Starchaser

Oh no. Those engines are all blasting and full out and the rocket is dedicatedly staying where it is. Except just after this screen grab, it fell over. I had Reliants on those boosters. The numbers were fine, except my TWR was 2.94. Since it won't launch as is, I'll put them back on. I was just trying to understand why it said 1 thing in the VAB and another on the pad. I've seen it before, but it's been an overall frustrating night through 3 different games (Diablo3, Endless Space 2 and KSP) It just broke my frustration threshold for the evening and made me actually ask the question.

So I'm not sure what's going on here. I'm throwing together a ship to go rescue a kerbal in minmus orbit. When I did it around the Mun, I burned about 500 d-v more than I expected, so I added more cushion to this one. At any rate, here it is. TWR is 1.25. All set to launch. But wait! ' Surface TWR, 0.78 What gives there?

Oh! I'll look for that Too bad I drove that particular satellite into the Mun as part of a requirement from a ScanSAT contract. (or maybe not. I tripped on a landing attempt of my rover, and when I reverted to the quicksave instead of where I thought I quicksaved it, on descent, it unrolled about an hour of playtime, and I might have saved that satellite. Chances are it's almost out of fuel now though.)

Some people build rocket clusters. I build question clusters. This one has no bases on my current mission, but it's important to know for my future game, I think. I am trying to send a couple of probes to Eve, for a ScanSAT contract. (1 rocket) So I get into orbit and try to leave Kerbin's SOI on the retrograde side. The Mun is in the way. So I go around an orbit and plot it again...and it's still in the way but I wind up with this encounter. I know that's picked up a lot of energy from the Mun as my Duna probe set craft has a 17 day exit encounter. Which brings me to my question. When I scroll farther out.... It's not showing me the resultant orbit. Is there a setting I don't have set right, or something? I'm obviously going to go around again, as I don't want a higher orbit. Or...wait.... Since I'm getting more energy on a path retrograde re;Kerbin, I'll be moving with less velocity relative to Kerbol, and it should result in a lower energy orbit, like a free return from burning retrograde from Munar orbit. Maybe I'll save here and wait for answers to my visible orbital path question before I give up what might be a serendipitous encounter.

I am unfamiliar with the merge craft function.... The root part explains why the biome probe was able to be saved. I made that little probe to piggyback on top of a mun lander, so I already had a pad in place, and built the probe from the engine up, so the game must have made the engine the root part. Anyway I had solved my issue by taking some of the biome probe off and adding what I needed to have it be like my science probe and then resaving it under a new name. But thanks for showing me what I was doing wrong

I admit to being mystified by subassemblies and how they work. I barely use them because it seems like every time I think "I'm going to use this combination a lot" the game won't let me save it. Case in point. My science probe. There's an octo2 in there, a couple oscar tanks, a spark, batteries, panels, antennae and 2 scanners and 3 or 4 other sciency parts. For 2 contracts I just received, I need to replicate this 4 times.Sounds perfect for a subassembly....but.... It says it's not attachable. However, note in my subassembly list "Biome Probe".... It's the same basic concept with less parts. WTH?

So, I have a likely trivial question. Not to me, of course or I wouldn't bother asking it. I'm early in my career, just starting to peek outside kerbin's SOI. I have a probe mission around the Mun, and I piggybacked a Gamma Ray Spectrometer on the probe. (which a search of my gamedata folder tells me is a KSP-I part.) I launch and since it's the first time using this part for me, I scan Kerbin for the science. All well and good. I collect my science and burn for Munar intercept. I get to munar orbit, do the things my contract demands, and then try to scan the Mun with the GRS. It tells me gamma ray experiment cannot be run right now. Nothing in the part description tells me it shouldn't be able to be run there. Does anyone have a clue what might be happening?

