Gaarst

Docking mode has been changed with 1.0, some keys now have two functions. There are two things you can do: 1- Try to remove double functions in the settings but I've heard it's not that simple (or go directly to settings.cfg) 2- Use the translating keys while in staging mode, default configuration is: I: translate up K: translate down J: translate left L: translate right H: translate forward N: translate backwards

Title says it, which one of your rockets will always keep a place in your heart ? Which one are you the proudest of ? Which one took you everywhere ? Which one was simply the best that you ever made, to your eyes ? Whatever it is, a 5000 ton lifter, a simple probe or even a plane; it doesn't have to be over-engineered, it can come from the depth of alpha KSP or from the brand new 1.0.x; just share your favorite rocket or plane (or rover, base...) and why you love it. (I apologise if there's already a similar thread somewhere in the forums) ---------------------------------------- I'll start with mine: BlackDog VI On the launchpad: Under the fairing: It is a medium interplanetary rocket coming straight out of 1.0.2 and it has already taken me everywhere, from Moho to Eeloo (and back). It sits 2 Kerbonauts, weighs 735 tons on the launchpad, is completely stock and costs only 276k kredits (I'm quite proud of this: twice cheaper than the previous ones), so it's not the biggest rocket ever, but is enough to plant a flag pretty much everywhere with no atmosphere (except for Tylo). Its name comes from the Led Zeppelin song "Black Dog", and most of my other rockets are named after rock or metal songs. So far, it took me to Vall, Moho, Dres, Gilly, Ike and Eeloo and one is on its way to Bop and Pol. I really like this rocket more than any other for mainly three reasons: 1- I think it looks really good, it could exist in the real world and take off from Earth. 2- My previous class of interplanetary rockets was a pain in the a** (not exagerating here) to fly: heavy, took ages to turn around and (really) liked exploding. On the other side, this one is extremely easy to fly around (though it may be because of 1.0 aerodynamics) and will not explode unless you crash in on the ground. 3- It is simple: a booster stage, 2 stages and the payload; no fancy clipping, 1 engine per stage / booster and that's it. It is not my first rocket, not my last, not the most advanced, not the biggest but my favorite by far.

This is strange, chutes shouldn't overheat with reentry, it usually works fine. Can you please post a screenshot of your capsule ? There may be some clipping that generates excessive drag and heat whatever entry profile you try, but that's rather unlikely.

Have you tried turning it off and on again ? (Seriously, I already had a similar thing, and the best way to fix it is to quit the game and launch it again, it may do the job)

It depends on the rockets you use to do it. You can always make several types of rocket and calculate the cost per ton of fuel to the station for each type, which will tell you which way is the cheapest.

Rovers are the best way to determine which between the centrifugal force and gravity is the strongest while trying to turn right angle at 20 m/s (FYI, centrifugal often wins)

This is my previous interplanetary rocket Dragonaut VI, weighing 1229 t on the launchpad, capable of orbiting 170 t to LKO: It never really flew for any mission because of 1.0. The previous model, Dragonaut V, was lighter (1135 t) and took me to Dres (and back) in 0.90; but this one suffered a lot from 1.0: Rhino was throttled down to 1 MN so TWR was <1 and I had to add 4 Kickbacks, aerodynamics forced me to add a heavy fairing, for some reason it became as controllable as a mountain, and clipping caused sudden and unexpected explosions of the rocket. (Note that Dragonaut V could put almost 200t to orbit without any radial boosters, in 0.90) Still, after quite a few failed tries, I managed to put it to orbit in 1.0.2 so it is the heaviest thing I've successfully launched and orbited. And it is completely stock and looks like a real rocket, not a huge pile of Kerbodyne S3-14400 like others

I'd say to land normally, your rocket facing upwards and letting it fall down to the side (using landing legs or RCS). And for take off, if your lander is not too heavy, use RCS to get it back up and take off normally. This would solve the problem of landing stability as you want to make your rocket fall down but at the same time, no radial engines needed outside RCS (most radial engines in KSP are bad anyways)

Practicing moon landing on Kerbin is a bad idea because gravity is 6 times stronger on Kerbin than on the Mun. You accelerate at a rate of ~10 m/s² on Kerbin which makes landings very delicate. Hovering won't work because you consume fuel with engines on. Suppose you get a TWR of 1.00 (hovering) on the Mun at a moment, then say 20 sec later, you lander will go upwards because of your TWR going up as fuel is consumed. Anyway hovering is extremely fuel inefficient and will waste huge amounts of fuel. The most fuel efficient technique to land on a body is called suicide burn (basically falling and full thrust right before landing to brake), but there's a reason why it's called that way. It is very difficult, requires practice and not recommended for your first landings. A good compromise is to let the ship fall and gain some velocity and brake every so often to maintain a reasonable speed of descent. Then when approaching the ground (you'll know using your shadow on the Mun, radar altitude in IVA or KER) brake to a few m/s to land softly and cut engines at touchdown to avoid bouncing. It may not be the most efficient way of landing, but it is rather easy and is what I used myself for early Mun landings without problems. If you're not confident with landing on the Mun, try landing on Minmus first: gravity is far weaker (1/20 of Kerbin's gravity) and it has huge flat regions at sea level (0 m on altimeter) which are easy to land on.

