Claw

In that case, I feel obliged to also tell you that if you press space bar (after pressing 'R'), your kerbal will align with your camera angle (with his back to you). Can be handy when you're having problems facing a ladder or other item.

Also, before you do your EVA you can press F5 to quicksave. That way if you have a problem, you can press (and hold) F9 to quick load. (Helps a lot as you're getting experienced) At least that way you won't have to redo the whole flight. Keep in mind that if you use quickload, you will be unable to revert the flight back to launch or VAB.

I did, several times. While I understood the math you were doing, I wasn't catching onto what you were really trying to do. I was thrown off because you can attach FL-T100s radially and I wasn't understanding why all the decouplers were needed if you were just trying to create mount points. And I'm not saying don't do it your way, I was just trying to understand what efficiency you were aiming for. It's also very atypical for me to attach engines using cubic struts. In fact, I can only think of one real design where I used them to mount an engine for something other than testing purposes. (It was to get a radial engine away from the core so it wouldn't burn a kerbal in a chair...) EDIT: For example, one of the things throwing me off is why are you using mono tanks on the radial portions? Does that just happen to be where you're storing the monopro?

Yes, they are flailing because of the single connection point (as others have pointed out). It will be worse when you try to maneuver, especially in roll, and especially when the SAS gets involved (especially with all those fins). Lots of especiallys in there... Struts are the way to go, but you haven't unlocked them yet so I'll get to how to try and get around it. Radial decouplers can be a bit more solid than attaching directly to the mainbody, but in this case you'll still have the same problem. Regardless of if you use a radial decoupler or not, the radial booster will only attach at one point. This is the core of the problem. Thanks for the pictures. Here's what I would recommend. I don't think it's too early to shoot for the Mun, but it might take some tinkering. If it's not working, consider trimming your payload if you need to. For my recommendations, consider the central fuel stack as the core and the radially attached pieces as the boosters (for simplicity in typing). 1) Split your side boosters between your bottom stage and the next stage up (at your bottom most line). What I mean by that is don't connect your bottom most boosters to decouplers on the boosters up. Leave the core piece connected and disconnect the lower booster portion from the upper. Slide those boosters down and radially attach them to the bottom core section. This should create a separate bottom stack that is connected by only one coupler on the core. 2) Use your active fins more sparingly. Find a good balance between what you actually need, and having too many. Having too many things for the SAS to move around can be stressful on the rocket. Maybe trade some fins out for SAS units (if you have them). You can place two SAS units on your newly available mount points on top of your lower boosters. (Probably don't need symmetry 6 for those. Place them one at a time and opposite each other.) Having them on top (near the connection point) is less bendy than fins at the bottom. If you don't have SAS units, try to see if you can get away with moving some of the fins up a little. Splitting your boosters (as per #1) will help the bending. 3) I somewhat simulated your rocket and it seems like you would get better performance if you cut down your second to bottom stage with 3x symmetry and leave your bottom stage at 6x symmetry. The TWR seemed kinda low with 6x all that length. It does knock the delta V down a bit, but the low TWR would have spent a lot of that dV fighting gravity anyway. 4) Don't be shy about using more FL-T800s in place of stacking two FL-T400s (unless you're going for looks or something else). Fewer parts and fewer joints mean less bendy-ness. Just my $0.02. Good luck!

There is very little sway or wobble because the connections aren't very long and the engines aren't all that powerful. If you have long side boosters, you'll get more wobble. Similar wobble problems would pop up with an elongated stacked coupler design.

Thanks for this. I thought I was going crazy for a minute. I kept reading the thread and not understanding why you wouldn't just radially attach FL-T100s and go from there. Lighter and much less complex than an array of couplers. However, I have used coupler ideas like this before and I admire the ingenuity. I have mostly used them to put engines in the position I wanted while providing more connection points for other fuel/payloads/intakes in front. It does require some fuel trickery though. By the way, you can connect fuel lines to cubic struts and get the same feed effect to engines mounted to that strut. Also works if the strut is connected to a fuel tank, no fuel line needed. Probably not as big of a factor for a design like this, but just wanted to throw that out there. (I personally don't radially mount engines very often with just cubic struts, but that's just me.)

