Wondering Out Loud: Seven questions

[Bakkerbaard]

Hey, so. I'm wondering about a few things and I figured it best to just stick the questions in one topic. Keep the place tidy.

Before I start wondering out loud, it might be handy to let you know I'm on PS4, so I don't have access to any of them fancy mod contrapshuns all you PC kids use these days. And I'm grossly noob here. Like, at the "don't name the dogs we send into space because they're not coming back anyway"-stage, so I'll need to be spoken to like a six year old. Possibly one that colors outside the lines.

1. I play in sandbox-mode, because I like to screw around and, honestly, career-mode would be commercial suicide. I do send probes equipped with an M700 ahead to scan oribital bodies I'd like to visit, but right now that's just because it seems like the spacey thing to do. I know how to work the scanner, with the polar oribit and everything and I get the fancy overlay, but do I get anything more usefull than a festive looking galaxy out of it, as a sandbox player?

2. Is there a catch-all set of rules-of-thumb to get any rocket into orbit? Something working around all the maths, like: Point rocket up, reach set altitude, point rocket east, pray to a Kerbal-deity. The trainings do a pretty good job of getting me up there, but are kinda light on how I got up there. Right now, I'm just burning op too much dV (why not fuel? DeltaV is fuel right?) getting into acceptable orbit, which leaves me with too little to get where I'm going. I seem to recall reading somewhere: Get Surface up to 100m/s, get altitude up to 1000m and tip easward at a 45 degree looking angle, have HDG read 90. Practical results indicate this is wrong.

3. At what altitude do I need to start looking at vac-thrust instead of atmo-thrust? 70,000?

4. As far I can grasp, most rockets have about three stages. I usually end up with nine. At least, nine points of action in the stack-list (on the right when building): 0 - Parachutes, 1 - Engines on upper stage, 2 - Decoupler, 3 - Engines on middle stage, 4 - Decoupler, 5 - Engines on lower stage, 6 - maybe decoupler for SRBs, 7 - maybe SRBs. To a space-noob this would seem like seven stages.

5. Here's my theory on building a rocket: Stuff up top that you wanna get somewhere and minimal fuel to do minor corrections / Fuel and engine to travel from Kerbin to where ever and establish orbit there / Fuel and engine to establish orbit around Kerbin / Fuel and big-ass engine to off the ground. Is that theory sound?

6. Why is my stand-up guy-rocket (really? Censor went from my word to "stand-up guy"? Well, my word wasn't better) flipping over? Going up it's okay, then when I ever so gently nudge it eastward to HDG 90 it's like an invisible space hand slaps the head of the rocket (you know, actual science!) and goes: "No! Thou shalt not go to space! Play GTA instead!" I've got wings slapped on the rocket, recently I've also started using wings with control surfaces, I try to keep my rockets as short as possible, most of the time to no avail. And whenever I do get one going, I can't figure out why that one worked. I take it and I enjoy it.

7. Where does the data of gravity and atmosphere of a planet or planetoid go and when does it come in play? So far I've only been able to succesfully scan Mün and Minmus, but those don't have an atmosphere, as far as I know. I suspect some of the others do and I would like to know about it before I tell Jeb to take off his helmet. Or, for the near future: Minmus. How's the gravity there? How do I find out? I'd like to land something there instead of burying it.

So, yeah. I'm probably wondering about more things, but I can't think of them now. Thanks for your time!

Edited April 23, 2018 by Bakkerbaard

[TheKSPBeginner]

1. It's only really useful for mining.

2. Launch, turn at 100 m/s, reach desired apoapsis, burn right at apoapsis, done.

3.  That's correct.

4. That's fine.

5. Almost. ALMOST.

6. Put fins on the bottom.

7. That's for career mode.

[Dfthu]

1. The brighter colors show a higher concentration of Ore for mining, aka faster mining

2. I always use this as a benchmark, at 10,000M you should be going 400M/s and at 45 Degree pitch down. You really don't have to worry about drag losses

3. I think somewhere around 35,000-40,000M

4. I always put the decouples and next stages engines in the same stage, ie. when it decouples the next engine fires.

5. Yea thats it

6. A picture would help. My guess is that the center of lift is above the Center of mass, Or the rocket is too long and bending.

7. Well kerbals cant take off their helmets. But you can use the wiki to find what the planet is like, Minmus gravity is 0.05Gs.  https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Minmus 

[GluttonyReaper]

18 minutes ago, Bakkerbaard said:

I know how to work the scanner, with the polar oribit and everything and I get the fancy overlay, but do I get anything more usefull than a festive looking galaxy out of it, as a sandbox player?

The scanner's only purpose is to show you ore concentrations on a planet's surface - so unless you're using ISRU, it doesn't really tell you anything useful.

18 minutes ago, Bakkerbaard said:

2. Is there a catch-all set of rules-of-thumb to get any rocket into orbit?

The key is to having a smooth turn-over - for me, I start my turnover at 100m/s, then gradually turn, with the aim of hitting about 35-45 degrees at 10000m. After that, just keep flattening out slowly, just keeping an eye on heating.

