E. F. Kranz

Yeah, believe me, I get that. They were all located in the stage list exactly where they should be. They simply weren\'\'t draining properly. While we\'re having the discussion (and yes, it seems this probably should be in the bugs forum (and may already be, for all I know, I haven\'t looked)) - I should describe how I arrived at this point. The rover (absolute top stage) needed a redesign, but my lower stages were all pretty much perfect. So I disconnected all the lower stages, and rebuilt the rover. I suspect this is what introduced the problem. I even did this, in order to do some ground testing: Connected the lower 'lift,' 'orbital,' and 'lander' stages to the rover, and saved the craft. Then disconnected all the lower stages and 'launched,' to test drive/fly just the rover. (when you launch while objects are not connected to the craft, those objects disappear) Then I went back to the VAB and loaded the saved craft, which of course had the entire ship connected underneath the rover. I\'m sure that one of these interactions causes the thing to garble the RCS priority.

Thanks. I removed every single RCS tank on the entire craft, and replaced them. That seems to have solved the issue. What a pain in the neck though.

Forgive the crude illustration, but it\'s the best I can do right now. What am I doing wrong? Aw heck, I\'m lying to yall, sorry. The lower arrow is pointing to the wrong stage, since all the stages won\'t fit in a single window. Still, the point stands. It\'s draining my rover stage, not the two beneath it.

Okay, explain this again to me, please? I currently have a four-stage design... one heavy lift, one orbital, one lander, and one rover. I have RCS tanks on the three upper stages. In the VAB, they are all inside the correct stages. Explain to me then why the first tanks to drain are on the rover? EDIT: For grins, I switched the location (not physical, but in the stages) of the lowest RCS tanks from the orbital stage to the lift stage. Still draining from the top down.

That\'s probably exactly what happened, as the position of the part was an afterthought. Thanks, that clears it up!

Can anyone explain this? I built and landed a beautiful little rover. On one side, I put a folding landing gear (stock part), to simulate a soil analysis tool. Landed rover. Drove rover. Hit G to deploy soil tool. Hit G to retract soil tool. Rover flipped over, rolled several times, and blew up. Huh?

I remember those things from the 70s. The TV commercials had me convinced that it could do *anything!* Looks like they were re-released in 2010. Wonder which one you\'ve got?

Not on my ships, they don\'t.

Shouldn\'t the flight system give priority to RCS tanks on lower stages? That doesn\'t seem to be the case, currently. Can anyone explain to me in what order RCS tanks are drained?

Yes, I\'ve had stuff completely disappear for no apparent reason.

Why wouldn\'t the pancake have hands? That\'s just silly.

Why yes. Yes, I can.

That\'s really awesome.

I\'ve begun designing everything that way. I wish there was a module that would let me control spent stages.

Go at 270 until you reach 12,500,000m. Watch as the moon captures you. Turn away from the direction of travel, full burn until you\'re slow enough to orbit. Easiest way, works every time.

Your ship is probably out of balance. There is only so much that control surfaces and RCS thrusters can do to correct this in flight. You will either need to balance your ship better, or work to counteract the inbalance using off-center thrust. This is the reason I stopped toying with complicated spaceplanes.

Thanks for your input, people. It\'s not wobble. I don\'t use solid boosters, and I always have a mix of gimballed and fixed engines. I use control surfaces, mostly biased towards the bottom of the stack, but with canards on the top. RCS is abundant. Here\'s my thoughts: I suspect this is a physics/design problem, as opposed to a flight control problem. I just don\'t know enough to know whether the game is accounting for these things. Consider: At launch, a well conceived stack is akin to an arrow. Of more or less equal distribution of weight; the tail drag accounting for the payload (arrow) at the end. Unlike an arrow, however, my rocket drains weight at a more or less constant rate, beginning from top to bottom. So at altitude, having exhausted - let\'s say - 60% of its fuel, the rocket is now more akin to a bowling pin. Heavily weight-biased towards the bottom, virtually no weight in the middle, and somewhat heavy again at the top. When turned horizontal (that is, perpendicular to gravity), the bottom section of this bowling pin carries more kinetic energy, causing the structure to begin a tumble in that direction. Proposed solution: A fuel distribution system that draws fuel at an equal rate from both the top at the bottom and delivers it to the vehicle\'s center of gravity. [EDIT] - Actually, since you\'ll be pumping fuel from the bottom towards the center (to the distribution manifold) and from the center towards the bottom (to the engine), you\'ll need to pump fuel from the bottom even faster.

Alright, so I\'ve been struggling with this since I\'ve been constructing larger rockets - how in the hell to fly them!?! The problem is: making the turn. Depending on the rocket, I might begin to roll over to the horizon at 20km, or 40km, etc. I prefer a nice, smooth, controlled transition. What I get is absolute chaos. With larger (i.e. - longer) rockets, the horizon roll is basically impossible. As soon as I tip it over from vertical, the thing goes into an insane head over heels tumbling. No (reasonable) amount of RCS thrusters can keep it under control. I end up either throttling down and fighting it out, or ditching the offending stage before it\'s depleted. So I ask you, rocket scientists. What causes this, and how do I avoid it? Is it a weight distribution thing? (i.e. - lots of empty tanks on top) Is it a matter of speed? (i.e. - velocity, momentum, all that good stuff) Or am I just a terrible pilot?

I\'ve had the same experience, Nibb31. I cannot re-locate the original landing zone. Next step: DROP BIGGER BREAD CRUMBS!

Eventually, I assume actual retrieval would be possible. For now, it\'s enough to simulate retrieval by simply landing within a reasonable distance of the drop zone.

Apologies if this is banal; I never really considered challenges until I became utterly bored with moon landings. The challenge is: Land on the moon. Deploy an 'experiment package.' (just drop something) Launch and orbit the moon (at least) once. Land back at the same spot to retrieve the experiment. Return to home. [my progress thus far: post-deployment orbit completed, currently on a return path to the area, at 80km 100m/s] Update: Somehow, during the journey, I lost connection to 5 RCS tanks. (they\'re tucked inside a hollow decoupler and only attached via a fuel line - which I assume broke?) Currently at 5km with a stable descent rate, unable to locate the drop zone. Not looking good.

I know for a fact you can leave the moon with only RCS; it stands to reason that you could also land.

That just blew my mind.