Speeding Mullet

Thanks for stopping by I'll definitely check it out when live! SM

Now there's a useful mod, thanks for pointing it out SM

Unfortunately there I cannot help you. I was just going off of researching for you where the overwhelming response to similar questions asked in the past was either practice makes perfect, fly manually and just get very very good at it, or TCA and Traj SM

Best ever response to me pulling someone I don't know into a thread. Love love love the KSP community for this reason, and thanks for the education - it was an enlightening and thoroughly interesting read! SM

Practice makes perfect, but Trajectories and Throttle Controlled Avionics is a powerful combo for re-entering first stages Space-X style. SM

Banned for not being banned sooner

Hmm, that's a tough one and I can't back my answer up with facts as most people are looking to stop before they hit the ground in KSP . I would say however, that above about 35km in the atmosphere your craft is really only acting as a heatsoak which would suggest a skip out of the atmosphere and a relatively steep but not vertical re-entry would suit you well. I've referenced/semi quoted @Streetwind from this post who may be able to help some more! Unless you are keeping it secret would be cool to check out your design! SM

I know zero about Macs (which you will shortly understand), but I've done a little bit of forum poking for you, and I've found some information which could be helpful, at least to get you started. The few solutions that I seem to have found involve either: Re-install the game If downloaded through Steam then Verify integrity of Cache and try again Don't use the launcher (can you launch it through KSP exe on a mac?!) Couple of (old) threads here and here, and half way down this thread. Sorry I can't be more helpful! SM

Can you expand on this as I'm not entirely sure what you are shooting at. If for example you are talking about reliably extending a clipped antenna instead of having to hunt for an angle to select it through other parts, then just assign it to an action group and you are all set. With that in mind, Action Groups Extended is what you are probably seeking. If that's not what you were talking about then I'm happy to have another stab... SM

The XL wheels are mahoosive, you must be going for broke!! Once Kerbal Foundries is updated for 1.2.x compatibility it is a decent option for what you seek. just don't ask when it's going to be ready as per the OP. Wheels Collection is another one to check out. Other than that I won't mention it, but it really is a good option.... SM

I haven't made an SSTO in absolutely ages. In fact I haven't made one since before the significant aero changes occurred as I simply lost the ability to do it. That really had to change so I put my mind to it and have designed and flown this mission recently. First some stats: Name: Mullet Dyne Cross Wing (Variant 5) Parts: 86 (including payload) Mass: 43.155t Cost: 81,464 (including payload) Power: 3 x CR-7, 2 LV-N Mission Report - Click here Craft File - Click here SM

As you suggest there are ways round it, but none that are super elegant as far as I can tell. I would definitely advocate a set of larger landing legs much in the same way landing gear got love a few updates ago. Good call! SM

Like this my friend: 1) Select build fairing: 2) Place first section of fairing: 3) Close fairing on to the fuel tank 4) Done! Hope that helps! SM

Yep, I keep popcorn in the cupboard especially for those threads! Yeah the big chutes are super powerful. You could even add 4 more just to be safe and still be well under-weight and have a much reduced part count. To mount the chutes I simply placed a small cubic octagonal strut down and then added the chute to it, using the adjustment tools to clip it into the hull a little bit for aesthetics. If you are adding more chutes you might want to mount them on the sides rather than towards the top, just for balancing purposes. I always over engineer my designs also, going for looks over weight every time. I don't actually like minimalist designs, I was just trying to prove the efficiency point. I'd have bits hanging off every which way just for the hell of it. An example would be this Mun/Minus science craft. a little over engineered I'm sure you would agree SM

I get the point and don't worry absolutely not taking it the wrong way, it's a good robust exchange of ideas and help that I love so much about this forum! It is definitely designed for an intermediate pilot for sure, but the point was there is efficiency to be made in your design such that the extra parts from the locked tech tree you crave are not required. Here's another go then. I gave you the 4 solar panels, and added your third large reaction wheel, landed at 3.3 m/s with 8 chutes and no powered landing, saved9180 and 4.1t, possibly enough mass to make your upper stage a little smaller, or your lift vehicle more efficient etc. These things (piloting skills, building efficiency etc) all come in time with a game with a learning curve as steep as KSP, so keep playing around and experimenting with alternative solutions to your problems. Run a concurrent sandbox game to test your designs in a "simulated" environment perhaps, but definitely keep pushing forwards and playing around , and bouncing around ideas here when you need. I remember my earliest days when just getting to orbit was heroic achievement. The day I completed my first Jool 5 mission was probably when I realised I was a relatively accomplished player and could start to suggest engineering solutions on the forums here. Good luck with your mission! SM

