robsr3v3ng3

I'm just gonna give the bog standard semi obvious advice of do a re-install with no mods.

Basically it won't matter. If you are spamming the transmitter then you just run an experiment, transmit and repeat until you get all the points. I usually take 1 of all science parts apart from the goo container which I have 2 of because they can be awkward to balance. And then 2 basic transmitters and loads of batteries and panels. That way you can run all experiments and transmit and then start transmitting on the other antenna. In reality there isn't really an "optimal" setup aside from having one of each, you just have to spend a bit more time running experiments and then sending the data, but you save weight by only having one of each.

Flybys with Kerbins is always good too. AI controlled craft don't get crew reports or EVA reports. So you could otherwise do a trip around somewhere like Eve or Duna and take data at high and low orbit, and then do the same for their moons which will give a lot of data. If possible land on one of the moons (which is no harder than landing on Minmus once you are orbiting the planet). Then try to return to Kerbin. Once you're in space it's fairly easy to get around (especially with a small craft or a nuclear engine) so you don't need much fuel.

Sorry about the very late reply. If you put all your science parts in an action group and then run that action group just click keep on all the data you want to send, then right click and antenna and transmit it that way. Unfortunately we can't get transmitters to work by using an action group. When you reach the point of having only a couple of your science parts worth running it's best to run them all once, click keep on ones that are useless and transmit the good ones. That way when you run the tests again you can just spam click the cancel on tests which already have data, and transmit the ones you want to use. I know that sounds weird but trust me it makes things easier. As to mun landings the best thing for it is keep trying. Make sure when you take off from Kerbin you go East to West. Get to a good orbit then use a manouver node to find a good time to do your burn. You should be able to make an intercept where you approach the mun at a very steep angle and get a fairly low periapsis. Once you've done that you can just burn to slow down at the periapsis give yourself a low orbit (less than 100km) but generally around 50km to make things really easy. Then just point prograde and slow yourself down.

Fair enough. You do get a more efficient lift if you take off, do a gravity turn, then increase your apoapsis rather than just go straight up.

Best way to get science is to do research in the different biomes on Kerbin, (on the ground and at low atmosphere, upper atmosphere, low orbit and high orbit). Then unlock a few parts and do the same for the mun (be aware the mun also has different biomes and you can get a lot of science for just collecting data at the different altitudes above each one) . If possible get solar panels early so you can then transmit the data which saves some time and gives you more science per trip. If you then unlock some more science parts go back to previous locations and use the new science part (the later parts give a lot more science than the first ones). Don't forget to get crew reports and EVA reports in these locations as they are easy to get and require no extra parts. If you do most of the science on Kerbin and the Mun with the science parts that you have fairly early on you will have enough points to easily make something which can fly to another planet and get data there. Even if you don't land on another planet and you only have goo, crew and EVA reports available you can get a lot of science points. It's easy to almost max out the science tree just by doing all the science on Kerbin, the Mun, Minmus, and doing a flyby of Eve and its moon. If you need more advice check out Scott Manely's Videos (links below). 1st mission: 2nd mission: Note, you can put research parts in action groups. This makes things a lot easier!

I would avoid using engines mounted at the top as your main thrust, and here is why. A rocket is unstable if the centre of thrust is below the centre of mass. This instability is what gives you ease of control, a very stable craft will fly in a straight line more easily, while an unstable one will try to tip over as you thrust in atmosphere. However, if you put the centre of thrust too far above the centre of mass it because too stable because the effect of dragging the mass behind you makes it very hard to actually turn because it is too stable. The best analogy I can think of is imagine trying to push or pull a trailer. If you pull it, to steer you have to pull it to the side (similar to having a gimbal that could be as much as 90 degrees!). But if you push it and you start pushing only a few degrees to the side it starts guiding itself in the right direction. As mentioned by others it's best to ditch excess engines as your craft losses weight because then you avoid the situation where you're carrying twice as much thrust as you need and running them at 50% (this is more of an issue below 12km). If you need extra thrust the best option in my opinion is stick on some asparagus stages (with engines on). N.B. If you're talking about huge amounts of thrust you may need to make these stages using Rockomax engines (or a quad coupler with small engines on) to have a decent effect. If you need better stability position these so that the centre of thrust is closer to the centre of mass (but still below it). Please note: I am not saying don't build a ship with radially mounted engines near the top and that it won't work. I'm just saying it is easier to put extra asparagus stages on which are ditched first. If you need extra fuel at low altitude it can be held by the asparagus stages with engines. If you need extra fuel but not extra thrust (as you shouldn't go much faster than 250m/s below 12km) then use asparagus with just fuel tanks and ditch them to save weight.

