DeMatt

Maybe try taking it easier as you boost. Larger fuel tanks, less engine thrust, until you get clear of the atmosphere, so the atmospheric surfaces don't affect your trajectory. Could also try mounting two gliders, one on each side, and facing opposite each other. Be sure to right-click the gliders' control surfaces and turn 'em off.

...A small lander shouldn't need RCS for rotation at all. Turn it off, just use the command pod/probe core's torque. And turn on SAS so it'll stop spinning automatically.

If you have RCS systemry on the rover, you could try "flying" the rover up to meet the bottom of the lander...

Probably all the experiments were stored in the lander's pod, and you returned the orbiter's pod to Kerbin. When you EVA the kerbal to transfer him from the lander to the orbiter, right-click the lander's pod and choose "Take Experiments"; then he'll carry off all the experimental data stored in the lander's pod, and store them in the orbiter's pod when he boards it.You'll also want to EVA and right-click-take the data from the various experiment parts, if you haven't done that already.

sal_vager is referring to activating the SAS system with the T key, not adding additional reaction wheels. I'm'a gonna agree with sal_vager: turn on SAS by pressing the T key, and leave it on. Then your landers will automatically try to stay in the orientation you point them in. Try to land on a perfectly flat surface, too; landers that touch down on slopes are more likely to topple.

One copy of each experiment/location combination. So "Temperature Scan at KSC" and "Temperature Scan while flying over Shores" can both be stored in a command pod. The exception is Crew Reports - only one Crew Report per command pod - but you can transmit those with 100% value anyways.

Parts of a rocket, in KSP, are assembled in a "tree" fashion... you have a trunk, which sprouts branches, which sprout branches, etc. etc. What this means is that no newly-added part will ever connect to two existing parts. The only exceptions are the strut connector and the fuel line. You'll have to settle for "looks like it's in place", or add a double layer of docking ports - only one such pair of docking ports will be assembled in the VAB, but the others will (usually) immediately dock with each other when the vessel is put on the launchpad.

I tend to agree with those who say, "assemble it in orbit". Each of those C-shaped segments seems to be a unit in and of itself; stick one on a rocket, fire up a bunch of copies, then add "end cap" modules. If you later decide that your existing construction gantry is "too small", why, take off an endcap, fire up some more C-segments, and put the endcap back on.

Click "Edit Post" for your first post, then click the "Go Advanced" button to get all the options.

If you're just trying to fly an SSTO to LKO, no worries about cargo or anything, a single Rapier can indeed carry a simple spaceplane into orbit. But you really need to take to heart the saying, "less is more". This is a very basic SSTO. I did tweak the amount of monopropellant (in the cockpit, down to zero) and the amount of jet fuel (in the center Mk1 tank, down to 75 units) - right-click on a part in the hangar to adjust its stats if doable. Other than that, nice simple flight profile: turn on SAS on reaching the runway, Caps Lock to activate "fine" control, throttle to maximum, Space to start rolling. Rotate (pull up) around 90m/s, retract gear, 45-degree climb to about 15 km altitude, level more-or-less out and accelerate. Should hit about 25 km altitude by 1500 m/s speed before it switches to rockets, at which point pull up to 45 degrees and switch to map view to watch your apoapsis. Cut throttle once apoapsis reaches 75 km, then perform a circularization burn; that should leave you (depending on how much of your speed you were able to gain from jet mode versus rocket) with about 5% fuel remaining. The above spaceplane only masses about eight tons on the runway. To be honest, that's about all one Rapier can be expected to lift. A one-turbojet/two-Rockomax-48-7S combination can probably lift more like ten or twelve tons. Veering to either side on the runway probably has to do with your landing gear - make sure it's precisely vertical; also, use your SAS and let it keep you straight. Spinning out probably has more to do with overcontrolling; Caps Lock for "fine" control, and don't try to turn your nose far from your direction of flight. Being able to rotate depends on the plane being able to lift the nose, as opposed to pushing the tail down; building your plane canard-style (tail-first, instead of the conventional tail-rear) does wonders for that.

There used to be a SelectRoot mod that would let you do what you're asking. I don't know if it's been updated for 0.23. Otherwise, you're going to have to: rebuild your rover from the ground up - or more precisely, from the Clampotron down; or not save your rover as a subassembly, and instead build the skycrane and launcher on top of it.

When a jet gets high enough, it starts running out of air. The way KSP allots intake air, is it starts by feeding each engine in sequence. So what's happening is this: Feed far left engine: Okay! Feed far right engine: Okay! Feed inner left engine: Okay! Feed inner right engine: Nope, I'm out, stop thrusting. And then your plane spins because it's got two left engines and one right engine. The typical solution is to A) monitor your intake air more carefully and switch (some) jets off before you actually run out, or add a jet on the centerline after you've added symmetrical jets. Last-placed jet engines get air last, and a failing centerline jet won't cause your plane to spin out of control. My recommendation would be to swap out the inner two jet engines for rocket engines, then swap the centerline rocket for a jet. Put all the rocket fuel on the inner wing pods, switch the centerline tank out for jet fuel, and remove all the fuel ducts. Leave the air intakes as they are.

I think the "it's THE average of apoapsis and periapsis" option is the easiest way of describing it to you. Try reading up on the definition of semi-major axis and see if that helps.

