EndOfTheEarth

I'm not sure if my idea is getting clearly across. I already know about the gravity turn in relation to atmospheric pressure. What I want to know is if a n earlier below-horizon burn is better than waiting until Apoapsis to do the same burn. Figure A: The old technique is on the left. The new technique is on the right.

No. Watching SpaceX try their hand at it is so much more exciting, and I am very much looking forward to SLS, once the Gov't gets around to funding it.

I've been spending some time messing with launch tactics in my efforts to get heavier payloads to Low-Kerbin Orbit, and while I have a system that works, I don't know if it's any more efficient than the old system I used. In the old system, I would burn vertical 'til 12,500m, then start my turn, then burn until my Ap was at the desired altitude, then wait until I had reached Apoapsis to conduct my circulization burn. After watching mechjeb ships do circulation burns, I decided to try something new: I still do everything through the turn at 12,500m and burn until I have my desired apoapsis, but then I start burning on the 90 while still in atmosphere, and even below the horizon if the Apoapsis is getting too high. Using this, I can get a nicely circular orbit without having to wait until Apoapsis for my circularization burn. Now, my gut is telling me that Oberth should mean that this is more efficient, since my burn is occurring at a lower altitude, but the fact that I'm burning in-atmosphere means that it should be less efficient due to drag. I don't have the tools or equipment to measure this, so can anyone tell me if one technique is mathematically proven to be more fuel-efficient than the other? EDIT (from later post): I'm not sure if my idea is getting clearly across. I already know about the gravity turn in relation to atmospheric pressure. What I want to know is if a n earlier below-horizon burn is better than waiting until Apoapsis to do the same burn. Figure A: The old technique is on the left. The new technique is on the right.

Sorta? Most of it is time-estimations during descent and docking.

Communications tower with giant transmitter?

This is a trick question. The only reason why the rockets are so small is that they don't give us the space and tanks to build bigger ones. Otherwise, I imagine that all of us certainly would. You don't technically need a 10m first stage tank and engine to get into orbit, but it would be nice to have anyway, purely for the 'obscenely overpowered rocket' factor.

Completed my first manned flight to and from Ike Leaving Kerbin: Arriving at Ike: About to step off the ladder: Al and Bartden feeling proud of themselves: Departing Ike orbit: Returning to Kerbin: Re-entry (with transfer stage in background): Chutes, and moment before transfer stage destruction: Al and Bartden satisfied with a job well done: And for those of you wondering if I'm going to do Duna next, already been there in .18: Off to switch my tags!

Preparing for this weekend's Ike landing...

I figure that if the devs didn't think we could get somewhere with vanilla parts, either they would have provided a part for it, said they were providing a part for it, or not made the objective where they placed it. So, vanilla for me all the way, with the occasional mechjeb part once I've done it a dozen times vanilla-only.

These plans are all very good, but there are a number of reaction-time elements involved that may not work the first time and the real munar surface altitude is not the same as the altitude that you'll get from the stock altimeter. Aim for a landing zone in one of the seas/mares for the closest possible landing, and do everything in your power to kill off your horizontal motion above 500m. You'll know that you did it right when the retrograde circle is centered on the vertical blue part of your Nav Ball.

I, for one, agree with the original post! I actually prefer flying to Minmus--the landings are easier, and it's easier to get around once you land (come on people, an inclination burn is EASY!). My minmus base actually set the stage for my favorite moment in the game so far; taking a lonely Kerbal EVAing from my first failed spaceplane trip to Minmus and making it back to the tiny outpost just as it was down to 2% fuel on the thruster pack. It had a really crazy "escaping from the middle of nowhere" vibe to it, and it was nice to feel that I had the ability to actually save a stranded Kerbal, for once.

Thinking back on it, I recall it being mentioned that a Kerbal's walking pace during EVA was determined by the gravity of the body they are marching about on. If this is so, then will the significantly higher gravity on Eve slow EVA operations to a halt? Will it even be possible to get up if a kerbal on EVA falls over? And what about the ladders? Even though a kerbal's mass hasn't changed, would the lighter ladder still be able to hold up the weight of one or more kerbals on Eve? So, I suppose the question I'm asking is "How you intend to get around the high gravity during Eve EVA ops?" or, since I know there are rover mods, "How do you intend to get around the high gravity with only stock parts?"

