Pecan

Anything for a bit of attention ;-0 First, a short history of the LightMun series: LightMun A (Post 19): 46.757t, Prototype sketch LightMun B (Post 22): 40.001t, First entry LIghtMun C (Post 24): 7.64t, JATO launch-vehicle LightMun D (never flew): Construction test, not significantly lighter than 'C' LightMun E (Post 28): 5.73t, Staging and tweaking optimisation LightMun F (below): 4.673t, Ion transfer and return stages Unless someone else is playing I'll leave it at LightMun F: Having got so light with the others it seemed practical to push the thing to Mun with an ion engine. Big mistake. Yes, it's efficient but it really does take forever when you have a TWR of 0.06! Although this is 'F' it went through about 4 iterations itself, mostly because, as I noted in my previous post, I couldn't land the thing using just ions. The version presented here therefore goes back to the earlier lander design, with a 48-7S just for more thrust even though it's about 120kg heavier; if only I were a better pilot ^^. Flight for this is a bit unusual, because of the ion engines. First, the jet is used to get as high an apoapsis as possible, rather than circularising as much as possible in atmosphere. You'd usually do that because jets are more efficient than liquid-fuel engines but in this case the ions are much better. A high apoapsis means more time in the sun, which means the solar panels can power the ion engines longer. Oh yes, you might have noticed a few batteries on there too - there still aren't enough. After circularisation (I got Ap of 110 - 117km on different attempts) it takes several orbits pushing the Ap up to about 800km, from where you can make the final burn to Mun. It is also worth waiting several orbits, if necessary, to ensure this burn happens on the day side of Kerbin (these ions really use a lot of electricity). Once you are, eventually, on your way the rest is straightforward. Mun orbit injection, landing, re-orbit, rendezvous and docking are all normal. Coming back with the ions again it's slow but the burn to escape Mun's SOI is only a couple of hundred m/s so it can be done in one go. Don't even think about trying to establish an orbit back around Kerbin, just fall all the way down the gravity well and deploy the parachute after re-entry effects (don't tell the people using DRE). At least all those batteries make it easy to see the other vehicle when docking on the night-side of Mun: Almost forgot; I make that: 467 (mass) - 150 (stock) - 100 (no MJ apart from stats) - 0 (used SAS and didn't land at targets) - 40 (RCS docking) = 177 points Woot! There's 110 points for landings, if I try it again (pad's going to need a miracle ^^) and surely all those pretty lights are worth a few aesthetics points. Just a bit more work and I could get a negative score! No way I could fly the ascent without SAS though :-(

There were threads about it at the time, listing all the reasons it is so annoying. Since 0.25 you can press Z to go to full throttle. For an example of 'annoying' - At launch, I have to mess around enabling SAS, disabling cross-feed on docking-ports, synching gear with the screen-indicator, checking action-groups work, etc. If I accidentally press 'space' nothing happens at zero throttle. At 100% (if Squad REALLY need to cater for the terminally stupid) the ship would launch or explode. At 50%? Who can tell, anything could happen. So putting throttle to zero BEFORE checking everything is now something else I have to do every time I go to the pad THEN put it to 100% for launch.

specifically - when the stage is unlocked the light (bottom-left of the screen) is green, when it is locked the light is pink/purple and when KSP thinks it's required (as at launch) it flashes.

Frustration, frustration. I can build a 4.55t ship that, according to all the stats, has all the required TWR in the right places but I can't for the life of me land it on Mun. I wouldn't mind so much but I'm sure a better pilot than me could. Experimenting now with a hybrid 4.8t one that should be a lot more forgiving. Jets don't work in vacuum, I assume you mean, 'amazing Isp in atmosphere'? All the sea-level and vacuum Isp information is still there in the VAB and SPH; you have to right-click to see it. By the way, I'm starting to feel a bit ignored here, since you haven't said anything about my entries in post 24 (ok, so I didn't give any pictures for it) or post 28.

It's 50%, it's horrendously annoying and there's a mod to fix it. Otherwise, you can go straight to full (Z) or zero (X) throttle as soon as physics kicks-in.

Staging it IS the test. The contract will tell you whether you have to 'activate by staging' or 'run test part'.

It was added so a cat walking across your keyboard doesn't drop half the rocket. Alt-L toggles it on and off, it's like having a safety catch.

If you are familiar enough with Linux to use it then it will almost always give you better performance than Apple/Windows OSs. If you are familiar enough with it to tune your install that's almost guaranteed. Which is not to say that any particular application will be available for Linux or, if it is, that that specific one will run better. KSP is available for Linux and works a whole lot better so I'd say definitely go for it. KSP mods do not support 64 bit Windows because the version of Unity which KSP uses runs very badly on it. Although that's a Unity problem, causing KSP bugs/crashes, the mods get so many people claiming "their" mod doesn't work they just got sick of it and stopped supported 64 bit.

