paul_c

Is this for surface of the Mun or orbital?

In the VAB, on the right: KSP numbers the stages descending, ie the first stage to fire is number 7, then 6, 5, 4 etc. As can be seen from above, the first stage is SRBs with 631m/s. Then the second stage fires, with a skipper liquid fuel engine and some fuel, 1093m/s. Then third stage is another skipper liq fuel engine and fuel, delivering the payload to Kerbin Orbit (which needs approx 3500-4000m/s). To understand what various missions need in terms of "delta V" budget, look at this website: https://13375.de/KSPDeltaVMap/ Note that delta V is a handy parameter which is independent of payload weight, ie a 100 ton payload needs the same delta V to get to Kerbin orbit as a 100kg payload. It will just be sitting on top of a much bigger rocket. Obviously the more payload you want to put into orbit, the bigger the rocket (all else being equal). ETA Ignore the remaining stages 0-4 in the screenshot, the KSP editor doesn't do too well when you have multiple payloads decoupling at various stages of the mission, including monopropellant powered ones etc.....you'll have to get a feel for those or learn to work it out manually. But for simpler rockets, KSP is pretty good at helping you design a capable rocket.

In theory a satellite with fixed panels on (if you imagine its a cube) 4/6 faces could find itself "end-on" with the sun. And because of where the ecliptic plane is, and that prograde/retrograde maneouvers are common....its actually a 50% chance for those! I am not sure if KSP interprets a slim edge/angle as "direct sunlight" though, if it does then its probably very unlikely to strand you.

The payload weight is a (pretty much fixed) proportion of the total weight of the rocket. Are you still limited to 30 parts/18 tons? Rather than thinking in terms of "I need xxx tons of fuel to lift yyy tons of payload" its better to design based on delta V, which is shown during construction on the staging layout on the right hand side. That way, you can design the rocket to have the necessary performance.

You'll need a fuel tank and engine. Even if you placed it exactly in the right spot, decoupling will ping it off the planned orbit!

Intruigued, I fired up KSP and this is the cheapest practical satellite I could slim it down to: Its £2885 including the decoupler (which you'll need!) I've included the thermometer which is relatively expensive at £900. Notice it has 2 deployable solar panels. Using 1 panel, or fixed panels, will mean that probably at some stage in life it will be shaded and lose power/go dead. It will create a chicken-egg situation because without power, you can't reach it to move it out of shading the panel! Been there! This is slightly more expensive but flatter, handy if you're stacking loads of satellites or its on top of an already-tall other payload for another mission/contract (or you could side-mount it).

Have a look at the contracts which you are declining to do and figure out what you need to fulfil them. More flying skills? Certain components you don't own yet? A bigger/better rocket? Some of the branches of the tree don't seem that useful and some are essential for progress. For example, 'earning' enough for a science lab will open the gateway to loads more science (I earned 900 science from launching one into Kerbin orbit - researched experiments are additional to transmitted or recovered instruments etc and reward very well).

Yes, a satellite with a thermometer will pay for itself over and over on "science from xxxx" contracts. They are very handy and quick to do once you have the right stuff in the right place (eg surface of Mun, surface of Minmus, etc too). A variation is "crew report in flight over area xxxxx" too (the area will be marked on the map) but these are probably going to require a reposition to pass over the spot. I'm talking about satellite contracts (unmanned probe) - you might not have seen them yet. The science ones are "space around Kerbin"

You probably weren't paying attention and used large changes in velocity which dropped the Pe below 70,250m, then once its in the atmosphere the drag sent it down. You'll need to achieve (approximately) the orbit asked for, to fulfil a satellite contract. There is a bit of leeway on the exact numbers. DO NOT assume they're going to be low orbits - I've seen things asked for past the moon and beyond!

I've never seen 2x "data from space around xxxxxx" contracts be generated at the same time. I have, however seen very similar satellite contracts pop up. And since the criteria only requires stability in the asked-for orbit for 10 secs, its possible to send a satellite up, position it for one contract, then reposition it for another. Personally I've never done this though, I feel its not within the spirit of what was intended (and its a single player offline game.....you are only cheating yourself!) HOWEVER there is obvious merit in being able to combine similar contracts together. For example, you can launch one big rocket, and have 2, 3 or more satellites detach then be deployed in their requested orbits. My latest favourite is to do 2 rescue contracts in one mission - I have a 2 crew rescue vessel with a remote control pod so its sent into orbit empty, then rendezvouses with the first rescue, then flies to the second. I am sure you can think of other examples where 2 or more contracts can be combined in one launch.

You can still do contracts though?

I've started on "hard" caveman challenge. Down to 1 astronaut within the hour....sorry Jeb..... No facilities upgrades huh? No astronaut complex upgrade, so no EVAs except on the ground??

Personally I went for "Space Exploration" (90 science) then "Advanced Exploration" (160 science and needs ~$900k R&D upgrade too), the reason being it allows the Science Lab which is the gateway to a ton more science. Just having a little trouble launching it....but that's part of the fun, right?

The more "similar" an orbit is, the more similar the velocity. For example if one ship is orbiting 80,000m x 80,000m and the other is rendezvousing and its penultimate orbit is 79,900 x 80,000 it will do so very slowly and safely, all nicely under control. The properties of an orbit and the velocity of a vehicle are linked, by the laws of physics. For a rendezvous, you don't need to dock, so you don't need to worry about the other aspects, just do it all with orbital mechanics. But to directly answer the question.....you'd turn the ship around and burn the main engine (or use reverse on RCS thrusters if you have them). I'm confused.....the contract is for a rendezvous?

