Commander Zoom

100 x 100 for standard parking orbit. 150 x 150 for my space station.

Final bump, probably: My remaining "attachment issues", so to speak, have been sorted out - I've retained the central aerospike, but have been able to replace my previous hack job of a baseplate (that never did work entirely to my satisfaction) with the new large quad-coupler, a part reduction on the order of 16 to 1. So I'm pleased with that, and also the other small refinements that were suggested here. Once more, thank you all.

Try searching for "free return". That'll give you some idea how to get into such a trajectory/orbit, and what it looks like when you do.

Well, just now my "Test Sim" save proved its worth once again. Not only was there a small problem with the staging of my new probe bus - the transfer stage's engine activated early, while it was still attached - both the decoupler (oops) and the ion engine (OOPS) of one of the probes were mounted backwards.

Nice modules, and thanks for explaining the thinking behind them and how you employ (and emplace) them.

Small is awesome! Some very neat construction techniques here.

Great writeup and quick thinking. Damn shame about Joewise, though.

Pebbles, I applaud your contributions to SCIENCE. Well done.

Presumably, that radioactive soup of blutonium salts and Harv knows what else pretending to be a proper ocean...

Heh, fair point. Okay. Got me there. Honestly, I don't really have a problem with you, or your videos - the few I've seen have been quite nice. It's your fandom, who will not shut up. (I happen to be an occasional fan of Kurt, myself, but you don't see me talking him up in every post, or trying to get him canonized as the Saint of Lego Rocketry and 3D Glasses, or...) Too many threads where someone inevitably invokes your name as if you were the One True Authority and the only person playing this game who matters. That's what I'm sick of. Sorry that you have to deal with all that (and the expectations that come with) and the backlash.

Like hell. I was here first. (Before we had YouTube "celebrities.")

A great story with some amazing worldbuilding here.

Am I the only person (besides the wiki mods, obviously) who thinks this guy is incredibly overrated?

That should be all you have to do, yes. (And then put them in your own KSP VAB directory, of course.) I decided not to bother with Google Docs or the like just for a small file like this. Thanks.

Second draft posted, after initial revisions: Download: Sita II Cut down on the RCS thrusters and replaced the FL-T400 outer tanks and aerospikes with 200s and 909s. Note that this cuts down the descent stage's delta-V to just 557 / 724 m/s, but that should be enough (as long as the chutes don't rip off)... EDIT: Speaking of, have just remembered to re-add reinforcing struts between main stage and pods - now in Sita II download, but not in above image.

I have, actually; it is Just Right. (That's why the legs are mounted high on the side tanks, rather than at the bottom - to "lower" the craft.) Maybe? You tell me. In my experience, engine weights being what they are in KSP vs. real life, there's little reason not to put one under every tank, especially if you're going to be dropping it at some point. Duna is not so much the issue; Laythe is. I tested it on Duna first, and could get back to orbit with just the core stage; but Laythe wound up needing everything that I didn't use for landing. (~2800 m/s, according to the wiki ; Duna, only 1500 to 2000.) Slapping MechJeb back on for a moment gives me the following stats for the .craft I posted: Ascent: 2906 / 2921 m/s ; TWR 1.17 Descent: 1099 / 1104 m/s ; TWR 2.24 (note that these are the numbers *after* I replaced all the engines with aerospikes, which is why the atmo and vac delta-Vs are nigh identical; my first attempt did use 909s, as I recall, possibly with a Poodle for the core, and they turned out to be inadequate.) You're right that I could probably get by with less fuel in the descent stage, though - four small tanks (or, I suppose, two large ones at the sides - less stable, though) would probably suffice. prysmatik: You're probably right on reducing the number of RCS thrusters. I tend to go with "more is better" and alternate between "at the CoM" and "out at the ends, for more lever-arm torque". But on the craft this short and stubby, I probably don't need to worry about the latter. This isn't an orange jumbo we're moving around. That central girder is terribly unaesthetic to me, but you're right, it works. *chuckle* What I have now, deleted from the posted .craft, is a set of FOUR of those (well, cubic struts, but close enough) with decouplers, fitting into the gaps between the RCS tanks. As noted above, the original idea was for the four outboards to be, collectively, the descent stage - thus, the parachute placement. However, see above regarding the need for *all* the oomph to get off Laythe. Nukes - I don't like to use nukes on anything that lands. Not just for safety reasons, but because it seems like almost anything is more efficient, thrust per weight, in atmosphere. And it doesn't have to get home from Laythe (or Duna) by itself; this is going to be one component of a multi-part ship. So if that's why you put it there - thanks, but no.

I've put together a two-kerbal lander and tested it on both Duna and Laythe (with the help of HyperEdit to put it in orbit around each), but while I'm mostly satisfied with its performance, I could use some help with the details. Sita.craft - Download link (EDIT: Revised version uploaded, see below!) In the VAB Testing in the Great Western Desert. (Note that while this version had MechJeb installed, the .craft linked above is entirely stock.) The main issue is that while the performance of the aerospike engines is excellent at all altitudes, they are unlike other engines in that they don't have nodes underneath. This requires some truly creative methods to mount the lander in the middle of a stack. I'd like to replace at least the center engine with a more conventional one, allowing me to stack the lander as I would any other stage... but how to do that, while retaining enough delta-V to comfortably land on and return from Laythe? (Duna's easier, but I'd like to use one lander for both.) Any and all comments/suggestions are appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Cause of death: Severe burns, sepsis, respiratory failure hubris suicide

Just wanted to say, Amphiprion, that your VTOL sitting on your rig (back on page 16) reminded me strongly of a SPACE:1999 Eagle... the details are different, of course, thanks to the aesthetics ('look') of the B9 Aerospace pack, but the actual design, including the landing legs and side doors...

and now I want that hoverbike, too

The cynic in me says, that's how you know a mod is "OP".

Yuri Kerman's most famous ride... Excellently done, as always.

bump. Anyone have any ideas on making this work? Would this question be better asked in another subforum?

Well, first of all I hope you realize that in the first picture, the two sets of numbers (before and after the slash) are for atmosphere and vacuum. It looks like you've done the right thing in the sense that you've used engines on your upper stage(s) that are much more efficient in space. I'm guessing, however, that what it shows you on the launch pad is what you get at your current altitude. If so, you can expect the numbers for the later stages to actually increase as you climb higher, out of Kerbin's atmosphere and gravity well.

A slightly cheaty way (but only slightly, and used only to make up for not being able to set navigational waypoints within the orbital map system) that someone else suggested to me: First, do your math (see all of the above) to determine where your satellite needs to end up. Make a very simple target satellite, even just a probe core with nothing attached, and put it on the pad. Use HyperEdit or directly editing the persistence file to put it in orbit at that position. Now you have something to aim for, and can rendezvous with it (manually, with MechJeb, whatever). Nuzzle up to it as close as you can get, then delete the target. As long as you put the actual satellite up the hard way, and get it to the target, I personally don't consider this cheating at all.