Spricigo

Same here...seems to be standard procedure. designing the landers individually and latter joining it together seems to be slight less problematic, but still...

Perfect for:

You know that moderator don’t have a paycheck, right? Apart from paying more attention to symmetry another trick its to copy(alt+click) a previously tweaked SRB to reduce the amount of slider dragging. I don’t think there is something in stock you may had changed without noticing. Maybe if you are using a Editor Extensions or similar mod.

Yep, very clear and helpfull. However I'll still call mathematician weird while abusing notation here and there to drive them mad. >8] (notice: to err is human, to blame other even more)

Disclaimer: I’m talking from a more stock perceptive that often don’t apply to RO, take it with a grain lot of salt until someone with better understanding of RO provide a proper explanation. Also be patient, I'm just trying to give you a different angle of view to help you figure out what is happening, I noticed the 'heatshield' for the engine is composed by a few different parts and the engine is also rotated(maybe translated, also) , its possible that there is a gap that, while not graphically visible, let some heat reach the engine. Either because there is some separation between the shielding parts or the engine is clipping through. Another points to consider: The internal temperature is low, but how is the skin temperature? Its possible that the overheating is caused by some mod that simulate malfunctions , meaning that you are overstressing the engine in some way? Its this issue affecting only that craft?

@bewing mathematicians are weird people. Its perfectly fine for then to use an value that makes no sense in reality if it solves the equations correctly. And then they use code words like by definition to explain where their made up numbers comes from. By definition the apoapsis of a hyperbolic orbit is negative.

I have this vage hope someone will show up to explain that maths. The sentence between parenteses made the hope fade a bit

Contract asKs Position Vigilant 4 in a adjusted orbit around minmus Orbit details ap -399km, pe 230km, inclination 80°, long An 360, arg pe88° current orbit: ap 1085km pe 230km, inclination 81°, long An 1°, arg pe 86° (tanks KER) game its not drawing the orbit, if i understood I need to burn prograde at pe to put in the required escape trajectory. (with aceptable deviation) may someone confirm/deny it . and if its not the case explain what kind of manuever i need to do?

was a typo, meant to be 'mod affecting fuel flow' No other ideas about what should you check. But nice to know locking resource is a viable workaround even if its not the best solution.

Question: it's a slow(ish) but continuous and inexorably turn or the rocket just change heading at random? If what is happening it's the former you are doing a gravity turn. Just happens to not be your intention. It happens because at some point point it incline just a bit and you don't have torque to turn it up again. You are trying to launch straight, it means you already is trying to turn later (never) and reduce the initial angle (0°), more thrust may help. Other than this it's the usual keep the CoM as high as possible and the CoD as low as possible.

Disregard it if you mentioned the deltaV to circularize at 15km just for reference but personally I think part of the reason to such orbit is missed if before landing you first circuralze. Ideally you want a single burn at periapsis to change from a orbital trajectory to a landing trajectory.

If I understood correct it's not a uncontrolled spin, rather a speed up gravity turn. Performing a gravity turn is in some sense just matching the time it takes to turn the rocket in the direction it need to be to complete an orbit and the time it takes to reach orbital velocity /height. If the rocket is turning to fast try to start the turn later, reduce the initial angle or increasing the thrust. In short turn slower or accelerate/climb faster.

It don't seem to be working how it should be. Checklist : >crossfed disabled? >probe's engine off the whole time? >are you sure there was more fuel in probe's tanks? >mode affecting fuel flow? >other mod issues?

We may have divergences in our reasoning but clearly not in the main point.

Same impression there. Both @Alshain and @Urses explained the docking procedure, choose one explanation and follow it. There is two common methods to match velocities(in both cases use navball in target mode) : 1) wait for closest approach and burn retrograde until relative speed drop to 0.0 2)match direction as soon as possible, gradually reduce the relative as you come closer to the target (less than 20m/s for each 100m of distance works well)

Mildly disagreement: Its our fault to take the CoL for the CoD (which is what we are really interested when building rockets). A blunt heatshield perpendicular to the airflow produces no lift but a lot of drag. Granted, its nice to have a graph like this: also

Actually I'd say if the mods fix something then the game have a problem. If there is a problem it should be solved by developers instead of the community. Auto-samplers are ok if you feel Bob Kerman may be well trained enough to know when to run the experiments (that's why I mentioned it). Its a case of preferences/play style, not a problem.

Notice it depends on how you make the trip. If such small details as "deltaV budget", "cost", "complexity are not a concern you can do it much faster with a brachistochrone trajectory. https://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ helps. After plotting a transfer the selected result details show, among other things, transfer time Open advanced setting to set a lastest departure time and maximun tranfer time.

nit-picking: the ratio between orbital period and Mun's rotation need to be a rational number. That is: you need it to be a/b where a and b are integer numbers. Just notice: for the smallest a and b that makes a/b a rational number the synchronization occurs every 6a hours and every b orbits .

Well, if is available for reverse thrust it's just +60kg for lateral thrust. Also the main point is not reverse thrust but very low thrust compared to the main engine.

To promise I will remember how to solve it with Debug Menu is not enough?

@blakemw granted it's a nice skill to learn. But RCS is convenient, It's much better to turn it on and touch N, than rotate 180°, limit the thrust to 1%, touch shift and quickly hit control. Laziness may hinder you in the long run but is assured to be gratifying immediately.

Y@Harry Rhodan is correct. With CoM this low is no surprise at all it flips. Also notice the CoL in VAB/SPH assumes perfect alignment with the airflow something you will never find in flight.

I just realised how big a factor it may be. As I said misaligned RCS thrusters may exert torque (induce rotation). For translation we have F=m*a. For rotation we have {torque} ={moment of inertia} *{angular acceleration}. The moment of inertia of a body is the sum of the moment of inertia of all its parts. The moment of inertia of a mass concentrated in a point is I=m*d² where d is the distance between the mass and the axis/point of rotation. You said most parts get moved onto the lander can. Since most of the vessel's mass is near the CoM the moment of inertia is low. Your vessel is very easy to rotate.

Nit-picking : if you are passing in front it's pushing in the opposite direction of the movement. I think you meant that changing direction relative to planet may be not enough to change direction relative to the star, given the planet's orbital speed. Anyways, just want to clarify.