FleshJeb

I'll buy KSP 2 when KSP 1 is out of beta. Yes, I know it's a different team, but it's still on Unity, using the same resources, and I'm going to assume they have the same kind of technical debts to deal with. I did a Warp to Node in a recent version and it warped past the Mun...3 times. The first priority of a physics sandbox should be that the physics just works; everything else is secondary. There's a reason I played 1600 hours of Factorio last year, and about 100 of KSP--That game and dev team is bulletproof, and if there's a problem, in the experimental release it's usually patched in hours.

This is an excuse to spend other people’s money while having a good time. One of the job listings on their website is “Sous Chef”. If you’re going to subject your rocket and payload to 10000 gs, a cannon would be much easier to build. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP

Reduce the authority of your control surfaces, and fly it with caps lock on.

I took a brief look at it last night, and was hoping it was of by a factor of sqrt(10). That tends to happen with metric unit conversions. Check your mu to make sure you're properly converting from m^/s^2 to km^3/s^2. That's bitten me before.

Just a mockup thus far:

I think I know how I'd do it with wings and control surfaces, but flags might be a better choice. I suspect that where you add another object, like a ruler, it's very dependent on the rate of rotation. At a higher RPM, I think you'd focus more on the ruler.

@maddog59 Since your question on rolling back the game version didn’t get answered: In Steam, you can opt-in to open betas, and select the version there. Guide here: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1229485944

This is excellent. Good job, Mom!

@Popestar I was unsure of your level of expertise, so I limited my scope to a portion of your question--A robust and versatile construction technique for mounting rovers on rockets. I checked out your profile, and it looks like you've got basic rocket construction and navigation solved. ISRU is the most complex system in the game, so I recommend that you practice with just getting detachable payloads to other bodies. @Echo__3shows how to build a basic rover here and get it to the Mun, along with some helpful discussion: Ignore the subassembly feature for now. You can switch which editor you're in with the blue plane icon button to the left of the craft name. Echo uses it at around 0:55 and 5:25 in the video. Another one below. The key construction difference between rockets and rovers (and planes) , is that the wheels need to be attached in Mirror symmetry mode as opposed to the usual Radial. Otherwise one of the wheels comes out upside-down. You can toggle Mirror/Radial in either the SPH or VAB with R. Rove wheels tend to eat up a lot of electricity, so you'll want to bring along more solar panel and batteries. Alternately, you can begin with building an ore scanning satellite, and this gives a good overview, if you haven't seen it already: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Resource_scanner We can discuss further, just ping or quote me.

There are a number of ways to do it, but I tend to rely on tail-sitters, as they can be easily scaled up to any size rover (craft file at end of spoiler). Build rover in SPH. Leave back end free. Attach docking port or decoupler to the rear. Build landing tanks and engine. The COM of the rover is likely to be off-center, so I offset the landing section so the thrust lines up with the COM of the rover. (You can see the slight offset in image 2) Decoupler. Build a fairing and normal rocket underneath. EDIT: Fly and land like normal rocket, then tip over onto wheels. In this case, the landing stage is also doubling as the transfer stage from Low Kerbin Orbit. Always build your rovers in the SPH. If you want to build your rocket and launch from the VAB, use the re-root tool to make the back end of the rover the root, and drag it into the sub-assembly thingy. Then you can attach it to a rocket started in the VAB. Personally, I build everything in the SPH (superior camera and editing ability), rotate it up vertically, and launch from the runway. Example of a larger ISRU rover for Minmus:

Yes, that would be my primary critique of it. It also suffers from yet-another-interface, and yet-another-login. I suppose you could argue that the extra effort increases the average quality of bug reporting, at the expense of quantity,

Two IPAs and an empty stomach and I turn into Karl Marx. The key point that I forgot to express is that the bug tracker is terrible, and causes extra work for the end user. As evidenced by this thread, it confuses people. I’m not against reporting bugs. Compare and contrast: https://forums.factorio.com/viewforum.php?f=7

No disrespect to you or your fine and dedicated coworkers, but last I checked, my paycheck isn't signed by a multinational software developer, so I politely decline to do free work for them. This year, Take-Two had an operating budget of $1.12 BILLION dollars (https://ir.take2games.com/static-files/6b111d0a-2dbb-4fce-ac78-146292ee7e25) --Of which, Private Division gets a fraction--Of which, your department gets a fraction. That might be a mighty small denominator, but the numerator is...considerable. (I won't even discuss the $2 Billion cash-on hand, this year's doubling of the stock price, and the 50% profit margin.) Perhaps some bean-counter somewhere can un-pucker and allocate some of that $Billion+ to hiring an additional QA person or two to scour the forums. Ultimately, doing uncompensated work means someone doesn't get a paycheck, and I'm not a thief, nor is the parent corporation a charity.

This is the best guide I've seen on the subject. While it only goes into deep detail on calculations for surface mining, I believe the relevant number to swap is the Base rate of the drill for Asteroid vs Surface. I think some of the numbers MAY have been re-balanced since that was written, but I cannot confirm. I'm not sure ore is ever wasted in the on-rails process. I could be underinformed.

Now you might have too much gear on it. Although, it occurs to me that your robotic parts might be jittering in response to slight flexing and bouncing, and then reinforcing the behavior. You can try this on the servos: Cutting the torque. Locking. Playing with the damper setting. When I get stuck on a technical problem, I put it aside and go build something simple. By the time I come back to it, I've usually come up with a solution or different approach.

First off, great documentation of your process. You could use a shot of the underside of the plane, but no big deal I think you're overstressing your gear slightly. I'd guess your craft weights in excess of 50 tons, and the medium gear are only reliable to about 9 tons each. So, add more gear, fiddle with the settings a bit more, and see what happens. FYI, my usual solution to bouncing is to turn Spring to 0.5 and Damper to 2.0 and go from there. I find Spring should always be less than Damper.

Glad it's working better. Your fins are deploying the wrong way.

I put an empty precooler behind the nosecone, and slide it back into the cockpit. Alternately, use a fairing or a shielded docking port. For airbrakes, I'd replace them with control surfaces and set them to deploy on brake.

Option B: Don’t update KSP. Don’t let fear of missing out run your life. There’s very little you can do in current versions that you couldn’t do in a modded version 0.25. The rule of thumb when Squad’s QA was worse was to wait 6 months before updating. Now I’d give it at least 1.

I'm ordinarily very uptight about raw performance, but this is too pretty and functional not to appreciate. Very well done; your aesthetic choices are top-notch.

The real magic of this release is that you're not grumpy about it. And since I always agree with you on quality control issues, I'm taking it as a very good sign. (Please pardon the teasing, it's entirely good-natured.)

Is your control point facing forward or up? Also, try leaving Friction on auto, and Traction Control off.

@maddog59 I can’t figure out the problem from the picture, but this is a very helpful resource on spaceplane design and general aerodynamics:

The COL is definitely not telling the whole story, so you have a lot less margin than you think. CorrectCOL is an amazing mod and will account for all the drag-producing items on the craft, as well as show the stability at various angles of attack. I suspect that when it departs from perfectly forward flight, it's not stable at all. You can pick up the craft and rotate it a bit in all axes to see where the COL ends up. If I were to modify that to make it fly better, I'd make the elevons flat (no AoA) to pull the COL back a little. I'd also double or triple the vertical tail, because the yaw stability is currently minimal--Especially with AoA on the wings.