Sorcie

Take off the engine fairing in the engine option.

lol...

You can lower your orbit before deorbiting to help a little tiny bit. There is no way unless you did like some crazy math. I used MechJeb for these functions in KSP 1. It had a landing simulation for aerobraking and landing. It could deorbit you for a relatively accurate atmospheric re-entry (and land completely if you let it). I think we're left shooting from the hip for now. F5 and F9 time!

Here's the list of points I got from your post: Help creating rockets that aren't getting too long. Help with scaling up rocket designs. Advise on rocket width vs length aspects Try Scott's Video below or hit me up and I would be more than willing to demo a build. There's too much to express in a forum post. Advice on other engine types Nuclear and Ion are awesome just harder to use. Haven't tried new KSP 2 engines. Help with reducing rotation during launch Turn off gimbal on all external engines off the core. Put more reaction wheels on the core. Avoid 4x symmetry until necessary. Help designing sleek purposeful interplanetary missions Practice and build with purpose according to a good plan. KSP1/KSP2 Sub-Assembly usage I use it for Rovers and avoid redocking for missions when possible. Simulate any scenario in the VAB for your mission plans. The sub-assemblies help with this in KSP 1. I love building in KSP 1. I really really want to help but there's literally so much to say here it would require actual demonstration. I've been playing KSP 2 a little but it's just so buggy I can't build anything serious. I typed on this for a while and just gave up. Message me I'll give you a personal discord tutorial on my building style methods if you want. Try digging through Scott Manley's video library I'm sure he has something back in the day with some build strategy. Here's Scott showing some basic and advanced discussion about ascent design. I have no idea your experience or knowledge level so yeah! Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZMkQvbk0zw&list=PLYu7z3I8tdEm5nyZU3a-O2ak6mBYXWPAL&index=6

I battled with this with hours trying to figure it out. It appears that when the medium decouplers are not decoupling it's due to the engine fairing . I built a test stand and made medium and small decoupler tests with 4x symmetry. One of the medium decouplers would always have a decoupler stage stick and not work proper. Finally I figured out if you turn off the engine fairing the issue seems to be resolved. Can someone back this up with their own testing and spread the good word.

LOL Clouds in two days

I have had this bug here and there since I started playing in 2013. I have also had it recently. Removing a part results in the attachment node of the receiving part, to disappear. Generally if I undo the part attachment, attach a new version just to be safe, then test it by removing it from the part again. Sometimes you can duplicate it and the node still disappears, but sometimes it doesn't.

I didn't like the SPH and planes previously but been playing a long time and in SPH a lot lately. Any time I have takeoff wobble and bad pull to left or right it's: 1) Strut the aircraft. Wing sections must be strutted to avoid the lift surfaces doing erratic things. They need to stay semi-rigid and stay on their intended planes. 2) Landing gear alignment as mentioned 3) Bad or misaligned symetry somewhere

Upload craft file and mods required for parts and I'll have a look.

Build a dedicated series of launchers that look similar. Last time I had my largest successful payload @ 700 tons or something. It was just silly really since I almost always design stuff as efficient as possible, and customize launchers around payload design. BUT, it's fun. I suggest copying a large fuel tank, editing the weight, and removing the fuel. This way you have a dummy weight to attach w/o messing with DV figures in MJ/Eng. You may have already done this though.

I saw your post before. Now that I've thought about it, without reading anything else in this thread. You should start your KSP adventures as soon as possible. Even for the smartest folks, there is a lot to learn. Not just mechanics of game and rocketry, but little tiny things. The more KSP you play, the more KSP building blocks in your brain, the more you can do AND enjoy it. I Started playing July 2013, still learn something new every week playing KSP, even stock.

I've done this!

I don't have any favorite spots, nor do I build bases much. Here's a couple things to keep in mind though. 1) Mun is tidally locked just like our Moon. Per the Kerbal Wiki, "The Mun longitude for which Kerbin remains directly above in the sky (at the zenith) is about 47 degrees east". You can stare at Kerbin all the time. 2) You want someplace easy to come and go. This means equatorial locations are the best. 3) You could use a map ahead of time if you like. This site is awesome: http://www.kerbalmaps.com/. Use the slope map feature. 4) You could use a mod like ScanSat to scan the body first, then determine a landing location from the map data and your visual surveys. 5) You could send small landing probes to multiple viable locations with bright lights to both examine and mark your landing zone. Surely there are even more ways to make finding a landing site fun and exciting!

This looks nice, checking it out.

I made my own weights previously, this is awesome. Thanks!

Yeah, everything is clean and confirmed 198 from scratch. I've played with MJ set on .1m/s tolerance since I started using it in like .18 or something and never had an issue quite like this. Sure sometimes autopilot would chase a node a little bit, but now it just isn't catching the marker exact. It can be seen best when MJ aligns for a burn. It used to be it wouldn't hit time warp until it was exactly on the marker. Now it seems to have some tolerance. This same tolerance is what is biting it in the ass at the end of the burn I think. Basically, the auto pilot is experiencing what looks like human error. Maybe we're on to something!

Still using. Thank you!

Here is what I have so far: - Clean 23.5 - Clean MJ 198 - Maneuver node execution not working as before. Autopilot does not align properly on initial burn line up, then as the node moves autopilot is failing to align and follow. Causes pilot to steer excessively at the end of the burn resulting in chasing the node the wrong direction. - Delta V stats not working properly when using new parts. Unknown which parts exactly. I had this issue with the new engines last time, and when SRBs weren't calculating in Delta-V correctly either. - Multiple craft tested - No other mods You can get past the node execution issue by manually forcing the nav ball to align in addition to letting mechjeb do the burn, at the end of the burn I have been disabling the autopilot to avoid issue. Turn off auto, hit SAS, finish your burn manually at the end. Still resulting in some sloppy orbits. Probably better off doing manual burns right now. The Delta-V thing is a bigger issue imo. I am unsure about docking/rendezvous modules as I have not tried them yet. I have punch and pie for anyone that can clean up that Delta-V issue.

Not new >_>

Does anyone know where I can find more in depth coverage of the science gained when recovering a craft? The Science page in the KSP Wiki does have some insight but I need more. It seems a bit nebulous. I have searched and found nothing yet. I don't care about the distance traveled stuff, just the surfaces, orbits, sub-orbitals.

Thanks, I have most of the guts finished. Building the user summary and outputs now. No array formulas either, so no excel puking.

That's awesome thanks!

I am almost done with a spreadsheet that allows pasting of persistence file science section, which it then processes, tallies, displays, graphs, etc science completed for each body, remaining science, and lists possible experiements left and their science. I need a couple more persistence files to paste in and make sure I haven't missed any situations. Any volunteers? Or someone could just paste in the science section of their file as well, though that might be ugly. Thanks!

Thanks for this, found via google search. <3

Thanks I had assumed just a limitation of physics calculations for the active ship. Well that stinks I wanted polar orbit/landing for my probe and equatorial for my orbiter. Thanks again!