Claw

Yeah, sorry. I wasn't trying to single you out. Sometimes people feel forced into using mods, so I was just meaning to leave it a matter of choice. I haven't personally used FAR so I have no opinion one way or the other about it. So that being said, I don't know how that ram intake stick reacts under FAR. I would like to think it's a reasonable way of doing things, but I don't know how the drag would work out. Nor do I know if intakes stacked like that work in FAR or if they block each other out. Someday I will download it, but my attempts to use mods has generally resulted in an increased amount of crashes. So I mostly use stock now. (I hope the inlet stack serves you well. )

Wow. That thing has almost double the number of parts my computer can handle. I admire your ability to build something so massive that can make it to orbit. You ought to lurk less on this forum and watch for people who want to build massive rockets. There are often posts from people who's large scale rockets experience unintentional spontaneous disassemble. I'm certain you could help with that. Good luck!!

Depends on which part of the flight you are talking about. If you are saying that MJ is plotting the first burn out of low Kerbin orbit, it might be that you are already close to the optimum transfer point. If you are too close, MJ sometimes jumps to the next opportunity, which may be a whole orbit away. Sometimes when this happens I just build the node myself and fly it (or click execute on MJ). If you're unfamiliar with building your own rendezvous, I would recommend messing around with it some to get some experience. I'm not saying "dump MJ." But I find that MJ doesn't always give me what I want. If you have the knowledge, you can strongarm MJ into submission. In any case, you can pass the time in two ways. You can forcebly time warp while MJ is flying, then drop out of warp for it to execute (leave some time for it to adjust). Or you can click on MJ's "auto warp" radio button. When active, it will manage all warping activities so you don't have to walk off and do something else.

FAR certainly changes the aerodynamics of KSP. I would also argue that once you learn how to work within stock KSP it acts just fine. It certainly lets you get away with more than you would be able to with FAR which is why you can end up with some pretty crazy designs. If you want to use FAR, then great. If not, don't feel forced to.

You're welcome. Hopefully it helps you out. Here's one idea for getting more intakes without it being an eyesore. You use cubic struts turned on their side. Then you can attach intakes to the cubic struts. In the example below, I attached the struts to an I-Beam in order to make moving them around easier. Some people think cubic struts are "cheating" so you can also use dual, tri, and quad adapters on the front end of fuselage sections.

As suggested, if you have questions about a specific mod they often get answered faster on that mod's thread. (But people will still try to help you here.) I would also recommend including a picture of your craft if you can. That generally makes it a whole lot easier for us to help you out. Press F1 in-game to take a screen shot. It will be in your KSP/screenshot directory. Upload that to any file sharing site such as imgur or photobucket and then you can post them in the forum.

A picture of your rocket and a list of any mods would make it a lot easier for us to help you out.

You can't turn a sub-assembly into a single part with stock KSP. This mod will "weld" parts together into a single part. It has some limitations, but it can reduce part counts.

You will probably get a lot of recommendations on what to put, but I'll throw out something else to consider as you build. You will likely run into problems with your station tearing itself apart if your station grows large enough. You can search around for threads about this, but it mostly has to do with SAS fighting itself and where you place reaction wheels. Here is one example thread. I bring it up because it seems people who are into building space stations eventually hit this point and it becomes pretty catastrophic. I'm certainly not saying don't build stations. Just be aware that reaction wheels (among other things) can be fatal to stations and need some consideration.

How large are you talking. There's a pretty big spectrum between 3x FL-T800s and a 400t behemoth. Quite often, if you're having problems getting into a descent orbit with a small plane it might be due to how you're flying it. Also, you're probably going to get a lot of negative reviews about rapier engines. They have a place in designs, but most people dislike them. I would say three RAPIERs on a plane that (sounds) that small was probably excessive. So I might venture a guess that you used up a lot of liquid fuel flying just getting to altitude and might have been speeding a bit. There are a ton of threads up here about rules of thumb for wings/engines/etc. Also, you can probably browse around the spacecraft exchange for some ideas. Anyway, some basic guidelines... 1x TurboJet per 12-15 tons Around 0.5 to 0.75 points of lift rating per ton (but no more than 1.0 lift rating per ton), basically more wings if you're flying lower TWR About 1x MK-1 fuselage worth of liquid fuel per TurboJet 3-10 ram intakes per TurboJet, depending on how "air hoggy" you want to be. Plus however much liquid fuel/oxidizer & rocket engines to accomplish your space goals. Most space planes that fit into this spectrum do a descent job of getting into orbit if you fly near terminal velocity during your climb. Around 25km you'll want to be level-ish and really want to ramp up your speed since that's where TurboJets and air breathing RAPIERs give the most thrust. These are really basic rules of thumb to start off with. Small space planes (10-20t range) typically require very little delta V to get to a descent orbit. Larger space planes will typically require a bit more, mostly because you'll run into asymmetric thrust problems with the engines.

