Pecan

Although it's easier to get to Mun, beginners are always reminded the ease of landing on Minmus makes it, overall, the easier mission. (ducking)

As above-mentioned, I start with purpose: my stations are invariably the centre of operations for whichever planet they're orbiting, and its moons, if applicable. That means, first, they have to have docking ports and refuelling capacity (including RCS) for landers. Landers plural as I consider primary/backup a minimum; had I not been planning to land repeatedly it wouldn't be worth putting a station there and the chances are backup will be needed at some point. It needs another port for a tanker to refuel the station itself. Secondly it needs a general-purpose but non-landing tug/transfer/rescue tractor vehicle, and a docking-port for it. That usually makes any orbital adjustment burns for the station as well but I usually put a couple of small, 24-77 engines on the station itself as well, just in case I want to do something with it while the tractor is off doing something else. The station will need more fuel capacity for the tractor too. Although most of my stuff uses large docking-ports the landers will be using standard ones and it's possible (but unlikely) they'll be a few juniours around too. The tractor will have symmetrical pairs of each but I'll also have probe-core equipped adapters docked to the station as well. The probe-cores on these are just so I can orientate them and enable SAS to hold them steady for docking. The minimal crew I assume to be 3; lander pilot, tractor pilot, station commander. As a long-stay station they need 2 x accommodation (6) which I usually count as Hitch-Hiker's + the 'spare' lander and tractor seats. Crew-rotation and visiting missions add to the requirements for docking-ports and accommodation. I tend to add a lab just because it looks so good from the outside (no internals, of course). Then I deck it out with comms and other equipment, tending to make it look busy even if I don't actually need them. Somewhere I'll tuck a couple of small Xenon tanks as well, 'just in case'. The hardest thing I find is using a cupola - I can't give them up! The view can be great but I want it looking at the station, not the sky/ground. That means attaching it facing 'inwards', with the obvious problem that that means at least partly blocking the centre window. Whatever you do with it though it's a pig to launch because of its mass and drag so more or less has to go at the bottom of the payload. I have another self-imposed constraint, which is that Kerbals should not need RCS while moving around the station and that movement within the 'accommodation section' should not even need EVA. That, ladders and the logic of Connected Living Spaces slightly restricts the ways in which I can arrange everything. In practice I don't find that a problem. All that needs solar panels, RTGs, batteries, large SAS and the usual accoutrements. Finally, if it's a station around Kerbin, it'll be refuelling quite a few ships so it needs extra fuel capacity - which usually means more ports for tankers.

Since the ASCII art seemed to make sense, this is the way Kasuha recommends: /===\ /===\ # # # /===\ I I I # # # # # # # # # # # # \===/ \===/ \===/ \===/ \===/ However you do it you have to first add one upper docking-port, then the bi-, tri-, quad- coupler, then the other upper docking ports, then disconnect and re-connect 'properly'.

Er, you do know that's the OP's thread too?

You are doing something wrong, but it's understandable as the way to get it to work is not at all obvious. There is a pictorial guide to how to do it somewhere here in the tutorials but I can't find it at the moment so you'll have to put up with ASCII art, if I can draw it in the first place ^^. /===\ Is a bi-coupler (work with me here, this isn't easy!) # # And you have one 'upside down', with docking ports, right? \===/ /===\ Building it like this won't work, as you say # # # # \===/ /===\ First build this # # # \===/ /===\ The add the extra top docking-port hanging off the side (and others if using more than a bi-coupler) # # # # \===/ /===\ Disconnect # # # # \===/ /===\ And re-connect 'properly'. Only one # # pair of ports will connect in the VAB # # or SPH but at launch the others \===/ will automatically dock themselves.

Pretty much that, yes, except that I've added a few bits to avoid the micro-management hassle of old-style IF. So doors are considered open and all you'd have to type is 'w', or 'enter VAB' if you preferred. Except during launch 'lockdown' (T-5m - T+2), when doors are closed and locked. People are prevented from walking into the launch zone by Security (they're the ones wearing red shirts, outside ... oops). While simple, the rocket-building is a bit more detailed than that. "Put LV-T30 under FL-T800", "Put 'Payload' on 'Launch Vehicle'" (<- named components or 'sub-assemblies'), that sort of thing. There are no construction explosions, lack of tools/experience would result in a rocket with a base 10% chance to succeed (am I too generous?). Erm, the technical terms I've chosen for making improvements to (or reducing the performance of) something are buff and nerf - so for instance, post-assembly you might "Buff 'Firework' with electric drill" or, indeed "Nerf 'Deathstar' with hammer"! Do buff/nerf sound right or should I use a different pair of verbs?

Yes, random faults do occur; the reliability of a vehicle is a percentage based on how often it has flown before, the assumption being that there are 'teething troubles' with new vehicles. At launch that may result in failing pre-launch checks, engine failure, other undefined 'failure to launch' or an explosion. If the launch succeeds a similar process applies in-flight, with solar panel, landing leg and other external faults being favoured because they encourage the player to spacewalk :-) Broken wheels are unlikely to feature much because other planets/moons are only a single location, just to say 'been there, done that, got the space helmet', so no rovers (well, there IS one, but it's just in KSC). If/when the player is a mechanic or engineer the reliability of a vehicle is adjusted according to how well they perform their launch-preparation tasks. In-flight, prior experience as a mechanic/engineer affects repair chance - craftsmen fix things faster. Incidentally; experience as an astronaut affects deltaV use and flight-time - more experienced pilots fly more efficiently. (Ooops, just realised I haven't coded the deltaV equations yet - that's why the rocket-building is limited to serial-staging btw, because it makes it easier to calculate deltaV).

