Rokmonkey

Those fins on that rocket? Pull them ALL the way down to the bottom. I prefer using the Big S Strakes though, they are cooler. Also, I agree with the sentiments expressed so far, how did you assemble it all together on Minmus?

Yeah, fairings don't help much at all. I use them because it feels wrong not too have them. I abhor the grenade effect, the finicky placement of the edges, and the MASSIVE amounts of drag it creates. Also, WHY can't it interpolate? Spline curves man.

A good write up, this should help all those naysayers to learn the new aerodynamics model. I will comment however, fins are not the only GOOD answer. There are no fins on the Falcon or Atlas rocket families. Another strategy to recommend making stable rockets, is to setup the staging of a rocket such that the center of mass always move upwards. Very long, minimally staged rockets with payloads lighter than the engine (approximate of course), have the center of mass move towards the bottom of the rocket. By placing an upper stage in there, as the fuel drains from the first stage, the CG moves towards the front of the rocket. And this is the same for each subsequent stage. A rocket design considers two things now. Boosters to get off the ground, and balancing each stage of a rocket through the ascent.

Almost, however in that those equations its not T_atm, it's the Adiabatic temperature(T_aw), not the same. Though T_aq depends on the temperature of the air. I'll have to go back to my old Heat Transfer and Aerodynamics textbooks to confirm but for now: http://www.thermopedia.com/content/291/ Equation (2) and (3), since it's Air, and you want an accurate model you need to use the compressibility equations. However, it can quickly spiral out, since in that equation is also depend son the Prandtl number but only for certain ranges of Prandtl numbers. We don't want to have to do CFD for all of this, so a line must be drawn somewhere.

I just read a youtube comment that may help both you, I and everyone else with the Flipping rockets. The cause of course is that the CoM is moving backwards and maybe even behind the CoL (They really need to change that to the correct CoP) when the fuel drains and your later stages are far too light. Now, we use fins to pull the CoL down far, but instead try putting in an Upper stage to boost out of the upper atmosphere. That way when the fuel drains the top of the rocket is till heavy, basically making your payload much heavier. Does that wording make sense? Smaller first stage, augmented by an upper stage instead of one big first stage. That way the CoM will always be up front. As the fuel drains out of a single stage rocket you are left with a heavy engine at the back, and a heavy payload at the front. If the masses are close or of the right size based on everything else about the rocket (dimensions, lifting/drag surfaces etc.) The CoM moves behind the CoL!

In what feels like complete contrast to the general forum consensus, I am very much enjoying KSP 1.0. At first I was putting my head through the wall when my rockets were going nuts off the launchpad even though I'd played using FAR for years. I adapted and relearned new techniques that work for me, until I figured out the best way. It's like a whole new game. I did have to start putting in my old mods though, KER, KAC, Alternate Resource Panel, a lot of the informational and UI mods. Hell even career mode is great, I like it better than before, although I will admit that very beginning bit, right before doing a fly-by of the Mun was a bit of a slight grind, but I probably wasn't doing it right and if I went back now it wouldn't be there.

I was wondering the exact same thing. I wonder if they were talking about the readout in map view when you press the little I, that tells you estimated time until 0m/s whatever that means. Since I couldn't find it, I put Kerbal Engineer back in.

One big thing I notice is that you are at 50Km and still pointing straight up. Is that your normal turn or is this captured part way through a flip? As a summary from what was said above: -Your Liquid Fueled Boosters are enormous and far to high up. In this picture is your payload something other than the capsule? -Unless you absolutely need it for large payloads, go for serial staging, meaning don't strap boosters on the sides and instead put them on top of each other, think Saturn V. -You want all of your mass at the top of the rocket, so that all of the drag will be at the bottom of your rocket. If you can't do that, then you will want to place fins at the base of your rocket, this will pull the center of pressure down behind your center of mass.

Try swapping the basic jet engines for two turbo jet engines. And make sure you keep your plane at the appropriate speed, if you go to fast, even your turbo jets will lose thrust.

