Warzouz

@Alshain, After rereading you posts and mine, I must correct my point of view. What you described and what I describe are BOTH suicide burns. BUT, to do a efficient suicide burn, you need to burn most of your fuel as low as possible from the ground. You suggested to cancel your orbital speed then fall down vertically* : this is very inefficient, I agree with you I suggest to do the lightest reasonable** deorbit burn, then fall down (mostly horizontal) * This is even not a good option for new players because it's quite difficult to escape from a vertical fall when you discover that your landing spot is not great (high slope). If you're more horizontal, a light radial burn will quickly offer you another spot for a low dV. ** If you're too shallow you have more risk to hit ground features before your targeted landing spot. The most efficient deorbit burn would be when you PE touch ground on the other side of the body you want to land on (180°). But doing that, your nearly sure to crash into something before. I usually target ground around 120° from my deorbit burn. If terrain is harder, like Bop, it's more like 60°.

That's not a "suicide burn". What you describe is truly totally inefficient though. In a suicid burn your "perpendicular" orbit is nearly no existent (well it's your safety margin...) To do a suicide burn use KER or use this method : Do a light deorbit burn (for Mun, around 20 to 50 m/s from 20km) Where your trajectory touch the ground, create a node and pull it retrograde until it flips The burn time gives you a gross approximation** on when you need to start burning retrograde. Start burning retrograde full when the time to node is equal to you burn time and keep retrograde. When you start burning, remove the node, you don't need it, you must only focus on your surface velocity. If your burn is timed correctly you should get a near 0 speed not far from the ground. If you are too high, that mean you started burning to early (and waste fuel to gravity loss, because you fall vertically in the end). But that's better than too late which crashing into the ground. ** I noticed that with a higher TWR you can burn later. But again, for more precise suicide burn, KER gives you nice data as well as @Snark mod (better burn time). If you use those, you can readjust your timing and temporarily stop burning. Suicide burn is not possible with too low TWR because you vertical speed may become uncontrollable

From memory, I had the pyramids very quickly (probably from start), even before the airfield. then the monolith. Then Arches on the mun then nothing until I land on Duna (I gives me the monolith on Mun, I have to do)

Well I'd like to see some real data. That would mean the most efficient way to takeoff is to fix your start point on your take-off location (even you burn radial, and keep you insertion node half of your total dV to reach orbit. Which is very far from what is explained here. The Slash method, when you don't aim for a target is basically a suicide burn with a very high deorbit burn which brings you to a very non horizontal trajectory. On the opposite, you want to set your landing point as shallow as possible to only fight horizontal speed, until the last moment. That reduces gravity loss. Shash explain how to aim which include radial burns which is again losses (you fight gravity more to maintain your altitude for a longer time). But if you have precise data, I very would like to compare both methods.

Ah, it seems that the problem is linked to the proximity of the gigantors EDIT : No I found it, it's about part. I replaced the "M-Beam 200 I-Beam" by 2 "M-Beam 200 I-Beam Pocket Edition" and it doesn't wobble anymore. This design is OK

@Goslash27 method is less efficient than suicide burn. It's a compromise between a suicide burn and a "flat landing/zero descent" used for low TWR landers. Slash is ambiguous about terms. A "reverse gravity turn" IS a "suicide burn". The technique he describes is not a reverse gravity turn. In a gravity turn, after giving your ship a bump, it is suppose to follow prograde on its own. His technique is also very nice for precise landing. I used it and it worked very well. But it's less delta-V efficient. For example, for letting the target always be at the impact point you have to burn partially radial. This is not efficient but convenient.

Sorry, the posted pics is from my old topic and was hot in 1.0.4. Here is a test on the launchpad. You can see the solar panels are massively moving. The 2 small probes are wobbling and the ship itself has moved from the center of the launchpad. On this pic, ALL reaction wheel are disabled. (click to enlarge) EDIT and here is the design in the VAB EDIT 2 : Important : this bug appear only if panels are OPEN when the scene loads. If they start retracted, you can open them safely and there is no wobble. You can DL a test craft. Wobbles start 3 seconds after loading.

Well, it's efficient to do a suicide burn with a high TWR lander. But again, efficient in what ? Delta-V, mass, cost ? For example, I packed a 7500m/s delta-V into a 750kg probe Mun-capable (TWR was 1.3 to 1.5), it was very mass efficient, but I probably lost a lot of delta-V due to gravity loss because of that low TWR.

Ah, you're be right, It don't use "docking port indicator" mod, I use the minimalist "Navball docking indicator". My bad

It seems there we can't rename docking ports in 1.1.2 as we could do in 1.0.5. This is a very useful feature for space stations when you want to choose the docking port .you want to use.