This project does not yet have Squad's permission so may never be published; however - It has been mentioned before and I thought I'd finally do it. Kerbal Text Program is an Interactive Fiction (IF) story, like the old-style 'text adventures', Collosal Cavern, Zork, et al. So far the features are planned to be (depending on Squad): Locations consist of KSC main areas, a couple of other Kerbin places, 'sky', 'space' and the surface of other planets & moons (so spaceflight will 'just' consist of going to space, then to destination) Travel based on the player's vehicle rating: on foot, ground, flight-capable, spaceworthy. ...and the availability of snacks! An automated and moderately detailed sequence of events for (space)plane take-offs and landings, rocket launches and recovery. ...based on (random background events) and a timetable of scheduled missions ...which the player can edit to add, reschedule or scrub missons and assign crews (not yet implemented) ...and the results of which are partially random, based on reliability of vehicles, which itself changes according to the player's actions. A (simple) system for building spaceplanes and single-stack, multi-stage rockets (not yet implemented) Ranks: clerk, mechanic, launch mechanic, engineer, pilot, astronaut and senior astronaut (win) Promotion based on completing certain tasks in the current rank. The 'tasks' to be completed will, in the nature of IF, require a bit of thinking about and manipulating of obscure objects but the whole thing should be fairly easy to play (if I've got it right). There are several ways to 'win' by becoming a senior astronaut, from sneaking on-board a spaceflight as a senior astronaut (and surviving), to ordering the parts for your own rocket, building it, putting it on the schedule of missions and crewing it (and surviving). Exactly how you do those things I'm obviously not going to give away. Anyone want to see anything else in there?

