Clipperride

The Lunar Module could land itself, but as you say, none of the Commanders actually used the automated system all the way down to the surface. Partly that was, as you say, to avoid local hazards and partly because they were test pilots who simply couldn't resist a "hands on" landing. In the early days of Apollo (when at least 2 missions a year were planned throughout the early 1970's) there were plans to send missions with 2 landers. One would carry the astronauts and land conventionally and the second would be automated and carry extra equipment for extended stays. - Robert Goodwin's "The Lunar Exploration Scrapbook (Apogee Books) has some wonderful drawings showing plans to make use of the LM modular design. If you worry about SAS being a "cheat", remember that even the first Mercury flights could be "flown" by a chimp!

It might help to think in terms of Stability Assist rather than Autopilot. It's claimed that, for example, the USAF Stealth series of aeroplanes would be impossible to fly manually. You're telling the rocket where to go and the electronics are making the little corrections that (try to) keep the vechile pointing that way. Using SAS is no guarantee of getting into orbit, especially as you start to build heavier and more complex rockets. One tip though. SAS can cause problems of its own, with larger rockets, the system over compensates and the whole stack starts to fishtail towards destruction. Adding fins at the bottom (to increase stability while in the atmosphere) and reducing the amount the engines can gimbal (move to direct the thrust) are the two best weapons against it. Welcome aboard

To add one more tip. I've found that adding two vernier engines, one on the upper surface behind the cockpit and one on the lower surface near the tail, help to maintain a high angle of attack for longer. You need to bleed off as much speed as you can while you are still in the thin air above around 20,000m.

Thanks! With the possible exception of building a SSTO that doesn't need tweaking before it'll do its job, getting home in time for tea and medals is usually the biggest challenge I face when setting myself goals.

@Jovus With regard to your aside about the Apollo - they used the offset CoM in order to splashdown with greater accuracy, as it could be used to refine the distance traveled and, to a lesser extent, allow cross range corrections. The only time it was used to actually skip back out of the atmosphere was when weather issues required a late change of recovery location. NASA became so good at using this method to accurately adjust the landing that there were some concerns about actually hitting one of the navy's recovery vessels. The most punishing re-entry were the first two (ballistic) Mercury flights, with Alan Shepherd experiencing 6g during powered flight and a punishing 11.6g during re-entry (apologies to the Original Poster for not answering his/her question.)

Sorry, I should have mentioned the OS, but you guessed correctly. Many thanks for a clear and concise answer

With the release of KSP 1.2 getting ever closer, I want to back up my current 1.1.3 install, just in case my underpowered system objects to the upgrade. I bought, and play, through Steam and I'm slightly unsure what I need to copy across to a new location before the update, so I can stick with the current version if need be. Could someone post some idiot proof instructions for an unmodded Steam install please? Thanks Clipper

Thanks for the information. I guess it did make things a little too easy when you could double up the science on your landing missions. I tend to collect science points the "old fashioned" way, by physically bringing them back home. Then, when I'm a few points short for my next upgrade I can usually count on my orbital labs to make up the difference.

After taking a break from KSP around this time last year, I'm back enjoying all the KSP goodness. But has the way the science lab handles experiments changed whilst I way away? I used to be able to copy across the data gathered from my landing missions across to the science lab and still return that same data to Kerbin for the Science Points. I've just built myself a new Mun orbital lab, then landed in a new Munar biome and conducted a set of experiments. When I returned to the lab and clicked on the "flask" icon, so the scientists could get on with some research, the data seems to have vanished. Is it still possible to use the lab as before, or is data now consumed when transfered across? In other words, do I need to conduct two missions, one to add data to the lab and another to return data to Kerbin? Apologies if this has been asked before. I did a forum search, bit couldn't find anything relevant.

Thanks for adding the figures @Norcalplanner. Having your Space Station above 120km makes rendezvous much quicker whilst your getting the hang of when in its orbit is best to launch new modules.

Thanks for the replies folks. Glad to know it isn't just my system causing an issue

I often have the same issue, for example I'll add a drop tank full of LF to my space plane and jettison it when I switch the Rapiers to closed cycle. I right click the biggest LF/OX tank well before the moment I need to switch over and get ready to allow flow from the LF part of the tank at the right time. Whilst that tank is draining, I have plenty of time to turn on the rest of the tanks. I do agree though, it would be helpful if you could achieve the same effect with action groups.

Try building smaller space planes to start with. As mentioned mass and drag are the two issues that make the biggest difference. I rarely use anything other than Mk 2 parts for mine. It's easy to get into a vicious circle of adding more engines and fuel to your designs. If you don't mind your craft not being strictly SSTO, you might want to consider some liquid fuel drop tanks. I often mount two tanks under the wings and use only that fuel whilst getting up to the altitude where you change to closed cycle with the Rapiers. A nose cone on either end of the drop tank helps keep the drag down and it means your core vechile is full of LF and OX when you ditch the tanks and make the final push for orbit. One other method I use (again it means it isn't a true SSTO vechile) is rocket assisted take off. As the Rapiers work better once you get above ~400m/s, I will sometimes add a couple of small solid rocket boosters to really accelerate down the runway. Then jettison them just before take off. I always make sure I'm above 400m/s before pitching up to start climbing. Hope that helps PS added an image of one of my small craft with its rocket launch sledge. It's (just) capable of getting to Mun orbit and back

When docking, I like to use a low velocity and hurry things along by speeding up time. I've recently noticed that craft that are less than about ~5km away, seem to suddenly jump to a different position when I hit the ">" key (by about 10° or so). They don't seem to move at all when I return to 1x time. I play the stock version of the game, and wondered if it happens to other players? Also, does anyone know what causes it and how to fix or reduce the issue? I must admit that I play on a rather ageing lap top, with the graphics turned right down, so it could be related to that. As ever, any advice gratefully received.

