Claw

Yeah, this is pretty unusual in stock. Are you using any mods? I don't even know of any off hand that would cause RCS to overheat/explode. Unless by some chance you also accidentally pressed the space bar and separated some equipment.

I believe this is pretty accurate, if you build the rocket efficiently. Alien, it's a bit unclear what your questions are. You're a bit all over the place with what you are asking. Maybe you could split your questions apart, we might have an easier time answering. - If you can manage in stock then you're off to a good start. - FAR primarily effects leaving Kerbin, and after reentry. Your flight to Mun and back should be the same, including setting up a reentry. When you are escaping the Mun/ you can set up your PE (lowest point around Kerbin) down around 30km right away. You don't have to wait till you get back near Kerbin and do more burns to circularize. Just head straight into the atmosphere. - Thar dV map that Tortoise posted is a great start. Just know that those numbers aren't perfect for every flight. Changes in when you leave Kerbin and where the target is can have a big impact. - And no. MJ and FAR do not play well together without some adjustments. You need to do some changes to MechJeb to make it do what you want during launches with FAR. Once out of the atmosphere, it works fine.

I like this idea, modular engine/fuel pods. I could see using the large-medium multi adapters to mount 2, 3, or 4 engines to the sides. Anywhere from 2 to 16 total engines. LeathalDose, I think this has some real potential. If you were to launch two of these things (or more), you could dock the middle ports together into an X type configuration. It would probably end up looking similar to what Pecan posted. (I don't know if that's what you planned.) With this, even if the docking is slightly misaligned in roll, it would still be symmetric. And the engines would be on straight.

It is difficult to get things to line up straight on a docking port. I'm mostly a stock player so I don't have any alignment mods either. I've been experimenting with using mounted rails to help with alignment, although that is on pause at the moment. It's hard to build an alignment system that is tight, but also leaves enough space for coarse alignment during docking. I haven't done much with multi docking, but that might also be a way to ensure good engine alignment.

Congrats on getting to the Mun! This does sound like it's a good opportunity to learn how to get out and push (like others have suggested). Taki said this, but it's important. If you try this, just make absolutely sure you keep track of the EVA fuel. You wouldn't be the first to strand a ketbal without EVA fuel, and that's even more of a pain to rescue. You don't need to apologize for asking questions. Just be nice about it. If others get angry with you it's their problem and it'll get sorted out.

Haha, classic. Keep at it!

Thanks for maintaining this thread Gus. I am horribly bad about updating Wiki pages. However, I do like what you've done with it so far. Is the idea to use the Wiki as a table of contents link back to this thread? Or do you imagine the wiki will eventually house all of this info? By the way, is there some level of contribution required to wear those fancy wings?

It does have fuel, check the highlight engine in the staging stack. The one that's missing from the staging stack is the one the OP says is shutdown. Valid point about the pictures though.

Very strange. I see you are using mods, but is that craft itself stock? And is it consuming fuel at the same rate as the others? (Or at all?) You may also want to ask Jeb about it. He's looking a bit maniacal in that picture.

Might want to be a bit more patient too. It's only been 2 days.

Kind of like we have been saying before. What now if the dV map builds in extra days because it assumes 1 extra orbit. You still have to assume an orbital altitude, so what if it doesn't match my altitude? Then I have to remove someone else's fudge factor to add my own. What if I don't know what the assumed fudge factor is? Perhaps in this instance there could be an extra set of numbers next to a planet/moon. It would include the time to orbit at a given altitude. Now I know what the assumed altitude is and I can decide how many orbits I want to add (my safety margin), instead of someone just burying that information in the base numbers and me digging it out. The other factor with "how long does it take to get to Jool if everything went perfectly" doesn't take into account that I can burn a bit harder to get there faster. Now we get into the other complications we discussed earlier. Am I aerobraking, slingshotting, how much oberth, etc. At some point you need to get out the pencil and start making your own dV budget for your profile. dV charts are just guides to get started. It's hard to plan a dV chart that suits everyone's wishes/desires/assumptions/profiles.

Ohh, I should have also mentioned... If you are having CoM/CoL relationship problems and you are working with small margins, you should be aware that there is a problem with the small gear bay. In the SPH/VAB it has mass. So when you put gear on your craft the CoM will adjust position. However, the gear is actually massless in flight. So it's best to remove your landing gear in the VAB to adjust the CoM/CoL margins. Then put the landing gear back on. Alternatively, you can go into the landing gear's part.cfg and edit it to say "mass = 0". That'll keep the SPH/VAB from lying to you.

Woohoo; hope it is as good as the first!

Hey Biff, welcome back to the (kerbal) future! Hope you enjoy the forums!