CHAPTER 5: PROJECT TENACITY Lunar Landings, Interplanetary Satellites And Docking SECTION 1: PROJECT BRIEFING Identity;Project Tenacity – Complex Space Operations Background;The historic moment has now come to attempt to land on Kerbin's moons. While this can be done with simple one-man missions we also wish to prepare the way for more complex – and distant – operations by developing our ability to rendezvous and dock vehicles in space. Meanwhile, our satellites can complete their mission to map the entire system, reaching even the hardest destinations. Objectives; 1) Practice rendezvous and docking in orbit. 2) Land Kerbals on each of Kerbin's moons and return them safely! 3) Send SCANSat satellites to the rest of the system. Payloads;Docking Drone, Long Tom, Fat Sally, SatStack, Cartographer Heavy. Vehicles;LV-2-O, LV-6-S, LV-8-A, LV-10-1. Execution;A docking-drone launched on our existing LV-2-O suffices for practice. Landings require some refinements to the Orbiter payload to enable it to land-on and return from the moons. In addition they need the addition of transfer stage(s), in the same way Cartographer Light is for satellites. Cartographer itself can easily be enhanced to carry satellites to any planet or moon in the system. Suitable launch-vehicles are obviously also required, as always. As in the previous chapter, these objectives are separate but all contribute to the continued development of KSC's abilities. Rendezvous and docking are not required for the other missions in this chapter but now is the time to practice these skills; they will be necessary for the future and are not things most people learn easily. Landing on the moons is also likely to require practice, as you can't just parachute the pods down as on Kerbin itself. The actual space-flight parts of these missions (getting to and returning from the moons, harder interplanetary) will come as light relief in comparison. Rendezvous, docking and landing are probably the most demanding skills to learn, in KSP and real-life. Practice! I hope that getting to orbit, flying a spaceplane and sending satellites to other planets has given you a real sense of achievement and progress in KSP. In any case the orbital dockings, lunar-landings and total satellite coverage of the system covered in this chapter certainly should. This goes somewhat further than the limits of real-life space missions, after all, in that we don't have permanent satellites around all the planets in the real solar-system. This also represents the completion of the 'beginners' section of the tutorial; once you have mastered all these skills any mission is just a matter of scale. The vehicles and missions in the rest of this campaign look at building an efficient infrastructure throughout the system but are more suggestions and recommendations for intermediate rocket scientists. SECTION 2: DOCKING DRONE Docking Drone Payload i) Data Sheet Identity;Docking Drone – payload Purpose;Unmanned rendezvous and docking practice. Statistics;1.962t VAB/0.463 dry, 11 parts, cost 5,860 Design;These drones use the same fuel-tank/engine combination as the Orbiter so they can manoeuvre and rendezvous in space. It is possible to dock using main engines but not usually practical, so RCS fuel and thrusters are included, as on Orbiter Mk2. The only other things are the required probe core, battery and solar-panel and, obviously, a docking port. Construction;RC-001S RGU, FL-T100 fuel tank and 48-7S engine. FL-R25 RCS fuel tank, symmetry-4 RV-105 RCS thruster blocks. Single Z-100 battery, OX-STAT solar panel and Clamp-O-tron docking port. Action Groups;abort:shutdown engine, 6:engine Performance;(Vacuum) TWR 2.24, 1,011m/s ii) Construction This is a simple drone that is simple to build. The only thing to watch out for is that the RCS thruster blocks should be around the CoM for balance. The problem with that is that the CoM will move up/down quite a bit depending on the relative amounts of liquid fuel/oxidiser and RCS fuel that you use. In any case these drones are very lightweight so agile so should be as easy to use as any space-vehicle can be. iii) Staging And Action Groups Abort shuts-down the engine and Custom06 toggles it, that's all. iv) Flight LV-2-O + Docking Drone Launch Launch docking-drones using the LV-2-O vehicle from the previous chapter (with appropriate fairings and base if using Procedural Fairings). Don't forget the decoupler! MISSION 26: We Meet Again Launch two docking drones to orbits of different heights so their orbital-periods are different. This ensures that (eventually) they will come into alignment such that a Hohmann transfer from one orbit to the other will bring them together. Launching the first to, say, 150km and the second to 75km means the second will 'catch up' with the first after a number of orbits. Switch to whichever drone you decide to control then click the other in map mode and 'set as target'. When you perform the Hohmann transfer and come close to the target ensure that your navball is showing the relative speed; target mode, click on it to cycle through the options. Bring your drone to a halt, relative to the target, within a few kilometres initially, then approach slowly, possibly in several steps, keeping your relative speed below around 10m/s per kilometre distance, stopping again within 100m, or so. Docking requires aligning the docking-ports and bringing them together at low speed. Once they are close enough (1 or 2 metres) their magnets will automatically engage, draw them together the rest of the way and complete the docking. Use RCS for docking (H/N=forward/back, I/K=up/down, J/L=left/right), rather than main engines. Several things can make this easier: [*]Light vehicles will be affected more by the magnetic locks on the ports, meaning you can be less precise in alignment. These drones being under 2 tonnes makes them particularly easy to dock. By extension, however, you will find heavy vehicles generally harder so practice first with these! [*]Avoid having to fly 'around' the target after rendezvous by facing the docking-port at the target and then switching vehicles. Turn the target so its port faces the incoming vehicle – they are now both 'almost' aligned already. Again, this will be harder with heavier, more unwieldy vehicles but the drones make it simple. Hold the 'target' steady by engaging its SAS. [*]As a rule (which should therefore be broken whenever you find it easier) you should dock the lighter vehicle to the heavier, as it will be more manoeuvrable and fuel-efficient. Once rendezvoused control whichever you prefer and call the other 'target'. [*]Use the navball, low speeds and, preferably, a docking-alignment mod. In many cases the only reason you'll need to look at the ships themselves, if at all, is to check your separation, the navball will tell you everything else. [*]Aim to come to a stop with your docking port about 5-10m 'in front' of the target port and perfectly aligned (within a few centimetres, if you have a tool that will tell you that), then thrust forward to come straight-in, slowly!, until the magnets engage. [*]Turn off SAS and RCS, preferably on both vehicles, once in this last stage or they'll tend to fight any minor adjustments the magnets cause. Docking Drones Docking v) Notes Read/watch as many rendezvous and docking tutorials as you can cope with. Go slowly. Be patient. Practice. Fairly obviously, if you stop your Orbital speed you'll fall out of the sky! Keep the navball in 'target' mode once close enough, and make sure it's relative speed you're changing. Don't forget that you don't need to do this for the other missions in this chapter. If you are getting frustrated – or bored; rendezvous and docking can take a lot of time – carry out some other missions here and come back to rendezvous/docking when you can face it. (If you really have trouble, you can use MechJeb's autopilot for rendezvous and/or docking). Once docked together ships act as a single vehicle. That means you can transfer fuel between tanks by (alt-)right-clicking them. Orbital refuelling is coming. SECTION 3: LONG TOM Long Tom Payload i) Data Sheet Identity;Long Tom – lunar payload Purpose;Manned lunar landings Statistics;4.72t VAB/1.888 dry, 21 parts, cost 6,705 Design;4 serial-staged: transfer, landing, return and recovery Construction;Command pod Mk1, Mk16 parachute, OX-STAT solar panel, BTDT sensor (SCANSat). TR-18A decoupler, Telus LV ladder, 3xROUND-8 and 1xFL-T100 tanks, 48-7S engine, Z100 battery. TR-18A decoupler, FL-T100 tank and 48-7S engine, 3xLT-1 landing legs. TR-18A decoupler, FL-T200 and FL-T100 tanks, 48-7S engine. Action Groups;gear:legs and ladder, brakes:parachute, abort:shutdown engines, 4:transfer eng, 5:lander eng, 6:return eng, 7:instr Performance;(Vacuum) TWR 0.65, 3,150m/s (return Mun landing, Duna orbit) When designing the Cartographer Light transfer vehicle in the previous chapter it was necessary to consider the deltaV required to reach and orbit each body in the system; we now also have to add landing. For simplicity I assume that the second half – re-launch, re-orbit and return – are the same as the first. In practice re-establishing orbit around a moon is not necessary before returning, if you time your launch right, and for the return you can save deltaV by aerobraking in Kerbin's atmosphere. Unless you are using the DRE mod you can even launch straight from a moon to a dustdown/splashdown landing on Kerbin if you want (trying that with DRE you'll just burn-up on re-entry!). Referring to the deltaV map again: "How hard is it to transfer to, orbit then land (from Kerbin LKO, m/s)?" table Minmus;1,610 Mun; 1,750 <- Long Tom Ike; 1,940 <- Fat Sally Gilly;2,980 Duna;3,000 Pol;4,170 Dres;4,290 Vall;4,750 Eeloo;5,410 Tylo;6,130 Bop;6,140 Moho;7,510 Laythe;7,560 Eve;14,880 (Jool & Kerbol N/A) Note especially that although it is easier to go to Mun than Minmus (previous chapter), it is so much easier to land-on and take-off from Minmus once you get there that, overall, this is the simpler mission. Minmus also has large, flat areas meaning that it is strongly recommended that you make it your first target for landings. This vehicle, Long Tom, is capable of Minmus and Mun landings. A 'better' lander, Fat Sally, is presented below (section 5) and is even capable of landing on and returning from Ike, Duna's moon. Such a mission is not detailed here because it seems unrealistic to send a single Kerbal unsupported on such a long voyage. It shows how capable small vehicles can be though (and we're still in the realm of 'small' here) and you should have the necessary interplanetary skills as well, from using Cartographer Light. Should you be feeling cruel and don't care about getting your Kerbals back Long Tom and Fat Sally can both get manned missions to Duna. There's not much point though as you'll be visiting that and more, unmanned, with the Cartographer vehicles and the last two chapters of this campaign will be manned to everywhere. It is not possible to land on Jool (a gas-giant with no 'ground') or Kerbol (the sun, are you mad?!). ii) Construction LV-6-S + Long Tom Launch Long Tom is a complex vehicle, designed in four separate stages. Cartographer Light had that many but three of them were the virtually-identical satellites. Here, each stage has a distinct purpose and must be considered separately, from top to bottom as they will appear in the final design. 