UmbralRaptor

@Vanamonde: Sounds like the sticky pad bug. @PanzerschrekLeopard a .craft file is how various types of saved ships are stored in KSP. They\'re under /KSP/Ships/ in 0.13.3, and split between /KSP/Ships/VAB/ and /KSP/Ships/SPH/ in 0.15.2.

You\'re using the demo (0.13.3), right? If so, build the center set of tanks/engines first, and then copy it with alt+left click and symmetry. You can also drag parts (most notably engines, parachutes, and decouplers around on the stage listing if you want to mess with the firing order, etc. edit: Which is best depends on what you\'re doing. 6x will let you launch more mass, 4x will be smaller/easier to control. If control is getting excessively hard, replacing the centerline LV-T30 with an LV-T45 will help.

I\'m guessing that this was the original article? It sounds interesting, though I\'m curious as to whether antimatter production would be usefully fast, and if the mass of such equipment would be be less than the extra(?) antimatter for a round trip with a Valkyrie-style rocket. Or if the overall mass is expected to be low enough that they\'d use more or less the same design?

0) Learn how the new parts work. 1) See if it\'s possible to jump from Minmus to Kerbin. 8)

Many, many staging errors. Mainly of the failing to fully rearrange/add/remove them when my rocket design is such that the default will get someone killed. That\'s mostly in the past now. I think. Less commonly, not paying enough attention during long burns, or when using time acceleration, resulting in excessive ?V use, needing extra orbits, mission aborts, and a few loss of crew incidents. And of course, hitting End Mission when I meant Tracking Station.

The list contains both dead Kerbals (as mentioned), and ones on spacecraft currently in the flight scene. You\'ll want to pay close attention to the state and time of death values.

The 1-tank rocket I\'ve only done with MJ, and it requires that you use the Mk 2 cockpit. The Mark 1 pod has too much drag.For the 2-tank + LV-T30, check out foamyesque\'s and PakledHostage\'s posts in this thread. It helps a lot to start at full throttle and drop down to 80% once you\'re at ~100-150 m/s. Also, dropping it to 70% at 1 tank unless you\'re already out of the atmosphere.

For horizontal launch, I\'m submitting my UltraMin4D from the K-prize thread: (FL-T250) Fuel Tank: 3 x3 LV-909: 4 pts x2 Small Control Surface: 1 pt x2 Wings (Structural, Delta, Connecting) : 3 pts x2 Landing gear or parachute: 1pt x3 --- Total == 28 The order in which the part survival and no-decoupler bonuses are given matters, for a total of either -0.67, or -20.67. Given the odd scoring system (the LV-909 is more expensive than the LV-T30), I expect the minimum vertical craft to be CM + 2 tanks + LV-T30. This would be -21 points if only the crew pod survives, and -7 or -27 if the entire rocket does. MechJeb can (barely) fly a Mk 2 cockpit + FL-T500 + LV-909 into a 70 km orbit, but I\'m unsure on if that can be landed safely. (I am not submitting anything for these at the moment, just commenting.)

Vectored thrust + ASAS?

I think ~4.5 km for a polar orbit, though as high as 5 km might be necessary. Less for an equatorial one, but I would still stay above 3 km.

Use a smaller, more stable rocket? Lock in the heading with (A)SAS? If all else fails, use MechJeb? While the launchpad isn\'t exactly on the equator, the minimum inclination of orbits from it is only 0.1°.

Launch due east (90° heading).

CONIC_PATCH_LIMIT is the upper limit on how many conic section patches will be drawn. eg: 1 will only show your trajectory in your current SOI (compare with 0.13), 2 will show your current, and next, etc. There\'s little to no need for more than 5 at this time.I\'m unclear on what the different draw modes do.

Orbiting is the art of falling and missing the ground. Literally. You just need enough horizontal velocity (~2300 m/s at 70 km from Kerbin, less higher up). Paying attention to the map view (press M) helps. My 'serious' designs tend towards small liquid fueled rockets, often using asparagus staging, though silliness/challenges/testing stuff out can result in most-anything being used. Probably the simplest approach to a playload is stacks of 4 fuel tanks and an LV-T30 (replace with an LV-T45 in the center). Each stack can carry >3 tonnes to LKO, and they can be spread out radially for greater lift.

BadS makes the Kerbal a 'badass,' largely unaffected by the scarier parts of spaceflight. The speeds and accelerations that scare normal Kerbals won\'t affect one with BadS set to 1 (They may make the BadS happy). Nearby explosions still get to them, though.

Fuel tanks near the center of mass, and roughly evenly placed around it, so to minimize the shifting as fuel burns?

It\'s doable -- you want to burn on the +/- normal vector. Assuming a circular orbit, this will be along the horizon halfway between the pro/retrograde markers. It\'s the sort of thing that\'s highly annoying with current instrumentation, and an argument for mechjeb or the like.

When life gives you lemons, be suspicious. Why is life giving you free stuff?

The game will sometimes mess up in putting up the KIA screens, leaving dead Kerbals with the screaming portraits instead. Also, it is possible to get 1-2 dead if you run out of air while using the ZOxygen mod.

In that case, could you post pics of what happens when you trying going into orbit north/south? There may be a bit of inclination that still needs to be dealt with, but it should be minor.

The Kerbals were, the Kerbals are, and the Kerbals will be. Not on the worlds that we know, but between them. Jebediah knows the gate. Jebediah is the gate. Jebediah is the key and guardian of the gate. Past, present, future, all are one in Jebediah. He knows where the Kerbals boosted through of old, and where They shall boost through again. He knows where They have landed on Minmus\' lakes, and where They still tread them, and why no one can behold Them as They tread. 67, actually.

Vertical launch, with atmospheric engines acting as boosters is probably the most efficient at this time. The real advantages of (aero)spaceplanes would be for messing around in the atmosphere for extended periods of time, and gliding landings (for better control over landing site). Both of which I expect to be more useful as the worlds and economy get fleshed out?

NoSuperman10: Having a major wing in front of most of the mass (Mk 2-6) is adding to your stability issues. Moving it closer to the center of mass should improve things. And it does look like the liftoff issues on the Mk 6 are caused by the aft landing gear being so far back. Vanamonde: I\'m only okayish. I mainly try to stick with simpler designs, putting most of the wings at/near the center of mass, and adding control surfaces until it can be reasonably maneuvered. That looks like a pretty reasonable plane, though.

Screenshots would help enormously. That said, my initial guess is that the landing gear are too far aft. You actual want the back ones fairly far forwards (near the center of mass)

Having spare fuel for getting the landing right/getting closer to KSC after misjudged reentry is helpful. That said, my spaceplanes tend not to have much margin there. :-[ It\'s enormously dependent on the glider. (see: infiniglide bug)