shand

check your staging in the VAB, there should only really be engine symbols in the first(biggest number) stage. firing that should activate the stage. screenshot before you fire the rocket? (on the launchpad or VAB so we can see both the first stage and the staging symbols.)

I wonder what direction they will go in? get rid of the advanced entirely? only allow one to use RCS? but perhaps thats for another discussion

*quick download and test later* Yup thats right, i am sorry - the only difference seems to be mass! What through me was the in the description it says ASAS (as it was) has an inbuilt flight control computer, while such a sentence is missing from the SAS. thats your source! But yes, ASAS is the same as SAS but heavier. ALSO: cockpits seem to have this system built in.

No probs Also, using multiple ASAS has no benifit over using a SAS instead of the second one. so i tend to put an ASAS on the "final" stage (so lander, or return module) or any seperate module the will need seperate control. for more torque add SAS - if that makes sense! Pretty sure that's incorrect. but i'm not a machine where i can double check it. Whats the difference between SAS (inline reaction wheel) and ASAS (Inline Advanced Stabilizer) then?

either way, there is a fundamental issue of if oxidiser is included in the ISP - since the oxidiser is the intake air, but i beleive the calculation just uses the fuel used? i may be wrong there, but that would explain the insane ISP.

The simplist way of putting it is: they are exactly the same as before with 2 exceptions: torque requires power, and you can override the SAS without turning it off (try and move in an axis and it will let you, dampening the others - think avionics package) SAS = Inline Reaction Wheel = Provides torque only. ASAS = Inline Advanced Stabilizer = provides torque and utilizes other attitude adjustment equipment (aero/RCS/Gimble) as required - in my experience it doesnt seem keen to use RCS, which is GOOD Important thing to note, that are still true: SAS (Inline Reaction Wheel) does NOT (to my knowledge) make use of aero/RCS/Gimble. If you want that, use ASAS (Inline Advanced Stabilizer) PS: the torque in command pods is "SAS functionality" and uses reaction wheels and thus power, in the command pod . i dont know, but i assume it allows "SAS" to be used - IE: attitude stabilisation. ^^Most of this is wrong... ah well ^^^^

they burn at a constant rate because that is an acceptable profile (being a bit generous). but increasing the length of the booster - or any method of enlargement that increases the SA and volume at the same ratio would simply increase thrust. burn time is changed by adjusting the SA:Volume ratio. I'd expect a slider in the tweakables will allow you to fine tune that ratio. I wonder if procedural parts will one day appear - so you could adjust the length of your SRB and watch the thrust increase, and then tweak the SA:volume ratio (or switch between different internal layouts if thats how they choose to do it) to balance thrust and time. THAT would work. but just doubling the "fuel" and getting double the time seems a bit TOO simplified - and completely ruins the seperation between liquid and SRB at this time (IMO)

See my approach would be to put decouplers under the ion drives- a docking port on each one, docking port on one of those, then attach the same quad splitter that was used at the top of the stack, attach docking ports to the remaining 3 surfaces of the quad splitter, then build the launch vehicle below (I'd start with a BOT with a skipper below, decoupler, BOT, skipper, then with 4x symetry (2x longest narrow fuel tank, aerospike below) - you may need to upgrade the aerospikes to rockets and the skipper to a rockomax depending on the weight of the payload.

Has anybody played the "we're in alpha, all artwork is pretty much placeholders" card recently? Also howcome you guys aren't screaming that probe bodies need clearer "this way forward" markings? I'm all in favour of adding a window to the port for pretty viewingness but it won't make it clearer. we've already seen some obvious pics of side on viewing And the ends are blindingly obvious! can you post a screenshot, or craft file, of a situation where you might struggle at the time of connection? (checking later is hard with every part - so thats not fair. how do you check your engine is on the right way up if you've already got a decoupler below? you detach the bits beneith, and check. why expect anything different with your docking ports.) I still maintain that its easy to tell as you place it, and checking at the end of construction when you've surrounded it in bits you cant take off for various reasons is a really bad design process

can't you just move the rest of the rocket off the avionics package, delete the avionics package and then select the mk1 pod as the new root. i thought this was brought in on the latest builds?

hehehe. Ok guys be nice - no need to be rude about another persons work. there is a fundamental problem that it needs to be clearly visible and obvious at a glance - but at the same time subtle enough that it doesnt break the immersion.

I go 1 inline, and then in pairs as need be. First drop off - inline, second drop off - one radial and move the other radial to the inline position. third - inline. repeat until you run out of probes.

