M5000

I would think it's easier to assemble your station Kerbin-side and push it to the destination, rather than taking it to the destination and assembling there. Reasons: -Less long-distance piloting, therefore less room for errors. -No need to run parallel missions so that everything departs from one transfer window in one vehicle. -IF you were using parallel missions with separate modules, you would either have to wait for a transfer window and hope you get all the modules sent on their merry way at once (Eg, you better be ready) and if you miss one or want to send another module, you have to wait for another transfer window. Alternatively, if you send them each on their own window it takes forever. -Less cost (if you play that way) because rather than having to design a rocket that can bring modules up from Kerbin and then also bring them interplanetary, you can design it to bring the modules to LKO and just tack on a single tug at the end. -Less debris in the destination orbit. (Station building is likely to leave some debris in the form of decoupled struts, fairings, stack separators, or possibly entire transfer stages. Leave the debris back home so it's easier to manage later.) -Allows for, possibly, larger payloads per-launch. The extra mass it would take to bring up not only the module to be added on, but the transfer stage, could allow for larger modules in the station. If you build your station in as large of parts as possible, it is likely to be more structurally sound, since you are using less docking/berthing connections. So, those are my arguments FOR building your station in LKO and then simply tacking a tug onto the FRONT of the station and pulling it along to its destination.. So here are some design tips that I've seen as valid... -Try using these mod parts. They are Common Berthing Mechanisms that you can use in place of docking ports. They come in the four most common standard sizes, from .625m to 3.75m, and they are incredibly rigid. There is also an active and a passive (male/female, of sorts) for each size. However, this should not matter, and is really just for aesthetics. Also, they should link up with the stock docking ports, but certainly you will want to test this before departing if you are relying on them for a pivotal part of your mission. -Try designing your non-core modules to all be the same size. Perhaps a module initially turns out to be smaller than some of the other ones...Add a reserve of fuel or maybe some solar panels or structural bits to help even out the size and mass. This will allow you to play with your station like Legos. -A generally good design is to use 1.25m CBM (the mod parts up there) ports, placed around a central "core" or "shaft" of a station, which can be 2.5 or 3.75m in diameter, depending on application, using said above CBMs to link up the parts. 4x symmetry for the modules you will attach radially is a good idea, remember to make these the same size. -Fuel tanks make a great central core structure, and, they, you know, hold fuel. -For your propulsion, it is advisable to PULL your station, rather than to push it. When you push a structure of considerable mass, you impart an acceleration upon it, and it becomes similar to if that structure were sitting on the surface of a planet. The gravity of this "invisible planet" is entirely dependent on your TWR, but the effects can be devastating. To fix this problem, create a propulsion module that can dock on to the front of your station, and point the engines backward, held out on some kind of outrigger, possibly, like a gigantic space train. One more thing that is also very important if you go this route: ENGINE GIMBALS DO NOT WORK PROPERLY WHEN PLACED AHEAD OF THE CENTER OF MASS. So, assign an action group to disable or toggle these gimbals, so you can turn them off when needed. Steer using reaction wheels instead, which should be integrated into your design. When building the modules, try putting a small reaction wheel on each module so that the forces can be distributed more evenly. -Plan your RCS thruster placement. Use them efficiently and you won't need to bring very much RCS. -Use struts if possible. -Turn on fine controls -Symmetry is key. -Plan your station before you build it. Try drawing a sloppy schematic in paint or on paper even, let your imagination run and you'll find that more often than not, when planned properly, your station will come together beautifully. -And above everything: BE GENTLE. This may be a near or multi-megaton mass station, but it is as delicate as a baby. Be precise. Be gentle. Tread lightly. Baby steps. So, that noted.. Here's my first large station design I ever made. Actually, it's more of an interplanetary ship, designed for a grand tour mission. It's also an example of what NOT to do: I was so confident that it would work. Left it unpaused in orbit and went to lunch and came back to this:

I dunno. I like it how it currently is. I mean, we kind of assume they're male because most people are generally wired by societal influences to see sex-less things as being masculine unless defined otherwise, but in reality there's nothing definitively masculine or feminine about them, other than some having traditionally male names, but others certainly have names that could be construed as female. Their appearance, to me suggests asexuality and I personally am just fine with there being no real mention or definition of their gender. Even if there have been some who claim the Kerbs are all males, I refuse to accept that analysis and assert that, at least within my own space program, the Kerbals are genderless, or, should a definite border between male and female Kerbals ever be implemented, that Nexus Aerospace Division is an equal opportunities employer destroyer. Besides, this is a space program simulator, not a sexuality simulator. But no, I don't really have any feelings one way or the other, I feel that the current Kerbals are asexual enough to be considered genderless, and that's fine. I give less than a care /what/ I send up in my rockets, so long as whatever I send up is able to control them well, and die when I crash it, so that there is a stigma of preservation and importance of life with every manned..Or..Womanned...OR...uh..Kerbaled mission. -M5K