22 minutes ago, Bakkerbaard said:

3. At what altitude do I need to start looking at vac-thrust instead of atmo-thrust?

I'm sure someone else will have more exact numbers, but I find vacuum engines are already pretty good at 10000m. Atmo-engines really are just for the first stage.

24 minutes ago, Bakkerbaard said:

As far I can grasp, most rockets have about three stages. I usually end up with nine.

That's fine  This is just because you've got decouplers and engines on separate stages - it's conventional to have both at the same time, but it doesn't really matter too much. Also, most people aren't referring to the literal in-game 'stages' when talking stages, it's usually just a way of differentiating different parts of the rocket.

28 minutes ago, Bakkerbaard said:

5. Here's my theory on building a rocket: Stuff up top that you wanna get somewhere and minimal fuel to do minor corrections / Fuel and engine to travel from Kerbin to where ever and establish orbit there / Fuel and engine to establish orbit around Kerbin / Fuel and big-ass engine to off the ground. Is that theory sound?

Pretty much spot-on  You can use engines from one part to help with another (e.g. I usually finish the fuel from my orbit stage to assist the travelling stage), but that's the general idea.

29 minutes ago, Bakkerbaard said:

I try to keep my rockets as short as possible, most of the time to no avail.

Pictures would help, but this probably a big issue. You actually don't want short rockets - you want tall rockets, with lots of weight up top, and all the draggy fins and control surfaces down low.

31 minutes ago, Bakkerbaard said:

7. Where does the data of gravity and atmosphere of a planet or planetoid go and when does it come in play?

Not sure how exactly this works on console, but if focus on a planet in the map view, there should be an 'info' tab on the right side of the screen you can open up. It should give some basic info at least  

[bewing]

1. You use the readout to find ore. You mine and convert the ore to make fuel. So it's a way of refueling your ships so you don't have to lift a full load of fuel all off Kerbin on monster ships for each launch. -- Which depends on just how much roleplaying you are doing. If you want to launch monster ships thats fine.

2. The technique you are talking about is called a "gravity turn". If you search for that term, you will find hundreds and hundreds of threads talking about tips and hints. It doesn't work for all craft -- it depends on how aerodynamic they are. The way you want it to work is that you give your rocket a gentle nudge east, and then it keeps turning east all by itself until you get to orbit.

3. You're basically in a vacuum at 25km. And it's a smooth transition from ASL to vac over that whole distance of course.

4. As said above, it's more fun to put the next engines and decouplers together so there is no time delay. Which knocks 2 stages out of your stack.

5. Basically sound, but very traditional and stuffy.

6. Aerodynamic drag and instability. Too much drag in the front. Not enough mass in the front. Too little drag at the back. Too much mass at the back. There's a FAQ about "Wny is my flipping rocket flipping?" Getting the drag and stability right is an eternal subject around here.

7. In sandbox mode, the scientific instruments are just for play. You don't really want to wait until you are at your destination before you know about its gravity and atmosphere. So honestly the wiki is the best place to go.

 

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by bewing

[Laie]

54 minutes ago, Bakkerbaard said:

(why not fuel? DeltaV is fuel right?)

This alone probably warrants an essay... in rocketry, fuel is not only something you burn for energy, but also matter you expel out back in order to drive you forward. Rocketry geeks like to insist that the right term is "propellant" rather than "fuel".

How much of a push you get from a given amount of propellant depends on how heavy you are. The first drop expelled from a fully fueled rocket has much less of an effect than the last drop from the now empty rocket. The relationship is non-linear and... well, I don't want to write an essay right now. There's enough of them around already.

But from the kind of questions you ask, I'm pretty certain that you want to read up on the subject.

[Snark]

3 hours ago, Bakkerbaard said:

1. I play in sandbox-mode, because I like to screw around and, honestly, career-mode would be commercial suicide. I do send probes equipped with an M700 ahead to scan oribital bodies I'd like to visit, but right now that's just because it seems like the spacey thing to do. I know how to work the scanner, with the polar oribit and everything and I get the fancy overlay, but do I get anything more usefull than a festive looking galaxy out of it, as a sandbox player?

You get to see where the ore is, which in turn is useful for mining.  Mining's useful in any game mode, not just in career.

3 hours ago, Bakkerbaard said:

2. Is there a catch-all set of rules-of-thumb to get any rocket into orbit?

Different folks will have different answers.  Mine is:

1. Do a slight eastward turn immediately off the launchpad, then set SAS to hold
2. Note how fast you're going by the time you reach 45 degrees tilt.  If you're going slower than about 350 m/s... you turned too hard in step 1, go back and try again.  If you pass 500 m/s and still haven't gotten to 45 degrees, you didn't turn hard enough in step 1.  Go back and try again.
3. Stay throttled at 100%, staging as needed, until your Ap gets where you want it.
4. Cut throttle.
5. Coast to Ap.
6. Burn to circularize.
7. Slice when cool.  Serves 4. (sorry, couldn't resist)

The amount of turn you need in step 1 will depend on the TWR of your rocket.  The higher the TWR, the more of a turn you'll need.