Yes, the order matters, if T and Tenv are swapped you get different signs, it's entirely a matter of convention. Regardless, that bit is just nitpicking and it's not really the issue you have shown here. You can't base your assessment if this is a bug based on only Newton's Law of Cooling, the coefficient of heat transfer is dependent on Reynolds Number, among a dozen other variables, all of which can change radically depending on the angle of incidence. You can't disregard the angle and airflow unless you know how it's being calculated in the engine. If you are considering this a bug, then it should be in the bug report forum not gameplay questions. Turning off temperature damage is a terrible way of proving your point. Of course the whole thing is going to skyrocket, it was supposed to fail, if the part doesn't fail then the thermal flux will stay and keep pumping thermal energy into it. It may never reach equilibrium.

Do you know off hand how it's being calculated. As far as the sign is concerned, it changes if it's Air->Intake or Intake->Air. As well, your attitude with respect to your velocity vector is going to make a large difference, as that will change the local velocity of the air over the intake and since this is convection your heat transfer changes based on the fluid velocity.

Given his secondary tweet. I have a feeling it's something about getting your in-game rockets being created IRL. Like the 3D printing that has been mentioned.

So, using KER is going to help you a lot, good call on that one. Resources to learn from: For basic rocketry in a simple language, check out the KSP wiki, there are some good guides there on orbital mechanics as well. As far as rocket building goes, I will research and study rockets that have been used in reality, so Wikipedia is an excellent resource, especially with their "Launcher Families" lists. If you find one you like, learn about it on it's page, it's staging launch profile etc. Personally, I mimic realistic designs, so I use Ferram Aerospace, which eliminates the stock aerodynamics and replaces it with real aerodynamics. I'm a mechanical engineer, so that sort of thing causes me to cringe, especially when I see pancake rockets working. I highly recommend you watch Scott Manley's videos. He has excellent tutorials that teach you basic mechanics. As well, if you watch either his Reusable Space Program or Interstellar quest, he frequently discusses actually rockets, orbital manuevers and all things space programs. It is highly educational. He uses mods, but the general practices and theory is the same regardless.

Agreed. I have to use PreciseNode these days. I come to play, and that mod makes using maneuver nodes so much simpler without having to deal with the finicky UI.

Unless they can be turned off, absolutely not. I was using a mod (can't remember which) that put RCS jets on the Command module. Trying to balance RCS on it was a nightmare because they were not tweakable at all.

If I am not completely off the mark, if you click the "Stage Only" checkbox in the resource panel it will show you the fuel remaining in the current stage, which for you would be the drop tanks. Though that may only work if there were engines under that drop tank. Else, right click on the tank and watch it, like everyone else suggested.

Dedjal, this is because the aerodynamic forces are less than those due to gravity. EDIT- Ninja'd If you go to a the Mun, you can burn up a little, then burn sideways, you just need to get high enough to clear the mountains. As for the ISP, it is scaled based on pressure, not altitude. Although it is similar because pressure decreases with altitude, just not linearly.

Oh, it's a KJR problem? Interesting. Thanks!

I'm running a heavily modded game so I'm not sure if this is a stock bug or a mod bug. This occurs on both Windows x32 and Linux x64 If I have two ships docked together, then un-dock them they will separate. If I dock them, switch to another vessel then back, they will not be able to separate after un-docking. They are considered separate vessels but they are stuck together. The workaround I use now, is to un-dock, switch to another vessel and timewarp 5 to 10 minutes into the future. When I switch back they are separated and I can fly them normally. Time warping while one of the two vessels are active will show them drifting apart but once I leave timewarp they warp back together and collide/intersect and explode.

Yes, that is default behavior. You need to install either the MapResourceOverlay to see it in map view, like Kethane does. You may also install ScanSat along side MRO or in place of it. In this case you must send up satellites to map the moon/planet first so you can see where it is. MRO has an option to "enable ScanSat" so it only shows you what has been mapped already.

BAM http://remotetechnologiesgroup.github.io/RemoteTech/tutorials/long_range/ There is a table there with the distance you'd like.

Uhh, you should have. It drastically changes the atmosphere. You should have at least noticed that you need less fuel to get to orbit. If you are running Windows 64-bit, FAR turns itself off so that would mean you didn't notice it. If you aren't, then I have no idea.