Has it occurred to anyone that EVA on Eve will be mind-numbingly slow? If I recall correctly, a Kerbal's walking speed is affected by the gravity of the body that it's walking on. If so, is it even worth it to go on an EVA? Additionally, will this mean that the lighter ladder will not function on Eve? The kerbals will still have the same mass, of course, but their weight might go beyond the tolerances prescribed.

Things that will help stop spin and wobbling: 1) Vectored Thrust. The really big 3m engines have this, and make getting off the ground comparatively easy. 2) Winglets and an ASAS to help keep you pointed straight while in-atmosphere. 3) Normal SAS Modules, ESPECIALLY if you've got solid rocket boosters on your ship. These act like gyroscopes and help keep your ship pointed one way. 4) Structural support struts. Lots of them. A wobbling part or radial rocket will cause the rest of the rocket to wobble too...and it only takes so much wobbling before the whole rocket flips upside-down. 5) Do not turn on your RCS thrusters until you are out of the atmosphere. They will not help you otherwise, and likely only make things worse.

I strongly feel that mechjeb should be used more as a tool than a crutch. I taught myself how to get to minmus manually and perform targeted landings before I even considered downloading mechJeb. Besides, during about one-in-four launches, MechJeb does something blatantly wrong, like staging during a gravity turn or putting so much force into rotation that it gets stuck in a spin or a swing. If I didn't have manual training, I'd be stuck. Because I do have manual training, I can react quickly and continue with the mission. Based on this, I feel that all people ought to have flown to and landed on a body manually at least once before getting MechJeb to do the same mission, just so that when their autopilot does something wrong, they'll be ready.

Inspired by Sierra Nevada's Real-life Dream Chaser concept ( http://sncspace.com/space_exploration.php ) I decided to see if I could build something similar in Kerbal Space Program. Here's what I came up with: The DreamChaser1 Manual has enough fuel to get you all the way up into orbit, and today I managed to get it all the way to a wheels-down Minmus landing with a little help from MechJeb (which I just strapped on to the back of the spaceplane fuselage; you can do the same, but the attached file doesn't include it). It also has enough fuel in the atmospheric engines for a fairly controlled powered landing. As this version is entirely stock parts, you don't need any mods or plugins to run it. IMPORTANT!!!!!: 1) Do not allow MechJeb to try to circularize this ship while the core launcher stage is still attached. I have found that the program overcompensates during turns, and will tend to overshoot, making the whole rocket swing back and forth. 2) Either perform your own roll-program shortly after takeoff or in the middle of MechJeb doing the initial launch profile so that the plane is either rightside up or upside down relative to Kerbin before the radial boosters separate, otherwise you risk getting the core stage blown up during stage-separation. 3) The spaceplane itself is a bit sluggish in atmosphere. It will respond to controls, but the turns are kind of slow. 4) You MUST either re-order the staging or deactivate the atmospheric engines before launch, otherwise the thrust WILL destroy the radial boosters. I left them on the bottom stage so that I would be reminded fix it before launch rather than come in for landing and discover that I burned aviation fuel in a Minmus landing, but you can change it as you please. Similarly, you may wish to stow the landing gear before launch.

How deep is the orbit of your damaged ship relative to the orbit of Kerbin? At a glance, the orbits appear to intersect, so you can theoretically just send your ship up to Max warp and wait for Kerbin to recapture it again. It will take time...a lot of time...but your command pod has infinite life support, right? I've done similar experiments with expended landing stages on return trips from Minmus, and they all come back down eventually...well, some crash into the moon first, but they were all recaptured. Based on that, waiting and warping is your best bet. If you do find yourself on a moon intercept course, see Scott Manley's video on affecting capsule trajecotry using EVA-ing kerbals.

Have you done it with spaceplanes yet? I just recently got a spaceplane to minmus using a Dream Chaser style launcher and flew it back for a gliding landing. I found it significantly harder than getting a regular capsule lander both ways.

@Xenotheos, 2008dragon: To reiterate. The ship was flying vertically relative to the surface of kerbin (Heading 000deg). No gravity turn or orbital mechanics; I hadn't even gotten into orbit yet. Thanks for bringing the capsule bit to my attention though. @Vanamonde: The setup is designed (I'm pretty sure) so that the fuel is drained from the first booster pair into the second booster pair, and from the second booster pair to the core rocket. Otherwise all my rockets would have shut off at the first radial-rocket burnout. Thank you for the suggestions though, I'll try some of those first before I redesign. @ForumHelper: About how many struts and radial decouplers would you recommend per radial rocket?