3 hours ago, Bakkerbaard said:

3. At what altitude do I need to start looking at vac-thrust instead of atmo-thrust? 70,000?

There's no single cut-off point, it's a gradual curve.  I tend to use 10 km.  Yes, that's right, 10, I didn't accidentally leave out a zero.  At 10 km you're already nearly 90% of the way to a vacuum, meaning that so-called "vacuum" engines such as the Poodle and Terrier work great.  By the time you're at 20km, atmospheric pressure is barely 1% of sea level.

3 hours ago, Bakkerbaard said:

4. As far I can grasp, most rockets have about three stages. I usually end up with nine. At least, nine points of action in the stack-list (on the right when building): 0 - Parachutes, 1 - Engines on upper stage, 2 - Decoupler, 3 - Engines on middle stage, 4 - Decoupler, 5 - Engines on lower stage, 6 - maybe decoupler for SRBs, 7 - maybe SRBs. To a space-noob this would seem like seven stages.

Depends a lot on rocket design.  Typical LFO stages will be anywhere from 1000 to 3000 m/s of dV each (higher stages tend to be higher dV, due to more efficient Isp and lower engine mass).  Just getting to LKO is usually 2-3 stages, with additional stages added on if you need to go further (e.g. Mun landings and such).

As folks have suggested, you can shorten the action list by moving "decouple last stage" and "activate next stage's engines" together in a single stage.

Note that all of this is highly dependent on rocket design.  For example, asparagus setups commonly have lots of stages on the way to orbit, because of how they're put together.

3 hours ago, Bakkerbaard said:

5. Here's my theory on building a rocket: Stuff up top that you wanna get somewhere and minimal fuel to do minor corrections / Fuel and engine to travel from Kerbin to where ever and establish orbit there / Fuel and engine to establish orbit around Kerbin / Fuel and big-ass engine to off the ground. Is that theory sound?

Yep, pretty much. 

3 hours ago, Bakkerbaard said:

6. Why is my stand-up guy-rocket (really? Censor went from my word to "stand-up guy"? Well, my word wasn't better) flipping over?

Because your CoM is too far in the back.  You need your center of dynamic pressure to be behind your CoM at all times. You can make it better, in general, by doing the following:

• Fins on the back, as far behind the CoM as you can get them
• Reduce drag on the front, e.g. with fairings, nosecones, etc. (note: fairings are badly bugged in 1.4.2, they don't reduce drag the way they're supposed to)
• Make the CoM of your ship as far towards the front as you can (e.g. don't put something huge and light and fluffy on the front).
• If you've got vertically stacked fuel tanks, make sure to set the fuel flow priorities so that they drain from the bottom up.  (The default is for them all to drain in parallel, which is not what you want.)

That's it for general advice, but applying that advice tends to be highly specific on a case-by-case basis depending on the rocket design.  If you have a rocket that keeps flipping, best thing to do is to post a screenshot and then we can give suggestions about how to improve it.

3 hours ago, Bakkerbaard said:

Right now, I'm just burning op too much dV (why not fuel? DeltaV is fuel right?)

No.  Fuel is fuel.  dV is how fast you can go when you burn the fuel, i.e. what the fuel can do.  That depends on a lot of things, including the mass of your rocket.

To take a rough analogy:  How many gallons of gas your car's fuel tank holds is one thing.  How far the car can go on a tank is a very different one.  The latter depends not just on how big the tank is, but also how much of a gas guzzler the car is, what the driving conditions are, what sort of driver you are, etc.

If you have a rocket with a given amount of fuel and an engine with a given Isp, you can calculate dV based on the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation.  (But we already discussed that one in another of your threads.) 

[GarrisonChisholm]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

1. Burn to circularize.
2. Slice when cool.  Serves 4. (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

This is why I still have faith in humanity.

[TheFlyingKerman]

12 hours ago, Bakkerbaard said:

2. Is there a catch-all set of rules-of-thumb to get any rocket into orbit? Something working around all the maths, like: Point rocket up, reach set altitude, point rocket east, pray to a Kerbal-deity. The trainings do a pretty good job of getting me up there, but are kinda light on how I got up there.

This

 

 

[Streetwind]

13 hours ago, Bakkerbaard said:

(why not fuel? DeltaV is fuel right?)

Nope. "Delta" is Greek for "change". The V stands for "velocity". Ergo, dV means "change in velocity".

And while we're at it: "velocity" is a speed with a vector component (a direction). You are talking about speed when all that matters is how fast you're going; you're talking about velocity when it's also important in what direction you're going. This is relevant because you can technically burn a rocket engine while keeping your absolute speed constant. Adjusting your inclination (a "plane change") is such a maneuver: you are in an orbit, and you want to stay in orbit, so you don't want to go any slower or any faster. But you want to tilt the orbit. So you expend fuel to change the direction of your speed only, not the speed itself. This is still considered a "change in velocity".

The main difference between fuel and dV is quite easy to understand. It is the fact that your fuel requirements change with the size of the rocket, but your dV requirements do not.

