capi3101

Good luck - 70t is about the mass I had on the Auk III and I never could get that one off the ground for all the structural problems it had.

@Pecan - for a KSC landing, you want to put your periapsis on the next continent over - not the little peninsula on the same continent, but the next actual land mass - as close to the ground as you can manage. Open your intakes and come on in. Do not, however, attempt to activate your jets until you're below 400 m/s and or 10,000 m. When you do that, close your intakes and mind your vertical speed. Ideally when you get to the tarmac you want to be going no faster than about 10 m/s vertically. Bring your nose up to about 5 degrees above the horizon to flare out (make contact with the back wheels first). Throttle back on the approach too - 100 m/s is a pretty good surface speed for final. Beacons help too. Build you an automated rover or two and set them out on the runway,and give them the ability to drop probes. When you drop a probe, rename it as a base. Set one at the far end of the runway, at the near end, at 1 klick then at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 klicks, keeping as close to a straight course as you can. Instant ILS - you can see how I used it in the Auk IV-A example I posted earlier on this thread; damn beacons were off and I still managed a near-perfect landing on the strip by using it.

You might be able to - I suppose I did forget the bit where you have to switch over to rockets for the final ascent and all that. The big difference there is one of your own personal gratification: the spaceplane is "reusable", the rocket I suggested is most certainly not, but on the other hand it'd be almost 100% guaranteed to reach your mothership still fully loaded.

Can you talk a bit about your typical flight profile? You know, what elevation are you going to when you take off, when do you start leveling out, when do you flame out, how fast you're going, etc? That could be part of the issue there...a pair of FL-T200s and a 48-7S engines get me into orbit, but only if I've handled the rest of the ascent properly. Before you flame out, try throttling back to about 2/3. Watch your thrust levels from your engines; you want to keep them roughly even - throttle back if you start noticing one engine with a substantially higher thrust than the rest so you don't go into a flat spin. You want to try to get that extra 300 m/s (up to 2000 or so) before you kick in the rockets. This may or may not be helpful or give you ideas; I too am relatively new to the wonderful world of spaceplanes:

Yeah, adding them to action groups as I went along was how I eventually worked it out. I was just seeing if there was another / a better option.

Okay...so you're wanting to build a spaceplane that can deliver the equivalent of an X200-32 (largest grey tank) and RCS, and possibly extra Liquid Fuel cannisters, right? That's eighteen tonnes for the tank, 1.1 tonnes for each extra Mk1 Fuselage (I've had problems attaching Mk2 Fuselages radially, otherwise I'd be recommending thems) - say four for 4.4 tonnes, the large RCS tank weighs 3.4 tonnes, eight RCS blocks weigh 0.4 tonnes aggregate, the RCL-01 probe core weighs 0.5 tonnes, a pair of small battery packs will weigh 0.01 tonnes, and a pair of unshielded solar panels weigh .035 tonnes. Total mass of all this crap is 26.745 tonnes. I'ma gonna say you need three Turbojets for that, three Mk2 Fuselages in the core, two pairs of wing connectors, five pairs of swept wings, two pairs of small control surfaces for elevons, a pair of AV-R8 Winglets for canards, another pair of AV-R8s for rudders, landing gear and a total of 34 ram air intakes. Total mass should be 34.625 tonnes. I'd recommend breaking the single largest grey tank into four FL-T800 (long skinny tanks) and putting them away from the centerline. I dunno - that sounds like it'd work to me, though for rendezvous and docking you might consider adding a low thrust engine to the end of the FL-T800s, say a pair of 48-7S. Unless you want to do all your rendezvous and docking maneuvers on RCS only (which, trust me, you probably don't have time for). Downside to that - you'd be taking the fuel for docking out of what you meant to send up as payload. I have no qualms suggesting you do that with the big RCS tank, since that almost always has waaaaaaay much more than you need for docking purposes. Might suggest an extra pair of FL-T100s though specifically for rendezvous maneuvers. Shouldn't screw up anything. Now, 26.745 tonnes in a rocket is easy. Slap on a big stack decoupler, another probe core, an X200-8 and a 48-7S; you don't need much more since all you're doing is a rendezvous and docking - that adds another 5.5 tonnes of equipment, for 32.245 tonnes total payload. An SSTO booster for that would mass about 830 tonnes and consist of seven stacks of three orange tanks equivalent of fuel and a Mainsail each. Make sure they're well strutted. Throttle back as necessary after the gravity turn to keep it around the top of the green zone of the gee meter and you should be golden. The spaceplane option sounds easier to me - at least, it sounds like it'd take fewer overall parts; then again, I'm only partially confident about the "design" I outlined above. Both are valid solutions, though.

Minmus flyby for science. Also designed an interplanetary supply delivery system - just need to design the booster for it now.