Whoa! Just downloaded and tried this after some initial skepticism... Works very well! This is a must-have if you use subassemblies at all! Just re-built a complex rocket with no visible hitches at all! Very well done! -M5K

I don't have many tips really for such a general question, but, if you'd like to look at a 2.5m rocket design, the Soyuz replica in my signature will get you well into an orbit. It comes with its own space capsule and everything. I've heard from users that it's very easy to fly. Also it's all stock so don't worry about whether or not you have the mods to use it. -M5K

Hmm.. Odd.. I usually can find SOME way to get it to behave and eventually connect, no matter the situation... Ah yes! You know what I do? I go strutting overload and attach to the decoupler, then to the next part. A bit hard to do, but certainly possible and it is structurally sound. I might argue with you a bit there as well. While you're definitely correct in saying that a strut placed as you have shown will not make it less likely to fall off, I have observed sometimes, with very large boosters with high thrust, if you are doing several radially, they may (not always) begin to resonate back and forth and eventually tear loose, even if the thrust vectoring is disabled. I don't know what causes this, but adding struts between boosters can dampen lateral oscillations. Yeah you really gotta play with it, but do note how that first strut "anchor" looks. See how the failed one is very visible, whereas the successful one is below the surface of the model a bit more? That's the key, I think. I mean, you can even get struts' second anchor to attach to parts that the first anchor can't attach to (landing legs, rover wheels...et cetera..), but it's hard to do reliably.

The method you are using to tie your rockets together at the seams is, intuitively enough, called "stitching" by many of the community members here. It's a sound and common practice many users utilize to add structural rigidity to their rockets, though I too have experienced difficulty with getting them to attach sometimes. Here's something to take note of: You should only need about 3x or 4x symmetry for optimal stability. Anything much over that is overkill and is more parts than you need. However, look at how you're placing the start point. If you place it in some places, where it is clearly above the surface of the part, it, for some reason, will not connect. For another, equally weird reason, putting the initial anchor below the surface of the tank, decoupler, part, whatever you're connecting it from will often get it to work just fine. You may have to rotate them about the central axis a ways, as some positions simply aren't friendly. I believe this may have something to do with the "collider" meshes not lining up perfectly (read: having lower polygon counts) with the actual visual models you see, so some points are slightly below and some are directly on the surface. Here.. Take a look at this image, I just now made it just for you. Welcome to the forums, by the way. -M5K

Yeah the re-entry effects really don't do anything. You can jettison whenever, though usually I jettison immediately after my de-orbit burn, because it's more realistic to have the capsule heatshield-down. But really, if you wanted, you could enter any way you wanted, though the wind may or may not (it usually may) rip your solar panels right off.

It really depends on the rocket you're flying. Look, if your rocket has a higher TWR, you can start earlier, if it's a lower TWR, I'd suggest starting a bit higher, since the atmosphere thins out logarithmically. If your rocket like, takes off like really fast, you can probably afford a 7Km beginning on a gravity turn. If you've got a lower TWR, you may need to start later at like, 13Km. The only exception to this type of general guideline is if you have lots of side boosters and you plan on losing some TWR in staging them away, so you may want to factor that in.

I usually aim for a single-burn Hohmann transfer directly to my destination SOI. Obviously I have to wait till a launch window clears up to do this, but it's much more direct. I honestly usually just aim for an intercept, and skip the mid course correction burn, and then just adjust once I'm in the SOI. Inefficient? Possibly, but only marginally. I need to start doing inclination adjustments mid course. But yeah, I've never done a return mission, so so far I've just done Hohmann transfers. I imagine I'd do it the way back the same way. -M5K

Oh yeah! I forgot totally about that! Early birds do get the worm, I guess. Or maybe it was a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease....

Yes, I would likely buy any and all expansions that would be released for KSP. Especially if they were under 20 bucks. I would probably pay more, but at those prices I would begin having hesitation on a scale that is logarithmic compared to price. If you don't know what that means, it basically means that as the price got further and further from the 20 dollar range, I would begin to actually question whether or not I need it. Really though, it really depends on the content involved. Yes, this is the point I would like to drive home. DLC is a lot like, in my eyes, mini expansion packs or little pieces of content that kind of round out what the game has to offer, but certainly do not add any MAJOR improvements. I don't see SQUAD as doing that kind of thing. Remember, Sims is owned by EA. We all know how EA operates... I really think SQUAD is a more morally "together" company than EA... I don't think they'd do something like that. They care too much about their community to pull that kind of shenanigans. Also remember that EA has absolutely no communication with their community. They don't give a care at all.