KSP isn't modeling detailed physics when warping or for ships on rails. My understanding is that ships on rails are simply point masses gliding along their trajectories. For example, you can have a ship that dips down to 40km in Kerbin's atmosphere and back up. If it isn't in physics range (on rails), the ship will not aerobrake. BTW, I tried running a probe on batteries only that I happen to have recently launched. It had solar panels but they were stowed (and had never been unstowed). I only warped about a week (it should have been dead), but when not in focus, it did not experience drain. I'm not sure if having stowed panels mattered. (Maybe I'll try without panels later unless someone already knows...)

I'm not saying I don't believe this, but I will say that I have encountered this problem before. I will also say that I've had many rockets that order didn't affect. And I'v had it with more than just sepratrons (like chutes or engines). When I did have this problem, I was able to fix it by changing the order inside the stage. Perhaps it isn't that the order matters, but there is some other bug. And maybe changing the order OR restarting fixes it?

Ahh, the other thing I forgot to mention (I've mostly noticed this on launch clamps). Sometimes holding down the space bar when you stage helps, instead of just tapping it. Occasionally I get a sticky launch clamp that doesn't want to let go if I don't hold the space bar. Not sure what the cause of that is.

Stock craft are in a directory off of the KSP directory. Not in your saves/.../VAB directory.I don't recall the name of the directory (I'm not at my KSP machine), but I think it is at KSP/ships/VAB. Again, NOT in the save game directories. Those are your creations. EDIT: Also, deleting the stock .craft from the KSP directory removes them from the VAB/SPH for all games.

Look for ways to really trim weight on your rescue vehicle. Like ditching the legs and ladders. Ditch RCS too if you are comfortable enough with rendezvous to get close. It would also be less mass to use a second Mk-1 pod than the three man capsule.

I have had similar problems with other staging events and separating a payload from a carrier.. Sometimes rearrainging the order of separatrons/decouplers inside the staging block helps. i.e. Put the separatons above the decouplers, but still in stage 9. If that makes sense. I'm not sure if the game executes the staging block from the top down or what. Sometimes I see this, and sometimes I don't. Edit: That's a nice looking rocket.

Yep, I agree. Yes, at least in my experience.

I'm not sure if you have a question in there, but I like the philosophy. It seems reasonable to be able to "shutdown" a probe and set it for wakeup XXX days later. Although that may complicate the game for little gain in play value since craft fly around on rails when not in focus anyway. Being able to manually shut them down and turn back on seems fine to me at this point since you can't program anything into the craft (in stock KSP anyway).

Yes Okay, so you sent out your goo experiment probe A, performed it, and transmit the results. To keep it simple, you cannot come back with kerbals later to probe A to collect a sample from the goo module that transmitted (the module is spent). I actually don't know if you can clean it because I haven't done it that way (I think you can?). Regardless, you CAN come back later with goo experiment probe B, perform it, and return to Kerbin. OR you can come back later with a manned goo experiment mission C, perform it, and collect by doing one of: via EVA and take to Kerbin, return the goo module to Kerbin, or process in lab. Doing probe A does not stop you from collecting the rest of the science with probe B or mission C Yes, this is when transmitting is handy. What you said above will work. Maybe the confusion here is that you don't need to go collect your first probe to "pick up that percentage of science you missed out on." Maybe I'll try saying it this way. I have not yet found a way in KSP to perform an experiment that ever prevents you from doing that same experiment again. Sure, you might need another module (for goo and jr), but you can perform an unlimited number of goo missions (or any experiment) and transmit/recover however you wish. You do not have to go back to the first goo module and "collect" it, and if you do it will be "empty" of science anyway. But you can send a second goo, perform, and recover to get the rest of the science. Transmitting can only get a certain amount of the science available. It does NOT mean the rest of the science points are forever lost. If you are concerned about "losing" science, perhaps just try it in game. Make a copy of your save game first if you want. Then try out the combo transmit/recovery scenario you are concerned about. EDIT: Or maybe I'm over complicating this. If you transmitted a probe's goo/sci jr data, you cannot come back later via EVA to collect from that same goo/sci jr module. You would have to clean it or bring another. You could perform the other experiment types with a probe and transmit, then come back manned later, have the probe do the experiments again, and collect via EVA because they aren't spent. That might be more complex than bringing new modules (because they are so small), but you can do it.

