RexKramer

I just noticed your Orange tank has the regular Clamp o Trons all over it- so I'm guessing your current space program is geared around a single size Clamp O Tron. It may be a bit of work reconfiguring your space program, but seriously it's worth the effort switching to the Clamp O Tron Sr.s for the large diameter tanks.

I like to use the large docking collar instead of the regular one for that size tank- makes it much less wobbly. Also, if you need more tanks, build sideways (outward) instead of just making the ship longer. In general, longer ships are more wobbly than shorter ones of the same mass. The configuration you had pictured actually looks reasonable- I would start by trying the larger docking collar (Clamp o Tron Sr.). Should hold a single Jumbo 64 no problem.

This is a pretty old thread. If you are having trouble getting Kerbals out of the mobile lab in the current version of KSP, try the fix posted here- http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/63355-HACK-IVA-for-lab-module?highlight=%5BHACK%5D The issue in the original post in this thread is a different issue, I think. Currently, some installations are not able to click the hatch to EVA Kerbals, a problem that mainly affects OSX users. The workaround originally posted by Kashua works great.

I generally don't use landing legs. Most engines have 8 m/s impact tolerance, so I just land on the engines. A side effect is the ship then sits lower than it would with landing legs, so it's more stable, less tippy. There are only a few places where I feel the need for a 'crumple zone' to protect the engines in case I can't control my descent to under 8 m/s- Moho and Tylo. Even then, I still usually just land on engines.

Traditional aircraft have a vertical stabilizer and a horizontal stabilizer. The vertical stabilizer is to limit and control Yaw, or right-left motion. Attached to the vertical stabilizer is normally a Rudder, which is a movable control surface that can induce yaw, causing the nose to sweep right or left. The Horizontal Stabilizer is used to limit and control Pitch, or up-down rotation. Attached to the horizontal stab is normally an Elevator, which is a moveable control surface, causing the nose to pitch up or down. The stabilizing and control effects of a horizontal stabilizer and vertical stabilizer (with rudder and elevator surfaces) can be combined into two surfaces which form a 'V'. The two angled surfaces provide both pitch and yaw stability and control. The control surfaces attached to the 'V' shaped tail are sometimes called 'ruddervators' because they perform the function of both a rudder and elevator. Real world examples of aircraft with this configuration include the Beechcraft V35 Bonanza, F117 Nighthawk, and several military UAVs. The theoretical advantages are reduced drag from having only two stabilizer surfaces instead of three. Disadvantages would be added complexity, and added weight. The 'V' tail configuration is very uncommon, currently you are more likely to see it due to design considerations other than aerodynamic reasons. Keeping the tail out of the air behind engines, or reducing radar profiles are a couple of reasons a V tail might be handy. In KSP, you have a lot of freedom to place control surfaces wherever you want. KSP aircraft react badly to having center of thrust not perfectly in line with center of mass, so I personally end up with at least one center-mounted engine usually. That makes it difficult to put the tail dead-center, so some creative placement of control surfaces is often in order.

My experience has been they are not practical except for extremely light probes. On the other hand, they are a great way to fill your tech tree for almost no cost. With a minor amount of planning, you can send a single ion probe to every body in the system, including a landing on many of them! A basic ion probe would consist of an engine, 3-4 xenon tanks, the tiny probe core, a battery, some solar panels, the 4 small science experiments, and an antenna. I managed to get one to do passes of Eve, Gilly (landed), Duna, Ike (landed), Dres, Jool, Bop (Landed), Pol (Landed), Tylo, Vall, Laythe, Eeloo, Sun-Dive to low Kerbol pass, Moho (lucky intercept on the way up...), and back to Kerbin (another lucky intercept). Kicked myself for not putting a parachute on it for a safe return! Ended up with a spectacular crash on Kerbin, and miraculously everything was destroyed EXCEPT for the probe core! So I got science credit for the return of a craft from all the above-mentioned bodies. Unless you are very, very patient, I recommend keeping the probe as light as possible- no kerbals or unnecessary mass. Burn times are not that bad on a very light probe. Anything bigger and I don't have the patience.

I'd add that the docking ports have much less mass that the same-size decoupler, and as already pointed out you only need one per probe. I built an orbiter with several tiny 'escape pods', for rescuing Kerbals. The best solution was to use docking ports to detach the 20 escape pods. I also tried the tiny decouplers, but quickly realized there was a significant weight savings with the docking ports. Also, an additional 20 decouplers makes your staging sequence fairly confusing..

