Zephram Kerman

I've noticed this happens even if the detached assembly has a MechJeb. Also, engines fire as soon as the stage is separated. So, I think the rule is: "if separated from the crew, activate all stages". There is a setting for this, I think in the part .cfg file. It used to default the other way, with separated parts not activating.

Hey, that's lovely! Ok, so it's views we see every flight. But presented this way, we're reminded of the beauty. bank commercial script: It starts with a dream. A dream, an idea, a vision. Your vision. A vision that takes root, grows, and then flies. To see it take flight, you'll need the backing of a financial institution with vision like yours. One that dreams, like you. One that is willing to back an idea, no matter how crazy. We are that crazy. We are Kerbal Savings & Loan. Proud sponsors of the Kerbal Space Program. [insert dopey bank logo, fade to white] And now, back to your regularly scheduled program.

If you build your plane with proper trim and lots of lift, you can fly more slowly, so that the cute little runway seems longer. That extra lift also helps you turn more quickly to get lined up.

For a very large plane change like this, it's helpful to first boost into a higher orbit, do the turn at the new apoapsis, and then reduce it again. Changing plane at the higher apoapsis is so much more efficient that it pays for the boost and retro burns, and then some. Unfortunately, I don't know the higher math to determine when this method is more efficient than doing the plane change directly. It's certainly worthwhile for a 90° change, but not for 15°.

A gimballed engine is an easy way to compensate for slightly off-axis thrust. But the proper thing to do is move the wings/parts up or down, so that the center of mass is aligned with the thrust axis.

We all assume air pressure in is related to height over sea level... but nobody in KSP has ever actually established this scientifically. I'm looking forward to this one!

Only Jeb. But I think nobody should be surprised.

In my opinion, it\'s all about efficiency. A perfect design will fail if your trajectories are wasteful. But a marginal design can go far with proper maneuvering, like having the wind at your back. So, if you\'re willing to read and learn, your trips will be much more successful. Four of my favorite threads deal with efficiency in various phases of a flight: • Closette\'s 'Altitude Mini-challenge' (the Goddard Problem thread); • Tarmenius\' 'Optimal Ascent' challenge (about Gravity Turns); • Tarmenius\' 'Optimal Landing' challenge (results at the bottom of the first post); • Tarmenius\' 'Optimal MOI' challenge (the best way to approach from MCC1). It\'s a lot of reading, so I\'ve set the links to good posts in each thread. Once you put these concepts into practice, they are powerful. 8)

I seem to recall having a similar issue with MechJeb activating a stage after separating it from the crew vehicle. Fortunately, it was a probe to be launched, so the result was convenient. Umm... you might try asking the same question in this thread: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=14066.msg251200#msg251200 R4m0n monitors it and answers questions.

Well done! I liked the camera angles and composition. The clips were timed perfectly, and kept up a brisk pace. It goes by fast, but I can appreciate how so many hours must have been spent to make this.

Hey that\'s nice! Kinda reminds me of .

Heh! So, er, marketing jazz aside, the Kerbal Gerbil actually does fly beautifully. This design is so maneuverable, and has such a low stall speed, that it becomes 'easy' to land, on the runway, without exploded parts, every time. It is so stable, ASAS is there as a convenience. It is so nimble, it can land, stop, and take off again with runway to spare. Here are the 'advanced concepts' mentioned in the ad: • Based on I attached the entire tailcone/stabilizer assembly at an upward angle. This gives the plane good vertical trim, so that the elevators have more authority to pitch up during takeoff rotation and landing flare. It also gets the tail away from the ground so that you can rotate safely. • Unlike real-world aircraft, putting the engine up on the luggage rack also helps improve trim. When at full power (takeoff, climbout, and high-speed cruise) the engine thrust pushes the nose down, balancing out the nose-up effect of the angled tail. When idling (descent, landing flare) the drag helps by pulling the nose up, even at slow speeds. • KSP seems to map the control surfaces using the same logic as RCS thrusters. This has the unfortunate effect of causing control surfaces to move somewhat inappropriately. (For example, if you push the stick right to roll into a right turn, the ailerons do their thing, but the elevators split, and the rudder moves left.) It makes for some sloppy flying and difficulty getting back to the runway. To avoid this issue, there are no ailerons or rudders; roll and yaw are controlled solely by the reaction wheels in the crew capsule. There are two elevators, each attached to a horizontal stabilizer, and offset left and right so that they overlap in the center. Once the elevators are exactly centered, they are no longer confused by roll commands. Yay! • The 'H' tail is just to get the vertical stabilizer away from the engine exhaust. • The nose landing gear and parachutes are carefully placed so that the escape pod assembly lands nose-first, sacrificing the ASAS and nose cone to protect the crew area. Add that access ladder at your own risk. Happy landings (on the runway, this time!)

