purpletarget

I don't know what you're talking about. LV-1 is an excellent choice for small minimalist satellites that are about a ton or less. Just as well for larger stuff too, probably up to 5ish with the addition of the radial versions. As for the naming, numbers and naming schemes don't always follow a set progression. The 1 could be the first in a series of Probe motors, or perhaps it's a reference to the design thrust rating. Engineers may build it, but marketers, VP's and committees tend to be put in charge of naming...so they don't aren't really similar to anything resembling logic.

Because of the placeholder drag model in KSP atm, there isn't really the shearing type effects from atmospheric pressures or air flow that would make max-Q an issue. The drag from atmo is applied to all parts at the same time, regardless of what's around them, so the only time something like this might happen was when there's parts with different drag values working against each other. But they'll also do that regardless of their relative orientation to the craft, airstream, or each other.

If you are going back to the VAB after using the "Revert Flight" option, it returns back to the time of day you entered the VAB the first time...so if that was at night, you'll return to night.

Or, you could just use the map view, and the "switch to" option from the context menu from the craft you want to go to, and skip the tracking station as well.

Personally I use a spreadsheet, but that's because I design the numbers first, and then build the vehicle. However, another thing you can do is place the s/c on the launchpad and go to the map view. The newish information button on the craft will give you the mass. No mods, no fuss.

The hatch is perfectly situated for symmetrical placement, as it doesn't interfere with thrusters, chutes or any other bobbles being placed on cardinal directions. It also make spacial and logical sense with how the IVA is arranged as well, you don't want a hatch right under the foot pedals of the command position. There is precedent as well. Check out the forward hatch placements on a B-17 sometime. It might be familiar.

The cut-off is generally around 60 degrees. If you're torquing/inclining your orbit more than 60, then you'll save dV by boosting your Ap and doing the change way out there. Anything under 60ish, just stick altitude you're at.

You can also check the Wiki from the link at the top of the forum. That'll tell you a bit about all the parts, planets, and a few other tutorials, links and such. I'd also recommend going through the resources offered in the Drawing Board post.

You can just take the formula for finding the Time of a given altitude and rearrange it. I don't recall where they listed on the wiki's. But you can find them in the vid here at about 7:20 or so.

Opps, bad URL. Goto the Store. Login Goto "My Account" at the top right corner. There should be a listing there for the game, and a download link.

Please read the stickies in each forum before posting. Locked

9.81 is the standard acceleration of gravity at sea level and is sometimes referred as small g in equations and also enumerated as 1G's as a unit of measurement. But that isn't the droid you are looking for. Go to wiki and look up *gravitational constant* to find big G. Its a really small number used to scale the huge masses required for moderate gravitational forces.

If you want to see the Tundra and Molniya in action you can check the vid here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24623-Tutorial-Video-Krash-Test-Kerbals-How-to-science%21?p=303586&viewfull=1#post303586 Check around 18:40...

That was historically the issue with large space stations, or collections of docked vessels. It wasn't the different ASAS modules that each ship had, but rather all the different pods trying to torque their way around would induce wobbles in the docking ports, and eventually the oscillation would grow to the point of structural failure. The new SAS behavior is gentle enough with the controls that this should be less of an issue overall, but there is probably still potential for it...indeed have seen some large multi-part ships that have issues just because of the large number of parts playing bumper-boats with each other when there's a reaction wheel on either side. So, turning off the reaction wheels for docked ships may or may not be needed, depending on your station and SAS...but it's prudent to have the ability to shutdown if it does start to happen.

Fair enough, but it's also important for people (lurkers reading) to know what design issues can cause things like this wobble, and how they can fix it if they so desire.

krl.krl, I've been fiddling with your craft file for a few minutes...I don't know if it'll meet your objectives as designed. Basically your problem the wobble is because it has way too much control authority with all the control surfaces, so no matter how little SAS touches an adjustment, it overshoots and has to correct the other direction. You can see in the jitter just how little roll the SAS is actually using (1 tickmark). Now, if you rip out the canards, and all ailerons, and replace the elevators with small control surfaces instead of standard, your plane should calm down when running under SAS. (Though you might need to shift your wings back as well to keep the CoL behind the CoM so it doesn't try stalling out) The trade-off is that it won't be an unstable acroabat doing mid-air gymnastics.