A lander which separates from the main ship is more efficient- you aren't lugging your entire fuel load to the surface and back. So your ship needs less fuel overall if you use a small lander. Small reductions in weight at the top (upper stages) of your ship have a huge impact in how much thrust you need at the bottom (the first stage, at launch). The cost of adding a few docking collars and tiny engines is very minor compared to the cost you save by not needing extra giant boosters and fuel tanks. The cost savings really add up if you are planning multiple trips to the surface. Refueling a very small lander does not require very much fuel for each descent to the surface. Refueling a larger ship without a dedicated lander will require more fuel each time, because the extra weight requires more fuel to be consumed during each descent. Again, the more fuel you need to bring along for each descent the more your rocket will cost.

When you are approaching the runway, the visuals lead you to believe your approach is shallower than it actually is. If you are overshooting the runway, adjust your path next time to be much shallower. Providing you still have jet fuel, a low, shallow, stabilized approach is an easy way to get on the runway. You also shouldn't need much throttle during the approach- just enough to keep a little speed. The right speed will depend on the design, but most planes seem to fly fine at 80-120 m/s when below 2,000 meters.

You mentioned you aren't overly confident of your EVA skills. Getting out and pushing will fix that. I'd recommend leaving yourself a fair amount of RCS to get back in the pod, until you are more confident. Try some different views, to see if you find EVas easier with a certain view.

Exactly what SRV Ron said. Start small, with a probe. You'll become more confident after you send a probe out to Duna or Eve. Most likely, you'll have a lot more fuel left when you arrive than you expected. Duna is easy to reach, it's orbit is nearly the same inclination as Kerbin. Eve has the advantage of having a thick atmosphere, so aerobraking works well when you arrive. My suggestion for your first trip to Duna or Eve with a Kerbal on board: Put a docking port on the return ship, just in case. Most likely, you won't need it.

Not sure why Mun or Minimus aren't listed. They're the bodies with the most biomes to explore.

I believe this is a known issues with a partial fix. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86845-6-Aug-0-24-2-Issues-and-Fixes That link should take you to a list of know issues. Scroll down until you find the 0.24 Decoupler issue. Targa has a workaround posted in that forum.

No, it doesn't. You asked why real spaceplanes or hyper-sonic planes generally have low wings. You're getting explanations of why you see that in real life. In KSP, many of the design considerations real aerospace engineers face are less relevant, or not relevant at all. I don't use mods, and find it most convenient in KSP to make planes with mid-mounted wings. The issues that would present in real life do not occur in stock KSP, and having bits mounted around the center of the ship generally makes them handle better (not always).

Also, a mid-mounted wing would need a carry-through spar, right through the center of the fuselage. A wing mounted low or high allows the spar to not travel through the center of the vessel. A low wing also allows the horizontal stabilizer to be mounted above the wing, keeping the air over the horizontal stab undisturbed. You could do it backwards, with a high wing and low stabilizer, but then the stab is closer to the ground and may contact during takeoff or landing.

No, you don't need to complete each section with a single ship, all at once. As for how the payout is distributed if you split it up, I haven't paid attention. The science portion does not need to be transmitted right away either. Most of the contracts you are referring to specify science be transmitted or recovered. If you choose to recover instead of transmitting, you won't complete the science part until you recover the vessel on Kerbin.

Reading this forum with interest. I currently have six ships scattered around the Kerbol system, all identically named "Unnamed Vessel". Getting quite confusing, frankly. When I do name vessels, I usually just make a reference to its current location, which isn't very helpful in the long run. Some really good ideas here!

The direction the thrust vector is displayed is confusing. The lift vector points in the direction the force acts. However, the thrust vector points in the opposite direction of the force. To me, an arrow pointed backwards would represent drag. Never noticed that oddity until this thread, however. Interesting.

-Ion engines now have enough thrust to make them useable in the game. -Parts (especially fuel tanks) stick together better. - Previously two orange tanks together would be very wobbly. That got fixed a while back, so go ahead and stack away! -Docking ports are less wobbly than before, but still wobbly enough that adding struts is helpful. The large docking port is obviously the most stable one, if your ship is big enough to use it. -Some of the command pods now have a little RCS propellant built in. -SSTO aircraft are absolutely do-able now. One TurboJet and two Intakes (maybe even one) should get a minimalist vessel to orbit fairly easily, with a little rocket boost to top off your periapsis and circularize.

