G'th

Another docking/rendezvous related protip: When setting up a close encounter, its easiest and more time efficient if you can't find an ideal CE distance (IE, below 1km) to simply kill your relative speed at the closest you can find or get. From there, simply move your pro/retrograde marker over the corresponding target marker using RCS and burn for however fast you want to encounter your target. As you timewarp, however, you'll have to make correction burns, otherwise your encounter distance will never actually come close enough to the target to begin docking. Doing this, you only need to use the map view to set up the initial close encounter, and presuming you keep up with your correction burns (which typically take only a second or two every 20 or 30 seconds on timewarp) you'll end up closer to your target (Often right on top of it) than if you had just used the map view and nodes.

The rover itself comes from Portable Rover Components by ASET. Still works, though I find it suffers from the explosion bug that can happen with KAS/KIS, and in turn also suffers from some wonky ground collision. I bring along a couple of ground pylons (the KAS one works best) to rest the rover base on. This stops it from falling through the ground and makes it easier to attach parts to it. And after your done, all you have to do is move the pylons out of the way and bam, it drops down like a dainty butterfly lol. (I also found this construction platform technique useful for any sort of in-situ rover construction)

You know, it does kind of beg the question of why it wasn't originally one piece from the start. I mean, the control surfaces and the docking adaptor make sense to keep separate (CS' because then it'll be easier to tweak them for users and the docking adaptor because anything to do with the cargo bay should be modular instead of fixed) but the orbiter itself is just odd to split up.

Corvus is also a very well made one that's just the pod and some other miscellany accessories to go with it.

If you're having problems with your center of mass moving, it'll be less complicated to use an empty RCS tank paired with a full one to help balance the plane out throughout the flight. Unless you have very, VERY heavy RCS usage during your flight, the loss in propellant in those tanks won't have as big of an affect on your COM compared to the draining of your fuel tanks. Another good tip for SSTO's is to try and figure out how much delta V you want/need to get into orbit and then to carry out your mission. This number should represent all your dV requirements from the jet/rocket engine switch to landing. Depending on where you want to go, anywhere from 2k-3.5k dV will give you a good margin and some usefulness. Once you have this number figured out, all you then have to do is put in enough LF to bring your plane up to Jet engine cutoff. It requires a lot of playtesting and a more standardized ascent profile (IE, almost the same every time), but it will simplify fuel management if you set it up so that the LF drains without affecting your COM. (Which can be done by having the LF be right on the COM)

So during my Apollo 16 mission, where I finally managed to assemble (and then relearn to drive) a PRC rover, I decided to see what it was like to turn on Hullcam's first person feature and see what roving was like in first person. And suffice it to say, it is too much fun. Makes the large distance I'm currently travelling seem much less boring. Granted, anyone who make a rover with a command pod kind of already got this sort of experience, but even so. Its neat.

I recently started thinking about the dead-before-arrival Geology mod, that would have made gathering surface samples an involved process (where you'd have to actually search for samples), and it occurred to me what if you implemented a similar system to all the science experiments? And thinking about how you could do that without it being super complicated, it occurred to me that may be defining science as a collectible resource like Ore (and thus having locations for it defined by that sort of system) would simplify it greatly. You could define "resource maps" for each experiment, and then the experiments would have varying results depending on where it is. And it wouldn't be too intensive, as you'd have large blotches where the results would mostly be the same for most experiments, with smaller blotches where the results could be of higher or lower value. Some experiments could even not have any results in a given area or they might be widely available but not very valuable on the whole, giving diversity and balance to experiments. This sort of system would work really well for things like surface samples, because then, depending on how far you can go with it, you could define your map as having small areas where you'd have really high value samples with lower value ones surrounding it, basically giving you the system that the Geology mod originally wanted to go for. The only issue would be non-surface experiments, but I would think that may be it could stay the same as stock, but just have values change based on altitude and possibly situations. An EVA/Crew report gently cruising at sea level would be different compared to a report while traveling a supersonic speeds 30km up. Same goes for a low versus a high orbit and so on and so forth. Things like a magenetometer experiment would be much more in depth if you could actually map out things like Van Allen belts. Ultimately doing this would greatly enhance the Science part of the game, as then it would actually give more of a point to actual exploration rather than just to say you explored. It would also extend time spent actually playing on the surface of bodies (without being unnecessary tedium), which is something I think most players don't spend much time on. I know that my Apollo style surface stays hardly last an orbit of the CSM unless I'm going for multiple biomes at once. It would be interesting to have to actually explore an entire crater to come home with a good science haul rather than landing, running and collecting the experiments, and then leaving all in 5 minutes. Now, I don't know how hard this would be to implement (or if it would even be really possible), but I figured I'd share it. Its no secret that science in the game does leave much to the imagination, and while it certainly shouldn't be come tedious, it could definitely do with a bit more player involvement.

