dafidge9898

If you mean you want to have a circular orbit without having to coast to apoapsis, that is a very inefficient way of achieving orbit in stock. That is, however, the only way in RO.

You can get rid of space junk by opening the setting menu at the main menu, find the slider that says max persistent debris, and lower it to whatever you like. I think the default is 250. Are you sure it's not because you're getting more comfortable with the game, therefore making bigger and more complex rockets?

I was playing Realism Overhaul, and my space station ran out of supplies. I sent up a resupply probe. It took a long time for me to rendezvous with the station because I had not yet mastered the skill of under 10 hour orbital rendezvous (my rendezvous took about 4 days). I was burning to match velocities with the space station, and when I was only 500 meters out from the station, the crew died from dehydration. All seven of them. Like, the timing couldn't be worse.

Reliable launch escape systems on every manned rocket.

Fins should do just fine with controlling your ship. Because you're only using SRBs in the dense atmosphere, it seems like the best option.

A CoL behind the CoM doesn't always guarantee it won't flip over in the upper atmosphere. You have some pretty heavy engines in the back, and when that high up in the atmosphere, the heavy part of the craft always leads.

I know the KS-25 is after the RS-25/SSME. I think the Rhino is after the F-1, but don't take my word for it.

I would go with fewer engines, because engines are heavy. Fewer engines=less weight. Assuming you're using the engines for orbital maneuvers, use fewer engines. TWR doesn't really matter when you're already in space. If you're using them for liftoff, then clustering them is an ok idea.

No, it's definitely KAS that add's the winch. I have the winch and I don't have Infernal Robotics.

I think simply pushing it with the rover would be a better idea. Screenshots would help to clarify the situation for further evaluation.

I have over 110 mods. I'm not even sure if I use half of them. I'm currently playing an RP-0 career game in Realism overhaul, and to say the least, it's pretty cool. I'm particularly proud of a launch script my friend and I wrote with another mod, kOS. The cool thing about RP-0 and all the other realism mods I have is you start out launching V2s. You strap on the simple science things you have and send them up, then unlock more science stuff, and send it up again. You end up modifying the original V2 to meet your scientific research needs. Also, I had a Chuck Yeager moment with Jeb (minus the fire in the helmet). I put him in a rocket plane and flew him up past the Karman line. Upon entering the atmosphere, I get into an unrecoverable spin. I'm at about 20 km when I decide it's time to bail, because I was losing altitude really fast, and if I was able to recover, I would still end up crashing into the ground. I bailed freefell for thousands of meters, gently touching down because I had EVA parachutes installed.

There was one, actually. It's known as Mars Direct, and it planned on using the Sabatier reaction to create methane to use as fuel, and then electrolysis with the remaining water to create oxygen to use as oxidizer. Here's the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct#Mission_scenario

You're not familiar with a polar orbit? It's simply an orbit with a 90 degree inclination: one that goes over both poles and has the prograde vectore facing directly north or south. Adjust your inclination to match this.

How would one go about matching planes with a target during launch? I play RO, and launches usually require a constant burn to orbit. Inclination changes from already established orbits, even if very small, require massive amounts of dV, making a dogleg maneuver the best option. Any math you guys can throw at me to figure it out?

How I used to do it was like a sky crane. I have the rover hanging off of something by a rectangular strut or something. The thing it's hanging off of houses engines and fuel. Once the wheels touch down, I stage, and the engines + fuel tanks go flying off far away, while the lander stays tight on the surface.

Are you changing the final angle to maintain altitude? Or are you letting the ship just stay level?

You must have been viewing the map with Kerbin as the focus. Where it says "Mun Encounter", it should also say a periapsis. If that periapsis is negative, you're going to crash into the Mun. Even if the periapsis is negative, it will still show a "Mun Escape" node because it treats Mun as a point mass. In the map view, you can select Mun as the focus by double clicking on it, or by right clicking on it and selecting center view, or by clicking on it and selecting center view. I don't remember which one, but I'm pretty sure it's the first one. This way you can see your trajectory more clearly.

I don't know what you mean. Some screenshots would help. Is it because when you click on the fairings, you detach them?

