capi3101

I'll suggest steering with Staging Mode. Even with NavyFish's mod (which I've used all of once so far), all Docking Mode does is move the IJKL key commands over to WASD. I find it useful to have both rotational and translational controls available simultaneously. Okay, it does sound like your RCS thrusters are not balanced with the center of mass. That's really not all that big of an issue; when it comes to docking, you want to be using your command module torque for changing direction - it's for the reason you describe; RCS thrust will screw up your alignment if you use it for rotational control. Shut it off when you want you rotate; turn it on when you want to translate. Go into Chase View and use IJKL to translate as you need to - but remember that you will need to counter-thrust to brake your momentum when you're in position (if you've been pushing J, you'll need to push L for a bit later on, and vice versa, same goes for I and K). Thrust forward and backward with H and N and keep it slow (this close, I'd say less than 0.5 m/s relative). Push comes to shove, back off the target - 20 meters oughta be good enough to give you some room to maneuver - and try again. I'll assume you know the basics of docking, so I'll leave it at that, but ask more questions if you have them.

Downloaded NavyFish's Docking Indicator mod - that's right, now I'm running THREE mods. Decided I should try it out, so I launched an Igneo Globus 7 to dock at Mir. The mod's a lot more impressive when your graphics settings aren't turned way the hell down (like mine) but it's still usable, and despite not quite knowing what I was doing I successfully docked on the first try, no bouncing. Still trying to figure out how to use jet engines on rockets. I put a series of twelve jets on the sides of my new Thunderbolt Very Heavy 7, and KER said I had a sufficient TWR for takeoff, but even after waiting a good minute for the jets to spool up the ship went in the wrong direction every time I released it from the clamps. I'm now considering a more traditional solution. The Very Heavy (unlike the Superheavy and the Ultraheavy) doesn't have sufficient thrust to lift itself.

30s and 45s in concert usually work very well with one another - 30s provide power, 45s provide steering. In any design, the 45s work best centerline with the 30s outboard, particularly if you're using any kind of radial staging - the place you need the most thrust is at launch. By using both, you get the benefits of both. Even with larger rockets, those engines are good choices (best launch Isp of any of the smaller engine types except for Aerospikes, and the 'spikes have their own issues). Glad I could be of help.

7.5 meters would also consistent with Dave Kerbin's altimeter readings. @Dave: No, I actually wasn't sure; I was making the assumption that the altimeter gave you the elevation of the active command pod. Based on your observations as well as Kasuha's, though, that appears to be a valid assumption.

I don't know for sure. I was doing some experiments the other day where I was coming up with measurements around sixty meters, but it was proven that my methods weren't particularly accurate and I never did attempt to make a direct observation. If you're willing to do some empirical testing, it's pretty easy to get a good guestimate, though. 1) Put an OKTO2 on the pad (nothing else). Note the altimeter reading. 2) Revert to VAB. Slap Jumbo-64 on bottom of OKTO2 and put that out on the pad. Note the altimeter reading. 3) Subtract the first altimeter reading from the second. The difference is the height of the Jumbo.

Yeah...those look like LV-T30s solely on the booster (and SRBs of course). Good engine, but they don't offer any steering authority. Reaction wheels, fins, and consider trading out the engines you've got in the center with some LV-T45s (those vector and therefore give you some good steering authority).

Well, see fuel flow only goes one way. It's part of the nature of how KSP puts together rockets - its a tree-like structure, you have a root part and branches off of a part. I'd bet good money that you put the Tail Connector on the Jumbo before you added the FL-T800s, right? Well, as far as the game's concerned, the LV-T30s is a branch of the FL-T800 is a branch of the Tail connector is a branch of the Jumbo 64. The Mainsail is a branch of the Jumbo 64, and since it is on a separate branch from the Tail Connectors, it has no association with the FL-T800s. Thus, the furthest connecting fuel supply for the LV-T30s is the Jumbo64, and the furthest connecting fuel supply for the Mainsails (again, considering this root-branch relationship structure) is also the Jumbo64. Again I think that's what's going on; we'd all need to see a screenshot or a posted craft file to be absolutely 100% sure. Fuel lines from the 800s to the 64 incidentally will not solve the issue - thought I'd through that in there real quick. You wind up with a fuel loop as a result and KSP really doesn't know what to do with thems; you could get any kind of behavior out a loop, most often the fiery and destructive kind that makes Jeb happy then dead.

