Pecan

So your rocket is not single-stage and the problem starts when you drop a stage and are in that part of your ascent where you've burnt a lot of fuel and are pitching-over through your gravity turn. There isn't anything special about 18-20km apart from the thinning atmosphere but I suspect that your rocket's centre of mass is moving (as you burn fuel/drop heavy stages) to such an extent that it's just not stable any more. Your link just gets me 'not available' so I can't comment on the ship itself.

This is a duplicate of http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82212-ksp-takes-too-much-space-on-hard-disk There are more answers in that one.

24GB for KSP - do you have LOT of big mods installed? My largest KSP install, including mods, 3 saved games and a backup is only 2GB.

How will this 'destruction' of opposing ships and 'capturing' of their bases be done?

No, it hasn't changed since December. Clicking the runway = select a SPH vehicle and launch from runway. Clicking 'launch' in SPH = launch this vehicle from the runway. Clicking the launch pad = select a VAB vehicle and launch from launch pad. Clicking 'launch' in VAB = launch this vehicle from the launch pad.

There is a bug where all vehicles within physics range (2.5km) respond to any control-inputs. Can't see how it would be useful, but there is a fix for it (in the tutorials section, I think). *shouts* Claw? In your thread?

CHAPTER 6: PROJECT LACUNA The Joy Of The Small SECTION 1: PROJECT BRIEFING Identity;Project Lacuna – Small Objects Of Desire Background;In space-engineering less (mass) is more. What can we do under a tonne? Objectives;Evaluate proposals for low-mass vehicles. Payloads;Scooter, SciSat, RCS Tug, Ion Tug, Science Module. Vehicles;N/A. Execution;N/A. This 'project' is rather different to the others in that there are no missions for these vehicles; they are just presented to demonstrate how effective very small craft can be. Overall, these are 'for fun' and you should read or ignore them as the whim takes you. SECTION 2: SCOOTER Scooter i) Data Sheet Identity;Scooter – Lander Purpose;Ultra-light 1-Kerbal spacecraft Statistics;0.7045 VAB/0.26t dry, 10 parts, cost 3,130 Design;Fuel wrapped around a core, seat and engine Construction;QBE probe core, inline reaction wheel, LV-1 engine, external seat on top. 4x round-8 tanks offset down. OX-STAT panel and Z-100 battery Action Groups;N/A Performance;(Duna) TWR 1.93, 2,833m/s (vacuum) Making a very small lander or space-scooter like this is probably not realistic but it is fun! ii) Construction A simple vehicle but with one little construction trick. Start with the QBE, put the IRW and engine underneath it and the seat on top. Now take a round-8 fuel tank and attach it to the top connection on the QBE, which the seat doesn't block. Use the offset tool to drag this tank down as far as possible – this keeps the CoM low and helps stop the scooter tipping-over when it's resting on the engine. You can now add the other three tanks on top of this one and the battery and solar panel to the sides of the QBE. iii) Staging And Action Groups None, unless you want to toggle the engine – there's nothing else selectable! iv) Flight Can land on and re-orbit from any body except Tylo, Laythe and Eve. Landing OR re-orbit is possible on Tylo, but not both. You can even take this to Mun on its own if you really want to. Three things to note – 1) You can't assign crew to a command seat at launch so you will need to EVA a Kerbal from another vehicle or pod, 2) if you want to recover your Kerbal you'll need to attach a pair of parachutes for balance, 3) Going to Mun on this really is unrealistic but it can do it. Have fun! v) Notes You have to right-click the seat from an EVA'd Kerbal and 'board' it to get into it. Watch the navball for which direction KSP thinks things are facing, you will need to 'control from here' on the QBE. Consider using two radial engines and a small docking-port on the bottom for a more versatile design. SECTION 3: SCISAT SciSat i) Data Sheet Identity;SciSat – Payload Purpose;Tiny science probe Statistics;0.05t, 8 parts, cost 2,120 Design;The chapter heading did mention 'small', didn't it? Quarter-tonne SCANSat satellites are just too big. Construction;QBE, jr docking port, 2xZ-100 batteries and OX-STAT panels, 1xcommunotron 16 and 2HOT thermometer Action Groups;N/A Performance;No Propulsion! This is a sandbox tutorial but I shall now nod towards career mode. In that you will be offered contracts to launch a satellite 'which has power and an antenna' and 'return science from …'. This has just enough for those types of job. ii) Construction About as simple as it gets – the QBE, solar panels opposite each other and the batteries on the other sides. Then place the thermometer and antenna above the batteries. If you intend to re-use this satellite by moving it to different places for science (saving money), add the docking-port on the bottom as well. iii) Staging And Action Groups Um-mm, 7 for the temperature maybe? iv) Flight No propulsion – launch and place it with other vehicles such as one of the next two vehicles, then just leave it there. v) Notes The QBE doesn't have reaction wheels so not only can't this move itself, it can't even change it's orientation – be careful of power, especially if transmitting. SECTION 4: RCS TUG RCS Tug i) Data Sheet Identity;RCS Tug – Drone Tender Purpose;(Re)positioning small vehicles Statistics;0.86t VAB/0.22t dry, 18 parts, 6,120 Design;A very light and cheap space-vehicle Construction;QBE, inline reaction wheel, 2xZ-100 batteries and OX-STAT panels. Thrust pack: FL-R10 monopropellant tank, jr docking port and 4xRCS thruster on top and bottom. Action Groups;N/A. Performance;No TWR!, 3,477.2m/s (vacuum) If the SciSat can't move, you need a tug to move it. This has no engine but relies upon RCS for thrust as well as docking. 