sgt_flyer

Something is becoming weird with the voting (unless several people gave me and gregorxmun all their 8 points ? (If that was wanted thanks a lot - but that's becoming a bit confusing regarding on how the voting went through until the last few hours - before those few hours most people splitted their votes)

@Nao i'm not 'Flaying' anyone ^^ but thanks for the point

You can try how mulbin does it : use the fairings to connect the csm to the launcher, then build the lander from the ground up. How it works : you put radial decouplers on the bottom of your csm ( usually with x4 symmetry) then build the fairings from those decouplers. Once the fairings are done, switch to x1 symmetry , put a decoupler (The one you want) at the bottom of one of the fairings, and attach an i-beam ( this I-beam have to reach at least the center of the rocket). to this i beam, attach a cubic strut, and center it. (You can attach an i beam at the center node of your csm to 'guide' you when trying to place the cubic strut). You can now attach your launcher under the cubic strut, and a decoupler above it. Then build the lander from the decoupler. (Advice at this point - only keep the fairing which acts as a link, and replace the others fairings after you finished building your lander) In the end, your csm and lander will not be directly connected together, so no shroud to dump between the lander and the csm.

from what i experienced, it's not really based on part clipping (and it happens without the part clipping enabled) - it's having the nodes completely surrounded by other objects. (i've seen that happening when using Structural panels as stock fairings). basically, if you connect an element to a node which is surrounded by other objects (other fuel tanks, etc) the 'node' becomes part of one of the surrounding objects, and the engine (for example) you tried to attach can only drain fuel from the object it has become children. (you can see it easily afterwards - when you 'remove' the surrounding objects, the engine you put goes away with the surrounding objects. the best way to avoid these problems, would be to only surround objects after you connected all the nodes in the center. (or in the case of structural panels fairings, to 'disconnect' those fairings before making a change on what they protect. Regards, Sgt_flyer.

On my usual escape towers, i usually offcenter the two topmost separatrons by hand (i put one at a time, without symmetry, one of the two farther from the center than the other) - but for the sake of simplicity and an easy way for newcomers to understand, i simply offcentered the cubic strut this time (plus, it gives a visible cue for newcomers ) On the tests i made, using only one separatron or even simply having the smallest angle difference between the two separatrons end up giving too much turning rate (even up to the point to make it tumble). Slightly offcentering the two separatrons results in a much more adjustable way to control the turn rate

@gusturbo which is why i used a cluster of LVT engines for my core instead of a mainsail

@Kasuha - those rockets are for sandbox mode for sure, but it can help newcomers to give them ideas on how they can place their science tools on their spacecrafts when they start to play their own career mode

@dave kerbin yes, that 's a similar technique i thought about for eve. - which can be even more effective there. - basically, for having a 1.1 twr on eve with a mainsail, you will have a craft weighting around 81 tons. As the atmosphere slows you even more than kerbin's, you only have to slow down from 60 m/s (terminal velocity above sea level) - so you can start braking even later than on kerbin. Even if you burn a few tons of fuel for the landing, you'll still have a score around (or more) than 60. (Ex, you burn 3 tons of fuel for landing, you still have 78 tons on eve's surface - giving you a score of 62.4.) Yup : i think the engines / planet scoring dhould be slightly tweaked

Hello, here's my entry : the Kerbal Y ! The Kerbal Y has been built to showcase several building techniques, each of those techniques been simplified to become easy to understand for people new to the game. it also showcases a way to place the various science parts on a spacecraft. the features showcased : - simple asparagus (with x4 symmetry instead of x6) - how to easily 'hide' separatrons, on the boosters. - easy radial placement of various engines - the LVT-30's on the core stage with the tail cones, and the 48-7s' on the upper stage, with cubic struts. - 2 different types of interstage fairings - one which stays with the upper stage on separation, and is supposed to be dropped a few seconds after separation, and a second one which stays with the stage below the spacecraft on separation. - solid interstage strutting hidden behind the interstage fairings - Escape tower (with asymmetric thrust) - the asymmetry is easy to spot, as the cubic strut at the top of the rocket (the one with two separatrons) is off-centered from the rest. (the result makes the command pod veer in one direction during abort, to limit the risks of the rocket hitting the command pod after aborting) - the Abort action group also disable the command pod's torque - so even if you stay with SAS enabled, the escape tower will still work correctly. for reaching the mun or minmus, you simply start your burn with the rocket's upper stage, then finish with the spacecraft. the spacecraft has plenty of fuel for various corrections as needed, (i usually still have half the fuel left at the end of the mission - which is to go orbiting the mun or minmus, and then coming back to kerbin) here is the .craft file : http://www./download/h9mxph97zwang6w/Kerbal_Y.craft

Be careful with atmospheres - you will be able to land on eve with way much more fuel remaining than on tylo, for example ex, on tylo, you have to burn around 3000 m/s of delta-v to land (and as you need to bring that kind of fuel, you need an engine capable of a twr > 1 - maybe not from the start, but at least for a good part of the landing) - whereas at eve near sea level , way much less delta-v for a powered landing is needed - i think you could even land safely with a twr < 1 - you only need to slow down enough from 60 m/s of terminal velocity near sea level. So in the end, a tylo lander will spend most of it's fuel for the landing, weigthing much less (and if you take additional fuel, you'll need to upgrade the engines) whereas on eve, you can come in with a lot of fuel, and just enough engines to slow down a few hundred meters before landing - and you will spend almost no fuel for that. I'll try to make an example showing the problem

yes, the center engine shut downs early, i think they used that to reduce the TWR as the fuel tanks drains - added something like that to my saturn 1B - the 4 center engines shuts down few seconds before full shutdown, simply by adding buffer fuel tanks to the outer engines - the outer engines are fed from this additional tank, which is fed by the stage's main tank. so when the main tank is drained, the center engines shut downs, while the outer still have the 'buffer' to pump fuel from.

