Blaarkies

Did this just become a thread of "What is the worst blunder you have achieved?" ...? Ok how about "Learn to do test runs on launchpad" medal... Build a little RCS space tug-boat craft that klaws onto bigger ship and moves them to the space station. Add lots of RCS fuel (Monopropellent) and lots of RCS thruster blocks... Vernors are stronger, let's use them. Some time later after rendezvous, this thing doesn't budge one bit because Vernors use LFO rocket fuel, not the MonoProp that RCS blocks use

So if you are in a transMunar orbit, and you start at the periapsis then it should take you +-3 days to reach Ap, right? But when you warp you orbital parameters/angular speed around the planet, you induce phantom gravity on your ship only. If you doubled your speed (with the special warping), then how is it possible that your trajectory curves twice as fast? (orbit lines are still in the same place, but you are moving faster through them). By doubling gravity for that warp period you get a similar trajectory based on the velocity (for arguments sake, ignore the square inverse fall-off). This seems like overthinking it, but when the result is not explainable with realistic orbital mechanics...it is no longer realistic orbital mechanics. Try this though experiment: From LKO, burn to get a minimum encounter with Mun. See the trajectory lines in map view, going behind Mun with a Pe of 100km, and getting a gravity assist all the way to a transMinmus orbit. Those lines seem static, a perfect representation of the "future". Now (still at Kerbin Pe), special warp 2x. While you are moving faster, the Mun is still moving at 1x and thus every second that you are warping, you gaining on the Mun, lowering you Pe without any fuel usage. Imagine how the post Mun encounter trajectory changes (the transMinmus orbit trajectory). Lower Mun Pe means stronger slingshot, means going way past Minmus, even escaping Kerbin SOI. How can we use this special warp while expecting an encounter/intercept/rendezvous? If we activate this warp, it will literally warp our future trajectories if they are dependent on a second gravity source. That's all fine, we can learn to get used to it for the sake of multiplayer...or can we? That would mean ignoring launch windows all together. Don't launch to where Duna will be in 5 Kerbin months, but launch to where it will be in 5 minutes, since that is how much IRL time it might take to get there, and if we get this wrong then there is no more warping that will help us...we will have to wait it out until we enter Duna SOI

Sounds like playing with HyperEdit? Maybe you meant escaping Kerbin with a trajectory that has a future encounter with Duna...do you know how many people have it hard just getting an actual duna intercept from LKO? A lot of players just fix this in interplanetary space to get the encounter

It sounds like Vernors will do you better, since you are already using bad Isp engines for the gimbaling they provide. Place them almost on the sides of the engine itself and launch with RCS, then you have even more gimbal at 70-90' angles without constantly using fuel through them

Are you aiming dead prograde through the launch? Going 5degree off-center from the prograde marker causes flips with most rockets. (use the SAS-aim-prograde mode) If you can shorten that fairing tower you should have less problems to begin with. A brute force fix is to install Vernor RCS ports at the bottom, pointing in cardinal directions. Launch with RCS enabled then this will help a lot

The way i understand this is by fast-fowarding the "Mean anomaly", basically an angular measurement of how far the craft is in it's orbit. It is not really increasing speed, only orbital parameters. Problem: In LKO, trying to go to the Mün. Get the Ap about 45degrees in front of it and launch - Halfway into the trans-lunar orbit(i got SOI encounter icons showing), i decide to warp 2x > Now i reach Ap in 1/2 the time, but the Mün still takes 1x time to get there...meaning i suddenly don't have an encounter anymore

Would it not be better to use 3 Darts at that point? 1t less mass and more TWR, and less part count...but that high tech tho

About the runway: -The amount of polygons would certainly be a challenge...fast CPU but bumpy ride, or smooth ride and lose a few FPS? (I am unsure how much performance KSP loses due to static buildings though) -KSP wheels are better than ever, but they may not be ready for this yet. Slight continuous turning with keyboard controls is going to flip a few planes until they reach the critical speed required to follow the bank. -Some spaceplanes really don't like turning sharply, but 3.5km diameter should still be enough though...unless this is done to scale following the rest of KSC. Bonus: Free NASCAR track around the KSC!!!

If it wasn't for game bugs, then no reverting would actually be fun (it is nerve wrecking). But having parts go poof, spazzing out for no reason, spacplanes rolling left because of an open anntenae inside the closed cargo bay...thats what revert and F5 is for Edit: Remember it is ok to point 20degrees up from prograde, the losses are less than we think: -cos(20')=94% of thrust still happens in the prograde direction -cos(30')=87% of thrust still happens in the prograde direction Going further than that induces greater losses though, but if you can keep your craft out of the atmosphere at that price(6% efficiency) with super efficient engines like nukes...you still win. Just remember to be consistent. Rather point 20degrees off prograde for 3 minutes, than to point 40degrees off prograde for 1minute(the 40' burn is going to be more risky and less efficient) This pointing upwards thing is what real rockets(at least the last stage of them) do to get into orbit as well. They don't have enough TWR to finish the orbit insertion burn before they reach Ap, they have to constantly raise the Ap to stay up there longer, to gain orbital speed. We in KSP often have too much TWR to finish that long before reaching Ap

Much better than on Mun...Gilly is very forgiving, just be gentle and patient

Remember to talk to Mr Tsiolkovsky before doing that (adding an 45fuel to the craft, doesn't mean getting 45fuel extra in space...but as you suggest, the remaining 5units might just be enough)

