DerekL1963

The problem is, because of their relatively short burn time - there's not many situations where they *can* be effectively used. Also designs using solids have to navigate between two subtle performance robbing traps... The first is a T/W 'hole', where the vehicle doesn't have sufficient performance to accelerate against the existing drag when the solids burn out and vehicle actually slows down until it reaches the equilibrium point. The second is terminal velocity, where you have enough acceleration to exceed maximum velocity for a given altitude - but since that's physically impossible, the thrust of any liquid engines is thus wasted until the vehicle either slows down (due to the 'hole') or reaches an altitude where terminal velocity is above the current velocity. Avoiding these two traps is not impossible, but it's not easy either. (I've deleted the stock vehicles, so I don't know if your version of the Kerbal-X encounters either of these.) Cost is only one of the many variables to optimize around. And frankly, unless you're flying a lot of very expensive off-contract missions, I haven't found cost to be a major limiting factor even in pure stock (I.E. no contract mods) career games.

While I agree with the idea that 100k is better than 70k... going lower than your target to catch up with it is only one option - you can also go higher than your target and let it catch up to you. I wouldn't necessarily use this for a station in LKO that you're trying to reach from KSC (though, unless you're going very high, you don't use that much d/v), it's how I rendezvous craft inbound to a SOI with a station or craft already in orbit in that SOI. (Such as a replenishment craft launched from Kerbin and bound for my Munar station.)

The problem is all inside your head She said to me The answer is easy if you Take it logically I'd like to help you in your struggle To be free There must be fifty ways To leave your lover [CHORUS:] You Just slip out the back, Jack Make a new plan, Stan You don't need to be coy, Roy Just get yourself free Hop on the bus, Gus You don't need to discuss much Just drop off the key, Lee And get yourself free

When you imply that someone else is doing something "wrong" and as a result they are "not really a KSP expert", you're criticizing and knocking by definition. Handwaving disclaimers to the contrary don't change things. That being said, NASA simulates the heck out of missions - all the way from the first concepts to the final hardware. And so do I. NASA has the Mars Yard, and the Shuttle Fuselage Simulator, wind tunnels, and a whole host of other specialized trainers, simulators, and test and development facilities. For those things they can't simulate directly (Like Curiosity's EDL), they have man years of experience in the related disciplines, hundreds of engineers, and everything from high end workstations to full blown supercomputers to run simulations on. I have Hyperedit and a separate save. Those who think "I'm doing it wrong" or "diluting the experience" or am "not serious" can pound sand as far I'm concerned. It's my game and I'll play how I want and find my own satisfaction. (And none of us are in the wrong for finding satisfaction in something somebody else doesn't.) I neither need nor want your approval of my play style.

No problem at all, or you can ask/post in the Gameplay Questions & Tutorials forum. Always lots of folks willing to help.

Thanks, all ten characters!

No offense, but you really need to study rocket design. My "standard" non-nuclear probe (including booster, probe, and full stock orbital instrument suite) weighs in at 6 tons and only costs 48k. It doesn't need a big booster.

Is there a mod that allows you to rename a vehicle even when the probe core is buried away and not accessible?

I'd try installing Kerbal Joint Reinforcement before tackling complex multi-port schemes.

Huh? My key unlocks for that are FLT-800 tanks, fuel ducts, and just about any radial decoupler (though TT-70's are preferred). With LV-909 and LVT-30 engines, I can get pretty much anywhere from Eve to Jool and most of it's moons. With LV-N's, Moho opens up. (Though it's reachable without them with careful design.) You don't need giant boosters...

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I use both Interstellar and KSPX and have noted no issues.

My RCS is very well balanced (using RCS Build Aid) thank you. And even if it wasn't, it's not RCS imbalance that causes the two vehicles to start "orbiting" and chasing each other around a common barycenter during docking - it's orbital mechanics. (NASA astronauts call it a "whifferdill", and it's astonishingly easy condition to get into. A huge problem in working out docking techniques during the Gemini program was working out how *not* to end up in that condition.) Either way, I have a method that works even if it's not your preferred solution - and the whole thing is orthogonal to the actual problem, MJ's excessive fuel consumption during docking. Since I can dock using much less fuel simply by modulating the docking AP on and off, what are the micro adjustments actually accomplishing? (I wonder if it has anything to do with MJ still not prioritizing SAS for attitude control when it's available?) Anyhow, now on to the next problem... I can rendezvous around Kerbin just fine. I can rendezvous around the Mun if I put the target vehicle high enough and start the active vehicle high enough. But around Minmus, using the same technique as around the Mun, I can't find a setup that doesn't invariably end with the active vehicle chasing the target all over the sky... alternately ending up far short of the target and zooming past it and ending up halfway to Duna. (OK, the last part is more than a bit of exageration. )

That only works in rather limited circumstances, and you can often end up in some complicated rolling/race conditions if you weren't perfectly aligned in plane in the first place. Much easier to let the docking AP do all the heavy lifting, modulating it on and off as needed.

Yuck. I'll just have to continue using my semi-automatic docking method then. (A combination of using MJ's docking AP and Navyfish's docking port alignment mod to determine when to turn the docking AP on and off.) It uses a fraction of the fuel with no loss in speed and accuracy.

Is anyone else experience a "leakage" of monoprop when the docking AP is active? I'm watching my resource panel and .02-.05 units a second just evaporate even when the vehicle is drifting and the RCS should not be firing at all.

The only way to make the game load faster is to install fewer mods.

Could drop a PM, but he's been MIA since August.

Save time and name them that way in the first place.

Anyone know why MJ will dock in Kerbin orbit, but not in Munar orbit? The same active and passive vehicles in both cases... but it Munar orbit all the AP does is chase it's own tail (I.E. a rapidly moving maneuver marker) and never actually closes in on the target.

*Facepalm* I knew about the toggles... I didn't know they were persistent. Don't even remember when or even why I turned them off. Thanks!

Here's a weird one... none of my stock manned craft are visible in the map view, or in the tracking station - though when one is the active vessel, it's orbit line displays normally. I deleted and replaced the appropriate folder from /Gamedata/Squad with no effect.

F5 isn't quite ten characters.

How on earth is the Soyuz sectioning scheme 'smart'? Introducing multiple failure modes is rarely considered so. Apollo and Gemini were smart because they had only one joint. Soyuz was forced into a much more risky scheme because they landed on land rather than having the cushioning of water - not because they were 'smart'. (And they've suffered several near LOC and near LOCV accidents because of it.) The same goes for the R-7... they built that Rube Goldberg launch scheme because of their inability to build large engines forced them into a vehicle configuration that couldn't be handled by more rational schemes. No, Soviet technology wasn't all wonky. Quite a bit of it worked fairly well. But even though it worked well, it also often forced them into less than optimal vehicle designs. Yes, it tells me that the US didn't fund much engine development after the early 70's, and that the Russian space industry was very, very desperate for cash.

I'm experienced enough that I don't need your tutorial, but I am, err.... "closely examining" your vehicle designs.

Anyone using TAC-LS and not using Modular Fuel Tanks is missing a bet... I've been modifying stock tanks to hold life support supplies in place of part of the LFO (saving on parts), and eliminating the waste tanks on the supply packages provided with the mod lets you get a little extra supplies in. (Obviously, if you're using recyclers you want to be careful about eliminating the waste tanks - it needs an interim place to be.)