1) Kerbin Recovery Stage: All that needs to return to Kerbin is the command pod. For that to happen safely, it'll need a parachute. I've also put the solar panel and BTDT sensor on this stage as they look a bit more aerodynamic here than on the lower stages. Ah well, every design is a compromise in practice. As with Orbiter you can tweak the monopropellant out of the command pod to save a little mass, as this vehicle will not dock. Done. 2) Return Stage: To get the recovery stage from the surface of Minmus back to Kerbin will need 1,610m/s deltaV, 1,750m/s from Mun (from table above). The payload mass (recovery stage) is 0.935t plus a decoupler, ladder so our Kerbal can reach the surface and return while we're landed on the moons and a battery to supplement the pod's power. Using the trusty 48-7S engine we need a bit less than 90 units of fuel for this so I have used an FL-T100 and three ROUND-8 toroidal tanks (you may just use an FL-T200 tank if you prefer). Done. 3) Landing Stage: Actually landing on Minmus/Mun will require 180/580m/s. An FL-T100 and (another) 48-7S is sufficient, even with the decoupler and landing-legs, to give 643m/s. Although this is more than we 'should' need it provides a margin-for-error so I do not recommend reducing it. Done. You can use a more conventional-looking 4 legs if you prefer but the extra one will add mass. While it is possible to land without legs it's important to keep the vehicle upright after landing so you can lift-off again! Some people prefer to build a stable base for landers using cubic octagonal struts – it's up to you. 4) Transfer Stage: Before any of that can happen Long Tom has to get everything from LKO to the moon and, for an easier landing, into orbit around it. From the Cartographer Light flights we already know that'll take 1,430m/s for Minmus and, with yet another decoupler and 48-7S engine, that'll take an FL-T100 and an FL-T200 fuel tank. Finally done! All-up Long Tom is 0.8t lighter than Cartographer Light, with comparable payloads (0.94t command pod + parachute versus 0.774t satellites + fairings). It could be made lighter still by reducing the margin-for-error on each stage and, possibly, by splitting the return stage even more. In some ways though Long Tom takes the idea of designing a vehicle-stage for each mission-stage too far. Fat Sally, later, is both simpler and more capable. This method of design has the great advantage of clarifying requirements to you though. iii) Staging And Action Groups LV-6-S + Long Tom 2nd Stage Staging separates Long Tom into its constituent mission parts – transfer (from LKO to Minmus/Mun), landing, return and recovery – at each of the decouplers. The action groups follow my standard format, with the ladder being added to the (automatic) gear group, brakes being used for the recovery parachute and abort shutting-down all engines. Custom04-06 toggle the engine of each stage in turn, with 7 toggling the SCANSat BTDT sensor, if you are using it. iv) Flight Long Tom is a transfer/payload vehicle. Flights are discussed in the next section. v) Notes Designing your vehicles in several stages, carefully thinking-through what each stage has to achieve, gives you a good feel of what you do and don't need at each point. Work backwards, keeping everything as light as possible as anything excess to requirements will have a big knock-on effect as you design 'lower' stages. Aerobraking can save a lot of deltaV. SECTION 4: LV-6-S Long Tom Transfer Stage i) Data Sheet Identity;LV-6-S – launch vehicle Purpose;Kerbin launch. 6 tonnes. Statistics;39.15t VAB/11.15 dry, 12 parts, cost 24,700 Design;2 serial-staged. Construction;TR-18A decoupler, RC-001S RGU, FL-T400 and FL-T800 tanks, LV-T30 engine. TR-18A decoupler, inline reaction wheel, Rocomax brand adapter, Jumbo-64 fuel tank, Skipper and 2xMark 55 radial mount engines. Action Groups;abort:shutdown engine, 3:engines Performance;(Kerbin) TWR 1.85, 8,639m/s ii) Construction Memo: "The oversight committee are concerned at the cost and complexity of our last launch-vehicle. Construction problems and launch failures are exacerbating expenses in parts, VAB overtime, quality-control and insurance budgets. Please phase-out LV-6-O in favour of a simpler, more reliable design." Von Kerman: "Vell, ze oversight committee are just zis bunch of guys, you know. LV-6-O is our most efficient design." Jeb: "Moar boosters!" Bill: "y u mk rocktz hrd, mk it eze cuz they r hrd" Bob: "A few larger, more robust, parts could result in a simpler, more stable vehicle" Von Kerman: "Hmmm, ze LV-T30 is a basic und zehr gut engine ve haff not used. Zis vill be our new final stage to orbit." Fred: "'Ere mate, I've got this deal with Rocomax for a Skipper engine and orange tube of fuel to shift it all off the pad." Memo: "Stop messing around and get on with it! Kerbalkind wants to see a Kerbal on Minmus ASAP." The T30 is a great basic engine with more thrust than the aerospike but not quite so good ISP. One of the big advantages of the T30 is that unlike the aerospike you can attach a lower-stage beneath it. A T30 with the fuel detailed in the data-sheet is a good launch-vehicle for light payloads in its own right and makes a good, if somewhat over-powered, upper-stage for this one. Career-mode players start with the T30 and know how good it can be but usually overlook it in later designs, thinking later engines must be better. This just shows why career-mode is, currently, not a good way to learn how to design rockets. In order to minimise part-count the lower stage of LV-6-S is built around the Skipper engine and largest 2.5m fuel tank, the Jumbo-64 or 'orange tube'. An inline reaction wheel is included for stability and the Rocomax adapter for aerodynamics/aesthetics. On its own the Skipper can't really lift all this efficiently (launch TWR 1.24) so is assisted by the pair of Mark 55 engines. The choice for radial-mount engines is very small but these are a good high-ish thrust choice. Note that Long Tom on top of LV-6-S really is long – you will need EAS-4 struts (as illustrated) to stop the whole lot wobbling out of control. iii) Staging And Action Groups The three lower-stage engines in stage 2, decoupler and upper-stage engine in stage 1, payload decoupler in stage 0. Action groups to shutdown or toggle engines – it's not rocket science! Oh, wait a minute; it IS rocket science, but that doesn't mean it has to be complicated ^^. iv) Flight Launch Long Tom to standard LKO on top of LV-6-O or LV-6-S as you prefer, or use a different one for each mission and compare performance; another benefit of modular design. Practice these landings without crew if you care for your Kerbals! MISSION 27: One Small Step Long Tom Lander Stage You should already know how to get to Minmus from using Cartographer Light. As Long Tom is not as heavy as either launch-vehicles' designed payloads they will have enough fuel left to perform the required plane-change, saving fuel in the later stages. You may even use them to start the transfer burn (they won't have enough fuel to complete it) but that probably means leaving them as space-debris, unless you terminate them in the tracking station. Unlike Cartographer Light and the SCANSat satellites you want to place Long Tom in an equatorial, preferably Eastward (anti-clockwise), orbit around Minmus. This is because that is the way the moons rotate and, just as on Kerbin, you can use the surface rotation-speed to your advantage; a slightly reduced deltaV requirement. Your target altitude should be 7-10km, although you may prefer to circularise higher than that initially and then Hohmann transfer to the lower orbit. Remember that Long Tom only has a single fixed solar panel, not the multiple 6x1 sun-tracking ones of Cartographer Light/satellites. Make sure you orient it after each manoeuvre to keep the battery charged. You should be able to establish this low orbit without exhausting the transfer-stage fuel, in which case use it when you start your landing. Select a landing site on the daylight side of the moon, under or near your orbital path (or you'll have to plane-change again). If possible, aim for one of the large, flat 'frozen lakes'. Quicksave before starting to land. Read-up on landing tutorials; the easiest way is to keep your navball heading indicator on the retrograde marker. Aim to touch down at less than 10m/s vertical speed and with almost no horizontal movement. Note that Minmus's gravity is so low it is quite easy to accidentally start ascending again, use low throttle! Jettison the transfer stage when it's spent or before touching-down in any case. Extend the landing legs! If you aren't using SAS already, engage it once you touch-down so that the vehicle doesn't tip over. You may well bounce off the surface a short way – SAS will help with that too. Quickload and try again if it all goes wrong. Practice! Once landed... breath, you might have forgotten to in the last few minutes. Let the bells ring-out across Kerbin! A Kerbal landed on a moon! Really, if you don't get a sense of satisfaction from your first manned landing there's no pleasing you. Then calm down, a bit, because there's more to come. With the eyes of every Kerbal glued to their television sets (whatever they are) it's time to EVA your pioneering astronaut, climb down the ladder and set foot on alien soil. Plant a flag (right-click your Kerbal) and say something memorable. Tell someone all about it :-) Take screen-shots and post them on the forums if you want to tell us about it :-) Party! While your Kerbal is out there: you might want to walk around a bit, he'll bounce a lot in the low gravity. Hold shift while pressing the direction keys to make him run, press space to jump – high! Press R to activate the spacesuit RCS pack and have a fly around. It