I've been working on a new vehicle for the sake of preparing myself for interplanetary flyby missions, but I noticed that with the present vehicles, like several other vehicles I've had in the past, my radial boosters seem to collide with the lower end of my core stage during flight, which either blows up my rocket or forces a mission abort. Here's the rocket: Here's the detail of the lower part of the staging, showing the positions of the rockets and decouplers: Have I been doing something wrong in my design? The ship file is attached. Additional information: 1) I use MechJeb as a tool, not as a crutch. I got myself all the way through targeted manual Minmus landings before I downloaded it for the first time. I'm used to MechJeb not acting smart during staging, and as such, when the accident happened for the first two times, I shut off MechJeb and attempted to fly the entire launch manually. Same thing happened. 2) In both manual and mechjeb-guided flights, the rocket was flying vertically during staging. It was NOT turning or rotating. 3) The staging is set up so that two of the radial rockets drop off first, then the other two. Staging occurs after the cutoff of the first pair of radials. When this is occurring, the core and two remaining radial rockets are at full throttle, and the two empty radials are not firing at all (as they are empty). 4) The ship is flying in .16. The only mod or plugin I have is MechJeb, which is one piece up near the command module. The rest of the rocket is stock parts with stock settings.

...that you get after your first landing. For whatever reason, one-word adjectives like "euphoria" or "bewilderment" just don't seem to cut it for me, and so I wanted to hear from the rest of you. How do you describe that feeling you get after your first landing?

I still think the answer to Laythe is to add pontoons or water skis to spaceplanes. Not sure if there's a mod for this yet, but the situation seems to demand it if we ever want to get home again, barring a very, very precise island landing.

It's the learning curve; I feel like kerbal space program (and to a limited degree, space IRL?) is designed in such a way as so that you become more masterful at different elements as you go along. First you orbit, then you learn how to get to Mun orbit. Then you learn how to land. Then you learn orbital inclination corrections to fly to minimus, along with selective landing (assuming you haven't already done that with the comparatively flat Mun), and how to pull all of this off with spaceplanes. In .17, we'll also have to learn how to do interplanetary transfer, and set up planetary missions, which are surely even MORE complex that what we've been doing up until this point. However, once you've done it once, it becomes easier to do with repetition. I remember back at the beginning how getting a rocket into orbit was a horrible challenge; some thousand launches later I can now do it in my sleep. The first five of my ships bound for lunar orbit either failed to reach it or crashed; and this I can now similarly do in my sleep. The first dozen of my landing attempts crashed, and my first successful landing actually encountered a bug and froze during ascent. But I had another three landers waiting in munar orbit to give it a shot, and these landed successfully. In a similar way, I overshot minmus twice before getting six times into terribly useless polar orbits. Now I know the inclination, and I actually have a small 'base' set up on one of the ice plains so that when my first spaceplane voyage there crashed horribly at last second, I had a way to get my astronauts back home. But the point is, practice makes perfect. You'll get there eventually if you learn from your mistakes, and there's always a higher star to reach for.

I\'d been struggling with the same challenge. I just recently got into orbit and back, and here\'s what I found: --Make sure your spaceplane has all the horzontal and vertical control surfaces a normal plane would have, and that it actually flies through aerodynamics rather than thrust. There are other threads on how to do this. --Keep your plane pointed prograde until you\'ve made it below 10km. --Rather than doing a heavy reentry burn and vertically dropping, do a light burn that brings your spaceplane in slowly; don\'t entirely kill your orbit, just bring the periapsis down to about 5km or so and atmospheric drag will do the rest. --Don\'t turn your atmospheric engines back on until you\'re below 12.5km, then use them to stabilize into normal plane flight. --Don\'t expext your ASAS to fly the plane for you. This late in the mission, your plane will naturally want to tilt up due to where the remaining fuel is localized. Do not allow your plane to get tilted more than 40 degrees above the horizon, or you will start to tumble.

I neglected to mention--I\'m worried about this for landing operations; while the rotational thing works during a zero-g EVA, it doesn\'t seem to work after landing.