Yes, you can go back later (manned or unmanned) and retrieve the rest of the science on a return mission. Transmitting does not srop you from earning it later. One note: transmission will render goo and sci jr experiments unusable until cleaned in a lab. (They are each single use.)

You do not forfeit any science when you transmit on mission 1, then recover the same experiment on mission 2. You get less science during the return portion of the transmit/return option than on just a return only, but the total science is basically the same. In the long run, that means you sent an extra mission. In the short run, you can gain science with (generally) less complex missions via transmission. This might be helpful for a science boost when you don't yet have the tech for a similar manned/return mission (depending on your personal objectives).

I also highly disagree with that definition of SSTO. Single stage to orbit is wholly different than reusability. Many people build SSTO space planes that are capable of delivering cargo. Just because the cargo is decoupled doesn't mean it didn't get there in one stage. I believe the OP states a space plane single stage to Jool and back. I suppose looking only at this would imply you are bringing everything home, but this is a different question than SSTO. To me, making it to every Joolian body, delivering probes, and returning without refueling is more difficult than just SSTO. SSTO here is one aspect of the overall plan.

Vanamonde has the idea. When SRBs are manufactured, the burn rate is set. The fuel is solid and burns straight on through once started, there is no throttle or valves. If you go look up the SRBs for the space shuttle, they were made with two patterns inside. The forward portion consisted of an 11 point star pattern. The rear portion consisted of a (more or less) tube. The booster ignited from the top down. The top portion burned faster to provide more initial thrust. The aft section burned slower to provide lower thrust for a longer period of time.

No problem, have fun!

Go to your KSP/GameData/Squad/Parts folder and find the part.cfg file for the piece you want to modify. Some are in the Science directory and some are in Utility. Look for the line: xmitDataScalar = 0.X and change to whatever you like xmitDataScalar = 1.0 (if you want full)

Nice job! It's almost funny how enjoyable it is to get into these kinds of problems, just so you can find some creative way to fix it.

If you're not having problems in the air with the tail, then no need to change it. And sorry I missed the struts. I could only clearly see one in that picture so I wasn't sure. Talking about the front gear, the other thing I have noticed is that if you attach them to components that are radially attached, the joint sometimes flexes. I guess what I mean by that is that it isn't always the landing gear the problem. In your case, I've seen problems with the connection between that structural fuselage and the aircraft fuselage. Sometimes moving the joint up or down a little bit changes the way the forces are applied to the joint and it flexes a lot less. I don't know if that's happening here, because it's sort of a "maybe/maybe not" thing I've seen with similar landing gear designs. Forgot to add... Sometimes even if it's just a little wing flex, having your landing gear attached to the wings can cause wobbling and steering problems with the plane (gear attached to the wings). For instance, the plane below was very unstable on the runway, veering to the right every time. And if it did manage to get airborne, the wings would flex so much that it would yaw and roll. I added two key struts, and it flew solid as a rock because I eliminated wing flex to the rear gear (even without a vertical tail). It's not nearly as heavy as yours (only 90ish tons), but it only has one pair of landing gear at the back.

To be pedantic, orbits can be hyperbolic and parabolic in addition to elliptical.A trajectory is usually associated with a limited path (but can be more). Parabolic occurs when the orbital energy is just enough to cancel out with the angular momentum. So it's just barely outside of the max elliptical orbit, but still doesn't return. These are mostly mathmatical byproducts, as the range to get into a parabolic orbit is practically infinitely narrow. Hyperbolic orbits have excess energy, so they are more eccentric ("flatter") than a parabolic. Edit: Wow, ninjas.

I think the OP was confusing terms, and already posted that he/she has figured it out.

Edit your original post and click on "go advanced." There is a dropdown where you can change the status.