A practical example: you are in low Kerbin orbit, travelling at a constant 2200 m/s. You want to go to the Mun, which will cost you somewhere between 850 and 880 m/s of additional speed, at the right time, in the right direction. Hence, it costs you that much "change in velocity". You need to accelerate your spacecraft exactly that much, no more, no less. Now consider that your spacecraft might be 10 tons in mass... or it might be 100 tons in mass. Clearly the second spacecraft requires way more fuel to get it moving than the first one does. Even though both of them need the exact same change in velocity, it costs the second one more fuel to create that change.

There are other differences too - for example, different engines burn fuel at different efficiencies, so the same amount of fuel may give you different amounts of dV depending on the engine. But the one above is the main difference, and the most easily understood one.

 

The reason we use this odd metric instead of something more "down to Earth", like a fuel consumption per distance figure as you know from cars (liters per 100 km, or miles per gallon) is that in space, there is no such thing as a constant distance to use as a reference. Everything is always moving in space. It is physically impossible to not be moving. It makes no sense to say "I needed X tons of fuel to go to Duna, which is Y million kilometers away from Kerbin, so my spacecraft's fuel efficiency is Z". Because if you look again the next day, Duna is now a different distance away from Kerbin. it might have come closer, it might have moved away. Trying to measure the distance your spacecraft can cover is completely pointless.

Instead, you have to redefine what it means to "go somewhere". You have to think about it in terms of "being there". What does it mean to "be at Duna" in space? It means you are a.) at the same physical location as Duna is, at the same time that Duna is also at that location (in other words, the same location in space-time), and b.) you are moving at the same speed, in the same direction (in other words, you have the same velocity) as Duna. If you want to be at Duna, you must create these conditions. The first condition requires that you change your current velocity (which you definitely have, because you are in space, and therefore always moving) in such a way that your path of travel brings you to the correct location in space-time. It's a combination of leaving at the correct time (a "transfer window") with the correct amount of acceleration in the correct direction (a "transfer burn" or "trans-Duna injection"). The second condition requires that, once you have encountered Duna in space, you change your velocity to match that of Duna (an "insertion burn").

Voila, you have travelled to Duna. And all that you needed to know about your rocket is whether or not it was capable of performing two specific changes in velocity. Which means, in return: any spacecraft capable of performing those two changes - in other words, any spacecraft with that much available dV - can successfully go to Duna. It does not matter how large it is, and how much fuel it has in board. It does not matter which distance currently separates Duna and Kerbin. This is why we use dV as a measure for how far a spacecraft can go.

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by Streetwind

[Bakkerbaard]

18 hours ago, TheKSPBeginner said:

2. Launch, turn at 100 m/s, reach desired apoapsis, burn right at apoapsis, done.

That's kinda what I've been doing. But most of the time that leaves me with at least a minute and change orbital burn. Judging from the trainings I feel that should be less.

 

18 hours ago, Dfthu said:

6. A picture would help. My guess is that the center of lift is above the Center of mass, Or the rocket is too long and bending.

It's a bit of a hassle to get a screenshot from the PS4 to the forum, but I wasn't talking about a specific rocket anyway. And I learned about asparagus staging yesterday, that helps a whole lot on alot of ends.

 

18 hours ago, GluttonyReaper said:

and all the draggy fins and control surfaces down low.

Drag. Ofcourse. There's no shortage of wings on my rockets, some of these thing I try to send up look like shiruken. I always figured wings cut through the air, which is daft, I'm an archer, I should know this. Thanks.

 

17 hours ago, bewing said:

4. As said above, it's more fun to put the next engines and decouplers together so there is no time delay. Which knocks 2 stages out of your stack.

I don't know why I stopped doing that. Well, I do, I think. I probably kept sticking the wrong ones together and decoupling parts too early. I'm gonna try and start doing that right.

 

17 hours ago, bewing said:

5. Basically sound, but very traditional and stuffy.

Traditional and stuffy if you wanna get to Duna, absurd and maniacal if you wanna get on fire. You get absurd and stuffy because getting on fire is easy. ;o)

 

17 hours ago, Laie said:

But from the kind of questions you ask, I'm pretty certain that you want to read up on the subject.

Actually, I love knowledge. But indeed, sometimes I prefer the quick and dirty answers.

 

15 hours ago, Snark said:

(But we already discussed that one in another of your threads.)

The formulae of which I do try and apply, but it's not quite clicking yet, so usually it's an hour of fiddling and then: "Fork it, I'm lighting up a smoke and just seeing how far this bomb is going." That's actually one of the funniest things in build mode, the advisory thing. Looking at the monstrous volatile liquid packed contraption shaped like a velociraptor with bug eyes and going: "Nothing concerning about this craft. Nothing at all."

 

5 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Nope. "Delta" is Greek for "change". The V stands for "velocity". Ergo, dV means "change in velocity".

Well, snot. I should have known that. I could have known that. Point is, I didn't. Thanks.