Tbh I'd say go and save the Kerbal and just ditch the craft. The amount of time it will take to build something capable of going and bringing the whole thing down in one piece means it won't be worth it. You might as well just stick some science modules on the craft that goes to rescue him and re run the tests.

Transmitting is the best thing to do. You get less return per experiment run, but you can run the experiments more times before you get no more science. Returning an experiment to Kerbin will give you 100% of the data, but that 100% isn't all the data that can be made from that experiment. You can go back and take a another set of data then return with that set, which will give much less than what the first gave you. If you record, return, recover and repeat until you get no more science you will get the same total science as if you record, transmit and repeat until you get nothing back. Mapping all science experiments to an action group is a good idea (as someone else mentioned) then just transmit the ones that give you data. I click on keep for the ones that I have used up (i.e. return 0 data). This means that when I hit 1 again I can just spam the cancel button on replacing old data then click transmit for each experiment run, that way you don't have to go through each experiment to make sure you only delete the useless ones.

Also there is the weight saving with using the smaller ones instead of the larger ones.

Science can be a bit of a pain in the beginning as you can't do many experiments, just goo, crew and eva reports, and surface samples. I would suggest to start with just flying to some of the different biomes on Kerbin. Then take a trip to the mun and do a bunch of tests there. Something very important to remember is that as you leave kerbin and head to the mun you will pass through more biomes (although I'm not sure they really count as actual biomes). As you go from Launch to a stable kerbin orbit you will through these testing regions: Surface Low altitude (less than about 15,000m) High altitude (above 15,000m but still in atmosphere) Low orbit (not sure about the limit on this one but anything under about 200km is ok I think) On the way to a low Mun orbit you then have these extra ones: High orbit over Kerbal High orbit over the Mun Low orbit over the Mun All of these are affect by what is below you on the planet/moon you're attached to. I.e. you can do experiments high over the sea, or high over grasslands and both will reward you seperately! This also counts for the poles and major craters on the Mun. Some thing else important to remember is there is no loss for transmission! Yes you may only get say 40% for an experiment when you transmit it but you can just do it again. These is no loss in the end from transmitting (this applies to all experiments, reports and samples) So in short, make sure you do experiments in all the regions you pass through that are listed and just test, transmit, repeat. Also as you unlock new experimental devices like the materials bay and thermometer make sure you go back and revisit old biomes. The gravioli and seismic testing parts generate a lot of science!

This is sound advice. If you used mechjeb's autopilot for launching you'll have noticed that when you get it to auto throttle it will actually restrict your velocity sometimes, this is because it picks the most efficient speed, i.e. reduces the amount of drag as much as possible while not spending so long in higher gravity. Not sure about values for the new planets, but on Kerbin it's best to stay under 250m/s in the bottom 8kms or so and then only go full throttle when you're over 25km.

No offense but I think the claim of "I can land this so I'll end here" is a bit hopeful. Because as soon as that chute opens fully you'll loose almost all forward momentum and effectively faceplant the ground, and one parachute is not gonna be enough to get a craft that size slow enough to survive without at least half the craft exploding. Otherwise very good effort, it has given me a new idea to try out now as the fastest I've been able to go so far is around 2.4km/s at around 20km altitude.

This looks like a fun challenge, I have played around with carrier craft for quite a bit, i.e. have a jet carrier and a single SRB with wings which glides back down. My attempts haven't been hugely successful so far though because I don't make the carrier big enough and so the X-15 equivalent causes too much change in centre of mass and drag. Does the rocket powered ship have to be a single stage? I.e. could it break away from the carrier, fire up a LFE to get it to speed and then gun it with a couple of SRBs attached?

this is sad, this campaign was great fun. So I guess a big thanks is in order, you did a great job considering the numbers of people taking part and the difficulties of trying to keep it fair and balanced.

My advice to the people who are pretty low down atm and short on funds is to focus on the really low end missions rather than spend more money trying to do missions that are too difficult. If you draw up a spreadsheet you can easily find how much profit each mission gives you after craft costs and salvaging. Also make sure that you aim to get booster tech and salvage tech 1, maybe even decoupler and parachute tech. I made these my first research goals because it makes launching SRB rockets much much cheaper. If you stick 7 SRBs underneath a decoupler with a parachute you can get back the cost of two and a half SRBs because of the cool 50% recovery for spent SRB pods. It does make the craft heavier bear in mind so if you need to gain an extra km in altitude for more reward use explosive decoupling, but I never found it necessary.

