Clipperride

First of all, welcome to the forum and the wonderful world of KSP! The trick is to build your entire stack (rocket) and then remove the Lifter section and place that in the subassemblies drop box. Then you can build mission specific top stage (which can be saved as a normal craft) then click the subassembly you previously saved and place it underneath. Basically, if it has a way of being controlled (crewed pod or probe core) you want to save it in the normal way, if it is a section you have removed, you can save it in subassemblies. Hope that helps Have fun!

And please remember everyone has to learn - even NASA! One of the early Mercury flights came down miles off target because no one remembered to add in the Earth's rotation during the flight and Gemini first attempt at station keeping with their spent booster went totally wrong*, so take heart. Even the professionals had to learn the ropes! * I forget which flight without checking, but they separated from the final stage, gave a toot on the RCS to move away and then turned to face it. Once the on orbit checks were done, they gave the RCS enough to stop them, then some more to move back towards their target, now a mile or so away. They lost sight of the empty stage during the night pass, but were surprised to find, once back in daylight that they were now several miles away. They tried a couple more times before giving up and saving the fuel. What (and again these were the cleverest folks the USA could put on the problem) they hadn't realised was, by turning round and flying blunt end first, they were burning retrograde when they tried to close the gap. That slowed them down but also put them in a lower orbit. Lower orbits are always quicker than higher orbits, so the distance increased.

Cheers Brainlord - I must say I love the whiteboard graphics. Like being back at school, but a whole heap more fun :-)

Yep, there is definite looping going on! Let's call the central tank 1 and the radials a,b,c. The lines currently run; 1 -> a 1 -> b 1 -> c As well as a -> 1 b -> 1 c -> 1 It was a habit I got into when I first unlocked fuel lines in Science mode. It's my first ever game of KSP and I've been playing about a month. Before reading this excellent forum, I was having trouble correctly placing fuel lines and so took the "overkill" route. Hopefully dropping the connection back to 1 will solve the problem. As for the drop tank for altitude assessment - There are no fuel lines to or from it, so the decoupler stops it being part of the troublesome system and I do usually launch with it empty. I never remembered to shuffle the fuel about before dropping it, so just emptied it in the VAB Thanks all :-)

So, I tend to build my rockets with a central fuel tank with engine at the bottom then radially attach 3 or 4 tanks the next diameter down, with engines on each of those. I then attach fuel lines from each radial tank to the main central tank as well as from the central tank to each of the radial tanks. Most of the time this works fine with a nicely balanced fuel load throughout the flight. Because I play KSP on a inherited "vintage" laptop (OK so its not that old, but it's a little below minimum specs for the game) I've had to turn all the graphics down to the minimum settings (but the game is so awesome I'm just happy to be able to play at all). At those settings the game plays rather well, a little lag on liftoff and when docking large craft, but my LKO station now has 500 parts and it's still possible to dock without the lag becoming much of a pain. One issue I've had is landing somewhere new, with no idea of the height of the local terrain. It only becomes obvious you're near the ground when you are really close, which means a conservative, fuel wasting decent or suicide burn with fingers crossed. My "bright idea" was to loose the central engine on my landers and replace it with a decoupler and a small, light, fuel tank. Once I've finished my gravity turn and I'm heading pretty much straight down, I drop the tank and note the distance it travels before becoming one with the body I'm landing on (ie crashes). It gives a reasonable guide to how far I've left to travel before touchdown. But, this method also seems to mess with the fuel flow. I keep finding myself having to balance out the fuel load or, worse, not noticing and having my ship twist and turn all over the place during burns. Previously sound vechiles, when reloaded and refitted with my "distance to destruction" dropable parts suddenly become unbalanced in their fuel use. Do I need to redo the fuel lines on all my vechiles when changing something, or is there something I'm overlooking?

Thanks for the answers folks! I've just noticed that the Interactive illustrated Interplanetary guide and calculator for KSP gives the burn information for transfers between the Mun and Minmus, which is ideal for practising the technique without having to use a load of time warp.

I think I understand the basics of using http://ksp.olex.biz to find the relative angles for a burn that leaves Kerbins SOI, but I'm still a little unsure about the ejection angle. It says "The ejection angle is the angle, at which you want to start your transfer burn in your origin planet's or moon's orbit.". But doesn't it depend on your ships TWR? A burn could vary between 1 and several minutes depending on your design and goals. Should I always start my burn when I reach the correct angle or set a manoeuvre node for the desired ∆v at the correct angle and start the burn ½burntime before the node? With other things going on in my game, I'm not wild about using to much time warp, so I'm hoping to get it right first time. One more thing I wondered about - what about less than optimum flights? Is there a "Brute force" method for planets that are only generally in the right place relative to my starting point? I've seen ideal transfer windows given to an accuracy of seconds in both time and required angles. However precise do I have to be? As always, advice is greatly appreciated.