is even possible for your Kerbal to reach orbit again, just on RCS. This is not recommended though, the command pod is a bit handy for getting home. When you're ready to come home: guide your Kerbal back to the ladder (may have to jump/RCS), climb up to the command pod and re-board it, retract the ladder. You should still have fuel in the lander stage, in which case you can use it to start re-orbit (10km, 0-degree inclination), jettison it once used-up. Then perform your return-burn and fine-tune for Kerbin. Back in Kerbin orbit, proceed with de-orbiting and landing as for Orbiter. To a hero's welcome. (Although I recommend using Fat Sally for Mun landings you may want to try a Mun landing with Long Tom, which is certainly capable of it. Getting there is easier, of course, but it's harder to land because of the higher gravity AND it can be difficult to find somewhere safely flat – do the best you can. If Long Tom falls over on landing and your Kerbal survives but is unable to come back you'll have to launch a rescue mission – perhaps using an unmanned Fat Sally – or just Quickload and try again). v) Notes Long Tom Return Stage This launch vehicle is designed for the same payload-mass as LV-6-O in the previous chapter and, unsurprisingly, has similar performance. It's here mainly because it provides a direct comparison of staging design strategies and partly because I like role-playing the hassle that the 'oversight committee' generates! Ignore this vehicle if you wish, you should note, however: Efficiency: This serial-staged design is heavier than the onion-staged one, so has a much worse payload-ratio. Part-count: In contrast onion-staging has more parts, so is more likely to cause your computer to lag (run slowly). Construction: With fewer parts and simpler construction the serial-staged version is much easier to build... Reliability:... And less likely to fall-apart on the launch-pad or in flight. Realism: Many KSP players seem to think serial-staging is almost the only real way to design a rocket. FAR aerodynamics make it almost a requirement. Cost: Serial-staging is also more than 10k cheaper. Neither design is fully optimised and either could be improved in several ways. You should experiment with your own designs, optimising for whichever of these factor(s) suit how you want to play the game. SECTION 5: FAT SALLY Fat Sally Payload i) Data Sheet Identity;Fat Sally – improved lunar payload Purpose;Manned lunar landings Statistics;4.955t VAB/1.845t dry, 38 parts, cost 10,488 Design;3 onion/serial-staged: transfer, return, recovery. Construction;Command pod Mk1, Mk16 parachute, OX-STAT solar panel, BTDT sensor (SCANSat), telus LV ladder. TR-2V decoupler, 4xROUND-8 and 1xFL-T100 tanks, 48-7S engine. 3 x cubic octagonal struts, TR-2V decouplers, FL-T100 and 2xROUND-8 tanks, LT-1 landing legs, fuel lines, decouplers and nosecones. Action Groups;gear:legs and ladder, brakes:parachute, abort:shutdown engine, 4:nosecones, 6:engine, 7:instr Performance;(Vacuum) TWR 0.63, 4,016m/s (return Ike landing, Duna orbit) Fat Sally is a better, but heavier and more expensive, lander than Long Tom. Some design-optimisation 'tricks' are used. ii) Construction LV-8-A + Fat Sally Launch Fat Sally was a designed too late for the original Minmus mission but is an attempt to address Long Tom's tendency to fall over on slopes. Critically, the important features of a lander should be low CoM and wide leg-base, neither of which Long Tom has. At the same time it was decided to see what design optimisation was possible in order to remain under 5t while including more fuel, either as a greater margin-for-error or to allow Fat Sally to carry-out more complex missions. The recovery stage of Fat Sally is essentially the same as Long Tom's except that the ladder has been moved up onto the pod itself. This is because the TR-18A decoupler has been replaced with a TR-2V, saving 35kg. The TR-2V works perfectly well even if it is the 'wrong' size so why waste the mass. Remember, every 100kg saved on the payload is potentially 1 tonne saved from the launch-vehicle. Little changes like this can seem silly but they add up and their knock-on effects can be enormous. Similarly, Fat Sally's return (centre) stage is the same as Long Tom's but with one more ROUND-8, which is a consequence on dividing-up the fuel later. Using onion-staging for the rest of the vehicle keeps the CoM low, gives the necessary wide base to the landing legs and, as a bonus, keeps the core 48-7S engine clear so we don't need to add any others (saving another 0.2t over Long Tom). When considering lander engine(s) it is important that their TWR is greater than 1 for their target body, otherwise they won't be able to brake to a halt during landing – which means lithobraking (i.e.; crashing)! Landers are usually required to be able to take-off again as well, of course, so if they are intended to land on a body with an atmosphere they will ideally be able to reach the local terminal velocity. The drop-tanks attached radially share the fuel-load with the core and feed it with the fuel-lines, hence it is onion, not radial, staged. The nosecones are just for aesthetics/aerodynamics and a bit more mission-mass has been saved by attaching them with decouplers and jettisoning them out of the atmosphere. A little more mass is also shaved off by not using radial decouplers (0.025t each). Cubic octagonal struts are instead placed on the core stage, with more TR-2V decouplers on them. This saves 0.01t each (the struts are massless in flight) and whether it is worth it or not is up to you. I haven't bothered to use it on any of the other designs here – there are no rules that say you have to make everything as efficient as possible. iii) Staging And Action Groups Just like Long Tom except that there is only the one engine. iv) Flight Launch Fat Sally with LV-6-O or LV-6-S as you prefer. In the illustrations it is shown with LV-8-A but that's only because I didn't have an 8t payload handy! MISSION 28: The Conquered Mun Land on Mun and complete Kerbal's conquest of the local system. To a large extent you can land Fat Sally anywhere, although there are some cliffs it's best to avoid! v) Notes LV-8-A + Fat Sally 2nd Stage Lander engines must meet the same TWR requirements as launch vehicles (for their target bodies). It would be good design practice to see just how much weight Fat Sally can lose while still being capable of return Mun landings. Similarly, test how you can make a wide, low lander with as few parts as possible. Consider the issues of launching a wide, low payload when aerodynamics, if not aesthetics, favours tall and thin (as it does with FAR, for instance). Have you noticed that the vehicles have their ox-stat solar panel on the left? It's somewhat important, but can you tell why? SECTION 6: LV-8-A LV-8-A + Fat Sally 3rd Stage i) Data Sheet Identity;LV-8-A – launch vehicle Purpose;Kerbin launch. 8 tonnes. Statistics;41.73t VAB/11.73t dry, 34 part, cost 39,890 Design;4 asparagus staged. Construction;TR-18A decoupler, RC-001S RGU, FL-T800 fuel tank, aerospike engine. 2 x radial decouplers, FL-T800 fuel tanks, aerospike engines, fuel-lines and nosecones. 2 x radial decouplers, FL-T800 and Fl-T200 fuel tanks, fuel-lines and nosecones. 2 x radial decouplers, FL-T800 fuel tanks, aerospike engines, fuel-lines and nosecones. Action Groups;abort:shutdown engine, 3:engines Performance;(Kerbin) TWR 2.14, 8,625m/s Asparagus is the optimal special-case of onion-staging using symmetry 2. ii) Construction LV-8-A + Fat Sally 4th Stage You have seen that staging works by using and jettisoning fuel and engines so the excess empty tank and useless engine mass does not have to be carried by the remainder of the vehicle. By using radial staging rather than serial we can have more engines working at once, by making them parallel we can use the 'core' centre engines as well, right from launch. The core then needs more fuel than the booster stages so that it can continue to burn after they are jettisoned. Adding fuel lines from the booster tanks to the core in an onion-staging strategy both uses the outer-layer fuel faster and keeps the core stage fully-fuelled. This takes us as far as LV-2-O in the previous chapter and this core + 2-booster design is very flexible and efficient over a wide range of payload mass (with different engines and amounts of fuel). With LV-6-O, however, we needed the thrust from 4 engines rather than the 3 the core+2 allows and so I simply made it core+3. For heavier designs you can, of course, proceed to core+4, 5 or 6 (more will probably not fit around the core). The drawback with core+6 is that all 6 outer-layer tanks have to be used before any are jettisoned, so the extra mass has to be carried for longer. Core+3+3, as in LV-6-O means the outermost 3 are used and discarded much earlier, with improved efficiency. Multiple onion-layers introduce their own problems though – not least of which are the physical ones of having tanks attached to tanks, attached to tanks and the wide, pancake, appearance of the rocket. A convenient solution to this is attach all the outer tanks to the core (core+6) so the rocket is thinner and more robust but to run the fuel-lines as if they were core+3, as in the diagram below. The logical, fuel, connections are the same as core+3+3 with its efficiency advantages but the physical, decoupler, connections are the same as core+6, with its structural ones – the best of both worlds. If the core is a 2.5m tank, 8 1.25m ones will fit around it and can be connected as core+4+4 in a very similar way. Thus onion is all about arranging tanks and fuel-lines with symmetry in order to maximise staging efficiency. Asparagus staging is the special-case of onion-staging using symmetry-2. Since the whole point is to use stages as quickly as possible, and it is quicker to use and jettison 2 tanks instead of 3 (or more), this is the optimal staging strategy for mass-optimisation. We can't just use and jettison 1 tank at a time, except in the core, because it would unbalance our rocket to drop a tank from just one side; that's why symmetry-2 is the minimum and optimum. The physical arrangement maintains the robust design of 6 tanks around the core but optimises staging by linking them in an asparagus core+2+2+2 arrangement with fuel-lines. While it is possible to extend staging to additional 'layers', as in LV-6-O, just by spiralling-out it is rarely worthwhile unless you are chasing the best payload-ratio possible. In practice it can be fiddly to attach the necessary decouplers, fuel-lines and possibly struts