3,477m/s deltaV is pretty useful when you're already in orbit and only need to push a small load. ii) Construction Pretty much what it says in the data sheet. iii) Staging And Action Groups Nothing to activate. iv) Flight Launch and leave in orbit. When you have a satellite or other small vehicle that needs moving this can use its RCS to rendezvous and dock with it, then pull it to the new orbit, lunar SOI or wherever. Just dock a vehicle with spare monopropellant to it when it needs refuelling. Something like Orbiter Mk2 would be good for this but note the different docking-port sizes; they won't connect as is. v) Notes RCS doesn't offer the same fuel-efficiency as liquid-fuel, in general. On the other hand, since you probably need it for docking anyway you might as well have more of it and not carry the mass of a rocket engine. Just something to consider. This obviously does have some thrust and therefore TWR but I've got no idea what it is! Low for sure, so long burn-times, especially with a payload attached. SECTION 5: ION TUG Ion Tug i) Data Sheet Identity;Ion Tug – Drone Tender Purpose;(Re)positioning small vehicles Statistics;0.59t/0.45t, 28 parts, cost 15,020 Design;A very efficient, high-tech space-vehicle Construction;QBE, inline reaction wheel, 2xZ-100 batteries, PB-X150 xenon tank above and below, PN-ION engine below, jr docking port on top, 20(!) OX-STAT solar panels Action Groups;N/A Performance;(Kerbin) TWR 0.35, 11,172m/s (vacuum) A high-tech alternative to the RCS Tug, this uses the most efficient engine in KSP. ii) Construction The QBE and IRW as before with xenon tanks above and below, the ion engine at the bottom and docking-port on top. Plaster the whole thing with as many OX-STAT solar panels as you can fit – the engine uses a LOT of electricity. iii) Staging And Action Groups N/A iv) Flight The Ion engine has an Isp of 4,000, compared to the next-best LV-N at 800, hence this has enough deltaV for a return-trip to almost anywhere. Unfortunately it uses a lot of electricity during burns and has low thrust, so those burns will be long. If you want the ultimate in efficiency you just have to live with that. v) Notes There's no RCS on this. You might like to add some but the very low thrust of the Ion means 'main' engine docking isn't too difficult. SECTION 6: SCIENCE MODULE Science Module i) Data Sheet Identity;Science Module – Payload Purpose;Collecting Science Statistics;0.47t VAB, 12 parts, cost 23,428 Design;All the instruments in a dock-able package Construction;SC-9001 science junior, 2HOT Thermometer, Double-C Seismic Accelerometer, GRAVMAX Negative Gravioli Detector, PresMat Barometer, Mystery Goo Containment Unit, Sensor Array Computing Nose Cone, 3x cubic octagonal struts, 2x junior docking ports. Action Groups;N/A Performance;N/A The SciSat is simple, but this is comprehensive. The science junior and mystery goo can only be used once each unless they are 'cleaned' at a mobile lab, which just happens to form the core of the space-station in the next chapter. Strangely enough, all the other vehicles in the rest of the tutorial can carry a science module. It's almost as if it were planned... ii) Construction Start with the science junior, put a docking-port on the bottom and the four small instruments down one side. The mystery goo presents a problem, in that it unbalances just about anything and carrying two would be needlessly massy. The solution here is to cheat use cubic octagonal struts. Place two on top of each other, on top of the science junior, with the other docking-port on top of them. This leaves room to attach the mystery goo next to them, also on top of the science junior. Now attach the third cubic octagonal strut to the top of the science junior, opposite to the mystery goo, and put the sensor array on top of that. Turn on the CoM indicator in the VAB and use the offset tool to drag the strut/sensor in and out until it balances the others, then pull it down so the sensor sits flush on the science junior. Although I haven't really stressed it using the offset and rotation tools, along with struts, is the 'art' of construction in KSP. iii) Staging And Action Groups N/A iv) Flight Carry it around with the tugs, conduct experiments, return to Kerbin for science. Use everywhere in the next chapters. v) Notes The remaining chapters return to the campaign to build a permanent infrastructure that only ever needs fuel and additional crew. As you move to these larger vehicles and missions remember how much can be done with very little.

