capi3101

Yeah, I still add those. Usually I tack on a Sepratron or two to make sure the cockpit gets clear of the plane, and then chutes for the descent. Such a system saved Jeb just the other day...

I fly a little differently; I still do my gravity turn - 45 degrees on 090 at 10,000 meters - but what I do is watch my time to apoapsis after that point. Once it gets to 45 seconds I start tilting more towards the horizon, and I try to keep it right there at 45 seconds for as long as I can. I usually at some point wind up flying horizontal - this has the benefit of raising my periapsis while I'm still in the ascent (i.e. both are going up simultaneously). What happens is that when you do finally call MECO and coast on up into space, your periapsis is already around 25-30k, which means the circularization burn generally takes less than 100 m/s of delta-V; I have on occasion had a circularization burn of less than 10 m/s.

I might suggest LoadOnDemand; it changes the game's startup procedure to load up meshes only and loads texture thumbnails - which are way smaller in size than the full texture images - at startup. It's only when the full texture is required that it loads that full texture up into memory, and it unloads it from memory when it's no longer needed. I use it myself; it has shortened the game's load-up time for me considerably. Other than that I haven't got any suggestions to offer other than what's already been recommended by other folks.

I think my instance of LOD was getting stuck in a load/unload cycle the other night - it was working up to a point but eventually caused the game to hang and I had to close it out. I've got my log file; here's the link.

Are the old swept wings still in the game? I must've seriously missed those things somehow......and before any of y'all say anything, I've unlocked the whole tech tree at this point. JebNeedsHelp - minor suggestion, replace the Mk1 Cockpit with a Mk1 Inline and stick a Shock Cone Intake on the nose (or better yet, a Ram Air Intake). Your RAPIER won't be dependent on oxidizer to run that way - which means your plane will have greater overall endurance. She still won't be spaceworthy with just a single intake, but at least you'll be able to make touch-and-gos on the runway. (Well, she might be spaceworthy - I'd have to test it out my own self - but I'd imagine it'd switch over to rocket mode too low). I might also suggest replacing that Tail Fin with something that gives you some rudder...an AV-R8 weighs just as much but would give you that yaw authority. Heck, a Delta-Deluxe Winglet would give you some rudder without messing up the overall look of the plane all that much. Strictly speaking a rudder isn't necessary, but it does have its uses. Not much accomplished in KSP last night. Planted a flag for cash. Launched Jeb on a trip to Minmus. At this point I've wound up with a flotilla headed to Minmus - a space station and ground base (for FinePrint contracts) and Jeb's "science = money" mission.

I agree - I usually make a beeline for the science instruments first. The Gravioli Detector yields a large amount of science in and of itself. After that, it really's a matter of your own gameplay preferences. I'd say the nuke if you want to go to Duna or Eve soon, the Turbojet if you're wanting to stay local for the time being. Ion Propulsion is usually what I unlock dead last in the whole tech tree; anything an ion engine can do, a regular rocket or spaceplane engine can generally do faster.

Yesterday I built a couple of booster designs. Then I decided to fulfill a couple of FinePrint aerial survey contracts that I'd been putting off for a while - so I designed the mighty Peacock 7 and launched it on it's maiden voyage of global exploration; I figured I'd make the design spaceworthy in case I wanted the extra speed, so I used R.A.P.I.E.R. engines. Design had a atmospheric flight ceiling of a little over 29,000 meters and, as I discovered a couple of times, it was still controllable with the starboard engine flamed out (two inline stabilizer and two reaction wheels in a cargo bay up by the cockpit). The nav points took me over Kerbin's south pole... ...and once those were taken care off I did a set that was pretty much completely on the otherside of Kerbin from KSC - NavUtilities was telling me to steer 278 to get to KSC; I firmly headed 090 and eventually it started agreeing with me. On the way back to KSC, I caught a partial solar eclipse. Landed at KSC successfully with 153 units of LF still in the tank - a 9.87% fuel reserve. The landing itself was a tad ugly - on the runway though well left of the center of the strip - but nothing broke. Did finally dump all the oxidizer when it became clear I wasn't going to need any more of it.

OP, did a mission last night to fulfill a FinePrint contract with the nav points on the far side of Kerbin. Took me a literal full hour of flying time for the whole mission, started at KSC 09 and landed at KSC 09 (i.e. wound up circumnavigating the planet). I handled it by going high (25,000-29,000), which let me get my speed up to around 1600-1800. Wound up circumnavigating the planet. So yeah, I'd recommend going high to get to where you're going, then descending to the target altitude range once you're approaching the area. Definitely the most flying I've done so far. Way more entertaining than the longest I've ever driven with a rover (100 kilometers over the ice caps of Duna).