This tread had a topic?? ;-) - - - Updated - - - The number of times I forget little things like control surfaces or Action groups. I'm not sure if its an age thing or just that old school games often required pen and paper for mapping etc. Of course, back in the AD&D days it was nothing but pen & paper (oh, and dice) But back to the thread:- it seems that the Rapier has to be the engine of choice for Space Plane ascent, with maybe something more efficient for above the atmosphere.

The first game that hooked me was Pong at 5p a go - does that put me in the running for oldest in thread? Lol Although good too see the senior players can still juggle gaming with life's responsibilities.

. Preschoolers are much cheaper than qualified mechanics! (Pesky auto correct!) - - - Updated - - - Reaching for pen and paper is always a sign that I'm enjoying a game. When I start printing off forms to record data, then I'm hooked. The good Lady wife commented the other day that my KSP paperwork is far more organised than such trivia as the household accounts. OK, I admit the colour coded paperclips may be taking things too far

It can be done! (But if, as mentioned, its not fun then it may not be worth it) The "Brute" I built can get into orbit with 1560 fuel and 880 Oxidiser left. With two LV-N and two Rapier engines in line with the CoM, that's quite a bit of delta V to play with. Each new version of my space plane is a little better than the last. Well, until I tried the Mk3 parts, but that's another story... The little test plane I built is (front front to back) CH-J3 fly by wire avionics hub. NCS Adapter Mk2 to 1.25m Adapter Mk2 Inline Cockpit Rocket Fuselage. Bicoupler 2x Engine Precoolers 2x Engines I want to test A couple of AV-T1 Winglets on the Precoolers Big S Delta Wing (usually half full of fuel) with Elevon 1 and 4 at the end of each wing. Landing gear. I must have flown 50+ ascents over the last couple of days, trying different techniques. Bollting on a couple of Structural Pylons, Preschoolers, Shock Cone and additional engines for comparison. But, for me, a lot of the fun of KSP is the trial and error along with the sense of satisfaction when that darn thing actually performs how you planed it! :-) - - - Updated - - - Good thinking! I never remember to shuffle fuel around on my winged beasties. It's become second nature to check on rockets after an unfortunate incident with faulty fuel line placement on leaving Minmus

Some more great information thanks people. My desire to try using Whiplash engines for the initial climb seems fruitless, unless I "cheat" and dump them at around 10km, with plenty of speed for the Rapier engines. I solved the problem of having the CoM so far back, gear attachment became an issue, by simply switching to the inline cockpit (doh!) One problem I sometimes have - deorbiting with little fuel and electricity, the plane can flip then go into a flat spin which is a real challenge to get out of. Is this a result of pilot error or having the CoM to near the centre of the vehicle? At the moment, my space planes are only "recoverable" with a large clean up team with brooms!

I don't have any Mods installed,, so simply go by the numbers available in the stock game. My first test setup had 2 Rapier engines and could just get into an ~80x80km orbit with enough fuel/ox remaining to drop that orbit back below 20km to glide into land. Noticing the thrust of the rapiers is pretty pitiful at take off, I bolted on 2 structural pylons to the back and added 2 whiplash engines to accelerate quickly and climb to 10,000m. The result was almost exactly the same fuel/ox remaining once in orbit. I'm guessing the saving made using more efficient engines at low altitude is equaled by the cost of the extra weight.

I put a lab in Mun orbit as early as I could in a science game (first time I've played KSP). As mentioned above, I've now nearly finished opening up the tech tree with only a couple of experiments processed by it. If money isn't an object, they are handy to go back to occasionally, when your a few points short of the next tech tree upgrade (reached by going out in landers and bringing back as much science as can be bolted onto the capsule!) the lab will often have 100-150 points to transmit. Hopefully that's enough to unlock more science. Although, that usually means "just having a quick look at the new parts" AKA another late night

Tadswana - here (hopefully) is an album showing first my test plane and then the Brute that I made out of frustration! http://imgur.com/a/PAYNC PS the 1st picture is the result of a poor take off (the crew survived) and the last is an "explosive" separation. "Flight - we definitely heard some sort of knocking sound on staging and the radar's gone bezerk"

What am I trying to achieve? Just a working knowledge of getting winged craft of various kinds into LKO and beyond (fuel willing). As a noob, I've only played with the new KSP flight rules. I guess that's good in a way as I'm not confusing myself with how things used to be done. I now carefully check the date of any information about Space Plane's (which to me includes "all of the above" from STTO through drop tanks and booster rockets to a drone carrier ship) My first attempt is a bit of a brute that breaks loads of good design rules I've discovered in these forums. I was caught in the "not enough fuel - then too little thrust, then not enough fuel" loop. After about 20 iterations I got a little vexed and just bolted on loads of extra fuel, 2 whiplash, 4 Rapier, 2 LVNs and two small SRBs to get to 300+ m/s as soon after take off as possible. It works but gave an inelligent solution. That said, it allowed me to practice ascents which led to needing less fuel + ox. I then flew the same ascent to see how much more fuel I could save lifting a lighter starting load. Keeping the design the same for consistent results, I removed over 900 fuel and 1500 Ox and still got into orbit and back. I notice there is some variation in peoples preferred ascent (easy mispell to make with that one ) profiles, so I've built a little 4 engine test plane to play about with engines and flight paths. I guess its mainly a matter of style and actual goals with no "best" way. I'm on my very first Science game, with almost all the tech tree unlocked. My "house rules" are, budget no object and I can revert a flight but not reload a quick save. Although, after having to drive a top heavy Munar rover over 20km, I relaxed that rule a little! I do love a game that involves a stack of notes on paper next to the computer

