capi3101

Bad night in KSP - the new Ranger Baker Two, Ranger Able and Storax Sedan missions all failed to make their respective target with sufficient delta-V to insert orbit and were each aborted in turn. A new mission has been launched for Eeloo and I'm sending a Sandstone Xray probe to Bop; this time I'm doing it the old-fashioned way (using maneuver nodes) as opposed to relying on Protractor for the transfer (I am still using Protractor for setting the position of the node for the ejection burn). So far things are going well with the new missions. Still in the process of sending a Constipation XIII-C probe to Moho; I think I've figured out the transfer process now and I've sent up a new Orthus Moho lander. We'll see if I can actually make it to Moho for less than 6,000 m/s of delta-V. Redid my mini probe design; actually worked with just two FL-T100s as it turned out...

Anybody got a date as to when that occurs? I know Kerbin's got an orbital period of 106.5 days or so, so it'll reach that same spot that often, but a reference date from which to extrapolate other "launch windows" would be very helpful. Tried this the other day; pretty sure I screwed it up again.

Okay. I ask because I've had the game class probes and rovers before the same way as their parent craft - had you used a Lander Can, I would've suggested checking to see if they'd been classed as landers. Only thing I can think of at this point is that your probes were reclassed as debris for some reason. That usually happens when you decouple something that either has no control component to it at all or when that component lacks electrical power - the part you detach must have its own control and power sources. Here's an example: It's not exactly clear from this pic (unfortunately), but you can see a satellite prepared for deployment sitting on the side of the CSM in that shot. It has its own set of solar panels and it has an OKTO probe core. You can kinda see the solar panels for the CSM as well; they're independent of one another. The whole satellite assembly is attached via a stack decoupler on top of a BZ-52. Something else just occurring to me, so I'll ask for clarification: you couldn't switch to your probes at all, or you could switch to them but not control them. Which is it? If the latter, try flipping over the decouplers; you want the decoupler to stick to the carrier, if it sticks to the bottom of your satellite, it could be blocking any engines you've got there.

Might also try turning on SAS (T-key); that generally keeps your rocket from spinning out of control. All pods have that capability whether you include a Reaction Wheel or not. It also helps if you build it symmetrically.

You dropped these probes from a manned vehicle, right? What kind of control pod did the manned vehicle utilize?

Definitely possible - my Sandstone Yoke rocket delivered a group of satellite probes to Jool (six probes, seven if you count the carrier itself - one for each body plus a spare). Key thing is that each bit must have its own powered control part and you can only directly control one of them at a time; use the bracket keys to switch between individual craft, as others have said.

Mind if I tweak my design a bit? The Communotron-16 has a mass of .005 tonnes as it turns out; that turns out to be the same as any of the small science parts, so just one of each and they balance each other out. $200 for the sci part and $150 for the antenna. I prefer the Gravioli Detector; I have a BS in Meteorology and it reminds me of a rawinsonde. A Z-100 has a mass of .005 tonnes and a cost of $80 - I find you need a battery if you want any hope of transmitting data. Still sticking with two OX-STAT panels - combined cost $200, combined mass .01 tonnes. The OX-4W or OX-4L is a more versatile solution but this saves $100. Still sticking with the OKTO2; it's cheaper and slightly less massive than the Stayputnik - at $230 and .04 tonnes. And still sticking with the 48-7S at $300 and 0.1 tonnes. So that's .165 tonnes deadmass...300 Isp...4550 delta-V target......3 FL-T100 equivalents give you a delta-V of 4883.145 m/s and a launch TWR of 2.13 An FL-T100 costs $110, an FL-T200 costs $225, an FL-T400 costs $850 - so three FL-T100s gives you the cheapest option (by $5) at $330 Build it by placing the battery on top of the probe core, put the three tanks under it and the engine under that, put the antenna on one side of the top tank and balance it on the other side with the sci instrument, and slap the solar panels on wherever you choose. That's a 1.8525 tonne SSTO science probe with 4,883.145 m/s of delta-V and a launch TWR of 2.13. Total cost - $1,460 (assuming the figures on the wiki are correct).