OP, I went ahead and threw together those lifter designs I mentioned in my previous post for your consideration: This is the asparagus-staged lifter design. 3 pairs of boosters and a Skipper engine the core, with the Skipper set to about 92% thrust and the LV-T30 engines set to about 87% or so. You could use the engines at full thrust but then you'd lose some delta-V to atmospheric drag. The design was still capable of making orbit when I increased the NREP testing payload to 30 tonnes (though naturally I had to turn the engines back up to full). This is the SSR design. My original specifications called for five stacks of triple-orange tanks, a short tank and Mainsails; KER assured me that I could make orbit with just three instead. And I did - went ahead and flew it on up... That design handled 25 tonnes okay, though as you can see in the original screenie, the TWR is right there at 1.2, which in my experience is the minimum acceptable TWR for a rocket launch. If you go with a heavier payload there, you might want to add those fourth and fifth stacks. You can also see the price difference between the two boosters - the asparagus is actually cheaper. The steering on the SSR also blows once the engines are off; you'd probably want to add a Roundified tank or two and RCS blocks. As far as using nukes go, you can use them as a main ascent engine if what you're building is small, like a long-range science probe; even then the crummy TWR is generally a factor. They're still probably best reserved for interplanetary flight, or maybe for orbital insertion - when thrust isn't as important as efficiency.

Sorry about that. Uh....I'm at work so I can't build the boosters and show them to you outright, but I can link you to the images on the wiki so you at least have a notion of what I'm talking about. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/images/9/9c/Skipper.pngSkipper Engine http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/images/3/35/TVR-200L_Stack_Bi-Adapter.png Bi-Adapter http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/images/thumb/9/98/LV-T30_Liquid_Fuel_Engine_recent.png/285px-LV-T30_Liquid_Fuel_Engine_recent.png LV-T30 http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/images/thumb/9/9e/X200-32_FT.png/600px-X200-32_FT.png X200-32 http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/images/1/17/Rockomax_Mainsail_transparent.png Mainsail Engine http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/images/thumb/1/1f/Big1.png/252px-Big1.png KR-2L

May want to check to make sure those lander legs stick down past the engine bells of the nukes on the new design - that's one major disadvantage of using the nukes as lander engines. New design...I'm seeing an inline stabilizer, rocko adapter 2, eight OX-STAT panels, 4 Z-400 batteries, 4 PB-NUKs, an X200-8, a Mk-2 lander can, three FASA bits, three standard NCs, three nukes and three LT-2s. Should be a little over fifteen tonnes of lander - let's say sixteen because I don't known what those FASA bits are). Somewhere around 2400 m/s of delta-V total with 180 kN of thrust, or about 6.9 TWR for Mun landings. A tad short for making it to Mun on its own, though it should be capable of landing on Mun, taking off and making it back to Kerbin by itself. Transfer stage - based on the mass of your new lander, a transfer stage consisting of a Rockomax Decoupler, a single X200-16 tank and a Poodle engine should give you what you need. You can add a probe core to guide it into a Munar impact when you're done with it if you so choose; the x200-16 actually gives you a fair amount more fuel than you really need for the job. With that lander and that transfer stage, you're up to twenty-five tonnes of payload, give or take. For the booster - A 4STOa (four stage asparagus design - that's a core and three pairs of boosters) for that payload would require about 2690 kN of thrust, 592.9 in the core and 350.35 on the sides. A core consisting of a single Skipper set at 92% thrust should do the trick. For the boosters, you can use a Bi-Adapter with two LV-T30s (set at 81.5% thrust) each for 2.6 tonnes a pop - which will give you some mass savings over a Skipper there. A single X200-32 tank in each stack (core + boosters) should give you the fuel you need to make orbit (actually the X200-32 is about half-a-tonne too heavy, but you can set the engines for slightly higher thrust levels to offset the extra mass). For a SSR (single stage rocket) instead - you'll want 7350 kN of thrust, which you can get with five Mainsails or three KR-2Ls firing in concert; I'd recommend the Mainsails as they're the lighter option. Five stacks (with three orange tanks and an X200-8 each) should do the trick. You've still got way more power generation than you need on that lander - the four PB-NUKs by themselves would do the trick regardless of location, while the batts and panels would be the lighter option.

It's great fun; in my case a repair mission was only a possibility because I use KAS. It was necessary because I forgot a single, tiny part. Had to send up a manned spaceplane just to deliver that one piece. Just like a real space program... That's a nice looking helo there. Looking forward to the 0.25 version of your guide, BTW; are you finding the new Swept Wings to be way less useful than they used to be? I sure am. Either that or I'm using them wrong...