Today I continued work on my Eyes Turned Skyward based playthrough, and its going well, despite Apollo's 12 and 13 deviating from both timelines and Apollo 15's rover being eaten by the almighty kraken. Bout ready to land 16 in the Twin Craters (Couldn't be bothered trying to land them in more analogous locations) and then I'll do 17 and 18. From there its on to Skylab where I'll start developing some supporting infrastructure around Duna and Eve (namely sattelites and possibly some Viking analogues). After that its Spacelab and the Voyager program. Then I'll probably do Artemis (but center it on Minmus rather than a return to the Mun) alongside the Freedom space station. After that will probably be manned missions to Duna. Here's some selected pictures from 15:

Gods be praised!

That can also be cause for failure if the rocket doesn't work perfectly, which the FASA one's don't because they're not quite balanced to the stock aero as of yet. You'll either end up a way higher orbit than you necessarily wanted or your turn will be too fast. But anyway, frizz, I was wondering if you ever planning on giving reflections to the LM ascent stage? While the LM wasn't as shiny as the CSM, parts of it were shiny to some degree.

One, it'd probably require bigger chutes to insure the SRB's aren't going to be too damaged once they hit the ground. Two, there's no way to necessarily predict where they'll land, so without a virtual desert the size of Texas to land in, its too likely that you'll land the booster in a populated area. Three, a powered landing would likely require designing the entire SRB and would be ABSURDLY complicated. A powered landing using a liquid booster is one thing. Using a solid booster on the other hand is a whole other ballpark. (and its not even built for the same game) And as far as the whole saving money thing goes, the SRB's were the least of the worries as far as STS went. The Orbiter was more of a money sink than the SRB's were.

What would really be nice is to have your craft's inclination listed somewhere in the UI. Currently, the only way to really have any idea of what your inclination is to either guestimate or know off hand what your targets inclination is and go off of the ascending/descending node differences. And it would be extremely helpful to have it listed on your trajectory, alongside your apo/periapsis. That would make choosing the right trajectory a bit easier for those that want or need to enter into the SOI at a specific inclination.

You guys should see this. So accurate I could just vomit.

So with the Mun fiasco I had earlier, I resolved to finally set up my satellite networks for the Kerbin system, and my first task was to place one in a Geostationary orbit above KSC. The orbit I have right now is 2.868Mm by 2.864Mm. Obviously eventually I'll lose connection with KSC with this sattelite, but is this good enough for this purpose, or will it deviate too quickly, relatively speaking? As in, how long can I expect the connection to remain with KSC?

Possible, but my KSP-Fu is not quite up to that level lol. That and I've never actually attempted a rescue so this was a cool experience. But! Rescue is successful. Manage to land the rescue LM just shy of 300m from the crash site. Kerbals are in route now. I got ABSURDLY lucky with the TMI. It put me into just the right orbit that would cross over the crash site just as I was ready to descend.