Really, you just need more practice. It took me a good dozen tries before I finally got it right, and there were times I wanted to put a discount brick through my computer right after a particularly spectacular lithobrake. It happens. Best you can do is try again - and use quicksave (F5) before you de-orbit. Hold down F9 to try again. Having said that, you must use your instruments - if you're going to use the camera at all, you need to make sure you're looking at the side of your ship, with the surface down, and then only use it as a cue for final touchdown. Because the camera lies otherwise. Key instruments are your speedometer (set for "Surface" - that's key; click on it if it says anything else), the navball (it'll be completely blue when you're vertical or close enough for jazz), and the radar altimeter in IVA (use it to judge the final elevation of the deck; be below 10 m/s when you get down there, and just check it occasionally). Design of the lander is also crucial - lights help to an extent, I-beams help a great deal actually, tall and narrow tips over while short and wide lands. How do you widen the lander? If you're using an FL-T400 for a tank, swap it out with four FL-T100s - one in the center and three outboard, and connect the outboard tanks with fuel lines. You've added no mass, but you've definitely widened the base. An Fl-800? Use four FL-T200s. A Rockomax 8? Tack on some FL-T100s to the sides, or hell - use structural fuselage, I-beams, live gerbils, whatever. That base needs to be wide. A pic of the lander or at least a brief description of it might give the rest of us some clues to give you more specific assistance. Not much else I can suggest; only other thing I can say is "good luck".

SAS on would've helped reduce the spin - reactivate the reaction wheels in the probe core and hit T. Also, is it still spinning when you exit the game and reload?

Pics would help. From the sound of it, though, your problem is indeed the tail connectors. Tail connectors allow fuel crossfeed, and an engine always draws fuel from the available source that's furthest away from it first - in the case of your -30s, since they can draw from the Jumbo and it's furthest away, that's where they'll draw first. Your best bet is to attach the 800s directly to the jumbos or, if that doesn't solve the problem (or if the VAB barfs at that idea), with radial decouplers (even if you don't intend to use them).

Yeah, pretty much you just work with the maneuver nodes once you're in the SOI until you've got an underground periapsis (it's a case where you might consider radial burns, much as they suck). Be prepared to do some serious braking on the way in...honestly not sure how much fuel you'll wind up saving.

Fuel does flow through girders and BZ-52s, believe it or not. ...except you've also got radial decouplers there, don't you? Have you tried tying the decouplers to an action group to disable crossfeed? Crossfeed should be disabled by default, but maybe something odd is going on in this case. Another possibility is that the game thinks your girders are directly attached to the orange tank and not the decoupler. Crack open your craft file, find the girders involved and see what they have as their root part. If they don't say anything about a decoupler, that's what's going on.

Built a small Mun lander just to see if it would fly; it did. 28 tonnes overall, 7300 m/s of delta-V. First time I skipped re-acheiving Munar orbit before burning for Kerbin; made it back with 5 units of fuel still in the tank (12 seconds left according to KER). Built a new interstellar tug in the Thunderbolt family. 160 tonnes, 11,500 m/s of delta-V unloaded. Still have to figure out how I'm gonna launch the SOB since I've been having problems using the Zenith subassemblies in 0.21, but that's a problem for another day (it'd be right at the mass limit of the Supernova anyway).

@Tavert - you're right, of course. I usually at least try to at least plan to go back to Munar orbit after I've landed most of the time; hence the extra fuel. I figure if I'm not in position to get a course to take me back to Kerbin right away, that buys me some time. Actually tried to fly the lander I suggested in my second to last post last night; made it to Mun and back but was skosh fuel - KER said I had 12 seconds left when I dumped everything but the chute and the can. Would've had my 3400 delta-V, but then I added lights - amazing how little it takes to knock 500 m/s off a design. First time I'd ever done a direct Mun takeoff to Kerbin aerobrake and landing (without achieving Munar orbit). My rocket was 28 tonnes on the pad, asparagus-5STO, LV-T45 in the center with an FL-T800, 48-7S engines outboard with FL-T400s mounted on TT-38-Ks and cubic octagonal struts. Lander was a Mk-1 Can, MK-16 chute, 4 FL-T100 tanks, six LT-5s, a 48-7S engine and three Illuminator Mk2s. Added 4 OX-STAT panels and a KER flight computer to the can. 9% payload ratio, so I could've done a LOT better job designing my asparagus, but at least it got the job done. Spikes provided too much thrust, 48-7S gave me about a 1.3 TWR on the pad. I have pics but I'm at work at the moment.