Hmm...I'm also trying to analyze your lander. The engines look like LV-T45s but it's almost like you've got them clipped through something (which I can't identify). Looks like an oversized Aerodynamic nosecone with more power generation than you'll ever need, a Mk2 lander can, a Z-4k battry, a large ASAS module, an X200-8 fuel tank, four LT-2 laner legs, I'ma gonna go with four LV-T45s, 4 pieces of some kind of structural fuselage, 4 inline stabilizers and 4 oversized standard NC cones, plus the rover (which looks like a rovemate, okto2, 2 Z-400 batteries, a shielded solar panel, a gravioli detector, 2 small antennas and six shopping cart wheels) held on with a girder and a TR-18A. I'd be willing to bet it's that shielded solar panel giving you your steering issues, but that's just a hunch. Where is the center of mass of the rover in relation to the center of mass of the lander? How close am I on the parts, too? If I've got them right, we can discuss launch vehicle design too.

This morning I can report that after eleven days in space the mission of the Auk IVx2 spaceplane to repair the design flaws of the Moneymaker 7 probe was a success. Bill made a successful rendezvous with the probe (which is in an orbit between Mun and Minmus) and performed a very fast spacewalk to transfer the missing part - an antenna - to the probe. He's since made a retro burn that should put the craft in a 100x33 orbit after aerobraking, which he'll then circularize so he can make preparation to land the Auk back at KSC. All's gone according to plan with that mission so far. Now, as long as I don't botch the landing... I also brought the Storax Sedan rocket design out of mothballs to deliver a pair of Hellhound 7 rovers to the Mun for a FinePrint exploration contract. There's a design I should've left in mothballs - it's from 0.20, if that tells any of y'all anything (read: complex engine clusters). Had to use the payload's fuel to finish the ascent and definitely missed having that fuel when the lander ran out of gas 400 meters above the Munar surface. Granted, I did burn up a fair amount making the course corrections necessary to get a landing close to the target area. Lithobraked at 40 m/s, but the 'hounds are designed to take a serious licking. Blew off the drop probes on impact and bounced; I was able to turn around and blow the other set of drop probes before the whole thing finally settled, upside down, on the surface. Fortunately, the way the craft was designed, landing upside down actually helped the rover deployment - both rovers arrived intact and I was able to deploy one of them right-side up to conduct the mission (the other one wound up deploying upside down, unfortunately, and that design has no self-righting mechanisms). I was maybe five clicks from the target area, and was able to complete the contract with the intact rover. Pretty expensive all told, but I got close to 1500 science just from that one contract, so it was worth it. Also put another probe into a wonky orbit for FinePrint. That's starting to become old hat. I find I need to get my reputation up at this point so I can switch over from science production to funding production; going to be necessary I think if I'm going to shoot for Duna any time in the near future.

You should be able to stack the landers one on top of the other; only reason I can think of why you wouldn't be able to do that would be if there was something on the bottom of the lander that wouldn't allow an attachment (like an Aerospike engine, for example). If that's the case, the Hubmax idea would probably do you well, or perhaps sticking a quad of BZ-52s on the sides of the transfer stage and then attaching the landers to those. Maybe with a girder if they need to stick out a little bit. You'll have to strut the landers in place but that should be readily doable.

Going to point the OP to '>Temstar's principles on building successful asparagus-staged rockets. It's from 0.20 so a few things have changed, the big one being that instead of using an engine cluster you can get away with thrust-limiting a single engine that would otherwise be more powerful than you need. The underlying math is still solid, though. As for lander design, you might try emulating Geschosskopf's design; that's good for collecting science. Underlying principle there - build a lander wide instead of tall, and make sure it's symmetrical (as others have said). SAS also helps, but only so much if your CoT and CoM are misaligned.

I too use FinePrint (I figured I should get used to it since it'll be stock in 0.90, and it has given me some interesting contracts). I did wait until I had Turbojets to start fulfilling those contracts - though for low altitude flight there's nothing terribly wrong with the Basic Jet Engine). I've been going high for those ones that aren't in the immediate vicinity of KSC; I pretty much build my planes like I would if I were taking it to space, get it up to speed in atmo and just fly. You don't have to be at the target altitude until you're over the target, so you might as well go fast. Now, landing after those missions has proven problematic for me, but that's my own issue...

Yesterday I took my Hellhound 7 rover out of mothballs - finally had enough tech unlocked in my career save to bring it out - and used it to set up an ILS to compliment the one I get from NavUtilities. Flew the Penguin 7 on a test run. Still managed to crash land the damn thing...though this one may very well have been my fault. NavUtilities was telling me I was too low, and I did plow in to the end of the hill right there by the runway. Fortunately I only tore off the engine and tail fin; the rest of the plane stayed intact and Jeb survived the ride. Sent a nine-Kerbal capacity/lab equipped base in the direction of Minmus for a fat FinePrint contract. Also put up another satellite in keosynchronous orbit, again for a FinePrint contract; that one went quick and thanks to the science I gained there I was able to unlock the rest of the tech tree. Going to get some more science before I switch the strategies over to favor more funding. I've still got a Duna/Ike contract to fulfill.