Ladies & gentlemen! ~ Kerbal Inc. ~ manufacturers of oddly stable & curiously shaped bicycles, aeroplanes, and outer-space traveling craft ~ present: ~ the Kerbal X-378 'Gerbil' Advanced Concepts Experimental Thingy With advances in modern science come improvements in practical applications. We at Kerbal Inc. are proud to present our latest design, chock-full of technological marvels and wonders of modern science. We hope you\'ll buy one, because we got in debt up to our eye stalks finding a design that doesn\'t crash too frequently. The X-378 'Gerbil' Advanced Concepts Experimental Thingy features a number of innovations, which we believe will revolutionize the industry: • the raised tailcone and stabilizers effectively trim the craft for short take-offs and landings, and relaxed, almost stately, approaches; • double-offset centered elevators deliver excellent control authority in the pitch axis; • newfangled 'delta' wing shape supplies sufficient lift for sustained 2G turns and 4G maneuvers... also it looks really cool; • 'piggyback' engine mount further improves vertical trim and handling at all operating velocities; • in emergencies, the flight capsule can detach and return to the surface using two standard parachutes; • easily cruises at 1/2 power, even fully loaded; • crew access ladder sold seperately. edit: re-upload to fix the internal vessel name

In version 15, anything below 24 km altitude would suddenly vaporize if it gets farther than 2.5 km from your active vessel. That includes debris, and crewed vehicles too. I think this stayed the same with version 16.

Nice. It\'s just like Jeb to mouth off about breaking the laws of physics.

So here\'s a reason to go: the previous crew(s) need rescue. Bill, Bob, and Jeb discuss their options after another of Jeb\'s 'any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.' Oh good, the rescue crew is here! Um... why do they look emberassed? Reunion 3 came to rescue the other two crews, but did not notice the slope. Jonrand is attempting to position the damaged engine underneath the working #2 engine, so that we can overheat it with exhaust. Hopefully, the explosion will destroy the #2 engine and fuel tank, so that we can balance the ship and go home on half power. It didn\'t work. Now the reunion has three more crew, and a ship doing the \'awkward turtle\' maneuver.

(Probably) good news everyone... I just compared the .craft files in 0.15.2 to 0.16.0, and I could only detect one difference. Near the first line is a version number. Change this to 0.16.0, and the vehicle should work. Remember, the mk 1 pod only holds one crew now. So if you want your manned missions to appear, you would also have to edit persisent.sfs so that those vessels have the correct crew. It\'s possible there are changes to the parts properties, and that sort of thing. So let\'s not expect every little thing to work the in exactly the same way. But at least our favorite vessels don\'t need to be recreated.

In the demo game version 0.13.3, we could launch immediately and interrupt the gravity turn at about 30° - 45° pitch. Just keep burning at that pitch angle until AP = 11 M km. Thanks to Oberth effect, the fuel penalty is not too bad. I think the simplest way to know the correct launch time is to do the flight once, and measure the difference.

Yes, good point. The way you said it is better. Although, technically, the difference would appear gradually while approaching Vt, blah blah blah. Besides, when is Kerbal stuff ever falling slower than that? So your argument is invalid kerboom. ;D

One of my early failed attempts to launch a cart accidentally demonstrated this problem. As the vessel reached the middle atmosphere, something about the air speed caused the wheels of the cart to gradually extend farther and farther from the cart. Eventually, one or more of them would overlap with a rocket part. These overlaps caused quickly increasing turn forces which would lead to loss of control. The only solution was to either slow down, or get out of the atmosphere. Then the wheels would return to their normal positions, and normal physics would resume. Be aware that parts can flex and twist during maneuvers. So if the parts twist a certain way into an overlapping position, that might explain the intermittent nature of your sudden loss of control.

What Kosmo-not means is the KSP drag model includes an extra mass term that does not appear in real world physics.For example, a full fuel tank has more drag than an empty one. So if you decouple both tanks in the atmosphere, the full tank falls more slowly than the empty one. In the real world, it would be the other way around. I think it\'s awesome that you noticed this independently, and proved it scientifically using a different method.

Oh that\'s good! I love how some of the launcher explodes after separation; that\'s almost required for a Kerbal launch system.

I love these ideas, in addition to the OP. Space ought to be weird, especially in the Kerbol system. My personal opinion is that we should have one familiar planet, like Murs. I say this because it would inspire attempts at the familiar planned missions and better understanding of the real-world situation and challenges. The other planets should be fictional, and very creative, like the OP, the two above, and others in this thread. No more than nine-ish. Beyond that, they should be spread out among other stars.

I\'d like to see little black marks, dents (or, even better, transparent holes) in damaged parts. Wings would get less lift and more drag, canards would be less effective, engines would still have the same thrust but tend to overheat more easily. Perhaps articulated parts would get stuck in one position. (A stuck gimballed engine could be very exciting!)

It\'s possible to reinforce the lander legs, like this: When reinforced, the legs can withstand more lateral motion and greater impact force. But I don\'t bother with this anymore, because it\'s easier to just add more legs to distribute those loads.