cybersol

I just fixed a rocket having similar problems because I only have clamp-o-tron juniors. The fix might have been magic, or it might be more general. Originally I had a strut cage around 3 sets of 4 modular girders transferring the load up the rocket. The middle set of 4 girders was offset 45* from the ends, and I was using 2 sets of 8 struts in an X pattern to transfer the load between the ends and the middle. It was all a wobbly mess when using of SAS, even just in stabilization mode. I was confused because these types of strut cages worked in earlier versions. In total frustration and because I was already hit part count limits, I ripped out all the struts. I then put the 3 sets of 4 modular girders all aligned at the same position rocket, and simply connected between the ends and the middle with 2 sets of 4 straight struts. I'm not sure why, but the radially symmetry in the direction of airflow total made it MUCH more stable! Another thing that might work is fairings, but in my career save I don't have the bigger ones yet.

Kerbels can go at right angles between ladders if you press a or d at the exact right place. Also, for a hatch straight over your head, you might be able to use a single ladder because most hatches have short built in ladders.

Note that you can click the orange wrench in a circle and it will tell you the total mass. If you report that, you might get more help. Also, you can checkout the spacecraft exchange forum, because often people will post a whole series of launches to lift various payload sizes to orbit.

Most of us have been re-learning everything after 1.0! Keep going, because after the first bit it's actually kinda fun. And I can now get anything to fly with MOAR FINS! Fins to make it stable, then more fins to make it turn because its now TOO stable Yes, thats an actual rocket from my career save. I regret nothing.

You can switch KER to partless mode in its settings menu. Then all your craft will be stock. I still thinks its a great idea to learn to calculate deltaV and TWR yourself initially.

Due to being heavy but efficient, their real niche is long interplanetary stages. I typically build reusable LV-N tugs to haul things around between planets. One or more tugs docks to the payload and pushes/pulls it around the Kerbol system.

This is similar to my best manual piloting in 1.0.2 of 3200 dV with a starting TWR ratio of 2 and a low and hot ascent profile. It's actually much harder to burn yourself up in 1.0.2. Try 1.0, where it was very possible!

I think the TWR of the middle stage of this is a little low, but this is still workable as a starting point for a standard rocket. So I built it and set all the gimbals to 30%. I then installed MechJeb 2.5.0.0-455 and did some tests in the background while doing other things. Orbital altitude was 75 km, with 0* inclination. Only autostage (0.1 pre, 1 post) and auto-warp were on. Here are the results: [table=width: 1000] [tr] [td]Start Altitude[/td] [td]Start Velocity[/td] [td]End Altitude[/td] [td]Final Angle[/td] [td]Shape[/td] [td]dV remaining[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]1[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]45[/td] [td]0[/td] [td]70[/td] [td]447[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]-[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]35[/td] [td]4[/td] [td]65[/td] [td]444[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]-[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]40[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]50[/td] [td]457[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]-[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]38[/td] [td]3[/td] [td]55[/td] [td]494[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]-[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]35[/td] [td]3[/td] [td]55[/td] [td]422[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]-[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]38[/td] [td]3[/td] [td]50[/td] [td]454[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]-[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]38[/td] [td]3[/td] [td]60[/td] [td]486[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]-[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]38[/td] [td]3[/td] [td]57.5[/td] [td]492[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]-[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]38[/td] [td]3[/td] [td]52.5[/td] [td]484[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]-[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]38[/td] [td]4[/td] [td]55[/td] [td]501[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]-[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]38[/td] [td]5[/td] [td]55[/td] [td]506[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]-[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]38[/td] [td]6[/td] [td]55[/td] [td]509[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]-[/td] [td]50[/td] [td]38[/td] [td]6[/td] [td]55[/td] [td]518[/td] [/tr] [/table] The - for altitude denotes that the 100 m/s kicked in first and overrode that value. I'd also like to give shout out to "tavert" from back in the day that posted a similar table that helped me in the long past. Cheers, CyberSoul

Yes, I can confirm asymmetric flame-out does still happen in 1.0.2. On a newly build orange tank SSTO lifter, 1 out of 14 rapiers would flame out when using only 1 ram intake per engine (of course it was also the most asymmetric engine).

I think this is a great explanation of all the little things that add up to make them much more limited now.

With 4 rapiers and only 45 total tons, you should be able to go to 5* upslope at 12-15 km altitude and punch through the transonic barrier. Otherwise, you may have too much drag in you design. If that is the case, maybe you could post a screenshots showing the design and another with drag lines on while going 300 m/s.