While I too provide additional living-space for long-term missions we should all look at the current provisions made by the world's navies. Probably the most appropriate examples are nuclear submarines which may stay submerged (~in space?) for many months. They are, as most people are aware, notoriously cramped and submariners are definitely a special breed because of it but they do demonstrate that a great amount of space is not required. Obviously each person needs a 'duty station', which in KSP would be the seat they're assigned to in a command pod/lander can. A similar amount of space would be required for sleeping, but you can use 'hot bunking', assuming the crews are standing multiple watches. Finally, there have to be circulation and relaxation spaces connected those (ie; corridors, messes, kitchen, hygiene). As a rule of thumb, then, 2 - 3 'locations' are required per crewmember. You should also bear in mind that in sea-vessels, and to a lesser extent space-vehicles, large spaces are anathema because they mean there is more room for equipment - and crew! - to be thrown around during manoeuvres or accidents, causing greater damage. At its simplest that means everywhere needs to be within reach of a secure handhold. There have been several threads on similar subjects before and, of course, all of this assumes Kerbal phsiology/pshycology is more or less the same as humans.

If your comsats are in geosynchronous, and therefore equitorial, orbits you will find them blocked by other planets from time to time, as they are (almost) all orbiting the sun in the same plane. That is why many people have their 'local' cloud in equitorial orbits and their interplanetary ones in high, eccentric polar orbits. There is a LOT more information about the mod in its thread in the add-ons forum and its various info sites.

0.25 - I'll leave the rest to the devs.

For the crime of whatnot criminals are sent on long missions with Jeb, who insists on telling them about all his other long missions. At length. Snack thievery is an unforgivable and capital crime, though. Those few depraved souls who would go so far outside the bounds of Kerbality are tied in the exhaust vents beneath the launch pad - but usually not for long.

Yep, that's how they're embedded now. Just read in another thread that imgur gives a choice of sizes - large thumbnail seems perfect. I'll try to get 'the story so far' reformatted tomorrow. ETA: Decided to post the next chapter with properly-formatted pics, first. It seems to work so I'll do the others over the next few days, I hope.