Clipping isn't necessary - Though it does help. Been trying to use stacked intakes on the redesigned Auk II, BTW Claw. I'm thinking I probably should've left all the engines on it though the numbers said I had more thrust than I needed. Do have a particular way of assigning individual intakes to action groups? I've been missing them here and there.

That site can be persnickety at times; Iyou might try it again later.

It is possible your local instance of KSP was having an off day. That does happen occasionally. Other possible causes: 1) If you deployed your chutes and then repacked them, staging them won't help. You can get around this issue by setting up an action group to "deploy chutes"; that'll work regardless of staging. 2) Lack o'power. That one will get you any time. Slap on a quad of OX-STAT solar panels anywhere on your CSM and you should be golden. Or fly with RTGs; those will work too though they're heavier. For the OP's future reference: http://ksp.freeiz.com/ - A good calculator for chutes.

1 - If you don't want to just terminate the mission, you could always send a Kerbal out there to pick them up. That takes time but if you're not doing anything... 2 - Been covered. TAC is a nice mod. 3 - Kerbal biology is quite mysterious. That said, I believe the Crew Manifest mod includes an option to let you rename Kerbals unless I am very much mistaken.

Tipping over can be handled by widening the base of the lander, done by radially mounting girders or I-beams and placing the lander legs on them. The long I-beam in particular is useful when you're using nuclear engines, as they are quite capable of being extended past the end of the engine bell. Kashua's lander has an example of that very phenomena. The short girders weigh less; the I-beams stick out more - it's a tradeoff, like many other things in the game.

Usually that means the control point you're using is oriented upside down relative to the rest of your craft. If you go to attach things inverted, it's something you have to deal with (personal experience on this). What you can do is select another control point when you go for launch...say, add another probe core just below that decoupler in that pic you've got there, switch to it before you lift off and then when you go to decouple, whatever control point you've got on that lander should take over and be oriented the correct way.

Rendezvous - not particularly difficult. Here's the short version - 1) Target the other craft on the map screen (click on it and select "Set As Target"). You may need to turn on filtering if there are a lot of other objects in and around its orbit. I find zooming in on it sometimes helps. 2) Look for two chevrons that appear marked AN and DN - these are the ascending node and descending node, respectively. 3) Assuming you're in an eastward orbit (prograde heading 090), you want to burn northward (000) at the descending node or southward (180) at the ascending node, whichever you come to first, until it reads 0.0 or NaN. 3A) If you get it to NaN, you're dead on - there's so little variation in the plane of your orbit that the programming language KSP uses can't distinguish any difference. 4) Now, find the little intersect chevrons - these tell you how close you'll approach the target. Set a maneuver node at periapsis and gently pull prograde. Watch what happens to the distance. 4A) If the distance decreases, keep pulling prograde until the distance starts to increase. 4B) If the distance increases, pull retrograde instead. Keep pulling until the distance starts to increase or until your resultant periapsis would be lower than 70,000. 5) Make the indicated burn. Use RCS prograde/retrograde (H and N keys, respectively) to correct if necessary. 6) Same thing, except this time do it at periapsis. 7) Repeat the process at the apses until you're not getting any more appreciable results. 7A) A rendezvous will occur if your closest approach is within 2,250 m. 8) If you're not getting a rendezvous, try the same method, but at a point roughly midway between the apses. These should be short burns. The alternative, of course, is to set up a long, hard burn at your periapsis once your planes are aligned such that you wind up setting a resonance with the target - you go wide, it makes several orbits in the time it takes your craft to make a single orbit and you wind up passing very close to one another. You make another hard burn to slow down your relative velocity. This method works, but it consumes a fair amount of delta-V in the process. Can't really recommend it for Kerbin, though I've had success with it over Mün and Minmus before.

Like what Tank Buddy suggested. A small stack decoupler with your rover hanging on it would do the trick. Be sure to aim the decoupler so that it stays with the crane and not on your rover. And make sure the engines are not firing into the rover itself - that's a great way to make noise and, later on, a new Münar crater. May I offer some unsolicited advice? You need to stick something with a high impact tolerance on the front of that rover (a girder or structural panel), and probably on the top as well. You'll thank me the first time you lose control over it at 20 m/s; the Mün, she is a heartless RAGING HERD OF SOMEWHAT FERAL RABBITS, especially towards small rovers like yours. EDIT: As for putting it on a rocket, you should have an attachment point on the bottom of that Rovemax. If not, make one with a BZ-52 or Cubic Octagonal strut (be sure to place it right under the center of mass or you'll have additional fun (using the Dwarf Fortress definition of fun)). Then use a small stack decoupler with a girder underneath to attach it to your booster. Do it right and you can send up your whole skycrane that way.