And now we have an updated rocket. Pic: http://imgur.com/a/3amPK I replaced the decouplers between stages with fairings to make it more aerodynamic. I'm guessing you have the procedural fairings mod because I'm pretty sure it's an RO dependency. If not, get it. Also, get Ven's Stock Revamp. I kept the first stage pretty much the same because it was already pretty good. High mass fuel for the first stage is always a good choice. The second stage comes complete with a new, RS-25 hydrolox engine; much more efficient that the previous pentaborane burning one. The TWR of the second stage and payload is now only .5, decreased from 1. This is ok, it just means you have to pitch up a little while it's burning. Most second stages, actually, have TWRs less than 1. Assuming your launch is mostly efficient, the first two stages should get you into orbit without having to burn the third stage. I changed the second stage fuel tank to balloon-cryo, making it extra lightweight. You can do this in the right click menu of the fuel tank in the VAB. The second stage also comes equipped with four RCS thrusters and four small spherical fuel tanks towards the bottom. The RCS thrusters burn Aerozine-50 and NTO. By the way, you can change the configuration of engines and RCS thrusters in their right click menu in the VAB, under engine GUI. Jettison the fairings at around 120 km. The third stage engine is the same, but the fuel tank has been changed to balloon-cryo as well. This is your transfer stage, however if your launch is inefficient, there is extra fuel for you to circularize. The transfer stage also comes with four RCS thrusters. They also burn A50 and NTO. The CSM and lander have the most changes. The CSM has only one engine now. It's the same engine, but there's only one of them. There are 4 RCS thrusters around it's CoM, reduced from 8. They burn the same fuel as the main engine does (I configured it in the Engine GUI mentioned above). I removed the heat shield and added a life support module. I reduced the mess of decouplers you had before. The lander has fewer RCS thrusters as well, and the same engine. Its RCS thrusters also use the same fuel as its engine. There are new, more powerful solar panels, and there are only two of them on each craft. I trashed the hydrazine tanks, reducing a lot of weight. It's a common beginner mistake to overload on RCS fuel. I've done it a lot in the past. After completing your transfer burn, you must stage and separate the spacecraft and lander from the transfer stage. Then you must stage again, and pilot the command module to dock with the lander right beneath it. Do it Apollo style, where the CSM turns around and docks with the lander. Do correction burns to place your moon periapsis around 80 km, then once you get there, burn to circularize. You have enough fuel to do this with your lander attached; it should spend about 800 dV. When you're ready, EVA the kerbal to the lander, and undock. Lower the lander periapsis to 30 km, and do the descent as I have described before. DO NOT try and change the inclination to 0; you will run out of fuel. Instead, land slightly west of your CSM's orbit; you have enough fuel for this. Once you've had enough time on the moon, do your ascent like any other and rendezvous and dock with the CSM. EVA your kerbal to the CSM, then ditch the lander. Transfer back to Earth, and reenter. The Mk1 pod comes with 200 units of ablative material. Considering a LEO reentry only burns about 20 of the 200 ablative material, I think a reentry from the moon will be fine, but if you end up burning up, you should have enough dV to add a heat shield. I think that's it. Craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5sjq8auq3mcz72u/moon express 1234 V2.craft?dl=0 Any questions?

I'd be happy to. I'll give you some tips on RSS moon landings along with the new craft (I have quite a few under my belt). Expect it within 24 hours.

Oh my goodness, no. Not yet, at least. I'm one of the students. Headed off to Embry Riddle in two weeks where I will hopefully get my CFI rating, as well as a degree in Aerospace Engineering! Nothing like a good Cessna. My profile picture is actually from my first solo in a 172N.

You just helped two people with that. I had no idea

It's not my own 172, it's with a flying group. The group owns the 172 and uses it to train students with volunteer instructors.

Your rocket does not look too efficient. There are a lot of improvements that can be made, but I digress. As for the lander, the most efficient descent with a TWR that high would be to lower the periapsis to around 30km. Then, at periapsis, completely kill horizontal speed and just fall straight down. Then, at the last second, burn. That way you'll be slow enough to land right above the surface. This is known as a "Suicide Burn", probably because you have to be borderline suicidal to carry it out. This is the most efficient way for pretty much every lander, but most landers don't have a TWR of 4, making it more difficult (and dangerous) to do this. Now about adding dV to your lander, don't just add fuel. Try getting a smaller engine that weighs less, and don't have 8 really big RCS thrusters. Leave only the 4 quad thrusters, and switch them out for the smaller ones. Just changing your RCS thrusters to my suggested way increases your dV on the lander by 100. Configure the RCS so it uses the same fuel type as the engines, so you don't have to carry an extra fuel that you may not entirely use up. I take back what I said about the lander engine; it's a pretty efficient hypergolic engine. For your service module, or whatever you will have your lander dock to in space, it does not need three engines. It hardly needs 1 engine of that size. The Apollo CSM had an earth TWR of 0.3; yours is 1.05. About your RCS thrusters, you can configure their fuel type. If you configure their fuel type to MMH/NTO (which is what your lander/CSM engines currently use), you will not have to carry a very heavy hydrazine tank. I increased your lander dV by over 1000 by doing this. You only needed help with the lander, but your rocket also needs improvement. If you'd like any more tips, I'd be more than happy to assist.

The F-16 is unstable but maneuverable. The SAS always oscillates a little, and it can be annoying. If you wan't to build a stable craft, put the CoL behind the CoM, have the wings right on top of the CoM, and the stabs far behind it. If you want to build an unstable craft, don't do that. Instability means maneuverability most of the time. The Sukhoi fighters are incredibly maneuverable, but unstable. We've lost a few F-15s to unrecoverable spins. The Cessna 172 that I fly, cannot even get into a spin. A higher wing loading (weight/AreaOfWing) means lower maneuverability, a lower one means higher maneuverability, but at the cost of airspeed. So if you wan't a very maneuverable plane that doesn't kill its airspeed in one turn, put lot's of swept wing, big control surfaces, and big engines. But be careful, it might just flip over. Even if the CoM is infront of the CoL, it can still flip over. And regarding SAS oscillations: if you're cruising, you can just decrease the control input of the control surfaces. However, this will make it less maneuverable. Real world fighters sort of do this; not to keep the plane from oscillating, but to keep overly aggressive high speed maneuvers from putting the pilot into G-LoC or tearing off the wings. You can fly without SAS, but you have to be very gentle and careful with your input.