Egad. Embarrassing. My sleep hasn't been right. My wife was in the hospital thursday and friday. I claim fatigue! In the modern model you want to be at or around 45° at 10km, yes., but you want to keep lowering your angle as you climb. You should be close to horizontal by 50km or so. Like 10 to 15° Let me post a couple screenshots of my own to answer your return to Kerbin question. So, here's my system. Excuse the clutter. I wound up, actually, using the outer station as my burn example as it's inclination was slightly less. Inclination will have a large efffect on the delta v needed. So, I started with a node in about the same place you did, and as with yours, it took about 400 delta v for the return. I did, however, forget to grab a screenshot. Oddly enough, when I dragged the node closer to where I thought the proper burn spot should be, it created a kerbin exit trajectory. (In both of these two pics, it actually gave me an intersection with kerbin and I dialed back the delta v to give a visible periapsis. Even though I forgot to highlight it, this one was 83km And you can see, the burn needed was 250 delta-v Sigh. And I saved the second image twice. Can't even work Paint today. Anyway, the last one would have shown a node needing 191 delta-v with a periapsis of 84 km. The point I was trying to make is that the recommended starting point is something of a guideline. You should grab the node in the middle ring and slide it backwards and forwards on the orbit and see how it improves. Also. I proved multiple times that I'm an idiot!

At that point I had. I was about 1.4 on the launch pad. (I target 1.35 to 1.45 myself.)

On t/w, I mentioned I hadn't adjusted the thrust limiter on the SRB yet, but it was on my "to do" list. I hear you on the efficiency. However, with this as a 3 stage rocket, I had to wait to deploy the fairing because it was still flaming when the second stage ran out of fuel. I don't want to expose my very blunt probe to those kinds of atmospheric forces....but maybe there's another way I could apply the fairing....hmm...

So, I got a contract last night for 4 tourist. 1 tourist has all minmus/kerbin targets, 1 has all mun/kerbin targets and the other 2 have targets in both mun and minmus. I looked at just launching my 4 passenger lander and launching twice, once to each moon. I advance both 2 pilots and 2 support people this way However, I thought it was expensive. I started thinking of ways to do a 4 passenger lander with capability to land on both the mun and minmus within my 'budget' of about 214,000 which is the cost of running my 4 passenger lander twice. My initial thought was to make 1 rocket and then separate and dock with a tug module, a la Apollo. I discarded it, as I wasn't sure how to stack them. However I might come back to it, if I can make the tug module fit in an interstaged fairing. Or I could launched them docked, I suppose, with the tug over the lander. I thought about launching the tug on a separate rocket, but that approached my current cost At the absolute cheapest, I can slap a probe core on my 2 passenger lander which lets me put a passenger in the mk-1 pod and do the whole thing by launching that twice, which would cost me 88,000 total. But I'd lose on the crew experience. What are people's thoughts. 2 launches or one? And if 1, how would you arrange it? Additional info, I have a station in kerbin orbit I could dock with and drain about 1100 units of fuel, but that would work out to about 600 delta V for my tug stage, and I have 2 stations in orbit around the mun that could provide about the same in total. I also have a refueling craft in an orbit about halfway to the mun with plenty of fuel, but I try to use that only for emergencies.

Good morning hhatch. Welcome to KSP! As an alternative to this comment, you may want to look into a mod such as Kerbal Engineer Redux, (abbreviated KER) which will put your Ap and other relevant information on the screen at all times. I know I still get flustered when I need to flip back and forth quickly. If you're running KSP from steam, you can also use F12 which is steam's screenshot key. I do it the hard way, hit prt Scr pause the game and open paint. Saves me editing time later. Not quite right. This is an area of my RL expertise, as I work for an airplane manufacturer. At 33,000 feet, (10,000m) atmospheric pressure is around 4 psi, compared to about 14.5 at sea level. However the point is very valid that Isp improves rapidly from there. At our jet's cruising altitude of 43,000 the pressure is 2.35 ish for example. Or about Snark's 1/6

It's only fair to point out, Slashy, that V1 is designed for minmus orbit, v2 to take a payload to minmus, then become part of a duna comm constellation, and possibly fulfill a future scanning contract in the duna system, and v3 is only to do a scanning contract orbiting kerbin. I'd have given v3 less delta V but I am not terribly good at launching to a precise inclination that isn't 0 yet. It had a couple hundred delta-v left when I got it on the designated orbit. On the other hand, I launched right to a 450 ish km orbit and my circularization burn was 36 delta V The panels opened fine. I usually do use the 1 use panels on probes, but it was really late when I put this thing together and I missed that detail. Heh. Now I wanna look at my original pics and make sure I didn't use the retractable panels there too.

Stuff I learned about efficiency from this thread: Note that 9000 of the cost is a required science part, to complete the scan contract. And I haven't thrust limited the SRB. It's on my to-do list!

Heh. Yes, I know what mods I have installed. I don't necessarily know what parts near future intersperses in existing nodes. Fair enough. I was most likely too defensive. My apologies also.

