Pecan

For the original 'how to' question, there is one solution that a lot of people use but that we haven't mentioned - because it's always someone else that did it: Hyperedit.

Anyone understand what "I suspect I'm missing something very important here..." means? Like, amongst all this learned discussion of vector maths; how come I only see what look like scalars? You've made my head hurt now because I tried to read that code. Is that KOS these days?

The huge question would be ... why not launch into the polar orbit in the first place? Granted this is a mathematical exercise - for which, congratulations so far - but remember the mission objective (as my old Sergeant Major used to say, "There's no extra points for doing it the hard way").

Zero, or the first year. Meanwhile, on Earth, it's 1436. Or possibly 5775. Or the number you first thought of multiplied by the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow. Unless you're Mayan - in which case it all ended 3 years ago. There is no real equivalent of Earth-time to Kerbal time, or even Kerbal technology to sanity. They have rocket pods before wheels, engines before ladders and get 'structural plates' really, really late so must have been very hungry. The earliest recognisable part is probably the 1950s-ish Mk1 command pod, but the 'ant' engine is more sort of 1930s.

I suspect I'm missing something very important here and am feeling too stupid to see it (excuses: it's very late, I'm very tired and have been to the pub). 'Normal' is 90-degrees to the inclination, rotated by the longitude (of An, or Dn if you want the anti-normal). Radial is a type of tyre. Prograde is what the experts get. Please tell me what the other stuffs about, by PM if it's less annoying to everyone else.

It's a bit like asking if Einstein instead of Newton, does that mean sofas are more comfortable than bean-bags. The whole point of an operating system or software engine is that it shields you from the awful machine below: In ancient times (1960s, sort of): machine change = every application change Classic Era (70s - 80s): machine change = OS change (-> maybe application changes, to take advantage of the new capabilities) (-> maybe macro (mod) changes, if such a thing exists) Windows, oddly being The Dark Ages (1980s - 2000s): machine change -> (Lalala, not listening. I Killed Jeb and I'm not learning nothing new. When I change, you can) -> well, yeah, make the most of what the OS lets you do. (-> maybe macro changes) Middle Earth (2000s - 2010): machine change -> ... ME APPLE, ME PRETTY, YOU PAY! No, I'm Windows, stay with me or I'll kill Jeb! Oh heh, Linux and his family know how the machine works! ...-> engine (Unity amongst others) change as they have to/can for all of the above -> One Application To Rule Them All (-> maybe mod changes?) Engine-ering (sort of now): machine change -> (some sort of OS then, I suppose) -> YOUR ENGINE? I HAVE YOU NOW, LITTLE ONE! (-> Toto, I don't think we're working for the machine any more) (-> maybe mod changes) NB: No operating systems were hurt in making this post. The universe is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple and payment will be extracted in blood on my death, or possibly as a cause of it. Disney has 10% of every poisoned apple, but will sue if you mention it. Or them. Or Mickey Mouse. Which would be the end of me, if it weren't for Apple still trying to find a buyer for bad blood. Microsoft would like to apologise for Windows but a) can't stop laughing long enough, can't quite see what they have to apologise for, c) might have done already but everyone stopped listening because Apple bought the universe. Then locked it. Linux users may, of course, do exactly as they want. That's sort of the point.

When asking about a specific mod the best place is usually that mod's thread. Tweakscale is here

Yes. Yes. Welcome to the forums. Challenges go in the challenges forum. Gameplay Questions (and Tutorials) go in that forum. 100 hours and you've only just got here! I don't think I managed 2 hours before I was begging for help, let alone taking tourists to Mun! Anyway ... i. Claw calls the Kraken and is best avoided if you can ii. (GOAP) Get Out And Push - a Kerbal that can EVA has unlimited suit-RCS fuel, as long as they keep re-boarding a command pod to refill it. Doesn't affect the pod's own supply so send a rescue mission to rendezvous then get the non-tourist to EVA and push the tourist vehicle retrograde (slow down) until it has a periapsis (Pe, low point of orbit) in Kerbin's atmosphere; approx 45km would be perfect. After that aerobraking (slowing down using the atmosphere's drag) will do the rest for you. iii. Do the same thing but instead of making an EVA Kerbal do the work just - slowly! - push the tourist vehicle with the rescue one

I use docking port + struts but, yes, it's difficult without something to support the other end of the returning payload as well. For the grabber there's always the claw, of course, but I think I'd rather have an unsecured payload bouncing around! Since you'll be docking at very low speeds though, it is possible to just build a 'rest' for the undocked end of the payload. Structural panels or stuts (cubic, etc., not the EAS-4 ones) are good for that. Once in place a payload doesn't tend to move around much, except as it's pulled down by gravity, unless you're manoeuvring aggressively.

Ah right, sorry I got caught on the implication you wanted something easier then. Good luck with spaceplanes - they can be interesting if you like flight simulators but really are much, much harder to build and fly than rockets.

And the next two things to consider: 1) Make sure the payload is also balanced within the cargo bay! 2) If the payload is connected with a docking port, make sure fuel-crossfeed is disabled on it.