You're welcome. Ranger Able and Ranger Fox are headed to their respective targets now and I've got a Sandstone probe in orbit of Duna. Tried building said probe SRV Ron mentioned in his post and it worked as advertised (his changes made it cheaper unless I'm mistaken - that was the point of the challenge). Tried to launch that same probe again with a Rapier engine just for lulz. I think I like the Rapier but KER doesn't give delta-V info for it, which is kinda annoying.

Nice. Actually built the probe I described last night; turned out with something like 5,500 m/s of delta-V or thereabouts according to KER. I'd suggest swapping out the FL-T400 for an FL-T200/FL-T100 combo but as I recall all the tanks cost the same amount (except for the Jumbo64), so I suspect there not a cash savings there. Moar delta-V ain't bad in any event.

Too bad the only mod allowed is procedural fairings - I've launched a sci-satellite into LKO SSTO before. I'll give y'all a hint - OKTO2, Communotron-16, OX-STAT x2, 2 small sci instruments (two for balance), an FL-T400 tank and a 48-7S engine. Challenge broken.

1) Do the Stats (Courage and Stupidity) on the Kerbals have any significance at all? if so what are they? They have no significance; they're placeholders for a system that has yet to be implemented. 2) What is the most efficient research to unlock? Currently I go straight to Solar Panels and science then double back to basic rockets. Efficiency is a somewhat subjective term; what matters is what works best for you. That said, most folks go for Electrics first (for entry-level solar panels and batteries), then on to Fuel Systems (for fuel ducts = asparagus staging). The trees for both are: Starting Tech ==> Basic Rocketry ==> Stability/Survivability ==> Flight Control/Science Tech ==>Electrics Starting Tech ==> Basic Rocketry ==> General Rocketry/Stability ==> Advanced Rocketry/General Construction ==> Fuel Systems So really, it boils down to unlocking all of the Tier 3 techs (Flight Control/Science Tech/Advanced Rocketry/General Construction) as quickly as you possibly can. Don't worry about "efficiency" until you're past that level (and if you go for Electrics, you'd be a fool not to pick up General Rocketry and the LV-T45 engine on Tier 2 anyway - you can actually steer with that damn thing). I suppose from there it's most "efficient" to make a beeline for atomic rockets so you can more readily make jaunts off of places like Duna. Advanced Rocketry/General Construction ==> Fuel Systems/Advanced Construction/Heavy Rocketry ==> Heavier Rocketry/Specialized Control ==> Nuclear Propulsion 3) I like planting flags, but they end up cluttering the map and the space center, is there any way to toggle them on/off? Not directly, but you can hide them by clicking other icons in the map view. This works in flight and in the tracking station. 4) What tech do I need to get so I can make a basic rover? (Step by Step unlocks would be great) Wheels are the biggie here, and they become available with Field Science: Starting Tech ==> Basic Rocketry ==> Stability/Survivability ==> Flight Control / Science Tech ==> Electrics / Space Exploration / Landing ==> Advanced Exploration/ Advanced Landing ==> Field Science The big wheels are one step above Field Science, at Advanced Motors. That's a Tier 7 Tech so expect to have to save up a metric [RABBIT SANDWICH....MMM, RABBIT SANDWICH]tonne of Science before you get there. You'll unlock the other parts you're going to want for rovers along the way, unless you're like me and sometimes like to put RTGs on there too. From Electrics, the path is Electrics ==> Advanced Electrics ==> Large Electrics / Electronics ==> Specialized Electrics. Again, that's a Tier 7 tech, so we're killing moar fluffy bunnies here. 5) Is there a tech tree layout?, all searches I have done have brought up tree's relating to mods. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tech_tree -- The same one as jordanjay's link above, just without the redirect. The Mobile Processing Lab MPL-LG-2 is the only part missing from the list at the moment; I swear someone asked the question the other day of where it gets unlocked but I can't find it at the moment.

^^^ Incidentally, we should mention that Tsiolkovsky is Newton's Second Law. It's generally unrecognizable as such because it has been modified to account for the variable mass of the system (i.e. the fact you have to burn fuel to accelerate).

Hmm...okay, still need more information - a) is this a fresh install, do you have solar panels and/or batteries installed along with the antenna? You need an antenna to transmit and the Communotron 16 will do the trick (it's just got the slowest transmission rate of the three antennas). At this point a screenshot or two would not go amiss. One that shows us the general design of the probes you're talking about, and one that shows what happens when you attempt an experiment.