[Curveball Anders]

5 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Nope. "Delta" is Greek for "change". The V stands for "velocity". Ergo, dV means "change in velocity".

Well to be a bit obnoxious 'delta' is the fourth letter in the Greek alphabet, often used in math/eng/sci as prefix to many different values to indicate change.

But since it's common not the be able or bother with finding the actual symbol (a little triangle) it's often replaced with 'd'.

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by Curveball Anders

[RizzoTheRat]

53 minutes ago, Bakkerbaard said:

That's kinda what I've been doing. But most of the time that leaves me with at least a minute and change orbital burn. Judging from the trainings I feel that should be less.

That usually means you're not pushing over quite hard enough to start with.  Ideally you want to force the initial turn, usually somewhere around 5-10 degrees depending on TWR and drag, and then leave it to follow prograde the rest of the way up (gravity turn).  If you turn too little you climb steeper, meaning a lower horizontal velocity and longer circularisation burn.  If you turn too far you won't make orbit, but you can get around this by locking the SAS to hold if you get to about 20 degrees or so above the horizon before your apoapsis has reached your target altitude.  With a bit of practice you can hit the sweet spot where you're turning as hard as you can but still just make the altitude while following prograde.

 

Re. rockets flipping, if you go too fast too soon you'll generate lots of drag on the nose than can cause them to flip.  Launching with a TWR of around 1.6-1.7 seems to be a sensible initial level of thrust to not hit excessive thrust in the lower atmosphere.

Edited April 24, 2018 by RizzoTheRat

[GrouchyDevotee]

Playing Kerbal Space Program on a PS4. I've only ever played KSP on a PS4, these forums are full of great information.

The first thing you will need to do, is get used to ignoring references to the MOD's the majority of KSP players have and are use to using. KSP has been around on PC for a very long time. PS4 has all/most of the same controls available, just a bit more skill required to get use to. Ignore them when they say, "just press control-X". Again, there are tons of great suggestions here on the forums.

The second thing you will need to do, is check out You-Tube, and look for a guy called Scott Manley. He explains complex things like rocket building and orbital mechanics quite clearly.

Third thing to do decide on a standard-ish rocket that you've built and can fly, save it, and use it as a template for learning. Make changes to the top section weight-wise and aerodynamic-wise to get some ideas about how to do things.

Forth thing to do, throw all that learning out and start chucking landers at Minmus and the Mun. Eventually you'll get a few of them back. Once you're frustrated with that, start trying to do some docking.

Fifth thing to do add more boosters and struts. The efficient 'gravity turn' is not easy, but once you've started to get comfortable with it, quite useful. Some large payloads might be difficult to launch this way, so just go vertical for awhile and make a turn when you're able.

Cheers!

 

[Zhetaan]

@Bakkerbaard:

1. This has been covered; I don't have any more to add.
2. My usual rule is to begin pitching to the east at 100 m/s or at 1000 m altitude, whichever is first, but to design the rocket in a way that they both happen at about the same time.  I try to be at about 45 degrees at 10 km and just about flat at 30 km, but I generally get smoother turns if I focus on keeping my time-to-apoapsis (it's in map view) at about one minute.  I prefer to adjust that time by pitching rather than throttling, but it can work either way.
   
   2a.  It's not called fuel because fuel is a chemistry term.  The term's technical meaning is used in rocket science, as well, so there is a reason why the preferred term for the 'stuff that makes the rocket go' is propellant.  In short, a fuel is a substance that holds a great deal of bound energy (chemical fuels have chemical energy, nuclear fuels have nuclear energy, and so on) and which releases that energy in a reaction.  For rockets, the release comes when the fuel is combined with an oxidiser (such as oxygen, naturally, but other oxidisers exist), but because the released energy works on everything in the engine to force all of the reaction mass (meaning the products that contain mass from both fuel and oxidiser) out of the nozzle, it is appropriate to call the combined mass of both the fuel and the oxidiser the propellant.  Jets and trains and garden tractors that have airbreathing engines don't need to carry oxidiser, so in common usage, the terms fuel and propellant are treated as interchangeable.
3. Here's the Kerbin atmospheric pressure curve.  Your vacuum engines will have enough effective I_sp to outperform the atmospheric engines at between 10 and 20 km.  Thrust is another matter; you need to either have enough thrust or enough speed that you don't re-enter before you can use that vacuum efficiency to complete your orbital insertion.
4. My rockets usually break into three stages:  the initial or 'kick' stage gets everything out of the thicker lower atmosphere, the middle stage uses an efficient-but-high-thrust engine to push the rocket to orbital velocity where the air is thin, and the final stage is for everything vacuum, including orbital insertion, manoeuvring, and braking for re-entry.  As others have pointed out, you can save on stages by putting decouplers into the same stage as the next stage's engines.  I try to get my ascent stages to burn for about two minutes each (the vacuum stage may need more depending on whether you intend to go anywhere once in space).  Any more results in carrying too much wasted mass in propellant (propellant isn't often wasted mass, but in early stages it absolutely can be), and any less results in too much wasted engine mass (aside from being necessary to move the rocket, the engine is dead weight).
5. Yes, with the caveat that it's the easiest and simplest, but not the best way.  Don't forget that you can use radial decouplers to attach fuel tanks to the sides of the rocket; you are not required to jettison an engine along with the tank.  If you're going to Duna, for example, then it makes a lot of sense to use one engine (or one cluster; maybe you like big rockets) for Kerbin orbit insertion, Kerbin-Duna transfer, Duna orbit insertion, and possibly Duna-Kerbin transfer if it's coming back.  Having fuel tanks that you can jettison when they empty is a great advantage to your manoeuvring budget.
6. This has been covered, so I won't revisit it.
7. If I understand your question correctly, you don't need to use the science instruments to learn the characteristics of a planet or moon as you visit it.  They can be helpful, but (perhaps surprisingly) their primary function is the acquisition of Science points:  the data readouts are secondary to that purpose.  Since you want to know the gravity and atmospheric characteristics of these places before you find out (too late!) that you ought to have brought a bigger engine and a heat shield, you can get some information from the Tracking Station.  Here:

