AndrewBCrisp

So much for uploading to Google Drive; I can share a file or folder but only with specific people, it seems. Tokay, could you PM me an email address? I can email you the files instead. triffid_hunter: I have not used FAR; I tend to use as few mods as I can get away with (Crew Manifest, Subassembly, and Chatterer. Currently using none; wanted to wait until any issues with compatibility had been solved before re-installing). And I am using 0.20.2, though the issue still appears in that version (I understood the cupola fixes were due to cupola-equipped spacecraft and stations "spontaneously disassembling"). Sorry.

It does sound like it could be a balancing issue. Could you put up a picture of the ship in question?

Checking in on my lunch break so I'll make this brief. From what iamaphazael posted, it looks like the actual torque on the Cupola is stronger than other modules. I'm not sure what "linPower" is supposed to refer to (perhaps torque for translation rather than rotation?) but the rotPower is a lot bigger than expected. Combine this with Colonel_Panic's statement that he's never launched just a cupola to a station (as I'm trying to do), and we might have a solution: I need to weigh down the cupola. A larger module with a cupola on top might provide enough mass to compensate for the cupola's crazy-strong torque and allow for more control, again like Colonel_Panic said. Since I'm at work, I can't try this now, but I'll whip up a heavier module tonight. I'll probably also need to switch launch vehicles to the bigger Sigma-II, as I'll probably exceed the Sigma-I's lift capacity. Tokay: you'd asked me to link the craft files earlier and I missed that; my apologies. I can upload my craft files to Google Drive; I'll do that when I get home. Thanks everyone; not sure if this is the answer, but it seems to fit the evidence. I'll let you know what my tests come up with.

So much for the clipping lights causing loss of control. Even switching control to a probe core on the upper stage didn't help. More and more, I am convinced the problem lies in the nature of the cupola itself. Unless anyone else has had this problem with a cupola as part of their spacecraft and solved it, I am declaring this problem UNSOLVABLE. Possibly a bug, possibly some trick I have not seen, but for now, no cupolas for me, it seems. To Colonel_Panic: I will repeat what I have said to others earlier and which you apparently missed: The launch vehicle is not the problem! Swapping engines will not help. Staging is fine. There is no flex: I checked. Nothing is being knocked off: I checked. Every time. And repeated use of the launch vehicle with its current engine setup worked flawlessly with other launches: both kerballed command pods and unkerballed space station parts with probe cores controlling them. It is only when the cupola enters the equation that flight profiles go pear-shaped. If I sound a bit testy in my response, it is because I have had to repeat this statement over and over, and people STILL try to fix the launch vehicle. How many times do I have to state "The launch vehicle is not the problem" before people get that I mean what I say? *deep breath* Now that I've made myself clear, do we have any insights about the cupola itself?

Tokay; I took your suggestion and swapped out the cupola for a Mk1-2 Command Pod and launched. Control to orbit was near perfect. So the problem remains with the cupola. On the outside chance I missed something in the specs, I went over the cupola specs looking for anything unusual. SAS torque is the same as all the others, it's slightly more massive than the Mk1-2 pod but not so much as to unbalance the craft. The only other thing I can think of are the 4 lights I put around the cupola; they clip with the pod itself. I can't see how that might be the problem, but I will try launching without the lights and see what happens.

Tokay: the fuel lines are fine. I watched the fuel flow as the rocket went up - no imbalance. Joe_Bender: Answering last question first: The final objective is indeed to attach the cupola to the station. I did think of flipping the cupola at first and found that, when I launched my spacecraft two additional problems surfaced: 1. Control shifted to the Cupola module and I found my navball inverted (minor - I just had to remember which way the spacecraft was pointed to compensate). 2. The spacecraft began to roll almost immediately after launch, even with SAS engaged. This made control impossible, so I ditched the upended cupola for the design you see. Answering the other questions last: First, I do have a cluster of 3 engines (2 LV-T30s for lift and 1 LV-T45 for control) at the bottom of the core, arranged in a line. Second: I have kept the staging of the motors and clamps separate for my own reasons; the .5 to 1 second between ignition and liftoff does not use enough fuel to affect the flight profile. Further; unless I'm planning to launch a thousand-part monstrosity, saving 2 or 3 parts by ditching a few launch clamps hardly seems worth it. Everyone: you seem to be looking at the launch vehicle as the source of my problem, despite what I've written in the original post. I am going to repeat myself here: the launch vehicle is not the problem. I have tested it repeatedly, both with the dummy payload and with actual spacecraft and space station components. The tumbling problem manifests with the cupola module only. May we please focus on that? Thank you.

I swapped out the dummy payload and replaced it with the cupola + booster stage. I've done this for my more successful launches as well, so I don't think that's the problem. Thanks anyway, though. EDIT: Hi Tokay, saw your reply after posting. I only have 1 gimbal engine on the spacecraft - a single LV-T45 in the core spacecraft. The other 8 engines are all LV-T30s.