for asparagus staging and it uses a lot of parts. While optimal for mass-efficiency (payload ratio) you may prefer to stick with the simpler construction of serial or parallel staging. Asparagus is usually no harder to build than other onion-staging strategies though as it is only the fuel-lines and staging of decouplers that is different. The other great advantage of onion, and especially asparagus, staging is that each stage may have different, or no, engines to 'tune' the TWR in a very simple way. For an 8 tonne payload plus decoupler and RGU the core can be formed with an FL-T800 fuel tank and aerospike engine for a TWR of 1.26. While this is low it will only be used alone for the last burn into orbit and circularisation, where raw power is not so important. Adding the first booster-stage with its 2 aerospike engines increases the TWR to 2.04 for the 'race to space' after the gravity-turn, when terminal velocity is no longer a limiting factor. For the second booster stage more thrust from more engines is not necessary and even with more fuel the TWR only drops to 1.42 so this stage is left as 'slack' or drop tanks. Finally, for the third booster stage (first to be jettisoned) more engines are again required, leaving the final launch TWR as 1.79. This is only one of several valid tank/engine-arrangements that will deliver the required deltaV to reach orbit; you may care to experiment with different combinations and different engines. iii) Staging And Action Groups Fat Sally Lander Stage Action groups are the usual shutdown and toggle for all engines. Staging jettisons the boosters from outer to inner, then core from payload, in the order that fuel-lines are run. iv) Flight Memo: "Due to budget cuts the Duna Explorer mission has been cancelled. No further manned missions will be scheduled outside the Kerbin system until SCANSat mapping is complete". There are no flights or missions in this campaign for this, the only really efficient launch vehicle in the tutorial (payload ratio 19.17%!). Typical, isn't it! v) Notes Fat Sally Return Stage Although you will have a total of 6 decouplers around the core you need to place them using symmetry-2 so that opposite boosters will be jettisoned at the same time, maintaining balance. While arranging all the stacks in a single line, as in the second diagram above, is functionally identical to putting them all around the core, it is structurally very weak. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people on the KSP forums will see LV-8-A with a suitable payload as good, efficient, design. Others will see it and scream, "ugly asparagus pancake!", especially with a payload like Fat Sally which is itself wide and low. Amusingly perhaps, with a longer, thinner payload like the Cartographer vehicles those same people will see no problem. Yet other people object to asparagus not on aesthetic grounds but because the idea of infinite-flow fuel-lines passing through several layers of tank is just not realistic. Possibly that's just a difference in Kerbal and human technology but, much more plausibly, were all that fuel really spiralling-around the core (as in the robust design) in real life it would cause the whole rocket to spin an equal and opposite amount – much like a helicopter that doesn't have a tail-rotor to stabilise it. If you care about justifying this it is equally plausible that the SAS torque of the probe core is sufficient to counter the spin. In theory there isn't really a suitable payload for LV-8-A in this campaign, as I've said. It is over-powered for 4t Fat Sally and under-powered for the 10t Cartographer Heavy below. Should you wish to try it with a heavier payload, however, you can use Cartographer Heavy's own engine to complete circularisation at LKO and should still be left with sufficient deltaV for all missions, if you fly it properly. Such are the safety-margins built into these designs. SECTION 7: CARTOGRAPHER HEAVY LV-10-1 + Cartographer Heavy Launch i) Data Sheet Identity;Cartographer Heavy – transfer vehicle Purpose;Interplanetary satellite delivery Statistics;9.864t VAB/3.672t dry, 28 parts, cost 23,960 Design;A simple and efficient extension to Cartographer Light Construction;(SatStack with fairings payload), RC-001S RGU, FL-T800 and FL-T400 fuel tanks, LV-N atomic rocket motor. Action Groups;abort:shutdown engine, 4:fairings, 5:engine Performance;(Vacuum) TWR 0.62, 7,459m/s ii) Construction There is very little difference between this and Cartographer Light. This has more fuel and a better engine to enable it to reach even the hardest (highest deltaV requirement) planets and moons in the system. The LV-N is the most efficient 'normal' engine in KSP – it has the highest Isp - but is heavy and has low thrust. As such it's not much use for launching or landing but ideal for long-distance space-travel where its mass and thrust aren't as important as its fuel-efficiency. With this we almost complete the set of engines you should consider for any vehicle: LV-1® for very light vehicles, eg; satellites. Because its tiny. 48-7S for light launch and transfer vehicles. It has great thrust for its weight and pretty good ISP. Aerospikes for launch vehicles too heavy for the 48-7S. Really good ISP. T30s when aerospikes just don't have the concentrated thrust you need. Probably the best all-round engine. LV-N for transfer vehicles when the 48-7S is too weak or the LV-N's fuel-efficiency is more important than its mass. Vacuum fuel efficiency. Turbojets, of course, for the atmospheric stage of (space)planes. Oxygen atmosphere fuel efficiency. Combinations of these engines, or clusters of them (eg; using bi-, tri- or quad-couplers) will give you the most mass-efficient rockets for any use. Using different engines will require more fuel and result in a heavier vehicle so from an efficiency perspective using them is a mistake, or compromise at best. As has been stressed though, mass-efficiency might not be your only, or principle, design goal. Higher-thrust engines may make a simpler, more robust, build with fewer parts, even if they are less efficient. iii) Staging And Action Groups Action groups are the usual for jettisoning fairings and toggling the Cartographer's transfer engine. iv) Flight Cartographer Heavy Transfer Stage As with Cartographer Light we need another launch vehicle (below, unless you want to use LV-8-A above) before we can discuss flights. v) Notes The low thrust that an LV-N delivers means that interplanetary burn-times will be 5 minutes or more each (to escape Kerbin and circularise around your target planet/moon). With heavier vehicles that's only going to get worse and multiple LV-Ns often don't improve it much. Some people have the patience for 20-minute burns and some don't – hint: use MJ's autopilot to reduce the tedium. At the cost of reduced fuel-efficiency you can always add a few T30s just for shorter burns. Design the way you want to. SECTION 8: LV-10-1 i) Data Sheet Identity;LV-10-1 – launch vehicle Purpose;Kerbin launch. 10 tonnes. Statistics;96.85t VAB/16.85t dry, 9 parts, cost 42,180 Design;SSTO Construction;TR-18A decoupler, Rocomax brand adapter, RC-L01 RGU and advanced SAS module, large. OX-STAT solar panel and Z-100 battery. X200-32, Jumbo-64 and LFB KR-1x2 fuel tanks/engines. Action Groups;abort:shutdown engines, 3:toggle engines Performance;(Kerbin) TWR 2.11, 5,839m/s From one extreme to the other – instead of the complex efficiency of asparagus, the brute-force simplicity of single-stage. ii) Construction So, staging, yeah, it makes things efficient but complex. When you really want to keep it simple just use a big engine (cluster) and lots of fuel. This vehicle has a SAS module for torque and an RC-L01 so it can be controlled during de-orbit but otherwise it's all fuel for the one pair of engines. It is the lowest part-count launch vehicle in the campaign – and that's if you include the solar panel and battery, which aren't really necessary. Just look at the picture to see how it's put together, if you need to – it's a single stack, just make sure the payload decoupler's at the top and the engines are at the bottom. iii) Staging And Action Groups Action groups are the usual shutdown and toggle for all engines. No staging, other than to separate the payload after circularisation. iv) Flight MISSIONS 29 – 33: Ubique Cartographer Heavy can take the SatStack payload into orbit around any planet or moon. Specifically, it can reach Eeloo, Jool, Laythe, Bop and Moho, which Cartographer Light can't. Off you go. v) Notes Interplanetary missions take a long time. Feel free to continue operations within the Kerbin system while these missions are en-route or just waiting for a transfer window. If you have followed this campaign so far you have: Learnt to control rovers, aircraft, rockets and Kerbals on EVA. Also learnt to rendezvous and dock vehicles in space. Landed a Kerbal on each of Kerbin's moons. Put satellites around every body in the system (or at least have them waiting). All that is left is landing Kerbals on all those other bodies. You have all the knowledge to do that already if you wish, the rest of this campaign looks at a cost-effective approach using space-stations and re-usable launch and transfer vehicles. First though, a bit of a break. The next chapter looks at small designs for science and re-usability. Oh yes … why do I put a single solar panel on the left of the ships? Well, you could be launching at any time; morning, noon or night. In the morning the sun will be in the East – to the right – so the solar panel will be blocked during its vertical ascent until far enough through the gravity turn to get sunlight from almost directly ahead. That should be enough to keep things powered and, initially the battery/pod will be fully charged so early exposure isn't important. At noon the sun will be directly overhead so the panel should end-up getting maximum exposure after the gravity turn and in the afternoon you still get shallow-angle exposure, opposite to a morning launch. At night you're not going to get any sunlight wherever you put the panel (duh!) but once in orbit you have plenty of time to roll the vehicle before dawn. For any daytime launch the sun will be be above you and with a standard gravity turn leaves the left of the ship pointing up; a simple little consideration, but one that can be very important, considering how critical electricity is. And here's a bit of totally-useless real-life trivia about mission 28: When Apollo 11 landed on the moon the winning entry in a competition to name a newly-built pub was 'The Conquered Moon'.