The two buttons halfway down the screen at the right edge (one appears as a lowercase i and the other is a stylised planet with something in orbit) give you the useful information about whichever planet is in focus in the station.

[Capt. Hunt]

5 hours ago, Bakkerbaard said:

That's kinda what I've been doing. But most of the time that leaves me with at least a minute and change orbital burn. Judging from the trainings I feel that should be less.

...

 

I don't know why I stopped doing that. Well, I do, I think. I probably kept sticking the wrong ones together and decoupling parts too early. I'm gonna try and start doing that right.

 

...

 

The formulae of which I do try and apply, but it's not quite clicking yet, so usually it's an hour of fiddling and then: "Fork it, I'm lighting up a smoke and just seeing how far this bomb is going." That's actually one of the funniest things in build mode, the advisory thing. Looking at the monstrous volatile liquid packed contraption shaped like a velociraptor with bug eyes and going: "Nothing concerning about this craft. Nothing at all."

...

The delay between MECO (main engine cut off) and the circularization burn at AP (apoapsis/apokee) does vary depending on the efficiency of your launch, and actually a more efficient launch will generally have a longer delay.  A side bonus is that the longer this delay is, the less thrust you need to circularize, you can make do with a smaller, more fuel efficient sustainer engine on the upper stage.

 

There are two basic ways of serial staging, most real rockets do have a delay between separation and ignition of the next stage for safety, but that usually requires additional retro-rockets to push the spent stage away and ullage rockets to help the next stage start (by forcing fuel into the pumps).  The other serial staging method is called hot staging.  That's when you start the engine before separating the spent stage, it's slightly riskier, since you could blow up the spent stage if you're not careful (most hot-staged rockets have special vents in the interstage to help prevent this), but the design can be simpler, because you don't need the extra rockets.  Fortunately, in game you don't need ullage because the fuel pumps always work regardless of g-forces.  The only real concern is the risk of exploding your spent stage, but with a relatively small sustainer engine that risk is minimal.  So, in short it doesn't really matter which style you use.  Regular serial staging adds a safety margin, but hot staging is faster, simpler and cleans up the staging chart.

 

The KSP devs intentionally decided to omit a Delta-V calculator from the game to encourage players to learn it themselves through trial and error, if you were on the PC version I would suggest mods that can provide that, such as MJ and KER.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Capt. Hunt

[Bakkerbaard]

5 hours ago, GrouchyDevotee said:

The first thing you will need to do, is get used to ignoring references to the MOD's the majority of KSP players have and are use to using. KSP has been around on PC for a very long time. PS4 has all/most of the same controls available, just a bit more skill required to get use to. Ignore them when they say, "just press control-X". Again, there are tons of great suggestions here on the forums.

I thoroughly enjoy disappearing into my couch with a smoke and a bag of M&Ms staring into the glowing abyss of a big screen TV making believe that I'm actually living the awesomeness I'm controlling, so a console is always the better choice for me, but I am thinking about also getting KSP for PC, to get the full experience. Sometime in the future maybe, considering the addictiveness of KSP and the amount of hours I am expected to put in at work.

 

5 hours ago, GrouchyDevotee said:

The second thing you will need to do, is check out You-Tube, and look for a guy called Scott Manley. He explains complex things like rocket building and orbital mechanics quite clearly.

Yup. I saw the man's name pass by before and the seemingly godlike status he hold in these circles. Well deserved, I might add. Viewing his videos is already bearing fruits.

 

3 hours ago, Zhetaan said:

Don't forget that you can use radial decouplers to attach fuel tanks to the sides of the rocket; you are not required to jettison an engine along with the tank.

I'm screwing around with the asparagus system. I'm discovering all these kinds of things that make me wonder why I didn't just think of that myself. One recurring problem I do encounter with radially mounted tanks or SRBs is that they have a tendency to hit the main body and explode me into a comical flurry. Even with the strut mounted decouplers. This problem seems to worsen when already in a gravity turn, but that bit seems logical.

