bewing

Yes, well. If you only have a limited number of blocks of a limited number of shapes, then sometimes you have to start getting wacky about putting them together if you want to do something unusual.

Yes, but how do you get the science from the rover into the rocket? That's the detail I'm asking about. Polar orbit gives you access to all the biomes on the celestial body, for taking orbital data. It also gives you 100% continuous solar power for a quarter of a year at a time. And I disagree -- I leave MPLs sitting in orbit for months and don't interact with them at all. The scientists just crunch their data and radio it home. I think if you carefully recalculate, you will find that this isn't correct. Kerbin gives you more than 470 unique scientific experimental results. No other celestial body comes close to that number. They aren't worth as much, individually, but they add up. OK, here's my silly gantry. And here it is performing its function. Bob is at the top, preparing to board the MPL.

Heh. That one is indeed cute. And since I send my MPLs into polar orbits, they are not fun to dock with later. So a design where the data goes into the MPL before launch is best, truly.

I see. I had forgotten about those kinds of designs. Hmmmmm. -- Can that command pod really maintain a prograde attitude during reentry so that the heat shield actually accomplishes something?? No, not even close. Kerbin contains over 1600 points of science data on the ground, as I recall. You can only get a small fraction of that in low and high orbit. It's best to do both, if it's at all convenient.

Thinking about this .... yeah, I suppose if you build your rocket out flat, with rings of detachable boosters and liquid engines around the MPL in the center ... hmmmm ... it seems a bit horrifying, but in a different way than my gantry thingie.

The science data won't transfer with the crew. It'll stay in the pod where the crew boarded.

I have a question for all the players who have put a Mobile Processing Lab in LKO to grind out science points from Kerbin data. Anyone who has actually done this probably knows that there is a trick involved. You have to get the science experiments from the ground into the MPL. Method 1 involves either launching the MPL with an SSTO, or launching the experimental data up to an MPL (in orbit) with an SSTO. Either of these makes it easy. But if you have the tech for an SSTO, then what the heck are you doing just launching your first MPL? So I think we can rule Method 1 out. Method 2 always involves somehow getting all the experimental data from the ground to the tippy top of a rocket sitting on the launchpad. My first thought on how to do it was a damned ladder going all the way up. (Groan.) My second thought was a flying bedstead .... You fly it up near the top of the rocket, turn on SAS, the scientist takes the data, then jumps over to .... Nah. So yeah, the first time I did it, I made the damned ladder all the way up the side of the rocket, boosters and all. This time through, I made a horrifying monstrosity that is a sort of mobile gantry. The rocket is on the pad, and I drive up to it with the gantry. Then climb up the gantry tower and into the MPL with all the data. Then recover the gantry. Then launch the rocket. Maybe I'll post a picture if anyone wants a good belly laugh. But this just seems so pathetic. What else have you all tried? Does anyone have something that seems like a good answer to the trick?

Heh. I think we all do that at the beginning. But after a gentle parachute descent, you can still smash your plane to bits if you land on a moderate slope (especially if you land in any other orientation than facing uphill). For me, horizontal landings seem to be actually a bit more reliable, on terrain that is only somewhat wavy. On steep terrain, you're probably dead either way, and on flats it's easy either way.

Mostly yes, but a little no. A Kerbonaut can store an unlimited number of duplicate experimental results, just like an MPL can (with the exception of EVA reports and surface samples). The command seat does not store any science data at all. It leaves it all in the lap of the Kerbonaut.

Yes, Laythe has an O2 atmosphere. But your plan sounds workable and fun. I don't really advise the military approach to kraken -- they are far too powerful.

