45 degrees, from + to X, to avoid their thrust hitting things and maximize use of space.  This also lets me stack a linear thruster right beside them, "OX".  This is somewhat less efficient, since you get sin(45) of the thrust, but may actually be stronger since two fire, for 2*sin(45) = 1.4 thrust.

Thanks for saving me the hassle to find the mathmatical solution to a question that creeps up for me every two months or so.

##### Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Corona688 said:

This also lets me stack a linear thruster right beside them, "OX".  This is somewhat less efficient, since you get sin(45) of the thrust, but may actually be stronger since two fire, for 2*sin(45) = 1.4 thrust.

The choice of words makes it sound contradictory (sin(45º) thrust vs. 2*sin(45º) thrust), but I understand what you mean.

Just to clarify: you get 2 * sin(45º) ~ 1.4x the thrust of a single thruster, but you spend 2x the fuel, so for each thruster you only get sin(45º) ~ 0.7x the total thrust for that thruster.

If you think, however, on a '+' configuration they also fire in pairs (unless you use the 1-way ports), so you'd be getting 2x thrust by spending 2x fuel. So, but configuring your RCS in 'x', you're trading efficiency for better logistics, but not gaining any thrust in return.

##### Share on other sites

On 18.9.2016 at 0:51 AM, ToukieToucan said:

When you want to have the LES on your ship but don't want to use decouplers because you want to dock you can attach a docking port to the top of the Mk 1-2 pod and an upside down docking port connecting to that. Now place the LES on top of the upside down docking port so it looks flush (for aesthetics you can slide it up a bit to hide the docking port sticking out.)

Make an action group for abort that activates the LES and decouples your pod.

Make an action to get rid the LES by setting it to undock and decouple the node and that it activates the LES.

This way the LES will be launched away without effecting the rest of the ship and you will be ready to dock.

Pic:

Smart, you should not need the top decopler on the LES, only the one on pod.
I often use docking ports as decoplers, very nice for drop tanks as it leaves you with an docking port.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.