:-( You're right, my model doesn't work. Not sure why you can't get an Ap above 35km, I have no problem with altitude - keep coming up a couple of hundred m/s of stabilising orbit though. I still think it is possible to SSTO with SRBs but it'll probably be an exploitative build and not something I have more time for at the moment. Still, challenges are meant to be, well, challenging and I hope I'll be back to this in a few weeks. For now, you win :-)

No mod I know of but the critical rule is that if a line drawn vertically from the CoM is within the area of the base it should stay up - the Leaning Tower of Pisa being the classic example, although it's always trying to fall over! Display the CoM marker in the VAB/SPH and extend whatever landing-gear you have. Measure the angle between the CoM and the 'feet' - that's the angle you 'should' be able to land on. A lower CoM helps by making the angle wider, as does a wider base (of legs) for the same reason. This is the best explanation I could find with a quick search: http://www.angelfire.com/nc3/pweb/lessons/stable.htm Double ninja'd - nice diagram Tex_NL :-) LOL - and we all added the 'ninja' tag! ETA: 'Fat Sally' (post #5 in the tutorial in my signature) is a small lander specifically designed to cope with slopes, and so illustrate the difference between that and a tall, thin one. In the illustration it is sat on a 30-degree slope (according to MJ) but I have, accidentally, landed it on 48-degrees without a problem while visiting a Mun arch.

Ok, so cooking ran into eating and then ... anyway; Mk1 command pod, 5xS1 SRBs (core + 2 + 2) gives 4,743m/s although I added an IRW to make the gravity turn easier, reducing the deltaV to 4,704m/s. All boosters tweaked down to increase burn-time and action groups used to ignite 2, then 2 then 1 (for final circularisation). It doesn't fly well but it works if you time the burns properly.

Oh yes it is! GAAHHHH! Now you've done it. As if I'm not already trying to do too many things at once, I'm going to have to prove that now aren't I. *sigh* Give me an hour, I need to cook dinner first ...

And to expand on the above - the amount of torque available from the command pods/probe cores is finite so will have less effect on a massier vehicle. Adding additional, specific, reaction wheels will increase the available torque or, yes, you can add RCS as well.

You will probably find most help in the 'modding' forum: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/37-Add-on-Development - which deals with making mods for KSP. 'Modelling' usually refers to 3D-modelling - that is, making new parts, so I'm not sure if you mean that. If you do, the sub-forum of the above most appropriate would probably be:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/14-Modelling-and-Texturing-Discussion Note that creating mods is a programming task and that skill, or at least familiarity, with C# is almost a first requirement.

@ Cirocco: I'm using SH-MK2Cockpit and TT-MK3-IVA-v1.3 for internals. Unfortunately, like J4CKAL2014, I got them from spaceport and wouldn't know where to find them on curse. The MkII gives as good an all-around view as the Mk1 and docking to a large station in IVA is ... cool :-) @ cantab: I can recommend Action Groups Extended (AGX) - not only does it let you set and edit action groups in flight and map them to any key but it also pops-up a window so you can activate them with a mouse-click. Oh, and there is the little matter of having a few more action groups available too - 250, to be precise! @ OP: Ok, you've started with information mods because you need to know it. Cockpit-internals should be stock too so you slide into EVE then KerbQuake (how did it take so long for someone to do that!) and, well, Chatterer is just the audio equivalent and adds so much to immersion. Maybe then you think you'll add something for 'mission structure' and take a hit of SCANSat, Kethane or RT2 and with those last two you find you've changed the way you (need to) play the game. So FAR, DRE and one of the Life Support mods are only one more step and you're into hardcore. With Kethane bases, especially you'll find KAS looks very useful and FAR 'needs' Procedural Fairings to streamline your folded-up Infernal Robotics probes/rovers and, things would be so much better with a whole new range of parts. So then you buy a new computer ^^ Yeah! For the mod-makers :-)

Anyone taking away my ability to revert better provide a way to simulate my computer simulating launches before simulating launching launch vehicles.

More agreement - I try to apply 'traffic separation' rules: 75km - Low-rendezvous/de-orbit orbit. Everything that launches should be able to make it higher than this so it's just for things preparing to re-enter and the occassional runtresearch ship that struggles to get to orbit at all - in which case a tug will be on its way to take it somewhere better. 100km - Interplanetary holding orbit (Oberth and all that, even if I STILL don't actually understand it ^^). 150km - Rendezvous-phasing orbit - high enough to phase against 75km below or 200/250km above, without getting in the way of station traffic. 200km - Station traffic orbit. 250km - High-rendezvous/parking orbit. The waiting room.