See also: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/129763-How-exactly-do-radiators-work-Can-I-use-them-to-help-with-aerobraking

Coincidentally, I've just made a 100t+ launch vehicle for someone who seemed to need something really simple: It's a SSTO and MJ flies it perfectly with standard settings (although I recommend 75km orbit) 3 stacks of 5 x S3-7200 S3 KS25x4 nosecones and fins to taste (I just have basic fins at the north/south of the side-stacks and east/west of the centre stack) (batteries and RGU on centre stack, SAS units on side-stacks).

Trouble with that, as posts 3, 5 and 6 all pointed-out is that the OP says he wants to use a SSTO - of whatever flavour - that's easier to build than a rocket and easier to fly than a plane. That is a pretty tall order, especially for 100t+ of payload, so a spaceplane is almost certainly NOT what the OP wants. With the added implication that MJ will be used, I'm assuming that "SSTO" is shorthand for "something that MJ can reliably fly to orbit for me". This, is about the simplest SSTO (rocket) I have for a 102t payload: Decoupler below payload. 3 stacks of 5 x S3-7200 S3 KS25x4 nosecones and fins to taste Batteries and RGU on centre stack, SAS units on side-stacks. Has about 500m/s remaining once in 75km orbit, using MJ's default settings (just open Ascent Guidance, set 75km target orbit, click 'Engage Autopilot' and press space to go there). If you want to bring it back it'll need at least a couple of drogue parachutes on there too.

Assuming the correction I made to your quote (SSTO rockets have exactly the same ascent path as any other rocket) -> From my preceeding post: "can MJ autopilot an SSTO Spaceplane?" Yes, if you ... really know how to control it and keep updating the MJ settings every minute or so. In this case, use SmartASS to keep the thing steady and stable, updating the pitch settings as your rate of climb or speed goes too high or low.

For the possibility of doing it from within RT itself you'd be best to ask in the mod's thread. Otherwise ... through the debug menu in the space-centre scene do a reload and skip RT

It is meant for jettisoning the engine-shroud that normally goes with a previous decoupler anyway. Not used much, more just a left-over from past times.

Please could you explain what you actually want to do, since the description of the vehicle you're asking for doesn't make any sense. "SSTO" = Single Stage To Orbit. Neither rockets, planes nor anything else necessarily need fairings; it depends on your payload design or whether you want to use a payload bay instead. A SSTO will not be any easier to fly through a gravity turn, especially if you're getting MJ to do it for you. Spaceplanes are even more fussy about their ascent path than rockets, in general, because they have tighter tolerances. But then you say "not be as annoying to make as rockets, but I'm rather poop at flying planes" - so how do you expect this thing to fly? Not a rocket and not a plane doesn't leave us much. Anyway, that's contradicted by " its a plane with rapier engines and gets to orbit in one stage". OK, 'one stage' makes it a SSTO, 'plane' means it is a spaceplane and 'rapier' is the engine-type it uses. Stick some wings on the sides and wheels on the bottom, then test and test and test and test ... it's a lot harder than designing a rocket. "can MJ autopilot an SSTO Spaceplane?" Yes, if you build and fly it like a rocket OR you really know how to control it and keep updating the MJ settings every minute or so. "can anyone tell me the answers to my questions" - possibly, if you ask some. NB: If "102t" is your payload mass then that's REALLY heavy for a beginner, even with a staged rocket. Building a SSTO rocket isn't too bad for that mass but a spaceplane will be very big, complicated and high part-count.

This example probe/launcher has almost 7km/s in LKO and can visit any planet or moon in the system: 1.25m LV-N probe payload structural - payload bay (Z-200 battery, 2 x RTGs and deployable solar panels), RGU fuel - 3 x LF fuselage engine - LV-N 2.5m launch vehicle structural - stack decoupler, rocomax converter (2 x radial decouplers on main fuel tank) fuel - orange tube, 2 x boosters of 2 x TL-800 tanks each engines - Skipper, 2 x boosters of T-30s It is all an easy combination to build and fly but I set an action group to open the payload bay and solar panels.

http://www.kerbalmaps.com/ Go jump in a lake! (Hehe, not the sort of thing I expected to be writing on the KSP forum)

Thanks guys, I never even knew this was a thing; just thought it was a name for a different-looking KSP model ^^. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine "The disadvantages of aerospikes seem to be extra weight for the spike, and increased cooling requirements due to the extra heated area. Furthermore, the larger cooled area can reduce performance below theoretical levels by reducing the pressure against the nozzle. Also, aerospikes work relatively poorly between Mach 1-3, where the airflow around the vehicle has reduced pressure, and this reduces the thrust." So that's us told :-)

SCANSat multispectral sensor -> anomaly (easter-egg) hunting :-)

Tip #1: use a mod (KER, MJ, etc.) to give you the figures that the VAB/SPH don't. They're vital to efficient design.

Just checked, I'm good for overtime, tell me when you want my money Squad :-)

At the opposite extreme: Gilly is always loads of fun with big craft and its 'odd' collision model. Park in orbit then EVA down and back using suit RCS.