Just got a look at the new parts in Stockalike 0.7, and I must say that I really appreciate all the work you're putting in to this pack, hoojiwana. This, combined with several other stockalike parts packs, really rounds out the part selection and allows me to not just build my rockets, but engineer them with the BEST possible engine for the job. Not only Stockalike, but your other parts packs are well done, too. They all fit in with the stock game very well. I find myself using your big SRGs from the power generation pack very often, they have quite a good range of uses, as well as the electric engines pack, I'm using to design a resistojet-based Mun/similar worlds surface rover that can be used to transit between bases quickly, and the larger Xenon supply tanks and higher thrust electric engines really make it worth my while. I first found out about your work when I saw the electric engines pack, before you added the Xenon tanks. Used it quite a bit, decided to hold off on stockalike until it got rounded out a bit more, and this recent update is really something spectacular. If I had to choose a favorite part in any of the packs, it'd have to be the LV-NC or the array of the four resistojets. The LV-NC is just.. It's just adorable, I mean look at it. Like, it makes me squeal. The four resistojet array lets me use non-nuke power to get nuke-like performance. It's just something that makes ion/electric engines valid in another context. Though, it is awful power hungry, but I suppose that's to be expected. Anyhow, really appreciate the work that you're putting into this pack in that you're releasing parts in small doses, but they look basically finished and well done, rather than trying to push a bunch of ugly parts in a pack. I can really enjoy that development style. Hope to see this pack live on till it's either in KSP 1.0 or it's a mod for KSP 1.0, because you certainly have a talent.

Yeah, the Mun definitely has more dynamic terrain, whereas Minmus has basically land that's either the low salt flats, as Rage097 said, or there's the higher up plateaus. The difference between these two is fairly major, but if you're staying on either one or the other, it's more or less perfectly flat in most parts. However, the Mun has terrain that has gotten its art pass in the last update, so it's much more dynamic no matter where you go. Personally, I love driving on the new Mun, it's a very engaging and fun experience.

Personally, it's gotten harder for me. Seeing as I actually started playing in .18, I had access to landing gear already. The ASAS changes don't really affect the difficulty, for me, since I usually disable ASAS and pilot manually, using ASAS to lock headings only. However, the addition of all the new craters makes it harder. There is definitely less flat area, since there are, you know, more craters.

Nah, I do it often. Not all the time. Usually it's when I don't wish to really remain active in the thread, but am dumping important or relevant information in one post. Or, I don't just add it to my signature because it's more genuine if one types it out every time. More sincere if you will. I also sign as "M5K" so it's not necessarily my name, but what many people call me. I dunno, it's just a thing. A style of posting. Anyhow, back on topic guys please and thank you, this is about making an RPG in KSP, not about posting preferences. c: -M5K

I use them because they look good, personally. So it's overkill to have such large panels on a small craft.. Meh. Not like I care. They're beautiful devices in my opinion... Use them on my space capsules all the time. Though, two pairs of 1x6's put in a "V" configuration, I suppose, don't look too bad. But personally, I feel like the 1x6's look a bit out of place on 2.5m space capsules. I don't know, I honestly just like the looks of them, like big wings... Though I admit that their sweep area to avoid clipping is pretty big.

Wow, it looks by your graph that the LV-909 is only marginally better than the 48-7S in a very thin line of applications.. But I still assert that it's the best engine for 2.5m OTVs. It may be the only thing it's the best at anymore, but there are a LOT of uses for OTVs.

Okay okay okay, for those who are saying the LV-909 is outdated and irrelevant, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. There is still a niche where the LV-909 excels over all other stock engines. And that is when it is used as a main engine on OTVs based on a 2.5m platform. It offers as much thrust as the NERVA, obviously with significantly lower specific impulse, but with also significantly lower mass. Really, for an OTV that will remain in orbit of a single planet, the NERVA is far overkill. However, using the 48-7S will give about 500m/s less delta-V than the LV-909, in this situation. I was building an OTV the other day and MechJeb indicated that the 909 was undoubtedly the most effective engine for the job. In my opinion, the LV-909 is by far the best orbital engine for non-interplanetary transfers between SOI's. Also it's my favorite stock engine. It's light, has decent thrust (great thrust for its mass), looks pretty good, and isn't a very "big" engine. It's compact and refined. Also, also, it makes a better sound than the 48-7S. Sorry, but I'm not sitting through a rendezvous with the sound of that tiny engine. However, I'm not saying that the 48-7S is a bad engine by any means. I'm just trying to make a point that the LV-909 is, in fact, still relevant and that the 48-7S has its own applications. Long live the LV-909! -M5K

