daniu

Hm, it's very possible I'm wrong about that the position within the craft matters; it's an assumption I made and which didn't get contradicted while playing. Then again, most of the time it's "the torque source is at the top of the craft and the longer the rocket, the harder it is to maneuver"... so it might just be the additional mass that makes them clunky Either way, for me a Large Inline SAS seems to be enough most of the cases for the first stages while I still have large tanks; after that, I'm fine with the command module's torque and can't remember adding more support. Except RCS you can't do without when docking anyway. I've rarely gone further than the Mun though.

It's in kN/m, measures the force it can enact to maneuver a craft (rotate/pitch/yaw). The actual maneuver speed of a craft will also be influenced by its mass and where the torque is, related to the center of mass (basically the lever).

Yeah I have KAC. It's my favorite mod, couldn't live without it; the whole thing should be added to the vanilla game. Autoslow time warp on important events is way too important for a simulation to leave to a mod (not playing many simulations, but SHIII also has a slowdown upon encountering ship, otherwise you'd never get anything done). I added a feature suggestion for KAC as well; I guess raw time alert will work for the time being. But again, allowing players not to miss important stuff is entirely a responsibility of the main game IMO; it's fine to leave to a mod for now but I'm certain the release version will (and definitely should) have a feature like that. So to the Suggestion forum it goes

Absolutely cannot live without this mod, so many thanks FYI, it seems the forum link in the spaceport "How to use" section is wrong, goes to "Multiple Ship Loading" suggestion thread. Feature request: an "asteroid proximity alert" would fit right in; i.e. add a warning for a tracked asteroid when it reaches a certain Kerbin proximity threshold.

My problem with the Asteroid part of the game is that it isn't integrated into the rest of the game much if I'm not missing anything. Situation is that I'm pursuing my career mode and do Mun research missions; then I go to the tracking station and see asteroids. I look at some and and realize one is coming close to Kerbin or will even impact... in 60 days. So the only thing I can really do is stop the Mun missions and fast forward until the asteroid is close enough for an intercept. What I would prefer would be periodically going to the tracking station and track the ones that come close enough for my taste; then I go about my business as usual until the asteroid becomes an actual viable target which the game notifies me about at which point I interrupt my current endeavors and go for an intercept. It'd be less "either-or" this way.

Yes, of course, I understand that entirely. That would require a very Steampunk technology thermometer. Safe to assume it's already being digitized on "Log temperature", nothing else makes sense - it's not like the thermometer will write a line on a piece of paper (i.e. analog), and scan that in low resolution when transmitting, while you can scan it better at home. However, if you do argue it's done analog, I'd prefer handling it like the Goo in my previous post; recover or no data at all until processed. Maybe have digital instruments for the same data in later tech nodes which don't need that anymore.

I wouldn't say there's a real "need", but I do like my station setup with a lab and a fuel tank connected to it in Mun orbit. I can send a lander there and reuse it about four times until the station runs out, so I replace the tank part. Gathered science I send home with miniature probes for retrieval, about .5 mass each I think. It cuts down on the total amount of launches which I grew weary of, and in turn on the total fuel I need (although I haven't done the math on that tbh, so it might just feel better this way ).

That is my main complaint about the current science system anyway. Why would it matter if I send temperature data back to Kerbin or take the thermometer there? Or pressure, or graviton radiation, or seismic activity? I can see it makes sense from a gameplay point, but it's kind of weak. Different with Surface Samples, Goo and Materials. It would probably make most sense if you couldn't "transmit" those at all if you don't have an MPL (which could transfer the stuff to data like I said earlier). The other science experiments should just give the same science either way; maybe less than now to not have too easy a time collecting science with low-tier science equipment on a fire-and-forget drone... but it would allow to get into mid-tier tech by doing fly-bys, and then forces you to do landings and retrievals or establish a space lab if you want to advance further.

Oh, okay. So you're planning on burning at periapsis to only have to add a few m/s to escape? Sounds to me like a drawback may be you have to time your takeoffs and escape launches very carefully, to not waste fuel on the encounter maneuvers.

Here's a graph Starstrider42 created for the optimal launch position for the different planets.

I found that too after I made the thread, exactly what I was looking for/suggesting. Expanding on the theme, Mits could actually be a resource (data storage space). Command pods would have a limit on how many experiments they could store, and you'd need to add those additional containers to be able to bring all the data back if you collect too much. Don't know if that would be an improvement to gameplay though.... just one more thing you can mess up However, there's always the discussion whether the retrieved Goo/Materials are data or physical items. This could be differentiated, and you could use different space resources to return them; which would give the MPL another use, namely transforming physical into data you can return easier.

Yeah I try to go vanilla as far as possible, but since I just found out automated command pods can't store science either, I need a lightweight transport back to Kerbin... AFAIK, there's no limit as such of how many experiments a lab or command capsule can store, but they can't store the same experiment twice (so they cannot store 2 Surface Samples from Mun Midlands, but they can store one from Mun Midlands and one from East Crater).

If you transmit one and bring one back, I think you're at 100% for pretty much all experiments. Or you can use this mod I was just recommended which adds an additional part you can store science in.

That's not correct. I can take the data, then clean the experiment, which would remove the physical object. Or I can dock two manned crafts, take the Goo data from one and move it to the command module of the other which does not have a Goo container, then have that return and get full retrieval science. Ooohh, thanks, I'll use that Trying to stay away from part mods as much as possible, but this really saves my lander concept. Can it store more than one experiment? Thanks, that'll save me time not having to try it out

It's possible to take data from an experiment module and store it in a manned command module in EVA. However, it's not possible to store data in an automated one (OKTO etc); I think it should be. This would allow to have a reuseable lander, refueled in orbit, which sends back science results in minimal drone crafts. Or maybe add separate data storage parts (with a certain Mit capacity).

