Pecan

I'm happy to tell anyone what the challenges were by PM. In the unlikely event that the OP comes back I don't want to kill the thread yet by giving anything away in public.

NOW you say! See, all along I was thinking "give a beginner an easy tool" and I should have been saying "Go away; you're not good enough for my ship". So - anyone that can use the complicated ships doesn't need them anyway and anyone that can't has to sod off? Wonder if there'll be another attempt at - supplied as [stock] for beginners - craft like this?

Ah right - what got me was that having carefully stressed the 36t requirement your original was announced as "32t". Your new one looks very good - the orange at top and bottom is a nice aesthetic. I just threw in the standard 40t launch-vehicle I use since this isn't a proper challenge - what would I know about grindy-science tech-levels and what difference will it make in a couple of weeks anyway ^^.

Version may well be an issue, which was it introduced in? Fairing bases most definitely facing each other - it was one of the main points of the design and I spell out 'facing up', 'facing down' just to make sure. (After the fairings themselves were jettisoned) In my tutorial (signature) I specifically say "Before adding fairings themselves add struts between the upper and lower fairings bases for structural integrity (ie; it'll wobbly itself apart if you don't)." so if it's changed now I'll be pleased to update that :-)

Are you sure you want to bother with cheating your way to science when 0.24 is about to come out and change it all anyway?

Mods usually provide and occupy their own folder within KSP\Gamedata. As a rule a) don't ever install anything on your computer if you don't know what it is, if you do know what it is and want it then intall all of it. Each mod may be different, the only way you can get a proper discussion is by looking at that mods' thread in http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/35-Add-on-Releases-and-Projects-Showcase

For those that would like to but need a ship here is an Apollo-style mission that is easy to build and fly (apart from the messing-around in orbit - but you did say 'Apollo')

Yes, I downloaded and tested the craft. Let me put it really simply - you can't get there from here. Learn to build something that will fly well as an aircraft first.

That was certainly not the case when I had exactly the same problem as the OP with an interstage payload wobbling through the fairings. I had to strut the fairing bases togther to get the rigidity.

Maybe it's because I've been up all night but I don't get it. Go on, I'm sure you're dieing to tell us.

How many solutions did it run through to come up with that, and how long did it take? Last time I used it I think I left it running for about 10k valid solutions while I went shopping. It did produce the goods though :-)

It's one we've all made, and probably will again. If you do make a habit of it you might like the pre-flight checklist mod, which is specifically designed to remind you of the little things we overlook.

Guess what I was looking for yesterday? Have some rep.

Obvious is sometimes a trap ^^. In your OP I take it you're using "nimble" as a euphemism? The three T45s have loads more thrust than you need for re-entry and landing, nowhere near enough fuel for even a reasonable flight to line-up and approach. At about 1/3rd throttle I found it just about manageable but the CoT is above the CoM, tending to push the nose down. This may explain why you found it ok with the CoL so far forward - it's actually in front of the CoM in the SPH (I moved it to check and try a few things), but I still had to move the wings back. Sooo - I repeat, "the Mk3 stuff in particular is horrible to work with". Odd that you modded the fuselage to hold fuel AND oxidiser but the ratio should be 9:11, not 1:1, so the engines can't burn it all anyway. Consider what you want this vehicle to do, on its own. It's main requirement is to fly/glide from re-entry to line-up and land so design it first as an aircraft, in the SPH. Get used to making planes that are stable, controllable and LIGHT. Once you have a design you like start thinking about how you can get them into space - this is where most people find out that the shuttle design is very hard without mods. Instead try a spaceplane approach, if you like flight simulators, or a recoverable rocket - anything from parachute-only to powered-landing a la SpaceX grasshopper.

My first guess is that they don't have batteries or solar panels so ran out of power and died. The Stayputnik on its own won't last long and without electricity you can't operate anything unmanned. Just in case though ... you switch between ships either using '[' and ']' or by clicking and 'switch to' in map mode, not in the flight screen.

Mathman - simple but flexible. Armandd's doesn't meet the entry requirements, otherwise it'd be his. The rest just seem too big/complicated for a beginner's example. Advil, I really liked your 'set' of robots - and the fact that you were quick to answer my question about the decouplers.

Poodles possibly make nice pets but they're useless at pushing rockets ^^. Like the Mk55, Skipper and Mainsail it's an engine to avoid. T30s are great engines all-around but are usually overlooked in career mode especially because they are available right from the start and people assume later engines must be better.

For an initial sprint I think you can consider the 30s burn-time for the smaller SRBs. Moar boosters! Dropped almost as soon as you're off the pad :-) If that is the way people want to race off the pad then, as I said, the fast/short staging is the reason for doing it.