Always always backup.... Also: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content.php/181-A-New-Old-Feature%21-Previous-Stable-Release-now-available%21

The new SAS does try to maintain attitude, so if you're using RCS during docking, then when translating, the SAS will use some RCS to correct your attitude. If your RCS is at least attempted to balance, it should stay pretty close to your locked heading. Additionally, the not so announce addition, was if you have Fine Controls on, the RCS will attempt to balance itself as well, depending how far the thruster is from CoM. This will reduce the overall thrust available, so your movements will be slower, but also your attitude drift should be lower as well, so the SAS will use less Mono maintaining.

All the old A/SAS parts now have reaction wheels in 0.21.1 Avionics is still just a SAS part...probably in case you wanted to add SAS for a Command Chair.

Check the old ASAS Large in 21.1. As for probe sized, if the basic probe body can't handle the rotation, then you're probably big enough to warrant the 1m wheel additions anyways.

SAS is not a mind reader....it'll hold the attitude you set, or trim out the craft to hold as best it can if unbalanced. But you need to tell it what heading you want... so it's either the heading you're on when you turn it on, or if you're fiddling with the controls, it'll be where'ever the ship steadies up. So if you want a specific heading, you probably want to make sure there's not much swing when you get the nose onto it. If you drive anything that tends work in fluids, this manner of control does make intuitive sense...boats at low speed require similar attention for example. And the SAS doesn't weigh anything...it's a computer. Most of the mass of control parts is mostly to do with the reaction wheels. (which are a electricity to torque converter, not a stabilizer....separate issue)

Your new vid says the same thing...your SAS is working fine. The orbital procession in your original video explained why SAS returned your final heading (after engines were shut down) to a position that was 10-12 degrees above the horizon, which is where the test was started a minute beforehand. As for the 5-10 degrees when thrusting, that's because, as you originally noted, your craft is unbalanced. However, the new behavior of the SAS doesn't try to fight all the way back to your locked heading in that case. All it does is trim out the controls until it can stop the yaw/pitch and holds it there. (Assuming the craft has the control authority to do so) Unlike the Old ASAS, it doesn't (as I also already mentioned) go and fight it's way back there like a dog with a bone. If it tried, it would over-correct, and go past the set heading (as we see it gently do once the thrust is released). That over-correction, if allowed under thrust, is the kind of thing that resulted in oscillations and the shakiness that was the bane of the old ASAS. A key difference in flying the new SAS is that it cuts out when manipulating the controls to allow the freedom of maneuver, but if you want a particular attitude/heading, you need to kill most of the swing yourself, or let off the controls early enough that the SAS can kill the swing once it steadies up on your intended course. So unlike before, it doesn't lock on the heading that you let go...but rather it locks up to hold the attitude once it steadies up.

Your SAS is holding it's heading fine, and returning to it as well. The nose up, like you said is from the imbalance on your thrust, no surprise there. And the SAS doesn't aggressively go hard over trying to compensate for stuff like a dog with a bone anymore, but it is correcting, and is coming back to settle on the original heading. However, at your altitude and orbital velocity, your horizon is going to rotate away from you around 12 degrees per minute, and your video is almost that long. It looks as if your ship is returning to the same absolute attitude over the time elapsed on the video, and the horizon has dropped the expected amount. Given the inaccuracies inherent to the navball, the other degree or so could just be instrumentation/reading error.

Are the two of you using probes? The SAS won't do anything unless you have a SAS enabled part on the rocket, and Probes don't come with it by default. You also need enough control authority in your rockets to give SAS something to work with. If you can demonstrate that there's something amiss, then file a bug report, or posts a craft file, vid, or at least a pic. Also I suggest going through Harvester's SAS verification post to make sure your install isn't pooched by mods, old data, bad configs etc.

Let's all keep it cool, civil, take a few chill pills and relax. And if you have a legitimate bug, that you can reliably reproduce, then by all means, file a proper bug report. In fact, Harvester even mentioned that in the response that was already noted at the beginning of this thread, including a step by step test people can go through to test the new SAS behavior, how it is, and isn't supposed to work, and steps to ensure your install is working properly.