Holy smokes I'd totally forgotten about that! I feel lucky to have had two people turn their art skills to my screenshot, thanks so much you really captured the separation well! If you wanted to try a re-scan then feel free, but this is very cool as it is! SM

OK I had a look at this from the point of view of the return vehicle only. Didn't bother messing around with the lift vehicle, but I'm pretty sure there is efficiency to be made there. I got your parachutes down from nearly 40 to just 2 drogues and 1 main, removed the 2 large reaction wheels and replaced them with 1 medium one, which in turn removed the need for one of the cargo bays. got rid of 2 of the solar panels (2 is still too many) and half the batteries (still too many). I added an assisted landing system to take the speed from 24m/s under fully deployed parachutes to under 4.5 m/s at landing, and added 6 landing legs for stability. I also removed all your monoprop, added some stabilisation fins, lights, and a vernor system to help stabilise during re-entry. I aero-braked from beyond Minmus and then re-entered with no issues despite cutting the ablator from 800 to 400 units and landed on a relatively steep hill with LFO to spare. I did all this for a weight saving of 1.276t, and cost saving of 10,786 Gallery here Hooray for power assisted landings! SM

Cool I'll have a crack this weekend and see what I can come up with! SM

Can you post your tech tree? I'd like to have a go with the limitations you are facing and the same payload (share the craft file if you can). Even just to prove myself wrong it would be interesting! SM

One of the early iterations used CR-7s and a couple of sparks for LKO work, functioned fine as a light LKO shuttle, but I wanted to push out as far as I could with this one. I want to see if I can iterate this one towards a Duna landing and return if possible. SM

Ahha, I just went into the VAB and replicated the fuel conditions at 200km and got a weight of 29.875t and an empty weight of 23.925. So the on orbit dV if I'm right from just learning how to do this is 800 * 9.8 * ln (29.875/23.925) or 1741.25 m/s. Thanks for making me learn something . I wasn't thinking about use really when I designed it, apart from wanting something to go as far as possible. Based on the dV figure it could do Minmus landing and return I reckon! If I was going to employ it as an LKO Spaceplane for simple crew delivery tasks I think your are right that iterating the dead mass out would be a good idea, and then chucking a couple of engines too! SM

Thanks! I thought I might have gone overkill with the engines by 1 LV-N at any rate! I maybe should have noted that LF starts at full with 3118 units, but oxygen only about 600 units to help with the boost before the LV-Ns take over. I got to a 150km orbit and then transferred to dock to a 200km station and had 1160 units of LF left if that helps? No idea on the dV on orbit unfortunately. SM

I haven't made an SSTO in absolutely ages. In fact I haven't made one since before the significant aero changes occurred as I simply lost the ability to do it. That really had to change so I put my mind to it and over the last 3 days have designed and flown this mission in my spare time. First some stats: Name: Mullet Dyne Cross Wing (Variant 5) Parts: 86 (including payload) Mass: 43.155t Cost: 81,464 (including payload) Power: 3 x CR-7, 2 LV-N Mission Report - Click here Craft File - Click here So basically what I'm looking for is a bit of feedback if anyone wants to chip in. Since this is my first foray into SSTO's since before the major aero changes (although the design went through 5 iterations before I was happy with it) I've no real idea (beyond being capable of Mun/Minus return) whether I've got the balance, look, design, efficiency right etc. Feel free to download it and try it out, or just provide feedback based on what you see Thanks everyone! SM