Had a busy night last night. Redesigned my spaceplane from the night before to something the numbers said should work better with no frills and launched Bill in it. He's currently scheduled to rendezvous with a satellite out past the Mun's orbit in seven days; I'm hoping he has the delta-V to make it back to Kerbin at this point, and if he does he should have enough fuel to maneuver in the atmo once he gets back. I was farting around with this mission most of the night from time to time, doing other things and coming back to it as necessary. Retreived Camman Kerbin from orbit with Jeb in the Chickenhawk 7. Folded the approach on the runway. Tore off a wing but balanced. Slammed on the brakes. Tore off the other wing. Went off the end of the runway at 20 m/s. Picked up speed once I hit the slope. Hit the water at 12 m/s. Ripped off the R.A.P.I.E.R. Discovered a Mk-2 Cockpit makes a pretty cool looking boat in and of itself. I wish I'd taken a screenie... Took Jeb up again in a survey plane for a FinePrint contract, hit the nav points and came around to land on the runway. Was doing fine but bobbled on final and instead of coming around for another pass (like a real pilot would've done; I still had plenty of fuel) I tried to force it, folded the landing and tore a wing off. Jeb ejected safely this time while his plane slammed into one of the R&D buildings. Fortunately the damn thing didn't destroy anything. So far I haven't seen much of the purported savings you usually see when it comes to spaceplanes...I'm thinking I need to set out my usual ILS in addition to using NavUtilities. At this point I've got enough tech unlocked to unleash the Hellhound on the world. Also set up a nine-Kerbal space station and a satellite in a funny orbit around Mun, again for FinePrint contracts. Actually read the instructions this time on the satellite; no repair missions needed for that one...

OP, your box as is should be capable of running KSP just fine. You may want to check to see what processes you've got running in the background. My own box is ultra-low end (an Athlon-II Dual Core at 2.9 GHz, 2 GB memory with an nVidia 7000-equivalent video card on-board). I've had luck with a mod called LoadOnDemand, which you might want to check out if you're really having severe issues. It basically loads up thumbnail textures in place of the standard textures KSP uses for parts, and manages when you need the standard texture (as opposed to loading them all into memory when the game first loads). It speeds up load times considerably. Other thing I'll say is "watch your part count". Most folks really start getting lag around 400 parts or so.

I can't offer any advice that hasn't already been offered to you, so I won't. Which is not helpful, I know... If you can't (or don't want to) provide a screenshot, can you at least describe the parts you're using to us? Is it a design like Razor235 described (i.e. a very basic lander design)? If so, try attaching a quad of modular girder segments on the sides of the tank and attaching the legs to those; it'll widen your base and help with stability issues. And watch your piloting.

I meant in regard to the pressure profile; the programmers have used the notion of "ideal atmosphere" in that regard. Kerbin doesn't have weather in the stock game (obviously) and that's probably a good thing - you'd wind up with a bunch of complications that wouldn't add much to gameplay (besides frustration, I mean). Though trying to land a spaceplane in the middle of a severe thunderstorm with 50 knots of wind shear might be interesting to try once or twice.

Last night was frustrating. The redesign of the Auk-IV did not go as planned; I wound up with a craft that was four tonnes heavier and far less capable than the original, which made it as far as 30 kilometers before flaming out but only made it that far by my lighting the nukes at takeoff for extra thrust. I did calculate that I didn't have enough thrust for the increased mass - I guess that shows that the calculations were sound. I've also been plagued with ongoing issues with my mouse on that particular box and they were really hitting hard last night, so construction itself was a chore (middle click is fine, right click is fine, left click either doesn't register or registers twice - and it's a brand-new mouse, which I got because the previous one was doing the exact same thing; changing USB ports didn't help). Doesn't help when the computer registers a double click and immediately takes off that bit you just spent twenty seconds getting into just the right spot... Still haven't figured out why I wound up four tonnes heavier. I imagine it may have had something to do with part redesigns since 0.23, but I won't know for sure without doing research.

Kerbin's atmospheric pressure decreases exponentially with height, just like Earth's. In fact the profile is almost exactly like Earth's, assuming the mesopause is the "top" of the atmosphere at 70 kilometers. DeMatt's given you the formula for calculating Kerbin's atmospheric pressure with height; you can generate a graph with that in a program like MS Excel or OpenOffice Calc.

True. Keptin's guide is a good explanation of the basics and a great place for beginners. DocMoriarty's guide is more for when you're ready to start making your planes actually do something; I find it helpful for the hard numbers it gives on certain parts.