espm400

Since the vast majority of my flights are unmanned (un-Kerbaled...), using RemoteTech means that all of my exploratory probes and such require a working relay system. As I said earlier though, the initial setup in the Kerbin system can be a bit tedious since I toss the same four micro sats into LKO and the same six large satellites into KSO, along with one on each side of the Mun in an identical orbit.

Very true, and not only that, but it's very gratifying to play as well (coming from someone who plays piano, guitar, and is currently struggling to learn how to use CuBase). I would encourage anyone to try and learn to play something, be it a physical intrument, or a digital one. I haven't taken a listen to your stuff yet (currently watching (listening to) a movie), but I'll give it a listen when I'm done.

Ferram Aerospace Research supports lifting body and blended wing aircraft (used to use a Dyna-Soarer-style crew vehicle). If you're interested in those type of aircraft, I would suggest getting that mod.

I was practically forced to do some Mercury-style missions recently. I installed Deadly Re-Entry, FAR, IonCross Crew Support, and RemoteTech, all in the same day. Not only did it completely change the game, but missions like 'Mercury' were necessary just to figure out how to get my Kerbals home without killing them. Having the issue now, however, that with the announcement of RemoteTech 2 coming out, my program has been put on hold because I find launching my initial comsat array boring as hell, and I just don't want to do it any more times than I have to.

With FAR you're going to have to keep your speed a bit lower than normal and keep your nose in, or very close to the prograde marker, at least until you're above 30,000m. I had this problem myself until I realized this. EDIT: I can't speak for MechJeb, as I've not used the ascent guidance on it.

Longhornchris puts pretty much all the good points down. I really don't have any more to add except a few example crafts based on real world aircraft (most are from .20 and I haven't imported them into .21 yet). (also note, all of these require, at the very least, B9 Aerospace): First, a couple of CoM v. CoL pics, just as an example. XB-70 (with moving wingtips A bunch of real-world fighters (more or less faithfully re-created): My personal favorite (centre plane in the previous pic), the F-15 MTD/ACTIVE. The most maneuverable plane I've ever built:

Although I can't speak for pure lifting bodies (you'd have to make an actual model for those), blended wing bodies work just fine with FAR installed. To put it mildly, they're a bit hard to control on re-entry...

Fantastic video. Some of the best mach effects I've ever seen. Though I can't help but think, what if there'd been a slight miscalculation upon re-entry, and instead of landing near a recovery vessel, it landed near some fishing vessel. Now, that would make for some entertaining, [redacted] footage...

Glad you were successful in the end. KSP might take some time to get your head around in some cases, but one of the things I love about it is that you can always count on the communtity for support. As I said in my previous post, KSP has the best online community out of any game I've played, and personally, coming from a game like DayZ, it's definitely a welcome change (what can I say? Wannabe rocket scientists are much better to deal with than 'armchair generals').

'Klingon Admiral' is right, it might be annoying sitting there, but the function of it is that you can see your projected orbit after gravity assists, aerobrakes, or maneuver nodes and the like and it can be very helpful. The orange path has no bearing on your current trajectory (the blue line) though, and that's the one you want to change for your Mun landing. Once you get orbit, the orange lines should disappear.

Personally, I had some problems with my own lifting body designs a while back (using FAR as well). I ended up settling on more blended body designs. Unfortunately, most of the 'ready-made' ones (such as Bobcats Kliper, etc.) don't really react to FAR that well. Personally, for a while there I was using a 'Dyan-Soarer' design for crew transfer to and from my main station (back in .20), but haven't done too much in the lines of lifting bodies since then. However, another mod that can help you out is pWings. Otherwise known as Procedural Wings, this mod allows you to create your own wing shapes, tailor made to your craft. One of the functions of the mod (one I'd like to figure out how to circumvent somehow) is that expanding the wing root length-wise, also increases the wing's thickness. From your standpoint using this function correctly, you can make some pretty good lifting body shapes. Sorry for the uncharacteristic lack of example pics, but I just found 'X3-Albion Prelude' and have been playing that in most of my free time over the last few days...

Glad you made it to orbit. As Iammatt says though, if you're having trouble with a specific rocket design, etc. It's always better to post a pic (although not necessary) of the design when you're starting a new thread. Either way, welcome to KSP, mate.

Be nice man. Keep up the tradition of KSP having one of the friendliest communities out there, there's no need to insult people.

I think your rocket fell over... @Luchelibre: I would go with either the first or second of your three designs. Personally, as you can see by my pic on the previous page, I usually go for a core with two boosters and a third smaller stage. The reason being that the two booster design I use, as I said will get 30+ tonnes to LKO or 20 to the Mun. However, if I need to lift a bit more, all I have to do is go to the VAB, click on the radial decoupler connecting the booster stages and use 4x, or even 6x symmetry, and instantly I have a bigger rocket capable of lifting more. The way it's set up, I don't even have to add a fuel line or an extra sepratron. The reason I would advise against the third design is simply on the wobble factor. It may be stable now, but if it ends up being your primary lifter, you're eventually going to want to upgrade it to lift more (as I just detailed above). The fact of the matter is that it's just too tall and skinny. That second design of yours, is the closest to how a rocket should widen outwards as it gets taller. What can I say? I just like having my rockets look like they'd fly if they were build IRL.