Or you could set up an excel sheet for each player which has a list of parts and some inputs at the top for starting cash etc etc. Then you have a list of researched techs and a box next to them, when a player has researched it just put a y in next to it and that updates the prices/salvage. When you receive a turn submission all you would need to do is find that players excel sheet, put in the quantities of parts they use and their researched tech and funds available. Then choose a mission reward and that will then tell you how much they\'ll earn. Then figure out how much they get from the salvage of the dropped off parts and you\'re sorted. The excel sheet I use when I make my craft has a separate section for salvage, so I type in how many of each part are in each jettisoned stage and it tells me how much it weighs and therefore if I will earn the salvage on it.

Don I have some serious concerns about you arithmetical abilities. For my costings/available funds bit for the end of the latest turn you said I spent $11,000 on my craft and $11,250 on tech (that is correct as far as I know) but what isn\'t correct is how they add up to equal $24,250 and not $22,250 :S. And also you\'re $5,000 over on how much I earned. My income was, $1,500 from fundraising, $3,750 from salvage and $13,000 from the mission objective, which should come to $18,250 not $23,250. I should therefore be starting this turn with $23,650 not $26,650. You might want to check some of the others for errors.

Idea for the contract (inspired by the other submission) Scenario, the lovely folks who do all the fundraising and financing need to inspect the second KSC site, and so they\'ve asked us to build a craft which can get them to KSC 2. These chaps are pretty wealthy though, and so they like to travel in something with all bells and whistles, as well as refrigerated champagne. To suit their 'needs' they have their own comfort ship which is what they want to rock up at the KSC2 runway in. (This craft would have to be made by Don, or some one else who is willing). So the task at hand is to get their pimp mobile of a craft to the KSC2 runway from the KSC1 runway (or maybe launch pad). The biggest bonuses could be given to those who waste as little 'company money' on getting them there, e.g. who uses least fuel and who uses least engines. And maybe smaller side bonuses for those who get there in as little mission time as possible.

ah ok no worries then if you are happy with it as is. I was just thinking in terms or a rigid time structure it is starting to unravel a bit. But if you\'re going to make each turn fairly equal in length then it should be fine.

hmm am I the only one or is maybe the two turns per week starting to seem a bit unrealistic. Obviously this is not a gripe aimed at you don, you\'re doing a great job of processing the turns as soon as you can, but because of real world things going on in everybody\'s lives and the fact that a two turn per week schedule doesn\'t really take in to account time to process each turn the situation of finishing the weekdays turn (which doesn\'t really start until tuesday) on friday, and then the new turn not coming out until sunday morning, which then has to be finished by sunday night is starting become a bit more regular. It might be worth us all looking again at a turn timing system which allows a number of days the players need to build their rockets etc, and then allow at least an entire day for don to do his bit. I\'d like to change my suggestion from the two turn per week idea towards maybe a three turn per two week idea. That should allow roughly four days for the players to make rockets and just less than one day on average for don to carry out turns and plan the next turns missions etc. What are people\'s thoughts on this, or am I just a bit of a moron who is making up an issue that isn\'t really there?

I\'m designing some rockets atm and I just realised something. As I will be leaving the atmosphere I need to pack some extra zoxy. I know I need to research zoxy 1 tech unless I want to carry extra zoxy in an additional main system tank. However, say I do go for the tech route, what are the prices of the tanks? The costings table shows two tanks, small and large (capacities of 150 and 800 respectively), but what about the 2 sizes of radial tanks (capacities of 75 and 400 respectively)?

Yeah I was trying to drain the two tanks above the stack decoupler first. I thought it still drained the top tank of the central towers first before draining fuel from the radial ones.

ermmm I think I have found yet another bug which causes half fuel consumption. I have a central tower of two fuel tanks with a large LFE on the bottom, there are three of these arranged symmetrically. Attached to each is a radial decoupler with two tanks a stack decoupler and other stuff. A fuel line went from the bottom of the two radial tanks to the top of the tower tanks. This gave the three central engines half fuel consumption. I shall try to find a work around.

Tbh it wouldn\'t be very hard for an imperial system to be added in. The game could still use metric to carry out calculations, and you put in a preference for imperial and all it does is converts the values stated in game in to imperial. So it still carries out calculations with the masses in kg but when you mouse over a component it converts the mass in kgs to pounds on the gui but not in the calculations