Markus Reese

set up slow path capture launch, have nap, return later. More of a trial than a challenge since the only time warps are ever the transit periods =P

Amazing so far, been experimenting with the powertech stuff. Slight issue I am having, not sure if I am missing a part or is due to it being on my main mod version. Anyways, the docking nodes, I cannot seem to get them to connect to my main rocket during VAB construction. Am I missing a part? Edit: Found out oops. I thought the W was to actually dock parts together XD. Well, working now, alas my idea of sending the rocket up in parts wont work without ability to actually dock. Is that possible at all or no?

What happens I noticed is when engines are direct physically attached like that, it seems that the outer ones draw fuel from the inside connector ones. I only think that because it seems of the fast rate of consumption.

Definitely a decent rocket. One thing you might do is instead move your rcs tanks onto top of the side supplimental tanks. This will lower the center of gravity and help cut down on the loading up of the landers on one side of the rocket if you have any lean. They will jettison when you take off your booster tanks, but the smaller mass at that point usually wont need to turn your rocket. RCS are best for the large rockets. Also the speed. 4m/s is a final approach speed, and once you get close can cut it down to less than 1m/s, and just tap the surface ever so gently. This last point is usually good to have any SAS off. Keep an eye on your indicator and fly by it to ensure you have zero horizontal.

My plan if possible would be the thinner murs like atmosphere. Something kerbin-esque. I would probably set up, if needed, a fuel depot on minmus to do my second launch from. Current designs I have are making a direct oneshot possible though.

The way I do it is I build the rocket in the SPH, for up to the landing phase, then I copy the save file for the craft into the VAB. For landing controls, I actually use rotated thrusters. While I land in the horizontal profile, I still use vertical ones. The other way as a straight plane is to use vertical thrust til near surface than pitch forward. It is difficult and causes a combined foward motion with vertical to pitch yourself down. Either way, it pretty much has a vertical component

Visually, it was pretty cool just in solar system. Remember it was a moon orbiting a massive gas giant in close orbit. That premice I expect to see, atmospheric moons. Personally for planets, I would like to see further development of the procedural engine to have us form our own unique solar systems. That is the one thing SPORE did well. Generate our own planets and moon systems for a random range of our solar system, and have a random cluster of stars form as we move interstellar possibly.

is that landing at all 3? I assume it is just orbital flyby? Well thinking landing with mod parts wouldn\'t be too bad if done with a single stage setup repeatedly.

Sure thing, they use a whole pile of mods on my MOD install of kerbal space. Think a combination of novapunch, KW, Zeoxyne, powertech and dynasat. Oh, and the carts. Trying to remember if I had any odd and end ones as well. Satellite relays, some laning legs, and OA Lights. It ends up being very software intensive, I think alot from the ZO, but what you see is the maximum my computer could handle. It was impossible to land any more at the site. They look odd, but the real cool things is stuff like those foreground ones, and the one far background all fit within 3m shrouding. The others, only the industrious looking fixed legs and capped tanks are exposed. Rover one is really handy. It flies well, and the rover itself is suspended. When it lands, the rover is only a bare little bit off the ground for an easy dismount. As for the strength, it is possible. I was wondering if the couplers only have strength maybe one way or something. Without a previous failure record, is impossible to know. Any modders who know the code well would be able to give you a more difinitive word. The upside down landings do work, whether it works for eva will depend on how the kerbal mount/dismount works.

Very, very cool idea for the rover and using the rocket thrust for stock parts, I was confused at first. I like it alot, and think I will try out the idea myself and combine it with my horizontal lander ideas!

Glad I could help. Just remember that since KSP is a physics game, it can do odd things. Often a problem requires experimenting or an unusual solution to a buggy problem. If you have a specific design not working right, sometimes helps to take a break. Post problem, and ideally the screenshot of any failure that happens.

First, this is a civil forum, watch the language. Definitely all about not enough structural connections. Even a slight deflection of your engines will cause it to go out of control. You also need the 45 engine nozzles since they can give control with their vectoring. Second, I don\'t seen any vertically connecting structural links. By connecting the tops of lower ones past the couplers, it will help stabilize by tying everything into the core more directly. Lastly, large rockets must have the ASAS since control is so slow manual, any deviation the ASAS will need to take care of right away.