Not wholly sure what you mean. I'd suggest trying NavyFish's Docking Alignment Indicator mod; it's useful whether you use Mechjeb or not. And the usual - use RCS and make sure they're placed as far from the center of mass as possible while still being close to the same radius from the center of your rocket. Eight is good, I find twelve (a set aligned with the center of mass) aids with translation but go with your own experience on that one.

Made an entry for the K-Prize Challenge; used the Auk IV-A to deliver three Kerbals to the Julin Mün space station. Here's my entry for the interested: Pics for once. Yeah, I know...

^^^ Groovy. My take on mods - perform a task stock until it gets boring to have to do it every time. Then find a mod that'll take care of it. Do it by hand every now and again so your skill doesn't atrophy. You can also do it like I do - set a series of personal goals for yourself, and award yourself with a mod every time you finish one. Mechjeb for me will be the prize if I ever successfully launch from Eve...

I only recently gathered enough information to build successful spaceplanes - so I figured the time has finally come for me to make an entry in this long-running challenge. I hereby present the maiden operational flight of the Auk-IV Space Transportation System as my entry in this challenge. I did do some test runs with the design, obviously; this is the first time I ever had a spaceplane ever actually do something. All stock parts of course, but from the album it's obvious I used a number of piloting assistance mods - KER, KAC, Precise Node, Enhanced Nav Ball, Crew Manifest and TAC Fuel Balancer. I also used my long-running sandbox game for the flight; I had previously set out a series of ground beacons for the KSC runway (which I set out in 0.21 and were rendered obsolete for runway alignment purposes with 0.22). The Julin Mün space station (my final destination for this flight) was established as an early part of Operation Outland (an effort to put satellites and stations in orbit around every body in the system and rovers on their surfaces). Should be a good enough flight for a Kosmokerbal Commendation, Pilot Proficiency Medal and Advanced Pilot Precision Award 1stClass - not sure about that last one. I mean, I did pull a docking maneuver, but not in orbit of Kerbin...

Learn the Rocket Equation - how to use it to determine how much delta-V your rocket has, and how to use it to determine the amount of fuel you need in order to have a target amount of delta-V. That, combined with an understanding of the importance of thrust-to-weight ratios, will tell you if your rocket is capable of doing the job you want it to and the bare amount of fuel you need to do it. Smaller, less complicated rockets are generally better and more foolproof than big ones. A perfectly viable SSTO rocket orbiter can be built out of Tier 0 parts alone - a satellite can be launch itself to orbit if done correctly. Docking is not as big of a deal as everyone makes it out to be. Just be sure you use RCS and that the thrusters are evenly spaced. Four thruster blocks is okay, eight is good, twelve is best. Reaction Wheels and Reaction Stabilizers are nice but not essential. Don't forget electricity. You will screw it up at least once. Probably badly. That's what F5 and F9 are for. When you can think of a better way, screw the rules.

In general there's one transfer window from Kerbin to Duna and one transfer back roughly each Earth calendar year (for reference, there's ~3.5 Kerbin years per Earth year). As has been pointed out, it's due to the similar orbital periods of the two bodies -from my observations and use of Protractor, I can say that there are fewer optimal transfer windows between these two bodies than between Kerbin and any other planet in the system. As for Moho... http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/61478-Oh-bugger-Injection-burn-at-Moho?p=835667&viewfull=1#post835667

^^^ That's now three (four? five? I've lost count) different recommendations for the new chart...

Smoke 'em if you've got 'em. Next time, consider dropping a few of 'em (especially if you're going interplanetary).

I second the usage of 5thHorseman's chart; it's newer and as an added bonus it has included the delta-V requirements of the inclination burns. For the original chart - you say you're already in low Münar orbit. So from there, it's: 640 to land 640 to launch to low Münar orbit 210 to escape the Mün's SOI essentially a free ride for the rest of the trip TOTAL: 1,490 m/s. If you're an amateur, I'd tack on anywhere from 25-50% of that number as a safety margin. Say 1,875 total for safety sake. The new chart - 580 to land, 580 to low orbit, 230 to escape Mün's SOI, 80 for the transfer back and the rest is free. None for the inclination burn. 1,470 m/s in total for the return trip, so some savings. I'd still go with 1,875 just to be safe.

Well, I decided to go back through my early spaceplane designs and fix the ones that weren't working successfully. The Auk I and Auk IV are now flying beautifully, so I thought I'd take a crack at fixing the Auk II. I think I need to figure out a more reliable way of setting up my air intakes when I go air-hogging. Recalculating the lift I need probably wouldn't hurt either. First attempt, I left the position of the forward wings alone - she started going into tail spins around 9,000. Recovered once, second time I popped the hatch. Next attempt, I moved the forward wings back, hoping to move the CoL further back from the CoM. Right into the drink. Auks III and V are still awaiting fixes. Not sure they can be fixed, to be honest...