DalisClock

The Rocket thing was because I thought SSTO was really hard, and I already know how to attach things to rockets(slapping boosters on a rocket is easy), so I figured how hard could it be? It turns out, really hard. Parachutes was more of a lark for me, and because I wanted a backup option in case I wasn't gonna have a long flat piece of land to land on. I've never been able to hit the runway in KSP, let alone land at a pre-determined spot on an atmospheric planet(every time I've tried the drag pushes my landing spot down and I haven't done enough testing to figure out how to fix the problem). I've been trying to keep as many kerbals alive as I can. But yeah, I think I'm gonna refocus on an SSTO. I actually swapped the LV-909s with RAPIERS and nearly got to orbit on my first try. Unfortunately, my oxider ran out before I completed my circulation burn, so I need to look solutions for that. The parachute thing works now. I just put them really close together around empty CoM. So if I can figure out how to get the thing into orbit with some fuel/oxidizer to spare, I'll be good to go for now.

I don't have one yet. I've been trying to build one that works and so far had really limited success. I've also been dividing my KSP time between this and sending a series of landers to the Mun to form the core of a mining colony/base there. After some tinkering, I've managed to get most of my modules into a muner intercept trajectory but been having a hell of a time getting my rovers(a tranport/exploration/cargo rover and a drilling/ore storage rover) into orbit.

That's one of the problems I've noticed. I've tried draining most of the fuel before deploying chutes(tanking off from the KSC runway and flying a little ways out to see drains the tanks nicely), but so far it hasn't worked. I'll try just deploying the ones over the COM and see if that works. I'll take a look at this. I'm seriously leaning towards either mounting the plane on top of a rocket or just trying for SSTO at this point. The shuttle concept seems much more trouble then it's worth.

So here's pictures of my spaceplane as promised. Not the most original thing in the world but all I want it to do is go to LKO, dock with my space station and come back. I'll work on refining it once I get it working properly. I've moved the parachutes around half a dozen times, this was just my latest attempt because the plane seemed to float down by the bottom this time.

So during breaks at building pre-fab buildings/landers for my mun base, I've been messing with building a spaceplane to act as a crew transfer vehicle to my orbiting space-station. I've built something that will fly, glide and land pretty decently during atmo tests but I haven't been able to get it to orbit yet to test re-entry. The biggest issue I'm having is getting enough thrust and dV to get it to orbit. My intial idea of attaching via a radial decoupler to one of my standard rockets ended...pretty poorly and I've been trying with various combinations of boosters to get at least up to the upper atmosphere. I'm not even trying to think about SSTO yet. I just want something that can get to space, dock and return. Half the spaceplane stuff I've seen seems to be SSTO and I'm wondering if nobody does the "piggyback on a rocket method", so advice would be nice, or at least a pointer towards a good tutorial. The other issue is gonna sound weird and I haven't been able to find any reference to it on the forums yet. I'm okay at landing on flat ground(haven't been able to return to the KSP runway yet) but frankly, I want an alternate abort mode just in case there are no flat fields within flying distance upon reentry. So I decided....why not parachute? My spaceplane isn't very heavy and several attempts land via parachute have been promising, but not great. I cut engines, use a drogue to slow down to a fairly slow speed and then deploy about 4 main chutes for the final descent. Unfortunately, depending on where I put the chutes, the plane will drift nose or tail first. A nose first approach and a water landing actually results in a fully recoverable aircraft with no damage, but not so much with tail first. Coming down on landare usually some damage but the crew survives. Has anyone tried parachuting a space plane back to kerbin? I can't be the first person to have tried this and maybe someone has an idea how to properly center parachutes so the plane drifts down horizontally(instead of mostly vertical?) I'll post pics tomorrow to help illustrate what I'm talking about

Whenever I test a new aircraft/spacecraft, I tend to do a few trial runs unmanned to make sure I can reasonably expect to get it into orbit/into the air and safely back to kerbin. Once that's done, I'll start sending it up with Kerbals inside. I don't wan to lose kerbals if can help it. Rovers I usually don't care and prefer to have a kerbal inside to test if I can get back into it, amongst other things.

How much I am willing to pay is totally dependent on how much I think the game is worth. I've bought games at full $60 price and was totally happy with my choice, but most of the time I wait till they get cheaper. It also depends on much much I trust the developer to give me my money's worth. I paid $20 for KSP but considering how one of a kind and fulfilling it can be, I would have been willing to pay the full $40 they're asking now. However, devs that have pissed me off pretty either have me passing on their games or waiting until they get super cheap in a year or so on steam. For example, Ubisoft has been on my crap list for a while, especially because of that piece of garbage known as Uplay, so I'm not paying more then $20 for anything they try to sell me. I can wait, I've got plenty of games to play to keep me busy until then.