I typically don't spend much time on the surface either, hence why I have so little loaded. But funnily enough, what will be my Apollo 13 will in fact be a rescue mission for 12.

Not 100% sure which its set to, though I think its Kerbal days. But I was able to stretch out life support to a solid 5 day minimum depending on how long they'll survive without Food. Its likely that I'm going to have to design a new LM to get them out of there. I watched the CSM orbit a couple times and at best I'll get 5-7 minutes of control on an unmanned LM, as mission control will be likely be facing away from the mun by the time it arrives. Update: Going to have to leap a bit forward with my designs. Pulling out the ALCOR pod to be piloted by Jeb. Going to be a lot of rendezvous' though. Not only is Jeb going to have to rendezvous with the mission CSM, but he'll also have to rendezvous with his own CSM so he can return home. Thankfully, I like overengineering and absurd safety margins on my non-premade ships.

So, one of my Mun landings has gone, awry. The crew survived to their landing site but both engines of the lander have been lost, as has power generation. Right now my two Kerbals have life support that will last them at least 3 days, at which point they'll have to take their chances with the ascent stage, which is already low on power. Question is, using a (FASA) Saturn V outfitted with a remote controlled LM but without any satellite networks (been too lazy to set them up), could I get a landing to them in time? Funnily enough I've never actually paid attention to how long a trip to the Mun takes, so I'm not 100% on it. And then theres teh whole issue of controlling the LM on descent. If I'm lucky I might be able to use teh CSM to control the LM by proxy, but that'll be tricky with the limited overhead time. UPDATE: Determined to survive, Kasie spotted an bit of debris in the distance and threw caution to the wind and went to investigate. Lo and behold, one of the RTGs survived the crash. So, the LM can now be used as shelter. And, naturally, here's a picture of Errick and Kasie stranded in the East Crater:

Yeah the Atlas does have issues unless you use a lot of the control engines or add an SAS module to it. (or some god awful looking fins) Something you may want to try is to not let the rocket gravity turn on its own. Keep SAS on and drag prograde down very, very slowly. I typically find for most of the FASA rockets that hitting about halfway to 45 degrees @~15km apoapsis will ensure a smooth flight.

Likely because he's editing it as we post. Granted, he didn't have to post to do that, but even so.

Yeah it definitely creates too much drag. Without its belly up against prograde, it shouldn't be able to slow down near as efficiently. So when combined with the lifting surfaces it creates some wacky effects. The shuttle should be a flying brick, but not a flying brick that can stay in the air indefinitely even after it stalls out. And while it may have fallen apart, I would think that was more a node issue than anything else. I can't imagine the actual part strength would have any effect on how easy it is to break off or disintegrate.

Not quite sure if this particular behavior is intended or not, but I figure I may as well report it anyway. But even so, I'm still pretty sure the real life shuttle couldn't do loop di loops 100ft away from the ground. While that picture doesn't necessarily convey the issue, at that speed, AOA, and height, I was able to keep pulling up doing circles in the air just above the ground. The aerodynamics in particular for the whole thing seem really off. It bleeds speed way, way too much (to the point where I don't even need S-turns to slow down. Just divebomb KSC and pull up) and it has some very silly behavior whenever I throw curveballs at it. Basically whenever its not flying under its intended flight path, it behaves like a spaceship without any gyroscopic controls. Floats up and down, spins around and around. The shuttle is also virtually indestructible, as I was able to crash it into every building in KSC and only lost an engine. I'm sure some of this may be intentional atm, but even so.

I like that Beth actually upped the bar on the graphics (presuming we'll get all that in the end product), but I'll have to wait to see some gameplay (and what features they've decided to "streamline") before I can decide if I'm going to be hyped.

Started again with some Eyes Turned Skyward rockets.

How could it be jettisoned after deorbit if you have to jettison to not have a wacky time deorbiting? And while it makes sense why they'd jettison it, it just seems odd to not deorbit it. Makes me wonder why they chose to design it this way.