Returning science and being able to transmit are separate events. When you transmit it does not render that science module unusable, with the exception of Mystery Goo and Science Jr. You can use any of the other experiments repeatedly even under the same conditions and transmit. Nothing stops you, although you will be capped on the percentage of the total science that you can collect for the given biome/altitude. However, you can still use that module on other biomes/altitudes and gain science up the the transmission cap.

Actually, yes you can AND you can do it with the same ship if you desire. Even if you are recovering an experiment, you can run the experiment and transmit, then run it again and recover. You will have a small net gain than recovery alone. The only exceptions are the Mystery Goo and the Science Junior. Once you transmit or collect samples (via EVA), those modules are unusable unless cleaned by a lab. Regardless of how you do it, transmitting science does not prevent you from collecting the leftovers. It does "empty" the data from that experiment. What Kasuha is saying is that if you run the experiment and transmit, you have to run it again before recovery or it will be blank. In that case, you would still get the transmit science, but nothing during recovery. . . Whenever you transmit OR collect samples (via EVA), the experiment module itself becomes blank. (Kasuha was also responding specifically about goo and sci jr, which must be cleaned to be used again.) If you transmit, you are rewarded the science immediately. If you collect samples or return the whole module, you are rewarded with science when the mission is recovered on Kerbin.

No, it does not rob you of being able to get all the points. Using your example of a given experiment worth 30 points. If you do that experiment and transmit the science, you would get the 10 points. Going back later and doing the experiment again, then returning it, you would have a total gain of science over 25, but not quite 30. So it would be a gain of something like your 18, and yes, you could still eventually get 30 points total. This is true if you also mean to say that you return the science during later missions. If you go back on a subsequent mission and still only transmit, the science gain will be very low (if not zero). Personally, I don't think transmitting is a waste of time or screws you in the long run. I won't really post all my rationale because I don't want to start a debate. If it gets you your goal, then great. If it doesn't, then skip it. There is no requirement to go back to a biome and do that experiment again just to get the science. Go back if you want, don't if you don't care. But I would also say not to instantly dismiss transmitting science just because it "seems wasteful."

I missed this thread last night. When you say "go big," how heavy are you talking about? If you're looking for space planes the size of what is in your pictures, they look reasonable from a design standpoint. It leads me to think your flight profile might need some help. Can you talk us through how you're flying it up to 38km? I'll try and recreate some of your ships later (or if you want to provide a .craft for us) and try to get a sense of what you're flying. They look like they have plenty of thrust (maybe too much) and enough wing area though.

I've done similar with feeding fuel upward, but I also found it to be a bit more efficient to dump engines along the way. Here is one I did for a challenge using radial engines. I had a taller design that was similar, but I don't have pictures. Basicall what I did was put late stage engines up high and early stage engines down low. They all fire together, but they are misaligned from each other to not interfere with the thrust exhaust. I do like this idea, I should try it more. The one below is only two stage. All the fuel feeds to the second stage and all engines burn at launch. Nine engines to start, with the first stage dropping five of them.

Starstrider is correct. For any experiment (ignoring goo and materials), you can record and transmit as many times under the same setting (biome + altitude) as you want regardless of a lab. You will eventually hit the science transmission cap, but even after that you can record and transmit (for no gain). I would argue that yes, even while you don't maximize the science for a given experiment under a setting, "wasteful" is all in how you want to play. I did the gravity experiment over all of Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus at high and low orbit, and then went into solar orbit, transmitting the science all the way. The whole craft at launch was around 9.5t and I received something around 1300 science. To return all that I would have needed a larger craft and something like 80 graviolis. Now I've unlocked a larger portion of the tech tree and can make more use of the next manned mission while not waiting for that science to filter in over the next however many missions. And nobody said you HAVE to go back. Different play styles, that's all I'm saying. It's not a waste if you enjoy it and it meets your goals.