As mentioned above, action groups can be really helpful. You can add multiple commands to a single action group, so it is easy to, for example, activate all your science equipment with a single key press. To avoid having to keep turning my refuelling drone during docking I attach a bunch of small, forward facing, motors to slow down. I also deactivate the main engine with the same action group (after a particularly nasty incident!) so I know that they will be the only ones firing. My other tips for using action groups. Write them down! If you return to a craft that hasn't been used for a while, you can easily look up the relevant commands. Finally, it helps to be consistent. I know that any ship I command, with retractable solar panels, will toggle them in and out by hitting the "1" key. That also really helps if you dock one or more vechiles together as they will all do the same thing with the same key press. Also, remember you can zoom out the camera and change the angle to help click on difficult to reach parts of the ship.

One other point - I like to put my stations in a higher orbit. There are limits to how fast you can speed up time depending on how far you are from the body you are orbiting (forgive me but I can't remember the boundaries off the top of my head) When docking with a station it can be sometimes take a few orbits before it and the docking vessels make their closest approach. It can save a fair bit of time if you can speed up the passage of time a little more.

As the landing legs are currently experiencing some issues (lack of friction and the ability to accelerate Kerbals to a fatal velocity) I'm looking for alternatives. What do you use? I'm not keen on simply landing on the engine bells as it just doesn't feel "right". (eg on the Apollo 15 mission the LM suffered quite a dent in the bell of the descent engine after touching down a little on the hard side) I play the stock version of KSP. Suggestions gratefully received Clipper.

Thanks for the answers. That makes sense as I do play on a rather old computer. As I said, it isn't a real issue, I just wondered if it was intentional.

I like to use action groups for things like toggling solar panels etc, but I find, if I haven't used any actions for a while, it takes two presses of the relevant number key before anything happens. Is this by design (maybe so you don't have something happen if you have hit the key by mistake), a bug, or something unique to my KSP world? It's not really a huge issue, I'm just curious! Regards Clipper.

Results - I removed all the additional girders and struts I'd added to try and make the rocket rigid (so the only struts remaining were between radial tanks (with engines) and the main stack) and reduced the gimbal range on the first stage to 25%. Now she flies pretty darn straight with only a slight roll that is easily cancelled out. Thanks for the tip! The only other problem I encountered was when trying to dock the lander with the command module. A docking port on both, rather than just the CM, sorted that out (it's amazing how many times I forget to add the second port!?!)! Luckily It was only a test flight to Munar distance so after a quick bit of EVA, all were home in time for tea and medals.

Very true! I usually think to ask advice on matters after I've switched from laptop to tablet, hence lack of screenshots. I'll add some if the general advice still leaves me wobbling I reckon the main issue is the way I've unlocked the tech tree so far. I'm re-playing Science Mode and I've skimped on unlocking the large volume fuel tanks in favour of other goodies. Using several smaller tanks of a given radius is obviously far less effective than I realised, compared to one big tank. One additional question about struts - When I want to use a vertical strut to add rigidity, to avoid clipping I'll add a modular girder then attach a strut from the girder to the main body of the rocket (so the girder, strut and rocket form a nice triangle). I'm finding that they look just the way I want them in the VAB, but once out on the launchpad the struts appear as short stubs heading off in random directions. Does that a) not matter as the game still knows where they "really" are or b) they no longer work as the game sees them as broken little stubs rather than complete struts? Apologies for the lack of screenshots, I'll remedy that later today. Thanks for the advice PS Of course everyone has their own way of playing, but for me I always play mod free for the "pure" KSP experience!

As I've mentioned in other posts, I took a year off KSP and have been getting back into the game over the past few weeks. Now I have access to larger tanks and engines, I find that the designs I used to use arent working with the new aerodynamics in the updated game. Every time I try and build a larger rocket, it starts to wobble / oscillate like mad. Any tips for making things more sturdy, or is the problem more to do with velocity low in the atmosphere? Cheers Clipper

Don't forget, my OP was for new players in Science Mode. So, I'd argue that getting to Minmus is only marginally more difficult as you already have all buildings fully upgraded. With a plane change maneuvere, you can reach Minmus no matter when you lift off as you don't need to wait for it to be passing the ascending or descending nodes. When you're new at powered landing it's tempting to start controlling your speed from much higher than a more experienced player would. The lower Minmus gravity means less fuel on a cautious descent as well as not requiring much to get back into orbit, leave the SOI and head home.

I'd settle for SPH hanger controls in the VAB. The thing I don't like is that they are reversed between the two. Being able to drag the camera around is certainly helpful when you need to precision fit items to your vechiles

In that case I have encountered the bug - although I didn't know it at the time. Whilst my scientist was on Minmus using his jetpack to get to a ladder to retrieving data, he suddenly shot up into the command module and exploded. He had just clipped the landing gear on his way past. Now I know why - thank you.