Spricigo

I really don't know. But what I 'got' from the people explaining it is: -jet engines only take air from one intake. One intake can feed multiple engines. -without enough air jet flame out. -how much air is enough for the jet is based on ¿stuff? -how much air an intake can produce is based on atmospheric pressure, air speed and ¿things? I can't really point a 'source' and is not resulting of my own testings. Just assumptions, but good enough for my uses. I let for people with better knowledge to answer if that is correct and fill the details.

That's not the rate of change in position something in space have. It's just the rate of change in how many space there is. Should we call it 'speed'?

Takes a bit of time to jets 'get to speed'. Try to start the engines and afer a few secounds release the launch clamps (as in: use more than one to help with stability) There's also the issue of how much air the intake can provide but I think is just the spool up time.

Blind? - KAC for transfers window time -alexmon's transfer planner for deltaV cost. -KER for vessel statistics -A lot of extra info you, evidently, collected. The word you are looking for is not 'blind', it's 'anxious' . In case of failure you can still load a named save or(unless you use life support) just warp to next window.

I had my share of failures because of bad design. Don't seem likely to be your case, but you maybe some images revel something?

I have no experience with this mods. Are sure that is not how kerbalism is supposed to work?

Well...there are the average KSP player and there is the ones like ManEatingApe. The fact he make something seem easy don't mean it is. By coincidence, I mentioned him earlier in another thread.

This thread is 2 years old. It refer to instantaneous overheating bug, apparently gone ages ago. I think you should start a new thread about your issue to avoid confusion and let this one fade. In any case, 'phantom forces' upon loading is still a thing. There's some way to manage the risk but not eliminate it.

Wheels are always autostruted to heaviest part. Do you have wheels?

It will also require some non trivial navigation skills to find out the correct direction and amount the pod need to be pushed. EVA is infinite, so you can do it forever. Question is: Do you want expend the eternity like that?

I didn't said it is cause of nothing. I said this is the reference used to say the craft is stables. Its like if I said "I took my place in the bus and stayed there the whole trip, enjoy the view" and you argue that I cannot enjoy the view because of how the speedometer works. There's no "reasoning" to be contested when all I'm saying is from where the observations are made. Prograde mark is the represent the directhion of movement. It will change accordingly with the forces acting upon the vessel. In any case what I said is that direction of movement (prograde) is related to the frame of reference used to evaluation of aerodynamic stability (airflow). If one change, the other change but it don't matter what (if any) is cause of the change. The term to "direction it's already going" is prograde. A frame of reference tied to this direction change as the direction change. As explained above, it doesn't matter. In any case because of forces acting upon the vessel. And I made that question first: Gravity alone don't explain it. Like the hinges alone don't explain the movement of a door. Vectors are representations of physical entities(e.g. forces). Use the name if the force that cause the change of movement instead of a cryptic expression. There are forces acting upon the craft. The resulting torque of those forces (plus the magic torque of reaction wheels) need to be null for the craft maintain a fixed orientation. Coincidentally SAS lock to prograde is how I usually make a not turning vessels to start to turn. Much more precise that way. The mathematical definition of torque is: [Torque]=[Force] X [lever arm] (those are vectors, X means cross product) If you say torques comes from Force of Gravity (aka weight) you need to tell us around which axis. That's assumed, when not stated, to be an axis passing by the CoM. But in that case there is no torque because a force applied on the rotation axis produce no torque. (Test it: push the hinges of a door and see if it will open/close) Notice that it may be valid to consider the rocket turning around any axis. The values will be different but the maths is the same. A resulting torque in the direction of the rotation cause an acceleration of that rotation. To slowdown the resuting torque needs to have opposite direction. That is (not a suggestion, not a good idea) the law of inertia applied to rotation. In my game, it don't go like nothing you described. That should be some indicative since all my rockets but one* (include several available on KerbalX) are designed to do the gravity turn with the piloting limited to 1. Staging 2. Change SAS mode. (No human comnand for pitch/yaw/roll.) My designs just don't rely on 'fancy stuff' to control heading heading. The aeroforces are enough. *made for shuttle challenge, only 3 flights for testing and demonstration. It just become obsole before finished development. However, I'll keep the detailed description and explanation to 'my own' thread. I will just let there this amazing flight of @ManEatingApe : From launchpad to orbit, without a control point!!!

