(The subject of vehicle design ought probably to have its own section in the forum; I'm posting here... sorry if I've misposted) Background I discovered KSP in Dec 2014 as a result of a Xmas gift. From Dec 25 until the release of KSP 1.0, I spent more time flying in KSP than I spent at my full-time engineering job that pays the bills. With the release of 1.0 and discovering that my growing stable of single-architecture vehicles would no longer fly, I stopped playing KSP -- cold turkey -- thinking that I would "solve the problems" later. Well, I'm back, but struggling and still failing. I would really appreciate general and specific advice from anyone who has had some success making the transition to 1.0. Deeper Background (I just read a post about "what kind of Kerbonaut are you?") I suppose there are two kinds of players in general. Those who like to think that astro-engineering in KSP means they could cut it at NASA as real astrojocks. Maybe they want more and more reality until they can't cut it any more and, hey, it was fun while it lasted. Then maybe there are those like me who want a simplified environment that teaches you real things by offering graduated challenges but leaves plenty of room for imagination, creativity, innovation and fun. As engineering is my day job I can tell you it is detailed, hard, tedious, repetitious, boring, frustrating and exhausting. Whichever kind of Kerbonaut you are (see above), KSP has taught you much more about e.g. solar systems or orbital mechanics than you ever could imagine have learned anywhere other than NASA and given you that education broadly as well (which you would not get at NASA which is why engineers there relax at home (or at work ) flying missions in KSP!). I don't want to avoid worthy challenges! (These are what make recreational pastimes fun.) Orbital mechanics and particularly rendez-vous and docking are enormously hard (the first Russian cosmonaut to try to dock spent a very frustrating hour and then ran out of RCS fuel after having been as close as 1 meter. And he had no idea what he was doing: a space cowboy with the Right Stuff making it up as he went... The Russian-language version of KSP had not yet been released...) Orbital mechanics is challenging but it is my friend because if I understand it, it helps me get to where I want to go. Conversely, atmospheric re-entry is a foe because it does absolutely nothing for me except oppose my progress. While the first kind of Kerbonaut might very well tend to build spacecraft by consciously or unconsciously copying NASA ("mmm, yeah, this looks real"), the second kind of Kerbonaut may produce outlandish and even butt-ugly, preposterously impossible craft that are entertaining only if you don't puke on first sight. (Scott Manley has a couple of early videos of space-suited Kerbonauts sitting atop rockets in the open that demonstrate the concept pretty well!) The first kind of Kerbonaut probably should have tuned out of this post long ago -- and my apologies to any who have stayed with me this far!! Example Before I fell off KSP when 1.0 came out, I had been developing a common architecture for a whole family of multi- purpose vehicles to facilitate exploration of the whole Kerbol system. Yes, they were butt-ugly. But underneath, in my opinion anyway, there were concepts and insights and innovations that I had seen nowhere else. I was having fun. In addition, I came across someone else's craft labeled simply 'Duna Explorer' that I thought was ingenious and inspiring. None of this worked any more with KSP 1.0 and the typical problem was stable ascent for a while, followed by instability and tumbling. It's time to reveal a picture of exactly what I mean by the aerospace term: "butt-ugly". Please take a look at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/113874-Neptune-Space-Labs and follow it to the Youtube site, Neptune Space Labs. You'll only get to see Neptune Gemini (space station launcher) which is a craft launched in pairs to make a six-spoke space station. It's a member of the Neptune family and the architecture is based upon three tiers: upper deck is payload and varies between family members depending upon mission(s) middle deck is the structural base for the whole vehicle and is also the deorbit stage lower deck contains the staged boosters for ascent and orbital insertion. Neptune tends to be tall which leads to the problem in KSP 1.0. Failed Remedies: I've put fairings onthe high-drag upper deck components I've put extra RCS especially at the top extremities I've put totally big-ass fins at the bottom of the craft (and everywhere else) I've shortened the length of the craft by distributing the payload (spokes) around the girth I've employed dynamic (and static) shifting of fuel mass to control the CoM so that the upper deck does not become comparatively fuel-heavy I've eschewed use of the MechJeb Ascent Guidance to opt for simple, stable, vertical ascent in the initial phase Nothing works. KSP 1.0 aerodynamics has defeated me. Unfairly, I feel because the totally fat-ass tail fins should have totally prevented end- swapping (hmm, well maybe not). To boot, I have lost my mind. (Obviously, when you rerun the tape at Neptune Space Labs...) Some of you will say, "yeah, that's ugly, Squad should revoke your KSP license and refund your purchase price and ban you for life." The Prize I think I've set the stage now with a pretty impossible challenge.. and packed the grandstand with observers. Any one in the very helpful and very knowledgeable KSP community who can identify in particular what is my major malfunction in KSP 1.0 all of a sudden is gonna deserve to comport themselves henceforth on two legs with a John Wayne, or perhaps I should say, Chuck Yeager, style swagger. More seriously... guys. what are the biggest lessons you learned when you hit the KSP Mach 1.0 aerodynamics barrier? How did you break through?