I too have had issues with the 'spikes before; I mainly had them picked out because of their high launch Isp. Don't know if using LV-T30s as a substitute will give you sufficient lower-stage delta-V or not (I'll say maybe, they will lower the mass by one tonne - their launch Isp is 320). I did calculate just under 2000 m/s of delta-V with the spikes. Maybe if you go with three. I dunno...I might have to build both versions just for the hell of it. Other folks: yeah, a pod this small is quite capable of a direct ascent mission - having to dock for a Mun trip really ain't necessary (whole point of the Doing it Gemini Style challenge, I believe...).

My understanding is that all the interesting stuff was buried underneath the surface with 0.21; I can confirm that's the case with the SSTO Pyramid (I've got a sci probe sitting right on top of the coordinates, there is no pyramid, but if I zoom into the ground I can listen to the signal). Just FYI.

It helps if you target the craft you want to dock with early - on the pad is ideal if your ship doesn't fall apart in the meantime (which is an indication of other problems that won't discussed here). Check your nodes during your ascent as often as you can; steer slightly northward or southward of 090 to adjust the nodes as necessary. I also find that waiting until the target is 450,000 m downrange of KSC before launching really shortens the time it takes to rendezvous; I can usually affect a rendezvous within an orbit or two. Okay - so one more time: 1) Launch with the target 450,000 m downrange of KSC. Put your apoapsis as close to the altitude of the target as you can. Fly north or south of 090 slightly to minimize the degree of the ascending/descending node. 2) Watch the encounter chevrons when you're setting up your maneuver node for orbital insertion. If you can get a close encounter, great, but make sure your apses are both out of the atmosphere. 3) Zero out the nodes. This means a burn to the north at the descending node or to the south at the ascending node. Go slow if you're on LOX - a single notch on the throttle is often a bit too much. If you can't zero it out in one go, go as low as you can, stop and try again at the next node. 4) Set up a maneuver node at the next apsis. Dink with the prograde vector and watch the encounter chevrons. If the distance decreases, keep pulling on it until it increases again. If it increases, stop pulling on it and start yanking on the retrograde vector. Get the distance as low as you can. 5) Set up another maneuver node at the next apsis and repeat #4. Expect lesser results. 5A) If playing around with a maneuver node at the next apsis doesn't generate appreciable results, try a maneuver node somewhere between the apses. Be prepared to try a radial adjustment - but don't do those just for jollies. 6) Physics engine kicks in once the target's distance is down to 2,250 m. You know docking - so I won't go into that bit. In fact, most of this seems to be superfluous since you're just having issues with plane changes, but it might still be useful to someone.

Tavert's design comes in around 2.58 tonnes if I'm not mistaken. 2989 m/s of delta-V is what I'm getting for the design...which seems a touch on the low side to me. Just saying a fourth FL-T100 would give just shy of another 500 m/s of delta-V and the Munar TWR would still be up around four. You could spread the four tanks out (one centerline, three outboard) and connect them with struts/fuel lines to widen and shorten the lander; always a good thing when it comes to Mun landings. Just crunched the numbers on an onion-DSTO - came up with 36.35 tonnes total and I'm pretty sure the Kerbin TWR is way too high. LV-T45 in the center with four outboard Aerospikes, an FL-T400 and FL-T800 in the center and FL-T800s outboard. Might have to crunch the numbers on fewer outboard engines.

I think Alexmoon's Launch Window Calculator is your best bet - it tells you day of departure, day of arrival and time of transit. What you can do then is plug in the information for the initial transit, get the day of arrival, and then plug <i>that</i> day in as the earliest date for the return leg (often there's a long period between the day you arrive at a different planet and the day you leave). Plan the mission to take at least as long as the day of arrival back at Kerbin on the return leg, and add a little more as a reserve (maybe 5-10% or so).

...just a thought, but how are you doing your Mun landing? I used to have the same problem - running out of gas with a rocket that should've been able to make it there and back without any problems - and it turned out that how I was landing was the issue. Could you walk us through how you typically perform a landing? How much gas is left in the tank once you're on the deck, typically?