If you have a 2-seater craft and 2 Kerbals in it, its not possible to swap them over easily. This is deliberate....because the space capsules are cramped! A bit of forethought before launching can have the correct Kerbal sitting in the correct seat for a mission (eg pilot in the capsule, scientist in the science lab, etc). Or, build a spaceship with 3 seats so they can do swapsies. What led up to them all being in the wrong seat?

At some point you'll have to get them home, via Kerbin's atmosphere so 1-actual-enclosed-proper seat per Kerbal is a good minimum. No grabbing of batteries or sitting inside a tube needed. My Kerbals are either on a surface, on a jetpack EVA or inside a spaceship. All that rendezvous requires is 2 craft near each other and at a slow closing speed, no need for EVA activity. It can all be done from the map view, its 99.9% knowledge of orbital mechanics. I am sure the tutorials cover it but put simply: 1. Decide which vessel is going to be the target and which one is doing the maneouvring 2. Match the orbits roughly - same planet, vaguely similar Ap/Pe, vaguely similar inclination 3. Personally, I like to match the inclination fairly precisely now 4. Put the maneouvring vehicle into a circular orbit with Ap/Pe the same as (one of the) Ap/Pe of the target, if that doesn't have a circular one. Then its: smaller/lower orbit is 'faster' so it will catch up if its behind. larger/higher orbit is slower. Just do a bunch of orbits to close up the gap. When you're close, nearly-but-not quite match the Ap or Pe, ie within say 1km or 500m so its a very similar speed, slow approach. Do a bunch more orbits, take note of approx how much it closes each orbit and on the last orbit....opposite the closest approach, do a bunch of tweaks to get the closest approach distance to a minimum. ALL that can be done with small burns at the right time/direction. No big burns needed, no 250m/s+ approaches, no EVA stuff, no Kerbals in tubes. Yes, that's 138mm (millimetres)....the vessels approached very gradually at about 0.2m/s and grazed each other! It was a Kerbal rescue mission, let's just say not much EVA monopropellant was needed!

Ok......what does it ask you to do specifically? I can't remember what "explore Kerbin" entails.

Just remind us what you're trying to do (ie what does the contract say?), how many crew you have on the vessel, and how many crew it can accommodate.

I am guessing with a closing speed of 214 m/s the orbits were very different. It should be possible with a bit of tweaking and patience (and not much wasting of fuel) to get the speed down to say 5-10, then rescuing a Kerbal using the jetpack is much easier (no long burns to equalise the speed and no danger of running out of fuel).

I just did a few rendezvous' and they're not as easy as first appears! I don't know the criteria KSP ask for though. I've not seen the tutorials but I'd recommend you look at them. Obviously 214m/s isn't great, if you're looking at transferring a Kerbal via EVA or doing a docking. I'd say he's lost - a rescue mission would be complicated at this stage. They appear as "lost" for a bit, then will respawn if you have that option turned on.

AMD have traditionally been better for budget end of the market which is the kind of spec I was after, and just made sense (back in September). AMD are better multi-threading but are generally lower clock speeds. This means for intensive gaming (where the CPU affects it, ie the GPU isn't the bottleneck) Intel still do well. However since about 8th gen, Intel haven't really progressed at nearly the same rate as AMD so the gap got closer and closer. Its fair to say that with the Ryzen 5000 series they've pretty much caught up (IPC - instructions per cycle - took a leap forwards, so the lower clock speed is less relevant now). Depending on the availability and price, AMD makes sense. Intel are just launching 11th gen (for laptops and ultraportables, there's stuff available now) but there's no big technology leap, its just a small change from 10th gen. And AMD have had poor availability (for enthusiast/builders) and thus the prices have not fallen, whereas Intel has better availability and some of the recent prices have been cut so its pretty even now. IF you can get an AMD at the right price, they're better. The supply issues aren't so bad with system integrators eg laptop manufacturers.

Don't worry, your spec is fine, it is not "extremely unbalanced".

Did you complete the rendezvous contract okay? I think it needs a certain distance between; and a relative velocity under a certain amount, to count.

I keep in touch with a number of YouTube channels (Gamer's Nexus, Hardware Unboxed, JayzTwoCents) but I can also relate to my own personal experience. Like many, I wanted to buy/build a decent gaming PC during the lockdowns. I built mine last September, before the newer stuff came out, although I was aware of it. I never intended it to be a high-end system but at the same time didn't want to buy something outdated. Originally I eyed up the Ryzen 3300X but its basically a paper product, its very sparsely available - so went for the 3600X out of necessity. For graphics, I always knew about the 3000 series but in the interim, went for a cheap(ish) secondhand 2060. I have yet to find a game yet, where the system struggles to cope. On the most demanding, a hardware monitor shows the GPU gets 100% utilised and reaches its 179W power limit, but I've not seen poor frame rates in.....anything. Anything except.....KSP! If you construct a space station then add bits and add bits so it has loads of parts, that's the only thing it struggles with (but I think that's a KSP issue or rather a me-making-a-silly-too-big-space-station-in-KSP issue). I even owned MSFS2020 for a short while - no problems with performance there either (on decent settings too). So yes, on the internet the Ryzen 5xxx and NVidia 3xxx are great, but in reality the previous generation are still able to keep up with the vast majority of games (at least in my limited experience). Maybe there's something in the future coming out which will push the performance boundaries again (MSFS2020 does this on older PCs....). Or you want to run everything in 4K at 120+fps.