Well, I just had one of those KSP moments that make you feel really, really dumb (I know we've all had them but...). So, after spending the last couple days messing around with the new update and getting all my 'must have' mods re-installed, I start my proper save up. Since one of those mods happens to be RemoteTech, step one for me is the, always boring, setup a relay network to service Kerbin and her moons. Okay, I had gotten four mini sats in LKO, and was just finishing up putting my third massive long-range comsat in KSO when I heard a mild *thud (in my apartment, not the game). I though nothing of it, since it's a cruddy apartment in the middle of Edmonton that makes weird noises all the time. A few moments later I had just finished getting my orbital period to six hours on the nose, so I took off the SAS and went to point it North. As soon as I turned off the SAS my satellite started rotating uncontrollably, and only with SAS would it stop. Okay, back to the space centre and re-load the craft, same thing. That's odd, back to the space centre, load up a different craft, and the same thing happens, as soon as SAS is off, it begins to spin. Now at this point I'm getting a bit worried, is it one of the mods acting up? Did I break the game somehow? I pause for a moment and go fill my water bottle that I keep by my couch (beats filling a cup every ten minutes). As I'm walking back I figured out what the problem was... That thud I had heard was my XBox 360 controller falling on the floor, and the way it had fallen took a few seconds for it to flip onto the sticks. Five minutes of panic, followed by three seconds of relief, followed by the last fifteen minutes feeling really, really dumb.

The other possibility was that you just ran into some gool ol' alpha phase jank (always good times), because as I said, a ship that small with an LV-909 that's firing at full throttle should be able to kill several hundred m/s velocity in a few short seconds. @GavinZac: You seem to be missing the point. The problem synik was having was that a firing engine wasn't producing any thrust, which happens if you inadvertently block the nozzle. Mind you, that also happens when the engine isn't firing at all, but we won't go there.

As this has happened to me on several occasions, and the vast majority of my launches are unmanned, I've gotten into the habit of tossing a few of those tiny OSAT (?) panels on all of my unmanned flights. That way if you time warp and forget to deploy your panels, you have at least some power coming in. Alternatively you could use RTGs.

I'm pretty sure that decoupler is on the right way around (try zooming on the pic, you'll see). If you can hear the engine firing, and a TWR that high, that little thing should stop on a dime, so there has to be something blocking the flow. My suggestion would be to pop off everything below that decoupler, remove and delete the decoupler and engine, then just replace them with new parts, then just put your launch stage back on. It could be as simple as an accidental, weirdly placed part blocking your engine exhaust. If it isn't that, then I'm drawing a total blank.

I'll start by saying that I haven't used TAC in quite some time, so some of this might have changed, but about your 'Cons,' there are some fairly easy work-arounds for most of them (albeit, some aren't pretty): 1 - Since all tanks display a dry mass figure, you can simply remove said fuel tank(s) and replace with the equivalent mass in random parts to get your dV. 2 - Similar to the last one, I would use the structural girders to make a piece of (nearly) identical length and add parts to the centre to make up the dry mass. From there I would get my CoM and an approximate placement on my thrusters. Neither perfect nor pretty, but it works fairly well. 3 - The simple answer to this one is a judicious use of struts.

I've just got a couple of points: - It wont help you with your designs, but one of the most helpful things I could suggest to anyone who's working on their first SSTOs would be to get either a gamepad (I use a simple 360 controller) or a joystick of some kind. The amount of control you gain from one of those is nearly immeasurable. - As longhornchris mentioned, another must is FAR (Ferram Aerospace Research). No more will your nose be pointed 40* skyward at 20,000m. - I'm also with Stochasty on the fewer engines side, although not for the same reason. For my small and mid-sized SSTOs I tend to either use one jet engine or two in an over/under setup. That way I can push them as far as possible and not have to worry about flame-outs causing a flat spin. - If you're not adverse to mods, I would also suggest picking up B9 Aerospace, if only for the fact that it affords you so many options and expands your inventory greatly. - Finally, I've never really been a fan of spamming intakes. Partially because with FAR they add too much extra drag, partially because I think it looks terrible, but mainly because it's a bit too (I hesitate to use the word) 'cheaty' for me. To each their own though, it is a sandbox afterall.

You can edit your crew's traits in game with the Crew Manifest mod, which has been recently updated for .21.

A secret part..? My interest has now been sufficiently piqued...

My bad, usually I only abbreviate after spelling it out the first time... Anyways, Cot = Centre of Thrust, CoM = Centre of Mass. You can see these by clicking on the buttons at the bottom left in the VAB/SPH.

Apparently I completely missed the bit about a skycrane, otherwise I to would have recommended KAS. There was also a mod quite a while back (.19?), that allowed you to use an airbag-style landing system (a la Mars lander style), however I haven't seen it around lately. A little tip for skycranes though; make sure you keep your CoM above your CoT. For some reason (Unity...) if you have a higher CoT KSP likes to reverse the gimballing on your engines, causing hilarity and frustration. Your two options would be to either, keep your CoT below your CoM, or conversely just not use ASAS after your skycrane has separated from it's transfer craft.

I know this one uses KW Rocketry, but I've built nearly identical stock craft with largely similar results. It does use fuel crossfeed, but given that in a short time, so will real rockets, I don't think it breaks your 'no asparagus staging' rule. As for stats; the lower two stages (core and boosters) add up to ~4600 m/s dV (unloaded), with that top stage adding another 3300 m/s dV (vacuum). It will easily lift 20-25 tonnes to anywhere in the Kerbin system and 30+ tonnes into LKO. As I said, it does use KW, but if you relpace the tanks with Jumbo-64s and the first and second stage engines with Mainsails, and the upper stage with a Skipper (or whatever you deem fit), the performance should be largely similar. As for a thread with 'non-asparagus' designs, here you go. Hope this helps.