(OK, another one of those "Is anyone else doing this?" threads.) The geniuses at Mission Control suddenly made a realization. The "one unique sample" restriction with command pods is very confining -- but there is a way around it. (Perhaps we can have a discussion later in this thread comparing and contrasting Exploits vs. Cheating vs. "Utiilizing the Laws of the Game Universe to Your Advantage".) The External Command Seat has no sample restrictions. So, Mission Control decided to test this theory, and (as you may have realized) this is where you come in. Bob and Jeb were sent off to that wonderful spot in the nearby desert, where there are six biomes within a few km of each other to gather an enormous number of samples. After a long afternoon of doing experiments, Bob sat in the seat -- carrying far more samples than could fit in a couple pods. Jeb, being a good pal, hurried Bob back to the comforts of KSC at Mach 1. (And most of us know how Bob feels about flying ....) This worked out so well that our intrepid Kerbonauts were sent to that great spot near the North pole where there are eight biomes within a few km of each other. After a very hard day of collecting far more samples than would fit in two command pods, Jeb was the soul of kindness and brought Bob back at Mach 2 this time. And the external command seat has no seatbelt -- that must have been exciting! We had to buy Bob a new pair of pants after this trip. The ones he was wearing were not considered "cleanable" anymore. Anyway, the gang in R&D was so happy with that pile of data that we had to finish things out. Bob didn't want to go with Jeb, so we sent Bob and Val to that spot in the Badlands where the remaining four biomes all meet at a point. And Val was just as sweet as Jeb, and brought Bob back at Mach 2 again. Bob is now catatonic for some crazy reason. The psychologist says, "His fear of flying is now deeply etched into every fiber of his being." Oh well. All the biome data at Kerbin is collected, so there is no more flying to do. When he snaps out of it, we'll stick him in an MPL and lob him into space to analyze all his data.

I suppose that if you want to go finless, and are having flipping problems, another thing thing that might work is to put a ring of thrusters around the top of your rocket, and turn on RCS during launch. And that's very sad that you don't want to change your rocket, and you want Squad to change how they drain fuel tanks instead. But too bad so sad, it's not going to happen. The drain pattern is the only reason asparagus staging works, and many/most players use that for huge rockets. So you'd better start figuring out a workaround to make your rockets function in the KSP world, instead of the real world.

That is, if you can maintain your attitude when you are flying belly first. But a belly doesn't usually give you much to work with for attitude control -- and a spaceplane usually must have extra drag toward the rear for stability, which makes the attitude control even more of a challenge.

I like to design my rockets with two stages. The bottom SRB stage is recoverable near KSC for almost full value. The upper stage is a pure nuke rocket with just enough control surfaces and aerodynamic lift to get you back down from orbit to a landing on the KSC runway (the last thousand meters or so by parachute). Solid fuel gives you 2/3rds the Isp, and costs about 2/3rds of equivalent liquid fuel. Put all these things together, and you get the fact that this rocket design is "fully recoverable" except for the fuel -- so it gives you pretty much all the benefits (except for looking really cool) of an SSTO, and the upper stage that goes wandering around space isn't dragging around a lot of useless airbreathing engine mass. Also, as said above, by the time I have the tech to make an SSTO, I'm not doing anything anywhere near Kerbin anymore anyway. I only need to ferry a few kerbonauts up and down from orbit on rare occasions.

I'll take choice #2 -- you're kinda nuts. A rocket that flips on ascent needs more control to stay balanced. Either more reaction wheels (which usually doesn't work for me), or some aerodynamic control surfaces. I put tailfins (or some other kind of canards) at the top of my rockets, to act as positive control canards. Adding drag at the back end is just silly. Extra control surfaces on the upper stage/RV make life easy on descent/re-entry. Anything added to the bottom stage is just wasted during staging.

1. Manual Input for manned ships -- The kerbal in the command pod. With advice from Mission Control, because they have access to the orbital info from the Tracking Station. ("Mission Control to blobby1, burn prograde to make your Ap around 100.5km. Perfect. In 13 seconds, a smidge anti-radial. A tiny bit more than that. All right. Now you are set for a 4.1km close approach to the victim's craft in one orbit, to execute your docking maneuver. Mission Control out.") 2. SAS -- Whichever is more competent, a pilot in a command pod, or the onboard guidance computer. Yes, it's sad, but if Mission Control tells a pilot to control attitude, then they don't get to gawk at the scenery. The rocket's control surfaces themselves have internal feedback that causes the "speed wobble" effect -- that part doesn't come from the pilot or computer. 3. Probes -- "Me" in Mission Control. Oh, and negative gravioli particles travel at c squared (not merely c), so there is no discernable time lag even on very long range control transmissions.