Get MJ to do it - its docking autopilot has a 'force roll' option, which you can set to any angle.

IAS, IRW, Large SAS - same things, different masses and sizes. The largest is lightest so use (several of) that if it fits your ship, otherwise use the IRW which is lighter but otherwise identical to the IAS. Don't use the IAS, it is moribund at the moment.

Rovers are useless, bases are useless wings are almost useless, spaceplanes are practically useless or very time-consuming compared to rockets. Wings on a rocket are a waste of mass. Jets don't work on Eve and Duna because those have no oxygen, although they do have air. The only place off Kerbin where jets work, and therefore spaceplanes are worthwhile, is Laythe. For exploring Kerbin - especially if you want to visit and identify the 'anomalies' SCANSat will locate - it's easier and quicker to launch a (sub)orbital rocket than fly a jet. You can't "make" solar/xenon 'jets', although you can use them on aircraft - which makes them practically useless AND almost immobile. If you use anything but jets on a plane you're better off with a normal rocket ascent-profile (see 'wings on a rocket' above). A Mun base with a rover will be doubly useless, but you can go for the hat-trick by providing it with a spaceplane landing-strip. The fixed OX-STAT solar panels work anywhere, but less efficiently the further they are from the sun, not Mun. More than one can be useful, and make sure you orientate it properly. Does that help?