Ahh, if it's the front gear that you might still be overloading them when the wings flex. However, you can try and unlock the steering via tweakables. That might give them some freedom to move and give you more ability to steer, instead of forcing them sideways. Even my small planes will sometimes tumble when pushing sideways too hard against the front gear. And small taps on the yaw to straighten the nose.

I agree. It looks like you already have around 2.0 TWR. If you stood it on end, it could probably take off straight up.....

Well, I will caveat my thoughts by saying I haven't built a 400 ton airplane and I don't use FAR. However, my thoughts from looking at your picture: 1) Your rear landing gear look too far back. I don't know where your CoM is because it isn't in the picture, but your rear gear look to far back. 2) You have a lot of control surfaces at the back of the plane. 3) I'm guessing your wings have a lot of flex in them when you try to rotate/takeoff. 4) Based on how much low wing area you have, your CoL might be low compared to your CoM, which is probably why you have so much upper tail surface. I have a few other guesses at things, but since you're using FAR I'll save those because they may not apply. One of the things that may be happening is that because of #1, 2 (and sometimes #3) above, when you try to steer or rotate your plane, you are placing tremendous downforce on your rear landing gear. #1 makes it hard enough to get the nose up off the ground, but when you have a plane that heavy and you're trying to do all the downforce rotation directly above the landing gear, they're going to buckle. If you are in fact experiencing wing flex (#3), then it's going to cause extra up/down and side forces on all those landing gear that are attached to it. When you try to steer the plane, the wings flex more which causes the gear to buckle, which causes you to have to steer more, which causes the wings to flex, which.... hopefully you get the idea. Also, if you're having wing flex, even if you do get off the ground your plane probably doesn't want to fly straight. For your tail section, the angles are probably also causing them to flex around. The way they are attached, the extra bends, and the lack of struts are going to cause them to flex around. Also, if your CoL is low compared to your CoM, it's going to cause your plane to want to roll over on takeoff. If any of the above is correct, those are the things you'll want to attack first. If not, you could provide a craft file and I'll give it a test flight. Maybe that will help me get a better idea what's causing your problems. I fly stock KSP, but I would imagine the takeoff problems you're having shouldn't be to different than with FAR.

Well, it depends a little on which parachutes you are using. If it's the basic, little ones, then deploying at high altitude at 1900 m/s is a bit rough on them. You'll want to aerobrake for a while and wait till your speed is down around 500 m/s or less (depends on number of chutes and weight). Full deployment around 100-200 m/s (again cutes and weight dependent). If the initial deployment altitude isn't what you want, you can right click on the chute and change the atmosphere pressure number. It might still be low if you changed it for Duna. In which case the streamer portion will come out at very high altitude on Kerbin. There is a parachute planner online, but I don't have the link with me at the moment. I'm sure someone will post it before I do. Edit: Also, make sure you aren't entering Kerbin's atmosphere too steep. Your ship won't have time to bleed off speed in the atmosphere before the chute wants to deploy. By the way, you can also quicksave (F5) and quickload (F9) if you make a mistake. Unless that isn't your play style.

In addition to the above, I would recommend you decide what kind of mission you want to do. Such as "I'd like to hop to three biomes and do goo experiments." Manned vs. Unmanned. Science return or one way, etc... (Insert your own goals.) That usually helps in narrowing down your vehicle design. Sometimes you'll find yourself at the other extreme where you just keep slapping stuff on and then can't get to where you were trying to go in the first place. Or you find you've forgotten some crucial component to a late decision add-on. Good luck!!

If it's in the parts list at the VAB but grayed out, make sure you aren't trying to select it as your first piece.

Awesome, I didn't notice! : (And I think it's 1,000,000 right?)

I don't know what math it is doing because I haven't dug into it that much. However, it doesn't seem like it's just skipping physics frames. It seems more like it multiplies some of the values by the warp speed. So you end up with things like broken couplers or parachutes that rip off, when at 1x they don't do that.