Does anyone experienced this bug I have a space station generic design that did very well in 1.0.5. I'm using it in my 1.1.2 career. I can't post more picture, I'm not at home. The config is quite simple : 4 gigantors are radially stick on a M-Beam 200 I-Beam, which is also plugged The Not-Rockomax Micronode (for looks) which is connected to a FL-A5 Adapter to the main stack. In 1.1.2, evey time the ship is loaded when solar panels are DEPLOYED, all the panels start flapping heavily (literally). causing heavy wobble even if all reaction wheel are disabled. The solution is to retract the panels (they still flaps...) save, and quickload. In that state, they don't flap and you can deploy them without issue. Do you have this issue ? If you want to try, you can DL the package in the following post. The ships is the "SESS large inward station" (it a sub assembly)

@nightingale, I this there is a bug somewhere, I had the mun mission about the arches, but then, nothing. I know where most anomalies are becaus I have scansat scan of them and I (in another game) visit 5 of them on a Elcano challenge. Using the contract lottery didn't help, no more Anomaly contract were created I went to Duna, land and then, more anomaly Mun missions poped out (especially the monolith one) Does the prerequisite on that mission is correct ? PS : I don't have any other contract packs except the configurator (which is a prerequisite) PPS : I already said it, but I say it again : These contracts are the most interesting I ever did. Thanks, @nightingale

It depends on what you're easy with. you can land on Mun with TWR=1.2 It'll be touchy, but doable. If you want easy landing have a TWR>2. Check Kerbal-X

You can build SSTO rocket and make them reusable. It's VERY cost efficient and easier to design than SSTO spaceplanes Here is my design Well, SSTO space planes are more cost efficient than reusable SSTO rocket. My SSTO rocket family is rate down to 370funds per payload ton (including the average recovery loss). I don't know much regular rocket that are under 1000funds per payload ton.

For that matter, that never bothered me.

For a first Mun landing, I would suggest deorbiting from a 30 km (or even 50km) rather than 10km. It's a bit less efficient, but maybe less frightening for a new player. Recommendation : Test the round trip in sandbox using stock Kerbal-X. It's an easy rocket to fly with plenty of fuel and good TWR. You'll be easy with it when you can do the round trip in less than 30 minutes. As for other bodies, it's quite the same but you may need a higher TWR and/or more fuel (Delta-V). And for atmospheric bodies, they'll allow you to save fuel...

I don't use it much, but I had when I used to play with tugs for building space stations. I find it quite well. Sure it's not efficient, but it's a monoprop engine...

If we say "Friction is mainly responsible for heating", we suppose it's the air against the capsule that causing the heating like when you rub your hands until you feel heating. If we say "Compression is mainly responsible for heating", we suppose it's the air which is heated by the pressure created by the arriving capsule and heats back the capsule because it's in contact with or irradiated by a hotter gas. The process is not the same. Edit : Further more If friction is mostly responsible, the "flames" should come from the capsule itself If compression is mostly responsible, the "flames" should come from the compressed air in front of the capsule.

I must say that Duna is the most disappointing ting planet. It's usually the first one to go. But there is not much to see and it has a poor biome design. Even Ike is more interesting. Biome count should depend on the planet size.

Yes. An analogy I like is a "piston" (yet less extreme)

Here is my solution for rover deployment (they're pack them by 4, but you can deploy only 2). I haven't tested it in 1.1.2 yet. As for you issue with the part balancing, we discussed it here And here is the mod I created to implement it

I agree, I find that the safe speed are a bit higher. For now I've only tested Kerbin SOI returns, I'm not in interplanetary yet.

As it's a solo game, you can put your option in your own gameplay. Do I use the MPL or not ? You assertion about scientist is false. They are VERY useful for stripping science out of a planetary body. They can reset jucy science experiments (Goo and Lab)

Well my initial question wan't about missing stuff in KSP, but what's in the roadmap. When 1.1 was released there was some kind of live feed from Squad. I looked through it and at one time, I think they was asked for future new planets. Their answer was closer to NO than YES from what I understood. I would like to have a roadmap, even though any roadmap is not written in stone. Even with a roadmap, your allowed to use side tracks... Factorio devs publish and maintain a roadmap for years with 1, 2 or 3 major version ahead. there has been some changes, but in the end, the community can see where they go. The only thing we are nearly sure of is telemetry (mostly because it was delayed from 1.1) Ah, and a revamp of rocket parts is also on the menu.

KER has slope related data which is VERY useful. When KER says you'll land on a 45° slope, time to light you engine and burn sideway or pray your ship is well designed (but with the actual strut bugs, it won't save you...). Eye-balling is possible but it's usually had to distinguish slopes from flat terrain until very near ground. You can still use the "touch and go" manoeuvre : land on the slope, let your lander contact with the terrain, and fire engines before it fall or slide. You'll be going down the slope, hoping for a flatter terrain to land on. Viable if you have reasonably high torque. Either way, it's always easier to change landing location when your trajectory is not vertical. Shallow landing is easier to tweak at the last minute. It'll cost more for a vertical approach.