Try putting the fins on the central stack - i imagine the problem you are having is the outter tanks stage off, leaving the inner stack with no aerodynamic assistance. also swap out the outter stacks to skippers if you can, more fuel efficent.

problems with zero

The first time you used a solar panel, did you try deploying it before you docked with your spacestation? The first time you used an ion drive, did you fire it on the landing stage to see if your electric charge could keep up? or check the fuel flow on a less then simple final stage. Or test fire a LES before putting it on top of your giant fuel tank carrier (without a kerbal of course ) My point is really, if you are using a part you havent got experience with, you dont assume to know how it functions - does the spotlight come on when you press the light button, or does it need a seperate action group? do capsules generate torque while steering a rover? - you test it. for me i do rediculous amounts of testing on almost every craft, but for most people i expect "ooo a docking thing, lets start with things docked on the launchpad, undock them and fly up a tiny bit, then redock them" comes before "i shall put them on my giant superstructure" Like when playing COD, sure i was slightly annoyed when i realised you couldnt see people who had the ghost perk while using IR scope - but i don't think you need the warning written explicitly on the gun or in the description for the scope. experience is key. My tip: remember everything nasa did, 90% of their budget (guessing at numbers, sorry) was spent on testing on the ground or in the atmosphere. docking parts, tested on the ground/in a pool. engines, tested on the ground. launchvehicles, tested without payload - usually suborbitally. So test before you commit.

revert is (supposedly) only active until you change focus. also there are different expectations. a high budget game (real lifey sized budgets of several billion) would not need revert - but you would be forced to reuse tried and tested designs. like create a standard launcher, which may detract from the game. smaller -per budget- budgets would need revert and encourage creativity and risk taking. Considering the gaming market these days is a savefest i fully expect the later to be in the game, perhaps with the former as a "extra hard mode" But at this stage in development i feel it is an improvement over the previous system.

ooo interesting - i kinda assumed it worked but hadnt tried it. how does she hold up? i'm contemplating using a combination of snr and normal docking ports for my mega structures.

What information are you looking for? cant think of something you'd want that isnt listed - or calcuable from the wiki

Then that's something to learn. would an arrow really help here? do you think the arrow would point towards the docking edge, or towards the structural edge? would you think the arrows would have to converge or be parallel? would you even think the arrow was important - if you were naive enough (note: being naive is not a bad or offensive thing, it just means you have no experience with the area in question) to not think the side of the model was relivent when placing, would you suddenly think different because of a slight asethetic difference? The real issue here is this game is (currently) BASED around trial and error. Your spaceships evolve (sometimes literally). all my ships undergo docking testing with my spacestation if their docking target is critical and beyond LKE and all ships, or designs, undergo testing on kerbin, minmus or mun depending on their mission demands. You learn something doesn't work doing a certain thing, and adjust it for future missions. In this case i reckon the number of people who repeat this error once they become aware of it is very low compared to for example, the decoupler (have solid white for the lower - stay connected edge and dashed red and yellow upper - explodey edge)

like the Wiki?

oh hells yes!

I think there are other parts more in need of procedural attention. solar panels for one would be "easy" and very very useful. a procedural fuel tank again would be awesome (depth only, fixed width). But yes. i've never used such a part but if they were no more obstructive then an RCS port (not thruster block) then you could surface coat your ship easily enough, and allow for only protecting one side to save resources or using them for boyancy/docking protectors. theres a lot of potential.

*Doesn't need to be said* basically i agree King Arthur; there is no NEED for manned missions. not only are our romote techs a lot better then they used to be, but manning a mission is really really hard (comparatively). OP: the US won the space race - because they achieved the last big thing. But most importantly because of Star Wars. They got a space program in place such that the proposal of Star Wars (not the film) was sufficient to be a major threat to the USSR. They had GPS (predecesors) in the 60's, and the ability to launch weaponised sat's if they wanted to. meanwhile USSR was unable to meet that technological challange and feed its citizens so it lost. combine that with the "WE PUT OUR FLAG ON THE MOON" publicity... well that just about seals it. The USSR tried really hard, they led for the first few laps, but then NASA pulled its fingers out, took a (huge) risk and won the race.

last check there were one or two on spaceport. i'll have a look see if i can find them again. no idea if they are compatable with .21.x EDIT: FOR .18 - but might be worth trying: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/smse_srmech_-airbags-v1-for-ksp-0-18-only/ EDIT 2: again .18 i beleive: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/cp-airbag-system/

its worth noting that mechjeb doesnt do things perfectly. doing it "by hand" can be more efficent and more accurate with a bit of practice. my rule is mechjeb only on things with probe bodies or when i'm busy IRL