Ok. I'm backing up this truck and parking it. The original intent of the post had nothing to do with efficiency. My reference to 'lights coming on' in the title is a reference to the fact that I'm beginning to understand game concepts and how to manipulate them instead of doing things brute force and with the first idea that comes to my head. The efficiency discussion came about because people asked why used a monoprop. I posted numbers to back up my decision, and was told I was wrong. I posted further numbers. It was a rabbit hole I didn't really want to delve in, but got sucked in because I can't seem to help but debate a topic when presented with the opportunity. FWIW, 1) my total delta-v is what it is, because I had the idea with this rocket to start building comm constellations after fulfilling the initial orbit matching. Which is also why there are antennae on the craft that won't fit inside a 2.5m wide fairing, or a 1.25m service bay, which was also suggested. 2) The mod and the engine. I played KSP for maybe 3 weeks 2 years ago, and quit on it when I couldn't get landing and docking, and a different game I had been waiting for came out. I picked it up again about a month ago. I find it disingenuous to expect me to know what parts are stock and which are not when I've opened a node I haven't seen before, while on the other hand, you've played for at least 2 years and can't identify a part as non-stock when given it's name. That's not intended as an attack, but merely holding a mirror up from what you expected of me. 3) I do listen to what I'm told, even when it seems I'm being stubborn and pigheaded (my most endearing traits!) I've tried a few of the ideas presented here in the few rockets I've designed since this topic started and have altered my design plans for others. (I currently have 13 active flights. I often have to wait for gaps in the schedule to design and launch new rockets)

So, a while back there was a challenge to de-orbit a probe core with as small a craft as possible. I didn't attempt it at the time, but this happened to me in game this morning. As part of a ScanSAT mission, I was given the optional task of de-orbiting a satellite I had put into orbit on a previous mission. So I've burned to come almost straight down. It's started breaking up. I figured it would burn up quick Oh my! It survived re-entry, and started spinning really fast And what's left of it..on the ground

(Oops. I got into playing...and I'm 13 kerbal days behind on this post now. I'll need to sort through some save games and make some notes before I begin posting again.)

On the first point. I'm not challenging you by any means. However I went with a 2.5m base because my payload requires a mushroom fairing even over that. I was concerned about the aerodynamics of mushrooming out a fairing to about 3m on a 1.25m rocket. I suppose instead of asking if it's possible, I should just try it though. As for talking it personally, up to a point I was not. I enjoy debate and math. But one response seems to boil down to "you're practically cheating"...it's starting to feel personal.

Mass of FL-T100 0.5625 t Mass of RCS-RL25 1.15 t ratio of mass(rcs):mass(fl) 2.04444444 ratio of thrust provided 2112:1032 = 2.0465 the difference in thrust per unit mass is less than 1% The weight of the LV-95 is 10% more than the weight of the spark (0.11t vs 0.1t) so the actual difference in thrust per unit mass of just the fuel itself is probably closer to 3 or 4% with the monoprop being higher, based on these engines. Different ISP will, of course, give you different results. I am not sure why people are trying to shoot holes in my choice. It makes sense in every numerical analysis I've shown. look at it this way. The Spark provides 20kN of thrust for 78.5 seconds with the fuel provided for a total thrust of 1570 kN Th LV-95 produces 14 kN of thrust for 229.5 seconds with the fuel provided gives a total thrust of 3213. If you divide that by the weight ratio of the tanks (i.e.) providing the LV-95 with essentially the same amount of fuel as the spark has and you get 1571.6 kN. By this measure, the combinations are essentially identical.

You missed the point of my putting a first stage (fl-t800, swivel) in my example post. If the mission was to make a fly-by of the mun, for example, my monoprop rocket can do it as is. The other two rockets won't make it. In my OP rockets, making the change to a monoprop top stage raised my total dV on the mission enough to remove the 4 SRBs in the first stage. thus, reducing total cost and weight. Which IS the point. In fact the total dV is high enough I could possibly use a smaller first stage tank.