The game saves automatically when you go back to the space center. It also does a periodic autosave as long as you're not in the middle of a burn, in order to prevent the risk of global catastrophe whenever your power goes out immediately after you've just finished doing a thirty-minute burn...

(Makes me wonder if both are Wing Commander references...)

Kuesos? Quesos? Mmm...queso....... #homer

My 4-year old son has asked me where you can find Jool in the night sky before. He also wonders when the developers are going to add Arde and Binbin to the game still.

My vote's for Kerbucks; if not, they could at least use that for the name of their main supplier of koffee (kaffeine?)

We need more information here - from the gist of the message, I'm assuming you've been sending out probes with Goo Containers and/or Science Jr units and transmitting the data back to Kerbin repeatedly, which you can't do in 0.23 anymore because the experiments now require harvesting and resetting by Kerbals unless you recover them. Is that correct? Assuming that is the case, I'm sorry to say that you're out of luck; its "nearby Kerballed space station" time. The other sci instruments should still work normally, though.

Alrighty - math time!! We've got your two payloads, 4 tons and 10 tons. Now, let's stick an orange tank and a single nuke underneath each one. Nukes come in at 2.25 tonnes, and orange tank is 36 tonnes full and 4 tonnes empty, and we're in space so the nuke's Isp is 800s. Plug in to Tsiolkovsky - 4 tonnes payload + 36 tonnes full + 2.25 tonnes engine = 42.25 tonnes total. 4 tonnes payload + 4 tonnes empty + 2.25 tonnes engine = 10.25 tonnes dry. dV = ln (M/Mo) * Isp * Go = ln(42.25/10.25) * 800 * 9.81 = ln(4.12195) * 7848 = 11,115.33 m/s 10 tonnes payload + 36 tonnes full + 2.25 tonnes engine = 48.25 tonnes total. 10 tonnes payload + 4 tonnes empty + 2.25 tonnes engine = 16.25 tonnes dry. dV = ln (M/Mo) * Isp * Go = ln(48.25/16.25) * 800 * 9.81 = ln(2.96923) * 7848 = 8,541.00 m/s Note that we've changed nothing else - just the payload mass. The net result: an extra six tonnes of payload cost you 2500 m/s of delta-V. As far as the notion of "sometimes it's better to have a stronger engine than more fuel", I say no, it's better to have the most fuel efficient engine you can muster that'll do the job you want while adding the least amount of mass (translation: a real NERVA - one that has better thrust and is more efficient than any chemical rocket - instead of the one that the developers added to KSP for purposes of game balance). Okay - case in point. Let's trade out that NERVA for a Poodle. Comparable weight (only a quarter tonne more) and way moar thrust (almost four times as much). It's Isp in space is only 390 as opposed to the LV-N's 800. So for the ten tonne payload you get: dV = ln (M/Mo) * Isp * Go = ln(48.5/16.5) * 390 * 9.81 = ln(2.93939) * 3825.9 = 4,125.098 m/s You haven't jacked with the mass all that terribly much and you've nearly quadrupled your thrust. But because the engine is significantly less efficient, you've halved your delta-V. Thrust-vs-delta-V is always a tradeoff in space, and in most cases the more important factor by far is delta-V. Adding a second, identical engine? That decreases your delta-V - you've reduced the mass ratio while not making the rocket any more efficient (same thing as you would've done by upping the payload - the second engine adds "dead mass"; the only class of part that doesn't add dead mass is fuel tanks). A lot of people add more engines anyway - my own Ranger-series rockets utilize four NERVAs - because they don't like to have to thrust for an hour to get to where they're going, and that's fair. All you really can do though is find a balance that works for you and then go with it.

Migrated my 0.22 sandbox and career save games over to 0.23, redesigned the Ranger Able mission and launched the second attempt to Dres. Enhanced Nav Ball, Kerbal Alarm Clock and Protractor switched over without problems; I'll need to do a fresh reinstall of KER. I've got an intercept with Dres but I'm not too keen on how much delta-V I've got left for the orbital insertion burn. Going to be making another attempt to send a satellite to Moho soon; wish me luck.