Yes, I do love it. It's a nice, compact little engine. Though, I haven't found too much use for it on full-size OTVs, the LV-909 will take the cake there, unless I'm to use a NERVA, which is totally overkill for a standard run-of-the-mill OTV. But I imagine the 48-7S could find its home quite properly on a small lander or single-man OTV. I'll skip it for the satellite application, as I almost always use ion engines in that respect. Though, maybe I'm missing out....

KW Rocketry. Now now, before you all get bent out of shape, let me explain. I think KSP Vanilla needs not KW Rocketry in its identical form, exactly how it is, but it needs KW in spirit. What do I mean? I mean that no other rocketry pack is as standardized and complete as KW. There is a clear set of 1.25, 2.5, and 3.75 meter parts. There is a fairing in two styles for all three sizes, there is a monster engine, a workhorse engine, and a smaller, efficient engine for each size. There are varying sizes of fuel tanks for EACH SIZE, there are RCS tanks for each size.. There are standard looking nosecones for each size. And it's this that I really think KSP needs, this sort of standardization of parts. Do we have a "Monster" engine for our 1.25m rockets? Not particularly. We have the T-30, but that's hardly a monster with only a bit more thrust than the T-45, which I consider to be more of the mid-range engine for its tier. Now, to be fair, the 2.5m parts do have three distinct engines, but still the Poodle isn't quite designed for an upper-stage engine, whereas the Skipper is good for upper stages, but a bit powerful for some small lifter designs. Not to mention that we need 3.75m parts. Also, super-strong struts. So no, I'm not saying to implement KW Rocketry itself, but to look at the spirit of the parts pack, and really round out our part selection for rockets. I constantly sing the praises of this mod pack to anyone who I interact with. Anyone who knows me even relatively close knows that KW is my favorite mod or parts pack of all time, in all of KSP. If I could only install one mod to the game, and be forced to run vanilla everything else, I would keep KW Rocketry because of the unparalleled beauty and simplicity that is the standardization of parts in KW. -M5K

Wait where are you using RCS again? During your ascent and/or circ burn? You do know we have reaction wheels, right? A good lifter shouldn't require any RCS. Actually, if you got enough reaction wheels plus enough power supply, you shouldn't even need RCS except for to translate, it's really just extra mass...

If this truly is the case as you claim, it sounds like you're hitting the ceiling of your GPU's capabilities. Another possibility would be that one or more system components is becoming overheated. Heat can cause lag for sure. Are you playing this on a laptop by chance?

WOW! Well done sir! You have successfully done what I have been trying to do since I first got this game! A robust, adaptable, refined, standard, and modular system for missions to almost anywhere! Very well done indeed, you should be very proud! -M5K

Yeah, your first interplanetary would really depend on what you want to do as to what's best for you. As a few users have said, it really depends on what you want to do. If you want to do an unmanned mission, Eve will be best, which is really where I suggest you start, unless you don't care about stranding your Kerbs. Here's why: -Eve is the lowest amount of delta-V to reach, from LKO, in the whole game. -Eve has the second largest SOI, if I'm not mistaken, in the whole game. -Eve has a very thick atmosphere that allows you to rely entirely on parachutes for your descent (so that coming all that way through space isn't ruined by the landing.) -Eve is very pretty. -You can aerocapture if you want, just don't dip too low. If you wanted to do a manned return mission, however, then Duna will be the best bet because.. -Duna's SOI is also considerably large, a bit smaller than Kerbin's. -Aerocapture is easy on Duna, you're not going to overshoot and brake too hard unless you pretty much impact the planet. -Landing isn't horrible, you can still use chutes, but you either need to have engine assisted landing, or a ton of chutes. -The delta-V to reach it is only a bit more than Eve, but is far less to get back from the surface to Kerbin, since the atmosphere is much thinner. -Duna is also pretty. -Duna has no oceans or "water" on it, unlike Eve, which could ruin your day pretty bad if you land on those or didn't quicksave. Even if you don't get destroyed, good luck getting anywhere. So it really depends on what kind of mission you want. I started with an unmanned mission to Duna, but really an unmanned mission to Eve so that you don't have to worry about return is a quite good idea and should be the easiest interplanetary mission you can do. Have fun! -M5K

I hate losing steam, and I've built up a lot so far. So no, no I wouldn't want to start again.