Space "shuttle" or "plane"? Space-shuttle replicas are very difficult to make and fly in KSP and usually rely on specific mods. Space-planes, on the other hand, are not too bad as long as you keep them small and simple, especially when you're starting. I'll have a go with your ship but the immediate advice is to work with something much smaller and lighter until you get used to designing them. The Mk3 stuff in particular is horrible to work with.

"2" is just a rule-of-thumb and I don't know anyone who recommends a launch TWR of 2 - that's rather an average you should aim for over the first stage(s). As you say, it should start with a lower TWR and, burning fuel, end with more - say 1.5 - 2.5. The trick to that is then; how many stages do you want? The more stages the closer each can start and finish at around the magic '2', which is shorthand for "as fast as terminal velocity is increasing". ninja'd!

If you want a sample vehicle and walkthrough section 6 of chapter 6 of the tutorial in my signature has all you need for Kerpollo.

butterknife - before thinking about moving around ON Eve, have you considered whether you'll ever be able to COME BACK? Getting back into orbit from Eve is one of KSP's hardest challenges, requiring a minimum deltaV of almost twice that of a Kerbin launch and preferably 12,000m/s. Your TWR must also be high (~2) throughout the ascent as well - at least until the final stage, very high in the atmosphere. If you're doing this for science plan on transmitting it back, not bringing it back. Expect it to be a one-way trip for any Kerbals you send down.

I don't think we need to be too fussy about formatting at the moment firegeek83; the more options people have the better. I'm having all sorts of problems with LibreOffice when I try to embed the pictures - it just doesn't like the size - but I'm getting there. Your .PDF format would be great if you don't mind, apart from anything else I don't think I have any software that can write .PDFs! (Still checking). As you can all imagine I've been taking a bit of a break from this now it's all published. Proof-reading still ongoing, I'm considering alternatives for Crew Shuttle SP; or at least a discussion on air-hogging and intake placement. In the mean time I've messed-up a Moho-station refuelling transfer (tractor medium with 12 orange tubes!) and need to get the crew back somewhere - anywhere! Anyway, I'm also still thinking about a reusable launch-vehicle and getting good results with "LV-40-L" which is basically 4 LV-10-1 SSTOs strutted together plus landing legs so it can make (drogue-assisted) powered landings after launching a 40t fuel-module, or any other payload, separating and de-orbiting. Finally, I'm considering re-writing Chapters 4 and 5 to separate the manned/docking and unmanned projects more logically. At the moment Chapter 4 is almost twice as long as the others whereas "Cartographer Heavy" in Chapter 5 is little more than "This has more fuel and a better engine". Somewhat differently, I've been asked if I would make the (stock) .craft files for all these available, as I have with the rover and 'plane in Chapter 2. I'm happy to do that but people will get better practice by making them themselves - what do you all think?

"Motherships", "tractors", "tugs" and other indefinite-life ships and stations are popular with those who like to build-up a cost-effective infrastructure over time. Other people either don't want to have all those things floating around all the time or enjoy designing and building single-mission vehicles. Most people (as far as I can tell from comments) find surface-to-orbit spaceplanes/shuttles more trouble than they're worth for anything but very small payloads but, on the other hand, those that like them really love them. Re-creations of the actual shuttle-style of vehicle are particularly difficult in KSP and almost exclusively rely on specialist mods - again, there are a few people who like these sort of rockets. There's all sorts of people playing KSP for all sorts of reasons and doing things the way they enjoy broadly: Want to build an infrastruct for missions to go anywhere? - Use carrier ships/stations never intended to land. Want to build and fly individual, specific, ship missions? - Single-launch or space-assembly every time. Love flight simulators? - Spaceplanes can do everything a rocket does; with wings! Think USA-history is the way everything should be done? - Get a mod to make a shuttle. And, of course, there's nothing stopping anyone who mainly builds infrastructure, say, from using spaceplanes for crew and fuel transfers and designing and building 'specialist' craft for specific missions. It's all about where you want to spend your time and effort. Have fun :-)

Read as many of the tutorials as you can cope with (not mine; that's about mission and vehicle design, not flight as such), practice, be patient, take it slow - especially docking. So obviously you have no problem with orbital manoeuvres as such since you can get to Mun and Minmus. Interplanetary is just more of the same, Hohmann transfer and lots of messing-about with the nodes to get an intercept. The big thing is you need to go at the right time, when the planets are aligned - alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ will give you all the dates and figures you need. Understanding what it's telling you is a different matter. Red Iron Crown (I think) made the good point that practicing transfers between Mun and Minmus and back is just like interplanetary - instead of sun, planet, planet you've got Kerbin, Mun, Minmus for instance. Most people in the forums agree that rendezvous (getting two ships to meet) and docking (actually bringing them together) are two different skills and we nearly all find one a lot easier than the other. Again, there are a lot of tutorials that explain it.