Also, using the yellow indicators on the navball in target mode is very helpful to zero out your relative motion. While you are getting the hang of docking, I think it's common to get frustrated when you end up with unwanted motion. Instead of getting closer to the target, you find yourself just going around it. Using the yellow indicators in target mode really helps. To zero out your motion relative to the target vessel, point your ship so it's aimed at the yellow circle with an 'X' in it. Then, thrust (or RCS forward) until your speed is at or near zero. The speed indicated in target mode is your speed relative to your target. Making that relative speed zero gives you time to line the ships up, so you can start bringing them together- slowly. Once you have zeroed out your relative motions with the yellow indicator, align both ships so they are facing each other. To do that, use the magenta (pink) indicators. You want to point towards the magenta indicator which is a circle with a dot in the center. Thrust or RCS forward a little.

I think the simple solution here is to use the ] or [ keys to switch between vessels, and keep them pointed towards each other. Keep in mind that you may need to go to map view, and select the other vessel as a 'target', so you get a magenta indicator on your navball, to indicate the direction of the other vessel. Doing this is much easier than trying to maneuver around a vessel, trying to get into position to approach a docking port. It also helps to zero-out your relative motion before switching vessels. That gives you time to target the other ship, if needed, without drifting past while you fumble with the controls (at least that's been my experience). The method of pointing one ship 'north' and the other ship 'south' also works, but adds confusion when the orbits are inclined. Using the [ and ] keys to switch between ships, keeping them pointed at each other, works really well, no matter what type of orbit you are in.

The reason arranging a rendezvous in Jool orbit would be more efficient: We're assuming the vessel currently on Laythe is lighter than the vessel you are sending to pick up the Kerbal. We're assuming the rescue vessel has enough fuel to return to Kerbin, while the vessel on Laythe does not. So you will use less fuel by bringing the lighter ship to the heavier one, if possible. However, getting the ships together would be easier in Laythe orbit. Plus, it is possible that with poorly planned burns, you could end up wasting more fuel by trying to meet up in Jool orbit. Or worse, even risk running your Laythe lander out of fuel. Not knowing your exact situation, I'd suggest doing the rendezvous in Laythe orbit.

There is another way to test engines in flight- Initially activate the engine either by right-clicking or through an action group. Then, when the test conditions have been met, you can stage the engine. At that point, staging really does nothing except for completing the contract. If the contract calls for testing by staging, I would put a probe core or pod on top of the booster, with a parachute or two. Activate the booster by right clicking on it. Flight path would be to roll over, to level off in the given altitude window. When speed and altitude conditions are met, stage the part. By doing this, you will splash down some distance from the KSC, but you still should get well over 90% recovery of funds.

In general, you will be more efficient by having as few engines as you can get away with. There are a couple of situations where the resulting low thrust to weight is a problem. One is the fact that excessively long burn times means you are not burning at the ideal point, much of your burn is ahead of and/or behind the ideal point. Also, there are situations where a low T/R ratio means you can't complete the burn in time at all. High speeds when trying to stop in a planets SOI are one. Trying to land on a surface when your T\R is less than 1 is another. However, mainly (for me anyway) it's a matter of I don't have the patience to spend long periods of time watching painfully slow burns. Most of my ships would work just fine with half the LVNs I use, I just don't like waiting for slow burns. Finally, I like to mount the LVNs radially, otherwise they make the ship wobbly because they are long and narrow. So for symmetry, I'm always going to end up with at least two LVNs.

I like the idea of reaching orbit with the first stage, so recovery is possible. Haven't tried that yet, but funds haven't been a problem. I do slim down my designs a bit. I'm building essentially every vessel from scratch, custom built for each mission. I'm sure that helps the budget to some extent. On the other hand, I'm also launching a lot of untested stuff, so I could perhaps be actually making things worse budget-wise, as I still usually end up with a lot more DV than I really needed. I've been keeping a rescue ship in LKO, and snap up every rescue mission that comes up. Right now I'm using a small probe, with basically four 1-man pods, each equipped with a parachute and just enough RCS to deorbit. Was extremely cost effective- I came out with a profit after rescuing the first Kerbal, so the remaining 3 escape pods on the vessel are pure profit. The next one I send up will have 8 pods. I haven't put much effort into recovering near the KSC, but I'll probably start working on that next.