Hello all, With the advent of .20 (and later .20.1) I figured I'd start over with a fresh save, and started to launch components for a space station. Inspired by Temstar and his family of launch vehicles, I took some time to design and test a couple of launch vehicles of my own and came up with the Sigma I, pictured below with its dummy payload: The Sigma-I has a maximum lift capacity of 14.9 tons, and I've successfully used it to launch solar arrays for the station as well as Kerballed missions into orbit. The vessel is pretty easy to control, and I've even gotten my gravity turns to the point that I can almost reach orbit without further tweaking on ascent (total delta-V needed to attain stable orbit has ranged from 200 m/s to 500 m/s, a huge improvement over the 1000-1500 m/s delta-V I've needed with earlier, cruder designs). Thus emboldened, I then decided to add a cupola pod to my station. The resulting vehicle is pictured below: The launch vehicle remains the same, but the dummy payload has now been replaced with a 2-stage spacecraft; the lower stage is to get the module close to the station, while the module itself has been fitted with RCS jets and a monoprop tank for final docking. Here's the problem: When I launch the craft, so long as it's headed straight up, it remains on course with ASAS activated. But when I begin my gravity turn (after 4 of the 6 boosters have been jettisoned), the spacecraft turns end-over-end and ASAS will not stabilize it. I'm forced to control it manually with SAS disengaged to stop the spin, wasting precious fuel. Ultimately, the spacecraft never reaches orbit, and I'm forced to either hit End Flight or kill a Kerbal. I'm at a loss. The cupola pod is the only new element to the mix, and I don't think it should be doing this. I know others have successfully brought cupolas up to their stations or built stations around the cupola and have orbited them successfully, so I'm guessing it's something I'm doing - or not doing. Can anyone help?

I've found all four of the standard LV engines to be useful; much as the Mainsail is a powerful engine I'm not happy with its mass or its tendancy to overheat. The LV-1, tiny though it is, has been perfect for my uncrewed Mun landers, as well as any Munar or planetary orbital probe. The LV-909 makes for a good upper stage engine (and will probably be my engine of choice for crewed landers when I finally attempt them), and for boosters and lower stages, the LV-T30 works wonderfully in clusters. But the prize for favorite engine has to go to the LV-T45. It is the first engine I put onto my launch vehicles for its gimbal capacity, and it is almost exclusively my upper stage engine for crewed vehicles or any payload leaving Kerbin orbit. Stay classy, LV-T45.

Oh! Sorry... "Thrust vectoring" is a feature of some liquid fuel engines - basically the nozzle can change direction (slightly), so that engine can change the rocket's direction. Think of it like a rudder I use the LV-T45 engine as my thrust-vectoring engine of choice... usually in combination with some LV-T30s for raw lifting power. The Poodle, Skipper, and Mainsail also have thrust-vectoring ability, but they're also heavier engines, and the Mainsail is prone to overheating.

Hm. I haven't had any luck attaching fuel tanks of any kind to action groups, so I'd say you'd have to shut them down manually before launch. That said, the decoupler you have installed will cut off the large RCS tank from the RCS thruster groups I see firing at the top of your rocket. If you're looking to preserve RCS fuel until later, may I suggest redesigning your first stage to rely on fins and perhaps a central liquid fuel engine with thrust-vectoring instead of RCS? That way, you should be able to better control your rocket until it's out of the atmosphere.

If a (relatively) new player may comment... I find it interesting - and disappointing - that as soon as there is a Hint of Popularity, we get people springing up volunteering to be gatekeepers. People who want to keep out the riffraff. I am curious as to where the dividing line will fall. Who gets to decide if someone is a "newb" or a "noob"? I'm sufficiently familiar with both terms to know that there is a difference. I'm also familiar enough with human beings to know that the dividing line is not as distinct as some people prefer it to be. Nor is it constant. Someone who starts out as a "newb" may become a "noob". Likewise, someone who starts out as a "noob" may slowly - or even quickly - learn better. The problem is that I have seen no system to separate one from the other that is infallible. I suspect, that whoever becomes the Gatekeepers of KSP, they WILL eventually Ignore, Shun, or otherwise drive away people who otherwise could have been productive members of the community because they didn't meet the Gatekeepers' standards. We are all fairly lucky, really, to have found this game so early in its development, before it was released on Steam, before Yogscast and Nerdcubed, and before the "Build Fly Dream" fan-trailer went viral. But, consider a scenario where we weren't. Imagine others finding it in our place, doing Awesome Things with KSP, and their Awesome Things, made public, attract us to the game. Now imagine one of us trying to enter that alternate community - only to find that we don't pass the Gatekeepers' standards. Maybe a certain concept comes too slowly to us. Maybe we bore or annoy people with our questions. The reasons don't matter, but imagine being shut out by a Gatekeeper. To always stay on the outside of the community, able to look, but never to interact. I've been there, in other communities. And elsewhere I have been - to my shame - a Gatekeeper myself. I know what it's like. So my plea is this - don't gate up Kerbal Space Program. Don't start setting up rules to decide who's "in" or "out".

"If I die before I smoke... HEADS WILL ROLL!" Jeb would have been so proud of Fee... heheheh Nice work! Perhaps when seats are implemented you could try the "Fishbone" tenders?