Gaarst

Moar boosters ?

Your RCS seems way above you centre of mass, and that's bad: for translating you want your RCS centered on you CoM. Try bringing your RCS down so that it is at the same level as your CoM. The RCS Build Aid mod might help you there. Also, since 1.0 docking mode doesn't work properly with default key configs. You're better off staying in staging mode and use the IHJKLN keys for translating as follows: I: Translate up K: Translate down J: Translate left L: Translate right H: Translate forwards N: Translate backwards

Yeah, 1.1 is not out so I doubt you have it happening there. ----------- I had the same issue on this thread. Here what I found as a workaround (haven't tested it personally though):

Your issue seems to be the same as the one in this thread. I also had an issue similar to this one, here. Modifying the part file doesn't seem to cause the issue as I didn't do it, and the other thread does not mention it either. Good to know it seems linked to orbital surveys, it may help to find a solution.

I have a similar issue in one of my installs. I have made a thread about it, and I think it may be linked to other bugs (described in the thread). From what I found, the bug seems to be linked not to the install but to the save. Also it can occur quite fast after loading the save so I doubt it is memory related. I had DOE installed on this game but I removed it, so either the bug is not linked to DOE, either I have some remnant files in my install.

Nope, first Atlas V launched was a 401 (no booster) on 21st August 2002. First 411 was launched in 2006.

There have been 3 Atlas V 411 launches so far: - A 4t satellite put to GEO (Astra 1KR) (the one on the picture according to the image source) - A shady reconnaissance satellite in Molynia orbit (USA 200) - A pair of more shady reconnaissance satellites in LEO (USA 229 and USA 229-2) possibly called Intruder 9A and 9B (not going to comment on the names...) I agree with this, but on my latest post, there is a picture which shows asymmetric configurations for more than 1 booster. So that doesn't answer my question: why so asymmetric ?

Yes, I guess that 1 booster allows for a mass to orbit smaller than 2, but bigger than 0; but wasn't there really any other solution to save the payload difference ?

Here is a picture of an Atlas V 411 rocket: Do you notice anything wierd ? Like a missing booster for example... And no that booster did not fall off the rocket, it wasn't even there to begin with ! So I need an explanation here: what is the point of making an asymmetric rocket ? Who thought that was a good idea ? And in what aspects is it better than making a rocket able to properly fly upwards ? I mean, even if thrust is still towards the centre of mass, the rocket would have to fly sideways. And I know that one booster is cheaper than two, but wouldn't it be simpler to just put two of these and launch the thing straight up instead of having some over-complicated gimballing or trajectory control to avoid too strong aerodynamic forces ? If anyone has an idea why this is a thing, I'd be more than happy to hear it ! EDIT: Thanks to pTrevTrevs' comment, I extended my question to all Atlas V configurations, even with more than one booster: EDIT2: After a bit of searching I found that all Atlas V boosters are arranged asymmetrically because of the first stage core arrangement: there is "stuff" (LOx feedline and avionics pod) on the exterior of the tank that prevents boosters from being attached symmetrically (can actually be seen on the picture above).

The "translate widget", called offset in the game, allows you to move a part without replacing it, it also allows you to clip parts, to make assemblies look better for example. It is located top left in the VAB/SPH screen (right of the parts menu though): you'll see four squares corresponding to the "building tools" (place, offset, rotate, root). The offset tool is the second one, it can also be used by pressing "2" on your keyboard. Simply click on a part and drag any of the vectors in the direction you like. Press C for finer controls, and F for switching the position of the axes from absolute to relative to part placement (for rotated or radial attached parts). When you're done, click on the first "square" or on the "1" key to get back to placing parts. Edit: read this to learn how to insert an image on your post, and simply click the "Reply with quote" button bottom right of a post to quote it automatically.

It depends on what earlier version you'd like. I know Beta 0.90 is still available for download on the KSP website; but I don't know if there is a legal way to get older versions. Also, you could probably find 1.0 to 1.0.3 somewhere on the website, but I'm not sure.

With very high TWR, the air resistance is stronger in the lower parts of the atmosphere, but you spend less time there. You get high very quickly and do most of your burn in higher atmosphere where air resistance is weaker. A TWR a bit lower might be enough to make you spend more time in low atmosphere, and therefore lose more speed there, and in the end not go as far as you did before. Accounting for air resistance makes predicting optimal TWR/speed during ascent extremely difficult: to get an accurate result, you'd have to solve multiple-variable differential equations to several degrees. And the result you'll get will depend on basically everything: rocket, ascent profile, speed, heading, position of launch, altitude, mass... The best thing to do is follow the result generally accepted by the community as one of the best which is to launch with a TWR of 1.5, and break the sound barrier a bit below 10km (approx 300m/s at this altitude). But then again, this will depend on the design of your rocket: if your first stage is huge, you might end up having a TWR of 10 at 10km, and on the other side, if it's small compared to the rocket, you might never get over 3 with full throttle.