Are you in career mode ? If yes then some probes are not "advanced" enough to place manoeuvre node (like low-leveled pilots). You may also have to upgrade the tracking station to unlock patched conics (I think this should unlock nodes in career mode).

No, it won't if you cut thurst. If you keep controlling your ship, it will gradually cool down. If you go back to the KSC or to another ship, it won't explode and probably won't cool down either as ships are not simulated if you do not control them (and if you are far enough from them, a few km I think) Although, parts that have lower heat tolerance may explode even without thrust due to the heat being conducted inside the ship.

Can you please post a screenshot of your rocket ? Xkay7 is right, there are some serious clipping issues with service bays which can cause wobbling of the ship (or sudden disintegration if you're lucky). However, SAS has never been perfect, and tends to go crazy in some situations; here are a few common issues: - If the wobbling occurs when burning, reduce the gimbal of your engine(s) to 10-25% according to the "strength" of the wobbling. - If _____________________ you are using SAS on anything else than stability assist, go back to stability assist and move your ship around by yourself; other holds are less stable than stability assist for some obscure reason and are more likely to cause wobbling. - If _________________ even on stability assist, you probably have too much SAS devices on, thus creating a positive feedback (similar to the Larsen effect); I suggest deactivating a few SAS devices (reaction wheels or command pod torque). It may also be because of too much SAS torque too far from the CoM, then either deactivate some SAS devices or redesign your rocket. Hope this helps

I find the tricoupler actually pretty useful: you can fit 3 Mk2 sized tanks without clipping which works great with LV-N on a ship that is too light/small to use Mk3 sized tanks. It is actually the best way I found to make lighter ship efficient with LV-N: I get >8000 m/s of delta-v on a 30t ship, the 6 Mk2 jet fuel tanks weigh approximately the same as 1 Rockomax X200-32 and 1 X200-16 which give me only 5000 m/s of delta-v

Considering the actual utility of heatshields, the fairing thing is not a problem at all: unless you come straight down from Eeloo, you don't even need to have those for a lone command pod.

The point of making spaceplanes and SSTOs, in career, is that you recover all of the ship when your mission is done so sending things into orbit cost a lot less. If you intend to jettison the fuel tanks, engines... to keep only the payload, a rocket will be much simpler, and probably cheaper. But if you're playing sandbox mode for fun or just want to experiment, feel free to do so: trial and error is a key point in KSP

Newtonian mechanics and Keplerian laws for orbits and manoeuvres, basics of aerodynamics for the atmospheric part. Knowing typically spaceflight related concepts such as aerobraking, rendez-vous techniques are useful. Rocket equation for delta-v is essential; being able to do quick calculations for TWR, acceleration, fuel... will also be helpful. And a bit of spaceflight history is always interesting when wanting to go "beyond" the game. A thing you have to understand is that even if you know all the equations, master all the physics involved, nothing will replace experience in the game to succeed. Actually, for most players (I guess) the game came first and the science in it after. Knowing the physics will help you, but only when you'll have played the game for a few 100s of hours then you'll be able to say that you truly master it. Don't worry, you don't need to be an astronaut or to have a PhD in aerospace engineering to do well in KSP, you'll learn while playing.

LEO would be enough for me. Earth is the most diverse (and beautiful, IMO) body in the Solar System, all others are just boring freezing/boiling rocks

The real KSC VAB is 160 m tall, 218 m long and 158 m wide, and should weigh (very) roughly 200 000 tons. Measure KSP's VAB, do a little maths and there you go

This would actually be extremely unstable due to the CoM being way too high in the rocket. There's a reason why real rocket boosters are down the rocket; in doubt always look at stuff that works. It would be interesting to see how this behaves though

There's got to be a solar sail mod somewhere

They are worth it for heavy crafts. IMO 20 ton is a good limit: lv-909 (or others) are better under 20t, and the lv-n is better over 20t.

For suborbital flight you need to get you periapsis under 0. Simple intersection would validate a "fly-by" contract.

The rocket equation can tell you delta-v for a stage; or you can install KER which will change your life. And I don't think you can apply real lift calculations in KSP due to some differences between the game and real life.

Service bays can cause clipping of the stuff inside, and the Kraken loves clipping...

Your phase angle is not right and so your are wasting a lot of delta-v to do your manoeuvre. Did you calculate it with Olex or AlexMoon's calculators ? Because they give a phase angle of ~45° and not -70° And it is very possible that this rocket, due to the physics change in 1.0, can no longer do the trip by itself and back; whereas in 0.90 it could do it by itself without refueling in orbit EDIT: I just saw you should have 45° phase angle to go to Duna from Kerbin, but -70° to go back from Duna. My bad