Good grief that is a lot of SRB's So, delta-V, if you really want to make efficient rockets, you need to learn it. It's critical. Simply put, delta-V is a measure of how much fuel you have. It's measured in velocity, seeing as how in space all of your maneuvers are just changes in velocity at different times. There are many guides out there that can tell you how to do that by hand, it is a very simple, if tedious, calculation. Or you can get Kerbal Engineer or MechJeb to show you the dV of each stage of your rocket in the VAB. To address some of your observations, I'm assuming you are running stock aero, and not FAR or NEAR. With Kerbins atmosphere, you want to keep your speed below 200m/s when you are below 10km. That's roughly where your terminal velocity is so anything more than that and your are wasting precious fuel fighting atmospheric drag. Too high of a TWR and you quickly straight breaking the rule of thumb of keeping your speed low int he lower atmosphere. Yes, if you have designed your rocket to have an optimal TWR at full thrust, you will be better off than one where you need to reduce throttle to get the optimal TWR. You are carrying too much fuel, and wasting a lot of fuel trying to get it up into orbit. SRB's are definitely cheaper, for a reason. They have no throttle, no control, and you can't turn them off. they are RARELY, and I mean RARELY used beyond your first stage. They are a great way to kick your rocket off the ground but carrying them along for the ascent is wasteful. You are carrying dead weight. Unless you optimize everything, using math and tweakables to your advantage you are going to waste funds trying an all SRB rocket to the Mun. Efficient designs utilize liquid fueled boosters for nearly all of the mission, not just the payload, ascent and all. The "strength" of the SRBs are dependent on how you use them. It's very hard to state categorically that one is better than the other. Especially given as to how you can tweak the thrust and fuel in them to get almost exactly what you want. Now, I see you are being very particular about your trials and record keeping. One thing to keep in mind, "flight time" is not the only variable you should be watching. You want to look at the velocity as well. If you want to get a really good handle on it, mark the velocity prior to activating the stage, then mark the velocity after as well as the time of the burn. This is actually your delta-V for that stage. (Velocity after - Velocity before)/Time of Burn I hope that helps a little.

I use FAR Exclusively, though I only fly rockets. I can't even get space planes to work right in stock. I definitely suggest you switch to FAR, don't do NEAR, especially if you are going to fly spaceplanes. You NEED Mach effects to slow you down. NEAR doesn't include those so you slip right through the atmosphere at incredible speed. Now, as far as rockets go, I tend to build slim realistic rockets. At most I have one set of liquid fueled boosters that pump directly to the main stack, but usually not even that. You don't need much dV, and unless you are launching 1000tons into orbit, you don't need big rockets, even in stock. So, some tips and tricks with rockets: -Total dV requirements for launch are in the range of 3300 - 3800m/s depending on your launch profile. I recommend you build a couple standard launchers and use those to get your payloads to orbit, that way you can learn the ascent curves easier. -Get a mod with Fairings. I like KW because it's a fun design constraint, packing things into small fairings but Procedural works just as well. Also, use nose cones! -Always check your COM and Center of Pressure (or Center of Lift in KSP terms, it isn't actually a thing in reality). If your COP is above your COM, you need to be a little cautious with your gravity turn, go to far and you will go unstable. This is where people get turned off with FAR. A gentle turn will ease you right into orbit. Or you can do what I do, slap a couple lifting surfaces at the base of your center stack. You just need it to get you through the lower atmosphere. 30,000 meters up, it's not so much of a big deal. They don't even need to be control surfaces, I use wing strakes usually. -As was said earlier, keep your TWR low on launch, I usually shoot for something around 1.2 As far as space planes are concerned, use the tweakables on the control surfaces. You don't usually want so much control authority, so turn off yaw and roll on your wing control surfaces near your fuselage, enable only roll on the ones out at the tips. Keep yaw on the vertical stabilizer, but turn off everything else. You may also want to turn down the ctrl deflection. Flaps-When enabled, usually for take off, they drastically increase drag and lift. This allows you to get off the runway easier. Spoilers-When enabled, they reduce lift and increase drag helping you land. As a rule with FAR, simple efficient designs are your best bet. Massive asparagused rockets are a no go, far to much waste.

Did I not read somewhere that the RCS propellant is taken from the pod? Or is that a mod...