First, don't panic. You can still pull off a rescue mission; Jeb's suit won't run out of air or anything like that. Just have him cling to the outside of the hatch and he should be fine. I'm assuming you're low down on the tech tree - let's say Basic Rocketry only. If you're higher up that that, great. A two-Kerbal craft with 6,375 m/s of total delta-V oughta be able to do the trick (actually, that's way more than what you need, but I want to make sure there's a good fudge factor there). That's pretty easily designed - for your Mün stage, you need two Mk-1 Command Pods, a Mk-16 Chute, (if you have Survivability though, by all means change that to two radial chutes for extra safety), a TR-18A decoupler, an FL-T400 and an LV-T30 engine (put the tank and the engine below the decoupler; you want to blow them loose for landing). That should get you 1,784 m/s of delta-V; you only need 1,480 to get to the Mün and back. Add an FL-T100 only if you think you need more fuel. The booster will be the tricky bit; your Mün stage comes in at 5.15 tonnes. I'm calculating that a single-stage rocket would require 4 LV-T30s at a minimum to get that into orbit; each engine would require a stack of seven FL-T400s. As a three serial-stage booster, you'd want one LV-T30 in the upper stage, two in the middle and three in the lower stage - fuel requirements for each stage are 9, 19 and 39 FL-T100 equivalents each; I anticipate that one would be a tall rocket no matter what. Launch with Bob in one capsule and leave the other empty. Once you're up, make your Mün transfer. Once in Münar orbit, target Jeb's ship. Burn normal at the descending node or anti-normal at the ascending node to zero out your plane. Then set up a maneuver node at the next apsis. Pull prograde; if the projected distance between you and the target decreases, keep pulling until you get a close intercept (within 2 kilometers, closer is better). If the distance increases, stop and pull retrograde - be careful that you don't put your periapsis below 10 kilometers. If you can't get an intercept, wait until the other apsis and try again. Burn as the node indicates. Once you're within two kilometers, you need to do the old stop-reaim-start trick at decreasing distances; you can't dock, obviously, but treat it as a docking approach anyway. Once you're within a comfortable distance, have Jeb jetpack over to the rescue ship. From there, set up a standard Münar return and fire up the engine when you're ready. If you run out of gas before closing the periapsis to within Kerbin's atmosphere, decouple the command pods from the engine pack and have one of the two Kerbonauts get out and push. Good luck. EDIT: Missed the bit where you couldn't get Jeb out of the pod. That's an issue - same design, but instead of two Command Pods, try one command pod with some modular girder adapters on the end arranged in a claw shape. And even moar luck...

Went against my usual policy of waiting a few days to download a new version and got 0.23 last night. I don't think I tweaked the graphics settings properly; so far its performance has been the worst yet on my box. Will try again tonight. Did the usual spamming around the launch pad to get enough sci points to unlock Tier 1 and two of the Tier 2 level techs. Tonight I might actually go to space.

You might find it easier to attach a pod to the bottom of a Stayputnik, but yes it will work. The main concern you'll have in that case is keeping the Stayputnik powered, though unless I'm mistaken if you have the Stayputnik you should have batteries at least (I'd look but everybody's crashed the servers at the moment and the wiki's out of commission as well). If you need design help, holler - and let us know what tech's you've unlocked so far.

@OP: I'ma thinkin' that your issue is more likely with how you're piloting rather than your overall design, but to be sure, could you post a pic of a rocket you've used to try to get to Duna? Getting to other worlds differs from getting to Mün/Minmus in that you can't just go any time you want to. You have to wait for certain "launch windows" that correspond with the target being at a certain "phase angle" - if you don't, the delta-V requirements rapidly go up. You also want to set your maneuver node to eject either at Kerbin sunrise (for Moho/Eve) or sunset (for every other world, and hopefully I don't have that backwards). Finally, you need to plan to do a correction burn at some point along your route; usually this is best done at either the ascending or descending node, and like a docking maneuver you want to get that value down as close to zero as you can. Think of an interplanetary transfer as a hole of golf - you do a long drive to tee off, you do one or more corrective drives to get you on the green, and then you put to get it in the hole. Same thing - a long drive to get you at least close to your target, correction burns to put you in the SOI, and then final corrective burns to put your periapsis where you want it. Naturally, the sooner you get your periapsis where you want it, the better (you spend less delta-V that way). A good site for planning launch windows is http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ - it generates porkchop plots and tells you when you should go and how much delta-V you should plan for. Credentials - I've been to Duna and back on kerballed missions three times now; the last time I took six Kerbals there...