 

3 hours ago, Zhetaan said:

you can get some information from the Tracking Station.

This is one of these things I only found out right after posting the question. Which usually happens. Make an ass of yourself and then find out how not make an ass of yourself.

 

1 hour ago, Capt. Hunt said:

learn it themselves through trial and error,

Lots of trial and error. More than I have ever tolerated in a videogame before. But there's something here that, upon burying a lander deep inside Minmus, doesn't make me say things that will be censored, but: "Well, at least we got there."

Anyway, thanks for all the advice, people. It's mind blowing to find how many gamers are also astrophysicists. ;o)

Edited April 24, 2018 by Bakkerbaard

[RizzoTheRat]

10 minutes ago, Bakkerbaard said:

Anyway, thanks for all the advice, people. It's mind blowing to find how many gamers are also astrophysicists. ;o)

Most weren't when we started playing, the game kind of does that to you

[90VG]

6.  Launch your rocket, and note the speed where it flips.  Try launching your rocket straight up, did it flip?  If it didn't, you are turning too steeply, try very gradual turns so the angle of attack isn't large.  You can also throttle down before the flip and kinda carefully get up higher where the air resistance won't turn you around. 

Typically, in my craft, I notice it likes to flip around mach 1.3.  So I throttle down, lock prograde (no steering through it) and wait till you either get above the altitude where it flips, or above the speed.  Here is an example launch of bad rocket design, safely into orbit.

https://youtu.be/1-bkyk2UC2U 

5 FL800 tanks, 1 Swivel and 4 MK-55's.  It takes about 3300 dv to get that up in orbit, without flipping.  With just 2 FL800s, it takes a bit less, but I wanted the extra height.  No fins either.  Just don't turn too fast when you are still in the thick air.

[Capt. Hunt]

9 hours ago, Bakkerbaard said:

I'm screwing around with the asparagus system. I'm discovering all these kinds of things that make me wonder why I didn't just think of that myself. One recurring problem I do encounter with radially mounted tanks or SRBs is that they have a tendency to hit the main body and explode me into a comical flurry. Even with the strut mounted decouplers. This problem seems to worsen when already in a gravity turn, but that bit seems logical.

Radial tanks can be done, but it's slightly more efficient to have an engine on the back of the tank, otherwise you're just generating extra drag on your stack.  If your boosters are striking the core stage of your rocket on jettison, you need to add something to help push them away.  either sepratrons or fins with a slight camber can do the job.

[Corona688]

On 4/23/2018 at 12:40 PM, Bakkerbaard said:

1. I play in sandbox-mode, because I like to screw around and, honestly, career-mode would be commercial suicide. I do send probes equipped with an M700 ahead to scan oribital bodies I'd like to visit, but right now that's just because it seems like the spacey thing to do. I know how to work the scanner, with the polar oribit and everything and I get the fancy overlay, but do I get anything more useful than a festive looking galaxy out of it, as a sandbox player?

It gives you a map of mining areas, which is useful if you decide to go that route.  Mining means a fair bit more work but also means you can launch smaller things as you can gather fuel while you're there.

Quote

2. Is there a catch-all set of rules-of-thumb to get any rocket into orbit?  Something working around all the maths, like: Point rocket up, reach set altitude, point rocket east, pray to a Kerbal-deity. The trainings do a pretty good job of getting me up there, but are kinda light on how I got up there. Right now, I'm just burning op too much dV (why not fuel? DeltaV is fuel right?) getting into acceptable orbit, which leaves me with too little to get where I'm going. I seem to recall reading somewhere: Get Surface up to 100m/s, get altitude up to 1000m and tip easward at a 45 degree looking angle, have HDG read 90. Practical results indicate this is wrong.

1km is far too early for your gravity turn, even with the new atmospheric model.  I heel over at 20km, which I'm told is a bit old-fashioned, but works quite well for me.

Quote

3. At what altitude do I need to start looking at vac-thrust instead of atmo-thrust? 70,000?

More like 30-50km.

Quote

4. As far I can grasp, most rockets have about three stages. I usually end up with nine.

It really doesn't matter.  Some of us shove decouplers and the next engines into the same stage, for simplicity, and also for festive and mostly-harmless explosions.

Quote

5. Here's my theory on building a rocket: Stuff up top that you wanna get somewhere and minimal fuel to do minor corrections / Fuel and engine to travel from Kerbin to where ever and establish orbit there / Fuel and engine to establish orbit around Kerbin / Fuel and big-ass engine to off the ground. Is that theory sound?

Most of your fuel tanks and engines will become dead weight inside the first minute of launch.  They'll also be the wrong engines and far too big - high-thrust low-efficiency.  Get rid of them as soon as you can.  My strategy:

1. Liftoff.  You need about 2 gees for about 1:10, during which you'll do your gravity turn.  So use big vector engines like mainsails, maybe some kickbacks, and enough fuel for just that.  Then discard the whole thing.
2. Sustain.  This should use efficient engines like LV909's, poodles, and/or thuds.  It should generate somewhere in the neighborhood of a gee of thrust for three minutes.  This will be enough to reach orbit or a hair less.  Eject.
3. Space Stuff.  Your capsule, your electronics, little manuevering engines, and everything else.

