Markus Reese

I think it is a weight inbalance. Do you have a z02 tank on the other side as well? When you get to such small weights, asymetry has much more of an effect.

The elimination of dead weight is key to lifting large rockets. Endless system works, but isn't so fun in my opinion, and doesn't work so well if you want to send larger returnable launchers etc. Ideal design I use I have seen called the "asparagus" setup. Dunno why. It entails the following. Once you have your travel and lander stage set up and working, you then set about designing your launch and orbit stage. For this, I have a central single large engine (or cluster for small rockets). I mount another set of engines around it. When in space, this thrust output will get you into orbit quickly since you want the thrust to capture orbit without wasting on fighting gravity. Around this, I have a ring of engines that fuel feed into the core one. (fuel lines) This is the high atmosphere stage. To get out of the high air resistance, I have a tertiary booster set around that secondary ring and feed into it. I ignite the seconary and tertiary on launch, with srbs for initial thrust if needed/desired. In terms of mass/tank height and reduce initial weight, I always have my per stack size of the tertiary>secondary>primary. Mainly is since your thrust reduces, you want to reduce mass to maintain a thrust to weight ratio. Or even increase it since you have less mass=<efficency. By using the fuel feed method, you maintain a fuel supply for you next stages, but continue supplied boost to prevent dead weight. When tertiary jettison, you ignite your primary. Your secondaries have full fuel tanks because they got fuel from tertiary. Same run for your primary. When your secondary go out, your primary is still full fuel. To give a simple but pretty clear example of how powerful this setup is, I have my standard planetary travel setup that carries around landers. The power is so great when I start getting out of the air resistance that I need to turn down the throttle else the g forces break the thing apart. In fact, when I am capturing orbit, I only need to use about 10-20% throttle.

very cool! But now like all pioneers in astronomy, let us chastize him for heresy! It is very cool however. Gratz on noticing it. I was wondering if any other planets were lunar visible as well. Sometimes the size scaling does seem a bit off, so I will have to pay more special attention to the sky!

Hi there! Full version is definitely worth it. If you like the demo, the stuff currently in alpha make it well worth the money. Considering the cost vs the entertainment time, I am glad I got it early. Only going to get more fun! My answers to questions: - Will the price grow up? Price doesn't go up, the discount decreases XD -I have Full version have i to re-buy it when update comes? Nope, once you get alpha, you have updates for life, but feel free to donate more if you like! -How i can add addons/plugins? It varies so be sure to follow instructions. However the good mods all sort stuff by folders that you just need to copy contents into the matching folder in ksp. Is very intuitive and mod friendly. -Any recommends? Personally, the Novapunch/kw rocketry are nice addons that don't take any work. Also the kosmos station components with powerdyne. They add alot visually without breaking game balance/challenge etc The larger parts also means less components making it more enjoyable in many cases because of reduced lag from fewer parts. -How to get to orbit? MOAR BOOSTERS! Seriously. Burn fast and pitch to horizon and keep burning. -Which is better Basic jet engine or Turbo one? At current, most of the time the turbo ones. The basic ones have less thrust, need more air (peak altitude lower) but the advantage is they are shorter so they are harder to break off on takeoff. Once a cost/income system gets implemented, they are lower cost. -Is the mun landable? Or the other planets? yup, except gilly which has a bug causing you to explode -How can i get my spaceships stable? Struts, balance and proper thrust positioning -What intakes do? Look purdy -What nose connectors (spikes) do? (Sorry if its not nose connector im just trying to remember) Nosepieces look pretty as well, but the slight drag can actually improve stability. Nova has said that the aero programming is complex, so not sure. -How trust vectoring helps? Uses thrust to help your ship turn by angling thrust output. -Which command pod i should use with spaceplanes? Or rockets? Pods are easier for booster connection, circular symetry and also exits vertically. Spaceplane cockpits do better on mirror designs and have a cockpit designed for horizontal exit.