"net TWR of engines" is a direct measurement of how much extra dry mass the ship carries to achieve a certain TWR. So yes, Maths/KER is your friend here. On a 36t stage with 22.4t of fuel : - 3 Terriers achieve a TWR of 0.48 and a total DV of 3772.79m/s - 1 Poodle achieves a TWR of 0.66 and a total DV of 3781.19m/s For a craft comprised of a wet/dry mass ratio of 2/3 and a TWR of 0.5, then using 3 Terriers is the tipping point for switching from clusters to single bigger engines. * it would be cool to also compare cost, but i didn't even add the cluster structures' mass (which should be negligible considering the Octo-strut) In olden KSP, the "spark" engine had an insane TWR so much that it out-competes some of the bigger engines just by mass reduction for the same amount of thrust. That and other balance issues were fixed though, and now as long as the total mass of the cluster does not exceed the mass of a single one-bigger engine, then you are probably gaining dv from the mass reduction.

@Spricigo Yes, oversensitive it is OP already pointed at a pretty kerbal stock solution to his problem instead of docking mods, I assume they don't want to add mods/cheat unless there is no alternative. For docking, -Disable all rotational thrust on the RCS controls'(it is in the context menu on each RCS thruster part) -Change view to locked. This will lock the camera to your ship, making you that much more aware about how you are moving(you lose some awareness about rotation when both you and target are rotating) -Use precision mode(capslock). It does a bit of balancing to the RCS thrusters relative to center-of-mass, but mostly it gives you very slow, careful movements. -Use the "Aim Camera" button in part context menus(might have to enable this in main menu settings first, "advanced tweakables"). Now you can have better sight right over the docking port, or some wing or docking bay(wherever you want) -If you are going to continue with the guid rail approach, maybe you could try micro landing legs and multiple docking ports. The legs keep the docking ports from snapping together, and the docking ports pull the ships into the correct position...maybe they can easily solve the alignment issue(it's gonna take some design research time on your part though)

No. They only advantage is having smaller increments in TWR to choose from: 3 Terriers might be just enough thrust, while a Poodle would be overkill...but 3 Terriers have a mass of 1.5t, while a Poodle has a mass of 1.75t. So on the 4th terrier you are already losing out(not to mention the slight lack of Isp) Generally, the bigger engines have better TWR (thrust to engine mass ratio) but in some cases a Rhino is just too big, but then it is more efficient to fill the big chunk of TWR with a Poodle, and the remaining TWR with 2 Terriers

Only on "Moderate"/"Hard" difficulty, or more specifically, when the "Obey resource cross-feed rules" checkbox is clicked when starting a new career. On easy/normal the claw still allows resource transfer.

Tested and true, not gonna get away with a claw for transferring fuel. Looking at the settings, this feature actually starts at "Moderate" difficulty...but who plays ksp just moderately?

I cannot confirm or deny that...jk, i believe you. What are the limits of fuel transfer with those 1.2 settings? I remember Jr Docking port saying it cannot transfer kerbals, yet it does. Now i am wondering how constraining the fuel flow rules actually are. But before fuel transfer is even an option, we need to upgrade the R&D building, right?

Hehe yeah you are right. All jokes aside, here is my hopeful useful opinion: How do you measure cost? In funds right?...I measure "cost" in the amount of progress I can make per 2hours of real life time. We have to consider effort, warp time periods, design time, etc... In the end, maybe you can do a lot more launches(with less efficient rockets) which each does a tiny contract. This may lead to more funds and reputation in a 2hour real life time period. You mentioned playing Hard. If that's the default Hard(60% ?) then i can vouch that you don't need to absolutely use spaceplanes. But if you like spaceplanes, then keep doing that...if we don't play the game for fun, then why are we even playing it? On low tech solutions, I found that a Twin-Boar rocket SSTO worked great for me, since i could cheaply have good RCS control with it and re-entry/landing was pretty quick too. My savings on that vs disposable rockets were marginal though, to the point where I could maybe do half-a-contract in the time it takes to deorbit/land the thing. At least it sped up the design process significantly, i just started designing a satellite to fit/overlap approximately in a 18t fueltank then clipped the booster on it...didn't even remove fuel

unlock the klaw, unlock the ISRU. Build a small mining outpost near KSC. Free fuel = free launches, trust me it really is that easy

Not for comms, but for electricity(a few posts above that). In the old ksp versions, players could lock/unlock fuel tanks, start/shutdown engine, etc. anywhere at anytime, even on debris. An old booster stage left in orbit could have it's tanks locked/unlocked at any time. But since some version near ksp 1.1, that bug was removed, and since an out-of-electricity probe is just a dead piece of debris with no command, it could no longer "unlock" the battery The probe hibernation is the obvious/correct way to do this now

MK3 tail ramp works as a nosecone if you flip it around. Obviously only for big MK3 planes, but it is very heat resistent

"Jool: 160-170 km" when last did you update KSP? Going below 190km at Jool instantly explodes anything except heatshields. Kerbin below 30km results in unintended landing with anything else than a spaceplane...say, are you using FAR by any chance?

What?

No, Isp for closed-loop reaction engines are always highest in vacuum. Cody's Lab has an excellent video about this Rockets How They Work and Why I Havent Used nozzles yet

* visible So it's like clicking(focusing) on the Mun, and suddenly seeing the Kerbin-orbit-around-Kerbol line? Think about the shape of that line for a moment