I've been turning my hand to Space Plane's with some very mixed results. It strikes me that there are two philosophy's Shuttle - enough thrust to blast in to space and enough wing to land and recover the ship. White Knight - Taking it steady through the dense lower atmosphere making the most of the free oxygen and wing lift then accelerating. My first somewhat successful attempt uses the brute force method, getting as hot on assent as reentry. It seems a little too much like a rocket that you can steer home for my liking,, but I'm having trouble with the White Knight approach. Is it possible? Another problem is centre of Mass being so far back, placing wings and wheels becomes an issue. One last snag - I'd like to use Whiplash, Rapier and LV-N engines, but mounting them so the last two are in line with the CoM is an issue. Should I stick to just two kinds of engine? All advice most welcome.

Some great information thanks. Instead of keep hijacking this thread, I'll start my own (all input gratefully received!)

Thanks. Also, when launching rockets, I'm careful to avoid shock waves or heat build up during assent to avoid wasting fuel. I'm in two minds what to do about Space Plane's. On one hand, avoiding shockwaves helps save fuel, but on the other I want to get as much ∆V as possible whilst using air breathing engines. There's the sweet spot between those two extremes?

Lots of very useful remarks and suggestions in this thread. I've only been playing/totally obsessed with KSP for a couple of weeks but, by cutting back on things like sleep, I only have about 4000 science worth of tech to unlock. Being something of an Apollo nut, the rocket side of things all made sense. Now I've come to try my hand at Space Plane's, its a different story. My current STTO + ½ (with solid rocket boosters to break Mach 1 as quickly as possible from take off), looks a lot like the one David first posted. I keep getting caught in the fuel/weight/thrust vicious circle. If I could butt in and ask my own question? Should you fly different assent profiles with different weight/class of Space Plane?

As a new player (although I seem to have clocked up a frightening number of flight hours already), one of the harder aspects of the game is mastering docking. There are loads of excellent tutorials and guides telling you how to match orbits and approach your target. Once I had master those skills, I was a little disappointed that those final 100 or so metres could become a frustrating dance around my first orbital refueling station. So much so that my fuel tug that services the station has been fitted with a Claw so it can clamp on any where But, after some trial and much error, here's my tip for those last 100m or so : 1. Design. When designing a craft for docking in the VAB, detach any lower stages and turn on the "Centre of Mass" indicator (one of 3 buttons to the lower left of your screen). You want to place your RCS thrusters at an equal distance fore and aft of that CoM. You want to be able to move your ship up/down & left/right without its attitude changing (ie nose stays pointing in the same direction and no "wiggle" after firing your thrusters). Two sets of 4 thrusters makes life easier when it's time to dock. I use an extended ladder as a rough "tape measure", placing it on the CoM, counting how many rungs down one set of RCS thrusters are. Then I detached, rotate and reattach the ladder and count the same number of rungs for the matching set. 2. NAV ball. When you are close to your target (~100m), reduce all movement relative to your target to 0.0 m/s. This can be tricky, but the NAV ball can help. Apply about 0.2 m/s forward thrust and you'll see the yellow prograde indicator appear. If it's not right in the middle of the NAV ball, you have some additional motion. Using short taps on the thruster buttons (default H = forward N = backwards K = up I = down J = left and L = right) tweak the prograde indicator until its centred. Then press N to slow down and you should come to a complete stop relative to the target. 3. Precision. It's much better to make adjustments in one plane at a time to begin with. With your thrusters placed evenly, you can drift one way and stop again with ease. If you do find you still have residual movement, repeat 2 above. 4. Line up. Set the docking port you are aiming from as your target and "Control from Here" on the active ships docking port. Once you're about 50m away, stop then turn off your RCS and use the WASD keys to align your ship perpendicular to the target docking port. The reason for turning purely with torque wheels is that, although slower, it doesn't change your velocity. Now you can reinitialize the RCS and line up the target indicator with the centre of the NAV ball. Thrust forward again and cancel out any unwanted motion in either of the other two planes using 2 above. 5. Move in. Once you feel comfortably lined up, click on the target indicator next to the NAV ball to lock on to your intended docking port and again remove any residual movement by using your thrusters to line up the prograde marker. Reduce forward velocity to 0.1 m/s, turn off your SAS and RCS and wait for contact . 6. Finally. Remember you can use "time warp". It's better to execute your final manoeuvres at a few 10ths of a metre per second and speed up time, than try and rush things by moving faster. Just be careful which key your finger is hovering over. Repeatedly pressing ">" in panic, instead of "<" can completely ruin your encounter! Hope that helps?

Great read and still useful for us new players here in 2015.