It's already there - in post 28 (2 above yours). Tomorrow I expect to reduce by at least another tonne ;-0

@ 5thHorseman: I'll see your 124kg and raise you 1,786kg

... and whatever works for you is good too :-) Launch requirements through an atmosphere are notoriously hard to optimise since there are so many variables - each stages' start and end TWR and burn time, gravity-turn start altitude, rotation speed, throttle settings, inherent drag, etc. etc. [Goddard problem]. Generally I think most of us just use the vacuum deltaV figures because by the time you reach 2km the atmosphere is thinning-out considerably and it's just too much bother to try to interpolate. Ultimately, vacuum deltaV at launch- vacuum deltaV in orbit = how much it took, in retrospect.

Yeah, to put the above two comments in perspective - in KSP jet engines are incredibly fuel-efficient. By using them instead of rockets you save a lot of fuel, which means you also don't have to worry about staging and throwing-away expensive engines just for efficiency. A vehicle that takes-off like a rocket can benefit from that too (eg; here's one I just finished) but it is relative hard to land one vertically. THE big advantage of wings - a defining feature of a (space)plane is that they let you fly, or at least glide, a long way to your landing. So - using jets means you don't have to worry (so much) about construction efficiency, using wings means you don't have to worry (so much) about manoeuvre accuracy.

Right, if we're talking engineering ... Oh alright I gave in to this strange obssession with legs ^^. Took 5 hours of tweaking instead of 3. 5.73t, no MJ/guidance but I still didn't bother landing anywhere in particular. From left: Stage view, VAB mass, (from top) transfer burn, flag & legs, re-orbit, coming home, landed. 573 (mass) - 150 (stock) - 100 (no MJ apart from stats) - 0 (used SAS and didn't land at targets) - 40 (RCS docking) = 283 points

You've found results that are different to everyone else. For mass-efficiency (stock) a pad TWR of 1.5 - 1.7 is generally considered ideal, rising as fuel is burnt so the stage has an average TWR of 2 during its burn. With FAR (which the OP is using) or for cost-efficiency a very low pad TWR, around 1.2, is usually optimal. In the former case because FAR's drag-model is much stricter and in the latter because you replace expensive engines with cheap fuel.

Awww rats, there goes my 'magnifying glass sunroof' idea. (No actual help or observation to offer, I'm afraid).

When optimising for mass, maybe, but not generally when optimising for cost. TWR of 1.2 takes more cheap fuel rather than expensive engines. I still haven't seen a moderate-sized rocket (>20t payload) that really benefits much from SRBs because it takes so many of them to give useful thrust, but then I'm optimising for part-count too.

When your 'light' ship is 130kg heavier than 5thHorseman's OK, so it's no behemoth, but over-building is all relative! Guess what I'm spending my evening doing.

There's not a lot to add really. Works fine for me on my old single-monitor, dual-core AMD, nVidia 610 system. Maybe if I had all those toys like you, I'd demand everyone solve MY problems NOW though. I expect you spend a lot of money on all that. Hope you enjoy your other games. Sorry you didn't like KSP. Bye.

That's about right. It is useful with Karbonite I think but apart from that, no, like RT it doesn't add anything to other mods. Unlike RT though it doesn't add difficulty for the sake of it, or at all. The reason to use SCANSat is it useful and interesting.

Welcome. We hope you'll share your skills and experience more on here :-)

Nice job, it takes a lot to get and maintain a perfect set of orbits. Are you using SCANSat as well? With that satellites can actually do something useful, instead of just solving a problem the mod itself introduces.

Environmental Visual Enhancements (EVE). You may also want to look at Better Atmospheres and others. All the (released) mods are in http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/35-Add-on-Releases

Hmmm, although that Skipper launch vehicle is lighter and simpler than my previous illustration the CM/LM together (which are the same as in that pic) are only 5t, I really ought to use a JATO launch vehicle. 10t anyone? Nahhhh, 10t is just not trying ... Launching with Mk1 Fuselage, turbojet and 8x octagonal struts and ram-intakes (who doesn't love the smell of spam in the morning?) brings the total VAB mass down to 7.64t and gets the thing into a 75km orbit with an insignificant 35m/s circularisation burn from the CM rocket. Everything else (CM/LM) is the same. 764 - 190 = 574 points. (If I could be bothered to land in the right places that'd come down to 464 and there's a few hundred m/s excess in the CM and at least 40-units of fuel spare in that initial jet stage that could be tweaked out, if anyone wants to nick this design and try to do better).

Just for the exercise, here's LightMun B landing in all the wrong places. So - 40t = 4,000 points? Stock parts = -150 Used MJ so nothing No SAS parts but doesn't count since I use MJ Nowhere near Armstrong memorial so nothing there either Missed pad too so still no more points RCS docking = -40 (although I don't get that, is it because the monopropellant masses more?) 4,000 - 150 - 40 = 3,810 points score. Incidentally - the landing legs are carried on top of the lander, which still lands on the engine. That's so only a single decoupler is needed without them getting in the way of the engine.

Remember, rocks on Kerbin are very small, the planets and moons are far away.