I disagree with your disagreement; 1 or 2 km altitude makes practically no difference whatsoever, 100 or 200m/s does.

Not to derail the thread but: Asteriods were only introduced in the 0.23.5 ARM version so if you have a previous one you won't get them. In the ARM version go to the tracking station and zoom-out the map a bit so you see other planets' orbits too. You should see several 'unknown' items (circles with question-marks), which are asteroids. Click one (or more) and the button at the bottom-left of the screen will change to 'track object'. After being tracked for a while you'll see the size and orbit. If you don't track them they go away, and respawn, having no other effect on gameplay (which is a nice, clever approach by Squad/NASA I think). Edit: Oops, previous post is correct, you can see the size-class before tracking.

The others have covered all the main points. I'd just add that you have to make sure you're climbing slowly, if at all, once in the area your engines start to run out of air. The important thing is to build horizontal, not vertical, speed. The faster you go the more air you get and the higher you can go, slowly. As a rule I aim to start levelling-out at 15km, building horizontal speed to 1km/s at 20km and 100m/s faster every km above that (1,100m/s at 21km, 1,200m/s at 22km, etc.) The big trick that got me into orbit with planes was learning to throttle-back, as thescientist mentions. Once the engines get near to flameout you can keep them alive and still thrusting that way - even with reduced thrust they will still accelerate your aircraft for a while. Repeat as required until you're not accelerating any more, then switch to rockets. With 1 intake per engine it's hard but 2 should not look like spamming and will take you to ~1,800m/s and 28km. As orbital speed is ~2,200m/s that leaves you 400m/s to make-up with rockets. More intakes per engine makes it easier to reach higher speeds, up to about 4 can be done in an aesthetic way; I usually use tri- or quad-couplers. You also have to consider their drag though - if it is ahead of the CoM it can make the plane impossible to control at high altitude/speed either on launch or re-entry.

I think this may be the 'frozen orbit' bug documented in Claw's excellent http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77327-20May-0-23-5-Issues-Fix-Crashes-Decoupler-EVA-Career-Save-Won-t-Start-more. Have a read but, I'm afraid, don't expect good news :-(

Do you build spaceplanes as well?

You should get a campaign-structure in sandbox mode. There is no 'should' and even less 'must', there is only 'have fun'

Why do I have dreams of KSP AI conversations: No, honestly, I shouted "Pitch" while I was making coffee - please forgive me before we crash.

Keyboard :-( All of my best toys are refusing to play for one reason or another since I upgraded OS. One day I'll get around to patching them somehow. Force-feedback hooked to KerbQuake would be cool.

One will be along, no doubt :-) You could report your own thread, asking for it to be moved. Mission Reports is probably the place for it, but they will know better. Anyway, now we know you're just showing us what you've done - nice one!

The usual cause of 'spontaneous' forces acting on a ship that way is part-clipping. I can't see anything obvious but that's all I can offer at the moment :-( Some ships are just like that, did you call it Titanic?

Good point blizzy and rather what I was thinking. For those that didn't know or dont remember: 1) Yes, clicking random links can lead to bad things. 2) Almost every browser can display a status bar - switch it on. 3) When you mouse-over a link usual browser behaviour is to display what the link really connects to in the status bar - check it before clicking. 4) Only if the link looks genuine (and OptiSTR's is to a forum tutorial here, so I trust it) - click after checking.

Perhaps slipping-in a subtle mention would be useful, yes. Some people go overboard and provide rules, scoring and all that other stuff in the Challenge Submission Guide as well. That is, if you are setting a challenge for other people. If you have just set yourself this challenge then this is, indeed, the wrong forum.

Yes. Mountain. I have tried. Mountain. To orbit Mun and Minmus very. Mountain. Low. Mountain. Guess what happened? (Hint: Mountain) ^^ I rarely go below a 2km cushion now.