I fully support a drive for a 2.5m SRB. After more experience with version 1.0 SRBs, I still think they under perform relative to their ideal role as a cheap first stage. The BACC I only use when I need to save part count in early career as its really not that cheap now for what you get. The Kickback I occasionally use because its cheap, but its niche is small because it needs more power. The smaller ones are practically useless for me now. To fix the balance, I would personally do the following: 1) Add a new late game 2.5m SRB (2-2.5k thrust for 60-90 seconds) when 3.75m parts start showing up 2) Give the Kickback 50% more thrust (1000 max) 3) Give the BACC Thumper back its 0.9 weight and fuel load (30% more fuel) at its current 1.0 increased cost 4) Increase SRB ISP by about 10-15% across the board Cheers, CyberSoul

For me, lightweight + clipping + struts = shaking boom of death. One thing I have noticed is that SAS makes it worse. Have you tried taking off without that and with all gimballing on engines turned off?

It seems like there are few to no qualified entries in the small tier, so I decided to create a couple of entries there. I wasn't sure how the parachute rules will work out, so I built two similar craft that slow down very differently. Without further ado, I present Bonsai and Kamikaze: Bonsai is 3 stages with a chute, download here Kamikaze is 5 stages with retro rockets, download here Special Instructions: They need 2-3 seconds to settle in after the physics load. If you wait until they start to roll at 0.1 m/s then that means they should be good to go. After that, you can stage normally, but be aware that the stages are fast at around 2s each. This challenge was a great way to try building something completely new, so thanks! Cheers, CyberSoul

I second that airbrakes with likely solve a lot of your concerns. Gee, Airbrakes for aerobraking, what will Squad think of next

Well it really depends on the planes aero drag much more now. Yet, you can also take advantage of this by using airbrakes more or less to fine tune the landing spot. It will be fun to describe in text, but I shall try. Opposite the KSC there is a very large continent of land, and just at the end of it there is a narrowish bay and then the tip of a peninsula. I usually do my retro burns at that peninsula and set my apoapsis for 22-33 km depending on the thing I am deorbiting.

Glad to hear launching west worked well. I had not thought about the re-entry yet, but it makes sense that you were going around 350 m/s faster than normal on entry. I can also see ending up with a steeper trajectory because trying to land at KSC in that direction would be unfamiliar.

I recommend the delta-deluxe winglet. They add a lot of stability and a little control, which is usually what you want. Otherwise some combination of AV-T1 winglets for stability and Av-R8 winglets for control can also be useful if you need to tune the amount of control versus stability more. Also with any early probe core, I would always use at least one control wheel; I usually stick both the core and stabilizer in a service bay with a couple of batteries.

Its really a no-brainer but worth stating explicitly, that basically any node giving a science instrument is a key node to unlock. Others that pop to mind... Fuel Lines - Moving fuel to your next stage allows SO much more range Structs - Struts will let you do more with everything you have A few of my favorite engines: Terrier is key when you are near that stage of the game. Mainsail is a beast of an engine in 1.0.2. I also fully agree with your suggestion of docking ports

DeltaV is relatively easy, see here: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Cheat_sheet All you need is the full and empty weights for each stage (remove the fuel) and the ISP of the engine (right click menu).

Haha, I was thinking the same thing. Plus going faster seems to save dV, in moderation. For the OP, you basically need to use some plane concepts to build better rockets in 1.0+. You'll want a center of lift behind your center of mass, even as your tanks empty. More, lower fins with more lift will make you more stable. However, then you will need more control authority to turn (canards/winglets/etc). As a compromise, I find the small delta control surfaces to be good for small-medium sized rocket fins.

I'm not clear on you goals. Are you going back to an old save and wanting to construct a new craft that will save him in time?

Here is one that gets to LKO with plenty dV to spare. This trades part count for more tonnage, assuming you have the tier 2 launchpad: There is no part room for niceties such as SRB nosecones. Also, don't try turning until you drop the first stage.

No, puller versus pusher should not matter for dV. You will however have to be careful that the exhaust doesn't fry anything. This issue is likely fuel flow related, so you could save and then fiddle with your fuel lines to check what happens. Failing that, another possibility is to check the MechJeb displays with something like Kerbal Engineer Redux.

1. SRB were nerfed if 1.0, so their niche is much smaller now 2. Speed is much less of a concern than ever before in 1.0+. You do pay more in atmospheric drag, but you also leave the thicker atmosphere faster. Practically speaking in 1.0+ if you don't burn up first you will likely save fuel by going faster. This is new, so I don't think I have fully adjusted to this, but empirical test show it is true. 3. Once you are in orbit, all you speed is parallel to the ground. So all the time you spend burning perpendicular to the ground is wasted energy -- known as gravity losses. 4. Basic jets aren't that great, and as DeMatt points out airbreathing stages are expensive if you are not making a reusable craft. 5. I found the Science Alert mod to be great for helping me learn what I was missing.