Well, for my own Saturn V, i went with a decoupler on the side of the second stage, which connect to a ring of structural panels. (it's a bit hard to do round, no symmetry tool available for this kind of work , for sure ) - another decoupler at the bottom of the ring, linked to a beam which 'recenter' the attachment point, for putting the first stage central tank - then it's just a matter of adding separatrons to the ring. then the decoupling works this way : on staging, the lower decoupler separate the first stage from the interstage ring, and the separatrons ignite. while the separatrons are burning, stage a new time to fire the J2's, and a few seconds later, you can stage a final time to drop the interstage ring. (you can easily modify this on my Saturn V rev2 to have the 'rev3' , by removing the separatrons on the bottom of the second stage, and keeping those on the interstage, and changing the staging a bit)

well personally, when i read about the UR-700 concept (notably the fuel crossfeed system idea they came up with for the first stage), i found that it was a really advanced idea for it's time (i think the UR-700 crossfeed way is even safer than SpaceX planned crossfeed systems - with the tank to be drained 'separate' from the booster's main tank. (actually, on the UR-700 concept, they had 2 sets of 3 boosters : 1 set with an additional separate Lox tank at the top, and 1 set with an additional separate liquid fuel tank at the top) - thus limiting the 'plumbing' necessary to bring the fuel and oxygen from the boosters to the core stage.

a single unmanned probe i sent brought me back more than 600 science (and i divided by 2 in the config files the science i get and the max science i can have on each location) - simply by spamming the experiments and transmitting them down to a 0 reward by sligshotting around mün, then minmus, and then out of kerbin's influence - and that with only too experiments, goo and science container (missed out a few near mün, as i passed on the dark side, my batteries did not have enough juice to transmit this many experiments )

i'll retry it with 0.22 - but the lander's legs will have been swapped - i don't know if it's adversely affected the lander. edit : ok, i retried it (redownloaded the version i uploaded to be sure to test the same rocket ) and everything's worked fine (from start to the end) mmh - i know i encountered some random unplanned dessassemblies in the past when loading directly on the pad (not only with this one, but with most of my near 1000 parts rockets), and those bugs disappeared by loading the rocket from the VAB instead of directly on the pad. also, i always have the physics delta time slider set to 0.03 (helps a lot with physics on those part heavy monsters ) also, don't forget to disable the gimbals on the outer boosters (key 0) - it helps a lot for diminishing the rocket's shakings for the landing legs, the new legs kills a bit the lander's look, but it still works correctly (also, the new antenna dish changed the spacecraft look a bit - this antenna is huge compared to the old dish ).

the key is to set the physics time slider to the max (0.03) the game 'time' will slow down, but it will be able to do all the physics calculations correctly (it justs lengthen a bit the ascent time, but the rocket should behave better , and the game speed will progressively go back up to normal as the dropped stages 'disappear' out of the 2.5km physics range.

@john fx and nephf The problem he faces is it's new fairing sheer weight, which costs a lot of delta-v (the ibeams are very heavy ) Sidenote : mulbin, have you tried to use the new radial antenna for your fairings ? They should be much more lightweight than i-beams. (Of course, that comes with a price - more parts as you'll need to make a 'skeleton' to carry all the antennas)

i don't know, i don't use select root

Note for correctly saving vab or sph. craft as subassemblies : the root part needs to be radially attachable or to have a free node (and yes, it works, did it a couple of time already )

Well, this rocket is fully modular, so the twr is not the same for each version. I usually build my payload, add one of the transfer stages if required, then the necessary combination of first and second stage through engineer redux. (With the various parts as subassemblies and engineer redux, i usually need less than a minute to assemble the correct launcher for the job. (Basically, it ends up with 'do i have a twr between 1 and 2 and 4500 d/v with the two first stages.

I made the modular angara series quite some time ago (check my sig ) ranges for 1 to 60 tons to lko without the fairings (and without the optionnal third stage for lko missions) I did not test them with 0.22, but it should still work correctly. (I really need to update them : p)

there was one planned russian concept which used an early form of asparagus - the UR-700,which was N-1 rival

you can still copy your .craft file from the VAB/SPH folder to the subassembly folder with squad's subassembly manager (this way the root part becomes the subassembly root)

erm, the ACTS does have landing legs (hidden behind the dropable thermal shield) - and it should have emergency parachutes in case of rocket malfunctions - russians are searching since a long time to make their space vehicles land at a specific small target zone after reentry (which is not really possible with parachutes in real life, due to the winds)

It's not the iframe you should use to embed albums. Use "(imgur)hWK72(/imgur)" don't forget to replace () by [] (i used () to show the syntax, else it would have embedded your album) hWK72 is your album's code on imgur. Regards,