As promised, here's the answer with hard numbers and pictures Since you specify the spark, I'll use it as an option Simple vessel, just a mk-1 capsule. First option, Pod, fl-t100 fuel tank, terrier Cost 1140, weight 1.903t Option 2 Pod, FL-T100 fuel tank, Spark Cost 990. Weight 1.503t Option 3 Pod, RCS-RL25 RCS Fuel Tank, LV-95 Orbital Manuevering engine Cost 1550, weight 2.1t Ok, so I was wrong with the cost and weight. I was ripping cost and weight off my OP rocket, so I got confused. However, it's more than twice the dV than the terrier, and almost 2/3 more dV than the spark So let me take it one step further and add an FL-T800 and a swivel, and a decoupler that matches the engine in order to test how the extra weight of the top stage affects the whole rocket. Forgive me, but I'll just post the final dV instead of another set of pics. Terrier 3226 dV Spark 3653dV LV-95 4243 dV The difference is all because you essentially have more than twice as much fuel in the single component system, than in the 2 component liquid fuel/oxidizer system. That's why, Aegolius13, I picked the monoprop. I've redesigned most of my probes to use this tank/engine combo now too.

I'll have to rescind that strategy and enact a 25%....I'll get worse returns than the 50%, but it should only be a couple tenths.

I am at work at the moment, so I can't answer with hard numbers, but I can give the general thought behind doing what I did and why. Yes, the monoprop engine has a worse specific impulse than the standard engines. I had a terrier in that slot before. However that engine weighs almost nothing in comparison. The tank is slightly heavier than the FL tank that was there, but in carrying a 1 component fuel instead of a 2 component fuel system, I am carrying much more fuel (almost twice) in burn time, and that engine/tank combo gave me at least 30% more dV for less cost. The other liquid fuel/oxidizer engines I had access to either were similar to the terrier in weight issues, or had too little thrust for my liking. I am not very far along in the tech tree because I like to hoard my points until I am pushed into a node or I find something I want to try

[LOG 08:52:19.639] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 0 Reputation taken, yields 0 Science [LOG 08:52:19.640] Awarding 66755 funds to player for contract completion [LOG 08:52:19.640] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 0 Reputation taken, yields 0 Science [LOG 08:52:19.641] Awarding 6 reputation to player for contract completion [LOG 08:52:19.641] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 3 Reputation taken, yields 1.30411 Science [LOG 08:52:19.642] Added 3.393208 (6) reputation: 'ContractReward'. [LOG 08:52:19.645] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 3 Reputation taken, yields 1.30411 Science OG 08:53:01.767] FF: creating new hall of fame browser [LOG 08:53:01.775] FF: hall of fame browser opened [LOG 08:53:01.776] FF: hall of fame refreshed [LOG 08:54:07.705] [UIMasterController]: ShowUI [LOG 08:54:07.705] Game Paused! [LOG 08:59:07.814] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 0 Reputation taken, yields 0 Science [LOG 08:59:07.814] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 0 Reputation taken, yields 0 Science [LOG 08:59:07.815] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 0 Reputation taken, yields 0 Science [LOG 08:59:07.815] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 0 Reputation taken, yields 0 Science [LOG 08:59:07.816] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 0 Reputation taken, yields 0 Science [LOG 08:59:07.816] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 0 Reputation taken, yields 0 Science [LOG 08:59:07.817] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 0 Reputation taken, yields 0 Science [LOG 08:59:07.817] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 0 Reputation taken, yields 0 Science [LOG 08:59:07.818] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 1 Reputation taken, yields 0.4347032 Science [LOG 08:59:27.780] [UIMasterController]: ShowUI [LOG 08:59:27.781] Game Unpaused! [LOG 09:22:45.618] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 0 Reputation taken, yields 0 Science [LOG 09:22:45.619] Awarding 25000 funds to player for contract completion [LOG 09:22:45.620] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 0 Reputation taken, yields 0 Science [LOG 09:22:45.620] Awarding 12 science to player for contract completion [LOG 09:22:45.621] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 0 Reputation taken, yields 0 Science [LOG 09:22:45.621] Awarding 10 reputation to player for contract completion [LOG 09:22:45.622] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 5 Reputation taken, yields 2.173516 Science [LOG 09:22:45.639] Added 5.647494 (10) reputation: 'ContractReward'. [LOG 09:22:45.640] [CurrencyConverter for Unpaid Research Program]: 5 Reputation taken, yields 2.173516 Science So....yeah The first and last instance explain the lack of progression. The middle one explains why I started losing rep a few days ago when I installed Final Frontier Heh. Should I bug report the middle log piece to Final Frontier? And if so, where would I put it?