Plus goo canisters, and all the other science bits - Has always packed out the space for me in career mode! for a hundred ton payload the amount of monoprop you need should still be small, sometimes vanishingly small if you are practiced enough in docking. this post made by @Snark yesterday eludes to that, although doesn't put a figure on the amount of monoprop Snark would use for say a 100, 200, 500t docking manoeuvre. Perhaps Snark can furnish us with a figure or two? Yesterday I flew a 45t SSTO to a 200km orbital research post, and used 25 monoprop in what I would consider to be an incredibly wasteful docking manoeuvre. I then went on flybys past Mun, Minus, and 3 aerobraking manoeuvres, and a re-entry using only 90 monoprop, and still didn't run out. Balance, and efficiency in design and you will need hardly any of the stuff. This will only come with practice I'll admit, but practice makes perfect As @StrandedonEarth and I both mentioned, a mix of chutes and powered landing is what we are talking about. Given the Soyuz as a real life example of mixed landing, and the future Space-X command pod (Dragon V2) landing on Super Dracos when finished (not to mention the first stage powered landing) then I'm not sure why you wouldn't consider it worth it. You will use remarkably little fuel and engine doing a mixed landing, than just spamming parachutes onto really heavy objects. There will come a weight I'm sure (citation needed) where it is more efficient to conduct a mixed landing rather than relying on just chutes. Yep well you are in silly rocket territory there, but this is a good case for larger SRB's no doubt! I reckon you could cut about half of your drogue chutes out and replace them with fewer main chutes to get less spamming, but this is a prime candidate for a parachute and retro-propulsive landing. You've maybe got upwards of 4t of parachutes on that bad-boy, most of which could be replaced with a retro-propulsive landing system for likely little or no extra cost in mass or cash. Yep another good reason for having larger SRBs for sure! SM

The issue I have with career is more that I unlock everything so quickly that the tech tree sort of becomes pointless beyond a couple of missions at the start where you are working around the issues that you are describing with brute force and cheap tricks. With that in mind I'd agree that it's still not right as a game function over all, but career mode has certainly improved a lot since it was introduced. I'm not here to speculate on how to improve it, as I'm mostly a sandbox player, but I can provide some point of view and possibly a work around or two on a couple of your other irks: 2.5m decouplers - I've never had an issue. You can tweak the separation force which helps a lot. On the smaller craft I often use a much reduced force, and on most craft I break down the decouple and next stage engine into separate stages to provide some separation time. Once you do get sepatrons you can embed them inside the decouple ring if that makes sense for a little extra "go" on separation. RCS - Again never had an issue with this really. Most of my craft use no RCS unless I'm docking, building an SSTO, or flying an enormous payload. Even SAS wheels are mostly redundant for me once the pods with built in SAS become available. A well balanced craft really should need minimal input of both. I sometimes get guilty of wanting everything to happen in 3 seconds, but it's space, and there's often much time to complete manoeuvres so I've got used to slowing things down. Less RCS/SAS = more payload Batteries - Same story as RCS unless you are mining really. You can pretty much get away with 1 battery and 1 solar panel for a lot of mission types. I always go totally overboard in the name of aesthetics, so I learnt to get creative with the placement of these things. Check out the craft aesthetics thread for some great hints and tips on efficiency and beautiful design. Undesirable clipping - Hit up against this all the time my friend. Simply use the tweaking tools to move the part around until you reach the desired clip / no clip Parachutes - Landing the heavy stuff hey! Use a mix of powered landing and chutes. At this stage (and not being harsh) the issue is with your craft design rather than the lack of parachutes, but I totally agree that a larger radial chute would be a great addition. I don't think it should carry a smaller form factor unless they are a different, lighter, and more breakable material though. If you are feeling a little moddy the realchutes might be a good pickup for you as this is not likely to be addressed. SRB's - See previously mentioned aesthetic thread for some great ideas on clustering for more power, but I'm absolutely with you about needing a larger diameter SRB. I tend to use the SRB's as augmenters rather than anything else so generally find a couple of kickbacks with a LF engine in the middle work fine for me. By the time the kickbacks are done the craft normally has plenty of height and downrange speed for the smaller engine to make the rest of the journey. If you are building big with 2.5m parts then yep, some of my rockets also become SRB fests, but that's half the fun - I sometimes play for realism with my rockets, but once I start launching things like Cathedrals to the mun (yep I did that) then I'm fine with everything becoming a little silly as a result. 3.75m parts - Properly balanced and designed you really won't see much of an issue, but I'd agree that things seem to fragment a little at this end of the scale with more propensity for spamming things like landing legs, RCS, chutes etc etc. Other solutions - I guess, um, mod the hell out of it Seriously though if you aren't opposed to modding then this is the way forwards for you. If you want to play stock only then I fully appreciate that - I for one enjoy playing stock and massively modded games both, but I guess in lieu of these parts actually being in the stock game I've just been playing long enough to develop my own, or copy others workarounds. Totally awesome to be making suggestions though!! I also insist that the proposed new 2.5m SRB be named the Humper SM