Agreed on needing that in the module for in ship operations. Also can we get kerbal parachutes that are underneath as well.

I Often can do it with a space plane lander. I have worked with engine landings, but that means hauling around more heavy fuel.

Update for my KSP album, many nice pictures. Some are technical demonstrations, but others look pretty cool. http://s529.photobucket.com/albums/dd332/KwKiller/Kerbal%20Space%20Command/

Further analysis shows it was the previous manned mission.

Personally, I manually set up near perfect orbits. How? I think I better make a video for that. I will post it up here after I make it, but to show you I can do it, this was something I showed off previously without any fancy mods. It was done with mod parts, but nothing that changed game mechanics. All visual and engines only. The orbits are so accurate and circular, that the AO and PO are flashing all over the place and is impossible to actually read them. Also exact altitude that I want. 250,000m equatorial and 750km polars near exact, +/- 5 to 10 m pretty much.

You are partially correct, orbit is a combination of gravity pulling you down, and your horizontal velocity increases your altitude. Imaging a ruler laying across a sphere. This is your horizontal velocity essentially. You can also think of it as a flight path with no gravity. With gravity, it is like bending that ruler. You are moving 'up' at an angle, and gravity pulls you in. Without resistance, you are then curving around. If your horizontal velocity causes an increase in altitude counter to that of the pull of gravity, orbit will increase. If you get closer, the pull of gravity does get stronger. However whether you escape or create orbit is entirely related to your velocity relative to the suface. So if you are going 4m/s when you hit 4000, you will keep decreasing. Gas up to 1000m/s velocity parallel to surface, off you go. hope that helps clarify.

If you are having problems with the horizontal movement, for your deceleration always point towards your from direction indicator. When you get closer to the ground, burn it to almost zero, all your decel pulses, keep it aimed to your braking direction and watch for it to move around so you can continually keep any horizontal movement cancelled out.

Definitely sounds like the legs just need to be moved then. Shift them to allow more engine clearance.

I have one like that. I showed him in a video, kerbal named Donvey, he is Jeb badS but a cooler name.

That is unfortunate if community conversation is limited. The steam workshop feature is pretty neat, so if that could make easy modding and patching by just getting novapack for example, and all new additions would auto install, would be very nice. Share rockets etc.

The thing I see is that the legs and the engines seem fairly close to the same plane. Flex could cause some collision with the ground. Can you give more detail on how it is breaking apart? Personally, my favorite are horizontal landers They can be done with stock parts, but mod vernier parts makes them look cooler. This will probably be my standard design for Moon EVA I think as it becomes common, depending on what else comes out as well. I will try doing similar since that is pretty cool and see how it goes on my end. I did similar on all stock parts, but with the retracting landing legs instead, got down fine, if you crash, can you post up the final log?

MK3 cockpits and chassis sections can be quite heavy, but in principle, they work the same as most other space planes The most difficult part is the wings. Getting a stable flyer is easy, just making larger wings and but getting them into space is the more difficult part. You will want to vertical launch them. In order to do that, go to your KSP folder and the ships folder. Go to SPH folder and copy the saved file for your space plane, and paste it into VAB. When in VAB. you can load it up, but will be in a horizontal position, once you click the cockpit, it will immediately orient to vertical. The following spoiler is a pic of a MK2 space plane on pad. The important thing to remember is the structure connecting to boosters to the back. A single coupler is flimsy and needs to have the structural links. A MK3 is done very similar, just on a larger scale. If you want to do runway liftoff, remember a couple facts. To pitch up, you want the rear landing gears just back from centre of gravity so it can pivot on them to get some bank upwards for list. You will want to make sure that any orbital boosters are symetrical on the X and Y axis of the plane to prevent spinout, and more wing surface and jet engines will be needed to get initial lift.

It is a longer series, but this is a group of videos containing assortet parts of moon landing. I landed on Minmus, but Mun principles are similar, just more gravitational effect. Part 1 is some tips to rocket construction. Part 2 is launch and orbit controls, Part 3 is landing and landing location selection, Part 4 is return trip and alignments.