See, now you mention Kethane, it changes almost everything! I was about to say your attitute didn't deserve an explanation of my previous statements; you're right though, it was a jerk post and I apologise. I stand by my points but I should have made some sort of effort to put them more helpfully. So :- Rovers are useless without the Kethane mod because it takes so long to get anywhere with them that a) it's nearly always quicker to send another lander, you'll probably give-up halfway anyway. Without Kethane (or similar) bases just really are useless in KSP. I really wanted to build them - and you might too, which is fine - but they get old very fast, especially with problems of docking/linking separate modules. WITH Kethane bases become essential, therefore your rovers become an easy and interesting adjunct. Multiple bases within rover-commute give you a reason to rove and something interesting to look at while you do it. Rovers can even be useful in carrying things between modules/bases. Have you looked at the KAS mod too? It makes connecting bases much more funtional. 'Jets', in the common parlance (to quote wikipedia) are 'air'-breathing engines - specifically they need 'oxygen', so only work on Kerbin and Laythe. 'Planes' using non-oxygen-breathing engines are pretty much defined by using wings for lift, in an atmosphere; so that adds Eve and Duna. However, the advantage of (space)planes is their fuel-efficiency from using jets, which still limits them to Kerbin and Laythe for any practical purpose, hence they "are practically useless" and, even where useful, they take so much time and effort to fly "it's easier and quicker to launch a (sub)orbital rocket than fly a jet". On Eve the gravity is so great you don't want to spend any time lower than you absolutely have to. Since you can't use jets and don't get any fuel-efficiency from staying in atmosphere with other engines "you're better off with a normal rocket ascent-profile" - that is, going UP and out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible (allowing for gravity-turn to get into orbit). On Duna, in contrast, the atmosphere is so thin that you won't get much lift from a plane unless you carry a ton of wings, making the whole vehicle heavier, harder to build and less efficient. In other words, "you're better off with a normal rocket ascent-profile". If you're not using jets and you're not using wings for lift there's no point in carrying a mass of wings - a reasonably aerodynamic rocket just doesn't need them - which means it isn't a plane at all any more and so "The only place off Kerbin where jets work, and therefore spaceplanes are worthwhile, is Laythe." I do not dispute the possibility of making a solar/xenon plane, just the utility of it. If you want a challenge by all means go ahead but the wonder is not in doing it well, "but you are surprised to find it done at all". Don't conflate 'jet'/'plane' or 'air'/'oxygen' though (or 'SSTO'/'Spaceplane' for that matter, which a lot of other people do). As a sci-fi geek, I'm sure you appreciate the difference. You've probably sorted-out your solar-panel issues by now but for the record, they work most efficiently when facing directly towards the sun but not when facing away from it or in the shadow of a ship or celestial body. The OX-STAT panels are simple, cheap and light but fixed in place, therefore it is important to orientate your ships so that the panels facing the right direction. Doing that even these little panels are useful and efficient, being less than a third of the mass of the OX-4W/L (the shielded versions are even heavier). When ships have trouble orientating to the sun the other panels are useful but they still won't worked if blocked OR if they are 'side-on'. While they rotate in one axis they have no freedom of movement in the other two so you still need to consider their placement carefully, if not as much as with the OX-STAT. The best coverage is with three panels orientated at 90-degrees to each other, one per axis. In practice that's usually not necessary though, unless your ship really has no ability to rotate. You will still need more panels the further from the sun, of course, as you'll know.

The install I tested on has: MM, Toolbar, Chatterer, CLS, AGX, KER, PF, NRAP, MJ, NavballDockingAlignmentIndicator (that SO needs an abbreviation!), SCANSat, SM and KAC. So, er, nearly stock ^^. Of those only Toolbar, AGX, CLS and MJ (via MM) are active in the VAB. The only one I'd think might have an effect is AGX but, since there are no action groups defined, I doubt if it has. Hard to see how any mod could get flight-mode activity like that into the VAB/SPH, have fun tracking it down.

You know you're a newb in KSP when - you try to copy what you've seen in films, by doing the manoeuvres the way they do in Hollywood.