(The subject of vehicle design ought probably to have its own section in the forum; I'm posting here... sorry if I've misposted) Background I discovered KSP in Dec 2014 as a result of a Xmas gift. From Dec 25 until the release of KSP 1.0, I spent more time flying in KSP than I spent at my full-time engineering job that pays the bills. With the release of 1.0 and discovering that my growing stable of single-architecture vehicles would no longer fly, I stopped playing KSP -- cold turkey -- thinking that I would "solve the problems" later. Well, I'm back, but struggling and still failing. I would really appreciate general and specific advice from anyone who has had some success making the transition to 1.0. Deeper Background (I just read a post about "what kind of Kerbonaut are you?") I suppose there are two kinds of players in general. Those who like to think that astro-engineering in KSP means they could cut it at NASA as real astrojocks. Maybe they want more and more reality until they can't cut it any more and, hey, it was fun while it lasted. Then maybe there are those like me who want a simplified environment that teaches you real things by offering graduated challenges but leaves plenty of room for imagination, creativity, innovation and fun. As engineering is my day job I can tell you it is detailed, hard, tedious, repetitious, boring, frustrating and exhausting. Whichever kind of Kerbonaut you are (see above), KSP has taught you much more about e.g. solar systems or orbital mechanics than you ever could imagine have learned anywhere other than NASA and given you that education broadly as well (which you would not get at NASA which is why engineers there relax at home (or at work ) flying missions in KSP!). I don't want to avoid worthy challenges! (These are what make recreational pastimes fun.) Orbital mechanics and particularly rendez-vous and docking are enormously hard (the first Russian cosmonaut to try to dock spent a very frustrating hour and then ran out of RCS fuel after having been as close as 1 meter. And he had no idea what he was doing: a space cowboy with the Right Stuff making it up as he went... The Russian-language version of KSP had not yet been released...) Orbital mechanics is challenging but it is my friend because if I understand it, it helps me get to where I want to go. Conversely, atmospheric re-entry is a foe because it does absolutely nothing for me except oppose my progress. While the first kind of Kerbonaut might very well tend to build spacecraft by consciously or unconsciously copying NASA ("mmm, yeah, this looks real"), the second kind of Kerbonaut may produce outlandish and even butt-ugly, preposterously impossible craft that are entertaining only if you don't puke on first sight. (Scott Manley has a couple of early videos of space-suited Kerbonauts sitting atop rockets in the open that demonstrate the concept pretty well!) The first kind of Kerbonaut probably should have tuned out of this post long ago -- and my apologies to any who have stayed with me this far!! Example Before I fell off KSP when 1.0 came out, I had been developing a common architecture for a whole family of multi- purpose vehicles to facilitate exploration of the whole Kerbol system. Yes, they were butt-ugly. But underneath, in my opinion anyway, there were concepts and insights and innovations that I had seen nowhere else. I was having fun. In addition, I came across someone else's craft labeled simply 'Duna Explorer' that I thought was ingenious and inspiring. None of this worked any more with KSP 1.0 and the typical problem was stable ascent for a while, followed by instability and tumbling. It's time to reveal a picture of exactly what I mean by the aerospace term: "butt-ugly". Please take a look at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/113874-Neptune-Space-Labs and follow it to the Youtube site, Neptune Space Labs. You'll only get to see Neptune Gemini (space station launcher) which is a craft launched in pairs to make a six-spoke space station. It's a member of the Neptune family and the architecture is based upon three tiers: upper deck is payload and varies between family members depending upon mission(s) middle deck is the structural base for the whole vehicle and is also the deorbit stage lower deck contains the staged boosters for ascent and orbital insertion. Neptune tends to be tall which leads to the problem in KSP 1.0. Failed Remedies: I've put fairings onthe high-drag upper deck components I've put extra RCS especially at the top extremities I've put totally big-ass fins at the bottom of the craft (and everywhere else) I've shortened the length of the craft by distributing the payload (spokes) around the girth I've employed dynamic (and static) shifting of fuel mass to control the CoM so that the upper deck does not become comparatively fuel-heavy I've eschewed use of the MechJeb Ascent Guidance to opt for simple, stable, vertical ascent in the initial phase Nothing works. KSP 1.0 aerodynamics has defeated me. Unfairly, I feel because the totally fat-ass tail fins should have totally prevented end- swapping (hmm, well maybe not). To boot, I have lost my mind. (Obviously, when you rerun the tape at Neptune Space Labs...) Some of you will say, "yeah, that's ugly, Squad should revoke your KSP license and refund your purchase price and ban you for life." The Prize I think I've set the stage now with a pretty impossible challenge.. and packed the grandstand with observers. Any one in the very helpful and very knowledgeable KSP community who can identify in particular what is my major malfunction in KSP 1.0 all of a sudden is gonna deserve to comport themselves henceforth on two legs with a John Wayne, or perhaps I should say, Chuck Yeager, style swagger. More seriously... guys. what are the biggest lessons you learned when you hit the KSP Mach 1.0 aerodynamics barrier? How did you break through?