If you place maneuver nodes the game will display the predicted orbit after the last (in planed time order) maneuver. Place a maneuver node, right click it, use the (+) and (-) buttons to add/remove orbits.

Was a teacher. It's a gift and a burden. Ok, you have a point. Two actually: It's a turn. But when we talk about aerodynamic stability we don't use the same frame of reference where this turn happen. For our aerodynamic analyses what we consider is the direction of the airflow. And is relative that variable direction the craft is stable or unstable. Since KSP don't simulate wind or turbulence we can direction of airflow == surface retrograde, which means a aerodynamic stable(see bellow) vessel will maintain the same orientation relative the retrograde/prograde axis. Torque is necessary to change direction. People say stable when the technically correct would be self-stabilizing, like AeroGav explained, the torque comes from the aero forces pushing the vessel. If the vessel is oriented exactly along prograde/retrograde axis all aero forces are in equilibrium and the craft may remain stable, if he deviates from that axis the aero forces will push it back. Think about it: Torque is required to turn. The force of gravity acts in the center of mass of the object, so produce no torque relative to the center of mass(level arm = 0). Is the name incorrect? Why ?

They don't interact with themselves, so which Photon will 'carry on with its life as usual'. Anything else that would be there to be affected by one photon will be affected by two photons.

Right. Thank you for the correction. *sighs* That is what happens when one post at superluminal speed.

Why do you hate art? fixed?

If there is a waste of deltaV is because piloting errors requiring correction and leading to cosine loses. A well executed gravity turn consist of a small nudge/tilt to start it and then keep the rocket pointed prograde with his own stability. It may the case that with lower control authority the gravity turn need to be initiated a bit early but done correctly it have no perceptive effect on deltaV expenditure. Granted that the piloting errors are expected to happens, it may be the case for a inexperienced player or someone trying a new rocket. Also there is the question of how much of fins are necessary, with a few basic fin will solve the stability issues of a big rocket the major drawback is really how silly it will looks As a way to reduce drag loses yes, build the rocket with the least cross-sectional area possible and keep it pointed as close to prograde as possible. Off course you design need to consider other things too. For example: long rockets are more prone to wobbling. No one mentioned it yet: try disabling gimbals on the side-booster. It may be the case of control-coupling in those engines throwing you off course.

those are not synoms A barely stable one can go to orbit following a very narrow gravity turn. An almost stable can hold trajectory with a combination of SAS and reaction wheel/RCS

well, the problem is: it becomes really difficult to undertand without some structure, at least make an attempt to build sentences. We may try to get a hint from the context, but a bunch of loose words offers us no context. I mean: if is important enough to post, you want people to undertand it. Correct?

Mine is still waiting for rescue

also cheaper (granted usually not a big deal)

maybe, but not dumber than a rocket pointing backwards. You need to either move your aerodinamic center down or you center of mass up. Question is;. do you have something heavy enough on the nose to ballance with 3 engines on the bottom? If not you may try fins or remove nosecones on side-booster (if those are not to high). Your issue in picture:

The whole point of the features is to have situations where probes may be out of communication. Either learn to plan your mission with commnet in mind or just disable it.

Procedural nosecones == fairings The only procedural part I think is "missing" in stock game is wings. I'd be satisfied enough with it varying length, base width, tip width and just in integers (You can have 1 or 2, but not 1.638) . Higher technology enables bigger wing area in a single piece.

Very difficult?!! C'mon!!!! And you still have the option to disable it