Am I doing something wrong or is it not possible to take data from an experiment and store it in an unmanned pod (OKTO or something) as is possible in manned command capsules? It's kind of annoying because I wanted to avoid my Mun lander having to go back to Kerbin after each landing and send the results back in minimal probes instead. Side question, is the Clamp-a-tron Jr compatible with the normal Clamp-a-tron, so can they be docked together?

That doesn't make it a misnomer, considering TWR means "Thrust to Weight Ratio", and weight = mass * gravitational acceleration. It's not TMR, where Mass would leave gravity out... its point is to determine whether a craft would lift off. However, for the calculation asked for from OP, you're right of course. You'd use a function TWR(h) = m*g(h). Similarly, you'd put drag into a function of height d(h) depending on air density and its decline with altitude. You'd also have to consider that you lose weight over time at a given thrust due to the fuel consumption. All those forces add up in integrals dh and dt somehow, but to be honest that's one step of math I'm not ready to go for as I'm pretty convinced it will come down to the terminal velocities anyway

I would suggest putting the radial tanks lower and attach the landing gear there. This way, the craft is less likely to tilt over. I have a similar lander, but what I did is add 3 909s on the outer tanks rather than one in the center, to be able to add thrust quickly (because one late large burn is more efficient than a long one all the way down). Not sure if that makes the additional weight worth it though; probably not. Thinking of replacing them with a set of one of the tiny engine types.

That's certainly in the spirit of my trying to minimize launches, good idea What does your lander look like? Mine is already having a hard time landing from and getting back into a 35 km Mun orbit, I'm sure there's lot of room for improvement there. Well you still have to reset the experiments (which for me was the main point of putting it there in the first place). In my design, the command module of the lab part can be split off for returning the experiment results (including the lander crewman, left one space empty in the Mk1-2). Haha that thing is so cute! Doesn't have the materials bay though, so I'd still be missing out on experiments.

That's what I thought, but when I went EVA when docked, the "collect data" wasn't there... so I thought it was only possible when landed. So I must have done something wrong; do I have to go close to the (eg) Goo container, right-click the Kerbal and the option should be there? I probably also need a ladder to be on to do that, I don't have enough I guess.

Currently working through Career Mode... How do/did you go about grinding science from the Mun? What I've done is establish a small station (Lab/Fuel craft) in Mun orbit and planned to use a lander to perform experiments, go back to the station to transmit, clean experiments and refuel, repeat (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=243188592). That way, I wanted to avoid having to do the full Kerbin/Mun travel for each Biome. However, turns out that the MLP improvement to the science points for transmitted is so small that I'll still have to land 8 times or so per Biome, so that's not worth it. Now I'm thinking about landing an MLP at each Biome, perform the available experiments with a small lander to recover the Kerbals with. Another way would be to make the whole Lab able to lift off and reuse for the next Biome... But it's quite heavy so that may be a problem fuel-wise. Or I don't use a lab at all and just do the trips there and back (with a fuel station in Mun orbit, that paid off in my setup). What are your thoughts and experiences? EDIT: So it turns out I must have done something wrong, the experiment data can be collected on EVA after all, so my concept works fine. Can recommend it actually, much more fun than doing a full Mun trip from KSC for each Mun Biome.

Haven't gotten into the math, but you want to take a look at the table with the optimal speeds by altitude in the Wiki. which is pretty much what you say. Your third factor (thrust) is what you can adjust during ascent.

So about 70m/s difference... still a bit less than I expected actually. Anyway, set this to Answered now; got a much better idea of the math involved and a feeling about the ballpark I need to expect.

Wow this got quite the traffic over night, thanks to everybody taking part in the discussion, everything said here is very enlightening That's what I initially assumed, but I talked to my coworker about it and he said it didn't matter. Note to self: Sheldon was right, physicists are not the same as rocket scientists Wait wait wait where did you lose the mass and energy in the step from j/kg to m/s? (I kind of have a lot of formulas in my head, but sometimes miss the connections between them). That's pretty much exactly what I'm looking for; hadn't come across the vis viva equation before, thanks. So that's a difference of 180m/s for the vertical component versus the 70m/s I got for the horizontal one. Accounting for it being better to not burn the component individually (as in, first horizontal then vertical), that should give me two vectors (vertical dV | horizontal dV) to impact: 36km: (315.22m/s | 523.15m/s); length = sqr(315,22^2 + 523.15^2) ~= 610.78m/s 120km: (494.24m/s | 451.17m/s); length = sqr(494.24^2 + 451.17^2) ~= 669.20m/s With a total difference of ~60m/s (under ideal conditions and instantaneous burn to kill them).

Hmm, interesting... Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying That sounds as if it could be right. You'd need to integrate gravity over distance because that's what is known I supposed... but that math is so long ago for me I don't think that is correct. The acceleration due to gravity will add up to a velocity (in m/s) you'll have to cancel; whether you burn it at once or over time shouldn't make any difference. In other words, whether you wait until you have gained 500 m/s and then thrust it away should burn the same amount of fuel as if you'd been throttling the whole way decreasing it gradually (if you don't have an atmosphere which would help slowing things down with drag). EDIT: hmmm just read the Gravity drag article, seems like at least the Vector part still applies without atmo... but I'm considering a vertical landing so not in this case. Then again, burning all the time removes fuel so loses mass, which may actually end up saving fuel.