Well, from my experience, the jool departure does require some special timing to maximize. What I (didn't calculate) found is that if you leave the moon while it is past orbital alignment between jool and kerbin kerbin in a retrograde path, it will have a higher apo/peri ratio. This will cut you closer to jool. When you hit peri, Give it full burn for maximum apo motion. No number, not even sure if I am 100% correct since I have only done by feel, but burning at peri does have a maximum effect on apo. If you leave laythe pro or retro, either way you will have a similar apo. If your orbit is more eliptical, it should be easier to increase your apo at peri. If not, it still is cooler to burn while closer to your orbital body. Remember to always ask yourself this number 1 question first: What would Jeb do?

Oh man, that is an excellent idea to work with. Launch on boosters, glide in from a high altitude, drop bombs and then burst away. Kerbal stealth at the finest. If they cannot hear me, how can they know to look! I will not work on that though, but glide in strike craft can be a theme that would be pretty cool!

Reading more, you said stage 8 is when it spins out. That is the 6 large srbs. That only firing plus limited gymbal control means once you hit atmo, it is entirely up to any SAS/thrust to keep it stable. Any wobble will offset the COG and spin out of control it will. If you fit the SAS onto the launch stage, my recommendation is in with the last orbiter part, it should stabilize it muchly when the ASAS is going.

well, I see lack of struts. Cross connect lower to upper with them.

Got some finalized designs done. Going to take that fighter contract from you. Just need to make a video I think since this one is pretty awesome!

Lol! I have something I do on planes that have clearance problems. It does add a bit more parts, but I find it makes a huge difference. What I do is I take one of the small structure bits. Those short little things that space out by half a metre approx. Parallelogram shape if you know what I mean. Attach a landing gear to those and then connect strut on each side from the structure element to your fuselage. If I don't have the struts, then they like to collapse on me.

Yeah, I was also a bit chatting about my designs on the front page. I have a 9 bomb pack, but I was dropping them in 3s. The lag I find is worst at launch, not sure if that has to do with the ksp or not. If the back is falling off, try running a tension wire right from the back onto the tail fin, then connect the front of tail fin to your front main structure. That should stiffen and hold up the rear sections.

Toxic, with that much lifting surface, your plane should have a much lower takeoff speed. The issue is your rear landing gear, you will want to move them closer to your center of gravity. That is why you cannot lift until runway end. Also with my sub there and the mega bomber. I was fiddling with an obvious idea. Put each bomb coupler in a different stage, drop them in singles. Really fun for the cluster bomb one. Provided your comp can run it. That many bombs makes mine lage out bad.

oh, I remember 0.13, but not for very long since it quickly became v.14 but I think in terms of doing engine only landings, earlier versions might be easier since fuel tanks and consumption etc make it lots more fuel intensive for engine atmo decelerations. Is why when 0.16 came out, many designs of mine stopped working since I needed more tanks and the different thrusts/consumptions. All those calculators etc are stuff that is external. I have to manually fly everything stilll since I don't use them. eyeballing orbit captures ftw

Personally to start with, I don't use imap. For exploring the non atmospheric ones, I just orbit close and pass over the surface and look around. The nucs while nice would take careful planning and probably staged brakings to make a capture. Capture the moon at a high altitude to begin with if you wish to use efficient engines. Lower velocity change needed. And once you have orbit, all the time in the world with high efficiency to decel.

My usual tactic that really works for any orbit capture is follows. Some things have two ways depending on orientation of transfer burn. In this case, anything with variance will be Inner(Outer) transfer for relative to your orbit. Ideal if you don't like calculators. The usual capture an orbit Try to launch a bit before the orbital planes of your orbit and your target orbit cross. It is ideal to have your orbit to be the same as target before this happens. Save a bit of fuel and exit counter kerbin orbit for inner planets. (prograde kerbin for outer planets) Align orbit planes Burn when at a point where you will arrive just a bit after (early) if you are aligned to plane, you can keep burning so your orbit will become just a bit inside (outside) your target's orbit which if you keep burning, you will (target will) catch up and intercept. Should you be arriving early (late) then burn away (towards) your target to keep you a bit outside (inside) targets orbit until closer for a capture.

Gray, that is why you request no mods etc to do the challenge. I have done this stuff before (mostly by accidental design errors) and quite enjoy it. I have never set one up purposefully for it, but I have a challenge idea that should just work....

welcome aboard! Of course now that you have posted, you will never be able to leave here!