Heh. OK, fine -- so where are the sleek fuselages for high-tech rockets, then? The game has both rockets and planes, but only planes get upgraded parts? And I want to add one more request to my original list. When you go from being orbital to sub-orbital, or vice versa, the game changes the orientation of your craft. If your craft is an EVA suit, this makes you tumble like crazy. But don't change my orientation while I'm thrusting, dammit!

i sympathize, if all you are doing is building spaceplanes. But otherwise, I have to disagree. High crash tolerance is worthless unless you crash your stuff -- which is a silly thing to do. And body lift only has value in atmosphere. I mean, I like building and flying jets, sure, but there is a lot more to the game than that. The way that it stands, then, when you are traveling outer space: MK1 parts are lighter, they cost less, and they have more benefits. So, this is the desired end result of all that R&D? Populating all of space with rockets built from MK1 parts? It's nonsensical.

How do you know that they are pilots? I can't seem to get that info out of my game, until I'm less than 2.3km from their craft.

Yes, that is all quite correct except for one little thing. Mun is tidally locked, and orbiting prograde. Which means it is rotating very slowly retrograde. "East" is determined by the direction of rotation, which means that so is north and south. Which means (as with our Moon and Venus) that Mun's South pole is on top, and the North pole is on the bottom. So you've got your north and south reversed. But yes, the angle of Kerbin is impossible, so the image of Kerbin is being artificially mapped into the shot.

The angle of Kerbin above the horizon limits the location to a very particular (very large) circle (if the location actually exists) -- if you wanted to bother to calculate it out. So it's not like you'd have to search the entire Mun. Edit -- actually, after thinking about it, I'm pretty sure that the viewing angle of Kerbin itself is also a restriction that could be used to narrow the calculation to two very specific possible points on the Mun. (Well, except for the fact that you have to guess the angles within a couple of percent. But still, the two "points" would be fairly small circular search areas.) And you know that the picture is not taken from inside a crater, either -- so that puts another pretty strict limit on it. Heh. I never noticed before, but that's not a still image. Kerbin rotates while you watch. So if it's generated dynamically, then it seems like it must be from a particular camera location? Except for the fact that it's always daytime .... hmmmmm.

This will happen to any craft that has focus, in the stock game. When craft are not in focus, the game forces them to move on a perfect elliptical orbit. When a craft is in focus, unfortunately, the game tries to calculate the orbit from the current velocity vector, with numerical errors. It conserves energy, however. So, as said above, your craft cannot fall out of orbit. But a small amount energy will shift from the periapsis to the apoapsis and back again. If I could modify the program I could fix this -- but if you want it to stop happening to your space station, then you need to shift focus to something else.

I just re-realized something that I've seen many times previously. To anyone with an eye for impact craters, Kerbin has obviously been the target of a recent massive meteor bombardment. Like, "less than a million years" recent. Barely eroded craters everywhere, when you look closely. The badlands are very recent impacts. And the one on the other side of the planet is enormous. Which definitely either implies a war with a spacegoing enemy (who can drop rocks from orbit), or alternately an impossible environment for evolving intelligent life. Option A leaves open the possibility of a Kerbin origin for (possibly space-faring) Kerbals (but you have to factor in an extreme resurfacing of the planet to your theory), but option B definitely rules out Kerbin as the Kerbal home planet. More research is necessary.

Heh. Well, I'll admit to checking once a day. But if you read the devnotes on the Daily Kerbal, any programmer would have to realize that they are still at least 10 days out.

Landing a jet is a bit tricky. Once it's on the ground, a jet makes a great rover -- especially with a wheesley reverseable engine. I'd forget anything beyond that. Retractable landing gear on the back end is also very nice -- when you are parked you retract the gear and then you can walk off the plane and back on again. Crank the brake torque up good and high on the rear wheels for extra braking stability. Oh, and put the rear landing gear way out on the tips of the wings -- the wider the stance, the more stable it is. You can put another pair of landing gears partway along the fuselage for outriggers. (Actually, I find rovers to be 10 times more difficult to drive over terrain than a jet. Rovers have no traction, and I can and do drive jets up 45 degree slopes.)