I've been meaning to ask, why those orbits in particular? I know the minimum safe orbit is different for each planet with an atmosphere but for moons and such, how much does it really matter(I've heard that as long as you have sufficent orbital dV, you can orbit the moon at an extremely low altitude as long as you're above the highest mountain)? How would one determine the "optimum" parking orbit for a space station or visiting spacecraft(that's not a lander)?

Maybe it does. I'll admit I've gotten so used to looking at the KER windows that I might have glossed over the fact that MechJeb does the same thing. If so, then you really only need Mechjeb. And I appreciate the correction.

There's nothing wrong with you and I'm pretty sure I speak for everyone when I say that pretty much everyone started where you are and had to learn the game on the backs of many shattered and burning rockets(And frankly, I still blow up rockets on a regular basis, usually because of a stupid design error). I still learn something new every time try something new. Luckily, KSP actually has some stock rockets that are capable of reaching orbit(the Kerbal X, I believe is the name for it) and I'd recommend trying with that or using one of the recommended designs if you don't want to stress about design at the moment. Even if you don't want to mod, I'd recommend 2 just for the sake of sanity. MechJeb and Kerbal Engineer Redux(KER). MechJeb is basically a flight computer that you can use to help you do things or do things for you....and while some people consider it cheating, remember that real space agencies don't actually fly their rockets by joystick, they have the on-board computer do most of the work(including manned craft). If nothing else, tell Mechjeb to do something and watch it do it so you can see what you're doing wrong(and right). Most of the time it's pretty good. You don't have to use it if you don't want it(even if you put the controller on your spacecraft, you never have to activate it), but it's nice to have the option. KER is useful because it tells you a lot of useful things about your rocket, your orbit and really gives you all the numbers you need for space travel. Most important, it tells you if your rocket actually has enough fuel to do what you want it to do(and the best pilot on earth or the fastest computer won't reach orbit if you don't have enough fuel). The alternative is to do a lot of math(though if you like doing math, knock yourself out). In particular, Delta-V or dV something you really need to know for rocket building and it's basically your total energy allowance for your spacecraft. As long as you have more dV then required, your ship should be capable of going there(stability notwithstanding). The following link shows you exactly how much dV you need to go anywhere. Just follow the line from Kerbin to your destination. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/7/73/KerbinDeltaVMap.png/600px-KerbinDeltaVMap.png KER shows you, based on mass, fuel load and engine type what your dV is, and it'll change in real time depending on design and staging, giving you a pretty good idea how to make your rocket better. But most importantly, have fun and don't be afraid to try something different and see how it works. Just remember, NASA had to deal with all this same stuff 60 years ago and learned some painful lessons. Unlike them, you don't have to answer to congress when a couple million in taxpayer funds turns into a really expensive fireworks show.

I've been playing this game off and on for a couple years now and like everyone else, 1.0 was a bit of a shock because of the new Aero. However, one thing that I haven't really seen the effect of is overheating, especially in space. I've seen radiators were added to the stock parts and I've heard a lot of people on these forums talk about having issuing with re-entry and ships just overheating in general. The weirdness for me is that I haven't seen any of this while playing. The only time I've noticed any kind of overheating issues is while doing a full burn on ascent and that rarely causes anything close to catastrophic overheating. Hell, I don't even bother with the new heat shields because it doesn't seem to make an difference. Even with heatshields I've rarely lost more then a fraction of my ablator on re-entry. I've never bothered with the radiators and used the 2.5 Nuclear Engine for long burns without issue. I'm using the steam version so I'm assuming I have the latest release and while I use mods, most of them are essentially part packs(FASA, Novapunch, one of the station part packs) as well as tools like KER and Mechjeb. The only one that really changes the game is KAS/KIS. I'm not trying to sound like a ...., so if I am, I apologize, but I'm curious what's the deal is with the heat issues? Or is this only something that happens near Moho and Eve? I'm not even a particularly good rocket designer(as my many crashed rockets will attest to) so I would think somewhere along the line I would have encountered this accidently.

The editor(VAB/SPH) is still occasionally buggy and merging two different craft can be annoying at times. Fix that and most of my complaints about KSP will go away.

Doing everything in Kerbin Orbit gives a much bigger margin for error, because you can always send up more fuel/another lander if you need it. The only downside is that you need to be careful not to miss the launch window to the planet you are trying to reach.

Building a working Spaceplane, putting small space stations in orbit around various planets as refueling outposts, building a lunar mining colony, doing a landing on Duna. Playing Final Fantasy X for the first time. Also trying to learn German and the Piano. So plenty to keep me busy.

I actually have not tried doing anything with asteroids, including grabbing them. I supposed I need to put that on my KSP to-do list in the near future.