Welcome Black Opal! I look forward to seeing your epic space ships.

...is awesome! Welcome to the forums.

Yes, this is mostly what I said. I'm sorry Slashy only grabbed onto the "optimum" comment. My understanding was that a lot of the dV charts do in fact include the "worst case" inclination change. I would NEVER use a chart that included someone else's fudge/safety factors. And I agree (and think I said) it shouldn't include crazy trajectories. Edit: Yeah, this... Edit again... After thing about all this, there really is no reason to disagree on what a dV map should look like. A dV map is built off of the assumptions that YOU want. So if you don't like the assumptions, then change it up how you want! There's ne need for me to convince you of "my way."

If you want to ask about steering problems and wheels, its really best if you can post some pictures. There are a lot of reasons why you might be having problems, and it's easier to give good advice on this particular problem if you have pics. In the SHP, from front and sides, with CoM, CoT, and CoL markers on. (Just make sure the markers don't obscure the wheels.)

Yeah, surface navigation with a system built for orbital navigation kinda doesn't work all that well. I am quite far out of programming practice to try making a plugin for that. Maybe some day it'll get an update...

The map appears inaccurate because Kerbin still rotates under the orbit line, even if you are flying close to the surface. Yes, it drove me insane until I figured that out. If your ship is pointing straight north (nav ball surface mode) then the map appears as if you are going north and just a little east. But by the time you do go north, the planet has rotated. So if you tried to adjust your path slightly west to get the map line on the correct spot, you actually end up off course to the west. Very annoying for long range precision navigation. If you want to be able to place a marker anywhere on the planet, MechJeb lets you do that. In stock, the only way is what Kasuha suggested, plant a flag or land a ship where you want to go, then navigate. Realize that with either of these, they will be below the horizon and navigation to them is not always perfect because Kerbin is a sphere, and the navball was designed with spacecraft in mind, not low altitude airplanes.

It's like you said, they appear to rotate in relation to the horizon. If you orient north/south with an equitorial orbit, the station appears to roll instead of pitching/yawing. The assumption here is that most stations are symmetric around the roll axis. So if you approach it from an equitorial orbit, it will always appear as if you are approaching from the side of the station no matter where in the orbit you meet up. As opposed to if it's oriented east/west, it may "appear" as if you are approaching from the top, or bottom, or one of the sides depending on where in the orbit your ship meets the target station/craft. This doesn't really solve the "how to dock really big craft" problem though.

True. But I think I would rather have the optimum chart, then build in MY safety factors. I would rather have the optimized numbers so I know the minimum requirements to do a straight transfer. Then I can add a margin that I feel is right for the situation. If I start going over those numbers too much, I know I need to modify my profile. Heck, for probes I don't always build a safety factor at all. Or it'll be a factor based purely on rounding and available fuel tank size without regard to a minimum margin. Kerbaled missions, on the other hand, are another story. Spare dV there for mom and the kids, jettisonable parts, maybe even prepositoned rescue vehicles. If the dV map included someone elses averages, or fudge factors, or hellacious gravity sling shots and deadly aerobrakes, it would be harder to keep track of all of the assumptions built into the map design. To me that's way more confusing for a new player. The dV map should be a quick, simple look to help in planning. So to me the point of the dV map should be the plan for everything going right. Then it's up to me to decide where I want to pad the numbers, and how much risk I'm willing to accept.

While this is a valid way of doing things, a TWR greater than 1 for the rocket stage is absolutely not a requirement. You wouldn't quite need a TWR of 1 even if you want to point straight up because gravity is lower in LKO, but I'm not sure if that's what you meant. Anyway, for most typical space plane designs you want the air breathing stage to do most of the pushing up to orbital speed. Then the rocket engines just do a bit of work finishing the orbit. Assuming you get the speed up where it ought to be with the jets, you won't need rockets with a TWR greater than 1 to finish the orbit.

Those are all great things to do at the beginning. I learned a ton by lurking the forums. That's cool. I chose MJ purely because of looks and the way the windows are organized. It wasn't until later that I figured out it has an autopilot. I agree with you on the pilotage thing. I do let MJ launch from time to time (about the only thing I trust it to do), but I've only let it land once just to see. Oh, and I let it try to dock once and watched in horror as my space station lab module crash through the power section. Never again, haha. Use what works for you, and don't listen to other people's baggage. It's YOUR game!

Hmm, well I don't have the answer to your question, but I would also offer that the slow down you are experiencing is probably not due to the file writing. KSP is very CPU intensive and tends to slow down as ships grow in size. Also, the amount of memory KSP is using vs what is available can slow things down quite a lot.