There's two questions that need to be answered before you plot a rendezvous: first, what's the orbital inclination of the space station; and second, what's the latitude of your lander's touchdown site? In order for your lander to be able to boost directly into the station's orbit, it must be at a lower latitude than the orbital inclination of the station. The easiest setup for this is to A) orbit the station above the Mun's equator (orbital inclination = 0 degrees), and land your landers only on the equator (latitude = 0 degrees). Then all you have to do is tilt straight east, boost into an equatorial orbit, and adjust apoapsis/periapsis as necessary to catch up to the station.

Click "Edit Post" beneath your first post in the thread, then the "Go Advanced" button, then find the Prefix dropdown and change it to [Answered!].

...okay, I just set up my scenario again (low-storage/high-generation vessel in orbit, switch to flag and time-warp), and I think I just panicked on seeing the electricity countdown in the LSM window go two days' negative, and then wasn't immediately able to switch back to the vessels in question. My test, after reading your post, showed that I was quite capable of switching back to the vessel, and its electricity promptly reset itself to full.Would it be possible to adjust that countdown? The idea I had was, when switching away from the vessel, to add up the major electricity-generating parts (PB-NUK fully, OX-STAT * 40% (50% correct aim * 80% not eclipsed), other solar panels * 60% (75% correct aim * 80% not eclipsed)) and adjust the countdown rate by comparing this quick-estimate supply versus the Kerbals' known demand.

After attempting to launch a fleet of single-man landers to Minmus, and realizing TACLS was in the process of killing all but the visible pod due to lack of electricity... I wanted to ask: does TACLS account for any electricity generation? Or am I going to have to pile on huge amounts of batteries if I want to have multiple missions running simultaneously? I haven't tried using the recyclers, so I don't know if those will be accounted for out-of-focus, either... I suppose it depends on how "serious" you want TAC Life Support to be. Is "food" actually a well-balanced, three square meals a day sort of thing, or is it "adequate amounts of snackage"?Following along the idea of "eat all the snacks": Kerbals have a full bar of "comfort"-resource when they launch from KSC. Pods contain no comfort; instead, they produce it. Initially, they produce comfort at a rate equal to a full crew's consumption. Lander-cans reduce their comfort production by half after five days of flight; cupolas, Hitchhikers, and Science Labs after twenty; all other pods after ten. This occurs only once. Comfort acts like monopropellant in that Kerbals can grab it from anywhere on their ship. A Kerbal with a half-empty comfort bar eats double the food (oh noes, the snack supply's disappearing!), but eats only 75% as much comfort. A Kerbal with a fully empty comfort bar eats triple the food. EVA-ed Kerbals ignore the comfort resource, neither eating it nor having their food consumption impacted. How's that sound?

Could try adding a pair of canards (or AV-R8's, if you don't like the actual canards) to the nose, so they'll lift it when you pull up rather than just your elevons pushing the tail down.

My opinion: no. Center of Mass is only relevant when forces are acting on the object; the space station is station-ary (), therefore any changes in its center of mass are irrelevant. Now, if you needed to move or rotate the station, then the fuel tanks' position would be a problem...

Don't wiggle the mouse when you click. Reduce your pointer speed in your computer's mouse (or touchpad, or whatever) control panel. If you're trying to "right-click" without a physical "right mouse button", well, get a mouse. Those multi-touch tablet screens are not precise enough for this level of control.

I haven't tried building boats at all, but I'm pretty sure every stock part floats, period. The game's about building rockets after all. The problem is that running into the water is only mildly more yielding than running into the ground. So any boat that would actually develop any significant speed would splatter when it tried.

Four LV-N's is a lot of engine to be shoving that small a ship orbit-to-orbit. Maybe trim it down to one? Then maybe you can trim the mothership's fuel tanks down a bit... And while I'm at it, why's that upper disconnector-piece on the mothership a TR-XL Stack Separator? The Rockomax Decoupler is a bit lighter, and will leave one less debris-ship floating around when you fire it. Not that I expect said debris-ship to survive crashing into Kerbin at the end, but still... tidiness.

A lot depends on just how monstrously big your various modules are. If you can, try strutting BEYOND the two parts on either end of the docking collars. A picture would help.

Hrm... I'm not entirely sure what to tell you, other than to point out that synchronizing the orbital periods (or the semi-major axes) is exactly how to get satellites into a stable configuration. Adding a fourth satellite to an existing three-satellite constellation would require you to 1) pick one satellite as your reference, 2) move the two other existing satellites into (probably) the +90 and -90 degree positions (from their current +120 and -120 degree positions), and 3) launch the fourth satellite into the +180 degree position. The traditional way of setting up a global communications relay is to put three satellites, spaced by 120 degrees, into the same orbit. That is, all their orbital elements are identical save for the "mean anomaly at epoch", placing one satellite "ahead" or "behind" the other two by the aforementioned 120 degrees. The "argument of periapsis", in such a case, should be identical for all the satellites, as they are all tracing out the same orbit - just at different epochs along said orbit. Since "carriage of signal" is the only reason for those satellites to be where they are, I would suggest that "loss of signal" is indeed the only data you need to decide whether to move a satellite or not. Launching them 1/3 of an orbital period apart, and doing your best to follow the exact same launch trajectory each time, would probably be your best bet.

The limit was introduced, among other changes, to reduce the "transmission spam" that characterized science gain in v0.22. I think this is the point where I suggest to you to untickle your jimmies with the concept that the game, the science system as a whole, and the transmission feature in particular, is still being balanced.And then start flying fewer one-way probes, particularly within the Kerbin system, and start flying more round-trip manned missions.