I have a theory on landing, but with so many crafts currently in production, is simply limited on the available time to try. Here is the theory, use a lightweight as you can make it glider for decent combined with RCS. Not sure if the rcs can make the difference, but is a thought?

Rofl. The problem is the amount of nuke engines you have. They weight so much you are gimping yourself, Cut em down to size, yar! Also, remember you can alt+ </> to give physics time warp to speed up your orbit transfer times.

A couple of solutions for the out of control spin. First is make your turn higher in the atmosphere, thinner air, less drag to spin it out. Second is try adding SAS to help maintain stability. Taller rockets tend to spin out easier as the weight off balances. Be sure you are using gymbaled engines. Lastly, make small course adjustments. just go a few degrees at a time and make them slow. Using the F key to toggle override ASAS makes this a bit easier since ASAS is only toggles while the button is held (if ASAS is on and fkey is held, ASAS turns off and the versa) This is how I do it: Press and hold F Just tab the W/A/S/D key for whichever direction you want to pitch to Never hold it down because the thrust and steering power of launch stages will just kick it fast and the moment of rotation is just too much to cancel out fast. Let it drift over slightly and release F key.

on vertical launch, use the launch supports to keep it vertical. Have them in the stage after your engines ignite. This will allow you to build thrust before decoupling. In actual space vehicles this is employed since it does take a small bit of time for initial thrust to build. It isn't instant like in ksp. That is why early rockets failed so much, they fell over while thrust built. http://www.quora.com/Spacecraft/What-holds-a-spacecraft-in-a-vertical-position-during-a-rocket-launch Clamping it while thrust builds when using plane engines is a must.

that isn't an uncommon issue. Are you refering to the inline or the radial decouplers. In terms of the inline decouplers, there is minimal force output from those. If they are colliding, you have another issue from a stage imbalance or severe wobble. As for the radial decouplers, placement is important. If you have them mounted at the top/bottom of a booster, it will cause it to rotate on ejection, sometimes causing the bottom/top to swing into your rocket. This can be countered by setting up your radial decoupler to be on a middle fuel tank and building your tanks both up and down from it. This will keep it more vertical. Another thing is use the small separation engines. On large tank stacks, I find that four per stack works well. Have two on top and two on bottom pointing mostly vertical, but slightly angled away from your rocket. (have one on each side) This pushes large tank stacks out. You can set separation engines to fire on decoupling if they are in the same stage.

My base test craft is always the lander first. For Mun and Minmus, I would only test the lander to make sure it worked. I would have a stage that I knew would be able to return so was never worried about that. For the planetary, have a test craft. It is a non landing craft with extra fuel that I use to see what it takes to return from a planetary orbit. Next, I build a lander that can get a similar stage off of kerbin and build onto it a launch stage that can get that entire assembly for getting that previous lander to target planets.

Quick question for you actually. I have been toying with the idea of mechjeb guided missiles or other forms of ai control (see the omega bomb). I however don't have nor have any intention of getting/installing mechjeb. So for the accuracy part, can it be considered accurate if there is control surfaces that an addon such as mechjeb or whatever allows uncrewed vessels to be controlled?

The backflip issue I am narrowing down myself, but still not 100% sure on the issue. A good example is a plane I built for a challenge had heavy flipping. I did 3 things to fix it. I will also point out that lift to c.o.g. were aligned. First off, I removed some lift from the nose. I was using some wingbits to make a cool landing gear support, but it caused stability issue. Second was it was a large plane and I decided to use delta wings for the tail fin. This isn't uncommon for me, but in this plane's case the tail was mounted well above the central longitudinal axis. I think the higher drag of my tail setup was causing an offbalance. last, I actually brought some mass forward a little bit on the plane. I made it longer, but also added more nose mass. The lift to c.o.g. positioning remained the same, but the plane became alot more stable. Wish I could point out exactly what might cause it. Can you post up a screenie of your plane or two? One theory might be when you get initial pitch, there is some sort of angular drag that throw off your lift and balance. By keeping drag centralized and your mass forward, it prevents a balance tip from occuring. This is probably why the issue is most common on large planes, but I find it rarely on my smaller ones.