So you're not getting an encounter with Duna, though it's in phase. Okay - this is a fairly common problem, and you have to treat it like a game of golf a bit. So what you need to do is make sure you set your maneuver node about 150 degrees from the prograde direction of Kerbin's orbit (about the 5:00 position or so). Start yankin' on the prograde marker until you get a Kerbin escape. Zoom out, and keep pullin. Eventually when your path starts crossing Duna's orbit, you'll see the little encounter chevrons appear (provided you've selected Duna as your target, of course). At that point, you're going to want to see what happens to the distance of closest approach when you fiddle with the node further. If you pull prograde more and the distance decreases, great. If you pull prograde and the distance increases, pull retrograde. I find that I often have to pull radial-in burns to get an encounter with Duna; that can be avoided by adjusting the position of the maneuver node itself, but you have to zoom all the way back down to your orbit around Kerbin to do that. I'll just say if you can avoid a radial burn, good. Now, Duna is in a slightly different orbital plane that Kerbin, so you should also play with the normal/anti-normal nodes as well. If you can't get an encounter on your first go but are getting awfully close, or if you do get one, pull your burn and discover after the burn that you don't have a Duna encounter anymore, DON'T PANIC. Hitting another planet is kinda like a game of golf - you've teed off, now you just need to evaluate where you are and plan what you need to do to get on the green (in this case, in the target's SOI). That means a correction burn. There's no shame in correction burns; hell, NASA did that all the time with Apollo. Same deal - though the earlier you set up the correction burn, the less delta-V you tend to spend in the process. Me, I wait until the ascending/descending node regardless of where that's at. Same deal - set up the node, play with it and see what it does with your orbit. Oftentimes you won't need more than 100 m/s of delta-V to correct. That's about all the advise I can give you. Only other thing I would mention is that until you get it down pat, pack some extra delta-V into your transfer stage...maybe as much as 150% of the amount indicated by the wiki's delta-V map. The delta-V map assumes optimal conditions/a best case scenario, which a novice is not going to be able to affect (not without mods anyway). Extra fuel gives you room to screw up and still get there and back. Worry more about optimizing things when your skill has improved. Aerobraking for Duna works well at 12,500 m. Don't go below 11,000 or you're going in whether you want to or not. Good luck.

Bought a can of compressed air. Didn't have time to use it. Contemplated playing a few hands of KCP...

To be honest, my answer was bothering me for most of the weekend...it is based on several assumptions, foremost that the density of the fuel was roughly equivalent to water (not a bad assumption necessarily as it turns out - kerosene has an average density of 0.8 g/cc and liquid oxygen is 1.141 g/cc; a 9:11 ratio would give a fuel mixture that's got a density of about .988 g/cc and water is 1 g/cc under standard conditions - learned that the first year of meteorology school at OU). One milliliter does equal one cubic centimeter by definition, that's a given - you can look that up under "cubic centimetre" at Wikipedia. Let's test the validity of my math... okay, by definition, density equals mass per volume and we're dealing with the volume of a cylinder, which is pi*radius^2*height. Forumlae here: rho = m/V, V=Àr^2h, thus rho = m/Àr^2h. Solve for h: h*rho = m/Àr^2, h = m/Àr^2(rho) Let's look for the heights of the X200-8 and FL-T800 tanks (both contain 800 units) For the FL-T800: h = 800u/À*(0.5m)^2*(1u/.005m^3) = 800u / (157.0796u/m) = 5.09 m For the X200-32: h = 800u/À*(1m)^2*(1u/.005m^3) = 800u/ (628.31 u/m) = 1.27 m I know that's wrong... Looking at the wiki this morning, I might've made a bad assumption just then with the radii. Let's try those "actual size" figures instead. For the FL-T800: h = 800u/À*(0.625m)^2*(1u/.005m^3) = 800u / (245.4369u/m) = 3.26 m For the X200-32: h = 800u/À*(1.25m)^2*(1u/.005m^3) = 800u/ (981.7477 u/m) = 0.81 m Also wrong... At this point I'd suggest the OP go with the information that's already been linked to this thread; so much for my valiant attempts at answering the question correctly... @Kerbart: You do know you linked the entry for the X200-8, right? I see nothing wrong with your math, necessarily, but that may be a point of confusion for some. Might want to edit that post.

My computer started spontaneously shutting down when I was playing little pud Flash games, so I'm thinking I'm going to hold off on playing KSP for a while (at least until I can get into my box with a can of air to clean all the dust out of it). Hopefully that'll happen soon; it's a busy week ahead of me and I doubt I'd have much time to play anyway (which sucks, considering I've still got Jeb, Bob and Bill still waiting to land on Duna).

That station would have serious balancing issues on a standard launch (as you're no doubt totally aware by now). Yeah...only options I can see if you insist on getting it in orbit in one piece are to either hyperedit it up there or hack gravity. Hacking gravity would at least give you the satisfaction of a "genuine" launch. Even then, I couldn't guarantee the station would survive the stress of it.