Yet another thing that needs to be corrected for upcoming updates: stock KSP burn times are indeed based on your previous burn, and don't account for mass loss as you burn fuel. I suggest using KER which gives accurate burn times, taking into account mass loss, and working even if you just loaded your craft. The only downside of KER compared to stock is that, even if you throttle down to 50%, KER will still display burn times as if you were at 100%. This can be avoided by thrust limiting the enignes, but it is not really intuitive. Oh, and also, I suppose MJ has accurate readouts, but I don't use it. Choose the one you prefer. Edit: ninja'd too

Yay, colours ! Technically still black and white, but you get what I mean

Yo dawg, I heard you liked launchpads... You could have at least named it "LaunchPad"

I'm afraid there is nowhere to sign up ^^ But, concerning manoeuvre node placement, the most recent thread is this one, kinda still active also. I can't think of any recent thread concerning camera in map view, but feel free to create your own if you feel this should really be added to the game. There might be a small chance that someone out there is reading that part of the forum and actually writing down these unanimous suggestions; wouldn't bet on that though...

Unfortunately no. Map view and manoeuvre node placing improvement are amongst the most requested changes in KSP.

Well, you justify the NERV's size with this engine, which has less than half of the NERV's thrust: an engine with a comparable thrust would indeed be larger than the NERV or RD-0410. But anyway, the main point of my post (and discussion) wasn't there. ^^

A full non-recoverablt Falcon 9 costs about $60M and contains 9 Merlin (1D or 1C) on the first stage and a whole rocket above it. So I think $60M per 10 engines would be a bit much. Though it might be very possible that the cost increases if they are sold separately and to another company.

According to your link, the RD-0410 should have less than half the thrust of the NERV (scaled down to 64%). Anyway, we all know that using the argument "it is that way in real life" doesn't work in KSP: some features are not realistic, some are not. Restricting stock KSP in the name of realism is not a good thing because KSP isn't made to be absolutely realistic; the NERV is one of those things that is so far from having realistic behaviour that it simply doesn't make any sense to want to make it realer on one aspect only. So I'd agree more with the opinion of simply adding a 2.5m nuclear engine to the stock game. If you want real nuclear engines, find (or make) a mod which increases their size, make them use nuclear fuel or that makes you manage an actual nuclear reactor in your ship.

SpaceX was actually in competition (with BO and the Russian RD-180) to power the Vulcan. I guess commercial deals and competition united BO and ULA against SpaceX. And the Russian engine was not taken because of political tensions arising between the US and Russia at the time of the choice. Forget this, I misread an article, so this is completely false. Apologies.

Officially: making mankind more intelligent by correcting those who are wrong. Really: people are too stubborn to stand someone disagreeing with them, whether they are right or wrong, or whether they have knowledge/proof in the concerned subject or not... Note that this isn't only true for conspiracy theories, and often goes both ways.

If your thumb catches fire, you're too close.

When you decouple two attached docking ports, whay they only do is turn off the "magnets" so that you can move away from the other ship. The thing is they keep being turned off for you to get away from the ship without redocking straight away. For the magnets to reactivate you have to back off a few metres from the decoupled ship, and then you can redock with it. And when two decouplers are docked, normally, there is only one which has the option "decouple" on the right-click menu.

I personally find it a lot easier to orbit in a single burn in RSS than in stock Kerbin. I usually stop at a 90x150km orbit (atmosphere is 130km high in RSS) because I like to let my booster stages fall back to Earth instead of leaving space junk, but if the final stage has already been dropped, I circularise in one burn, and end up with a roughly circular orbit around 150-180km. I think that this is so because you need really high orbital velocities in RSS (7.7km/s), and therefore spend much more time burning horizontally. The thing is, if you built your launcher correctly, most of this horizontal burn occurs close to your final orbit height (0° pitch at around 100km for me) and finishes when you are outside atmosphere. That way, you spend a lot of time with precise control of both your apo height and time to apo, while being really close to it during the whole process (between 1 and 2 min, with an orbital period of 90min): when you finish your burn, you are close to your apoapsis height, and therefore can rise your periapsis to above the ground before the apoapsis starts to drift off in front of you. Then, point a little towards the ground, and you can circularise in one burn. If you do it well, you can do everything at 100% throttle (real engines don't throttle down a lot), though it is a lot less precise. In stock KSP, as the speeds are lower, you often end up reaching orbital speed way before being at your orbit height, and therefore it is less easy to circularise in one burn, but still very doable with some practice.