Quote

6. Why is my stand-up guy-rocket (really? Censor went from my word to "stand-up guy"? Well, my word wasn't better) flipping over?

No clue.  Without a picture its pretty hard to tell.  Guessing you have some rough stuff near the top causing drag, but that's only a wild guess.

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Corona688

[Corona688]

20 hours ago, Bakkerbaard said:

I'm screwing around with the asparagus system. I'm discovering all these kinds of things that make me wonder why I didn't just think of that myself. One recurring problem I do encounter with radially mounted tanks or SRBs is that they have a tendency to hit the main body and explode me into a comical flurry. Even with the strut mounted decouplers. This problem seems to worsen when already in a gravity turn, but that bit seems logical.

Either lash on your solids with a strut at the top, or enable autostrutting in the right click menu.  And make sure the decoupler grabs them in the middle, so they're shoved straight away | not pushed on-end / .  You can also use seprotrons to get them away from the main rocket more quickly.  And always point prograde when discarding empty-solids!

I like to fire as many stages simultaneously as I can.  Crossfeed is enabled in decouplers and fuel priority is set so all fuel comes from bottom-most stages until depleted.  This reduces the amount of dead weight you carry in the form of noncontributing engines and empty fuel tanks.  They call this kind of asparagus twisted-candle, because it actually looks like asparagus.

Tricky part is, engines won't die when they should, you have to watch tank levels.  I wish they'd let you set a minimum fuel priority for engines.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Corona688

[Bakkerbaard]

On 4/25/2018 at 3:29 AM, 90VG said:

https://youtu.be/1-bkyk2UC2U 

Is this rocket called "The Compensator", by any chance? ;o)

 

19 hours ago, Capt. Hunt said:

Radial tanks can be done, but it's slightly more efficient to have an engine on the back of the tank

Maybe I've been using the wrong term for it, but I thought that was what I was doing. Core body, decouplers around the sides of it, tank on decouplers, engines on the ass-end, light candles, run for cover. So, juiceboxes mounted around the side of the core is "radial", yes? Or did you mean just one big engine on the end of the core? Anyway, I'm building something right now, I'll slap some fins on it. If all else fails it'll at least look like I'm being attacked by metal sharks. Which, incidentally, is also the title of my lawyer-themed rock-opera.

 

9 hours ago, Corona688 said:

Some of us shove decouplers and the next engines into the same stage, for simplicity, and also for festive and mostly-harmless explosions.

Tried that. But you might imagine the hilarity that ensued after having grown accustomed to click-click for decouple and fire next. It took me about a second and a half to send my rocket back to Kerbin in four seperate stages. Worst thing of it is that the plummet back down gives you so much time to wonder why you didn't stop pressing X.

[Capt. Hunt]

Yeah, if you've got a tank with an engine attached to it that is bolted on the side of the rocket, that's a booster, IIRC, someone earlier was suggesting just using tanks by themselves.  Anything attached to the side of your rocket is attached radially.

[Snark]

On 4/24/2018 at 1:25 PM, Bakkerbaard said:

One recurring problem I do encounter with radially mounted tanks or SRBs is that they have a tendency to hit the main body and explode me into a comical flurry.

A couple of things to help you with that.

First, mount the radial boosters as low as you possibly can.  That is, put the radial decouplers as low as you can on the central core, and then mount the boosters as low as you can on the decouplers.  Rationale:  If the radial boosters have any tendency to move inward after ejecting them, then you're basically in a "race":  can the central stack move out in front of them before they move inward and thump it?  If you mount them as low down as you can, then the central core doesn't have to travel as far to get out in front of them, which gives it a better chance of winning the race.

Second, mount the boosters as low on the decoupler as possible (or, put another way, make sure the decoupler is as high up on the booster as you can make it).  Yes, this is the same thing I just told you to do above, but this is another good reason for it.    Rationale:  The decoupler has a small amount of "ejection force" that pushes the booster outward from the rocket.  If you make sure that the decoupler is mounted high up on the booster, then that kicks the nose of the booster outward, and once you do that, aero forces will naturally force it even farther away and you're safe.  Whereas if you had your decouplers mounted below the CoM of the booster, then that would kick the tail end out, which would cause them to nose-inward, which means aero forces would then force them inwards towards the central stack.

There are other things you can do, too, but in my experience the above two things are all I ever need pretty much all the time.  I only need extra measures in rare cases where I have a rocket of unusual design (e.g. exceptionally big and/or tall radial boosters).  These can include using sepratrons, or mounting some outward-angled fins on the upper part of the boosters that cause the nose to pull outwards upon release.

21 hours ago, Capt. Hunt said:

Radial tanks can be done, but it's slightly more efficient to have an engine on the back of the tank, otherwise you're just generating extra drag on your stack.

Well, yes... except that then you can't asparagus them.  It's a useful technique.  Like everything, it can be done better or worse, and how suitable it is for a given rocket depends on the design.