G'th

So basically, what should I be looking at as far as putting fins/wings on my rockets while using FAR? I get the basic idea of where to place them, but how exactly should everything line up? My rockets aren't going out of control as long as I don't over-pitch, but it takes a lot of effort to get a good gravity turn while also not pitching over too much, and as far as I can tell its the wings that need tweaking.

Considering we can design massive planes (about the size of your typical mob dragon no less) that would definitely weigh MUCH more than those kinds of dragons, I don't think its outside the realm of feasibility that they could fly, especially if they're closer related to birds (which they'd have to be). No reason for dragons to be physically heavy. But thats for the wyvern type of dragon. With them the only real issue with their possibility of existing is why such an animal would evolve heavy unnecessary scales and whether or not the food it would need to consume would be sustainable.

Personally the only thing I ever found fascinating about Venus was imagining what its landscape might look like without all the clouds in the way. But I'm still a fan of Mars myself. It too gives us a glimpse at what may come for our planet, but at the same time gives off this ominous feeling of impending rebirth. I don't know if we'll ever really develop what we'd need to terraform Mars, but somehow I can't imagine that we won't still have people living on it indefinitely sooner or later.

Loving the pod, and can't wait for RPM support.

Well I've been playing with it, and I'm starting to notice that trying to rendezvous in a 75km orbit around Kerbin isn't something for the faint of heart. So I moved my parking orbits up to 125km and I've had more luck. But how would you set yourself up to catch up with your target when you manage to get your orbits matching? Been having issues with that.

So as the title says, I'm having issues figuring out rendezvous. Specifically when it comes down to rendezvousing with something thats already in space, while you too are also in space. IE, transferring to Minmus to dock with a station there. Now, I can do docking. Presuming I get close enough, docking is easy as pie. But I can't for the life of me actually set up that close approach, and especially not without being able to set up the perfect orbit for it (which I can only barely do even when I'm launching into it). Halp!

I think the real question is why you get rocket parts before plane parts. All intentional silliness aside, it is much more odder that that is the case rather than the emphasis on vessels being manned.

Okay wow that makes this thing SOOO much more stable. Its like flying a plane in a regular flight sim now. Granted it doesn't turn on a dime, but its smooth, and thats what counts (and without caps lock none the less). I did opt to not use roll on the middle CS so I think I'll stick with that.

Figured I'd ask this here. I have already tried the blacklist from ALCOR but it didn't do anything to fix it.

No, its a limitation of the game. Can't connect more than one node at once. Only real solution is to just strut up the parts that aren't connecting.

Today I sent my first SSTO on its maiden voyage, a simple, 5 day orbit of Kerbin. Here we see Inspiration on the second day of its mission.

Mkay so after several exhausting days of redesigns (and a couple trips to the Mun to get some more parts to play with. Believe it or not I haven't even gotten to Minmus yet) I've come out with a much better design, that hits LKO with 900+ dV to spare. And alas, it flies pretty well too. After examining what all I wanted to do with this playthrough, I realized that I'd be better off designating simple rockets for substantial payload delivery, and instead leave my SSTO (which I've dubbed the Velocity) for resupply and crew rotation. (I may eventually utilize it on a Jool mission, but considering I haven't even gone interplanetary in my entire time playing this game, thats a long way off). So with that in mind, I was able to shorten the cargo bay, which I can now interchange with one or two crew tanks (or perhaps command seats if I feel silly) with minimal effect on performance. It also meant that I could pile on some more fuel, which made the rocket stage a lot less harrowing. I ended up throwing out the entire engine block entirely and restarting from scratch, which eventually necessitated some science gathering after realizing I wasn't satisfied with the engines I had. Did the same with the wings, which became easier with the shortened payload expectations. And no tail strikes below 10* pitch, which gives me a comfortable margin, so that issue is gone now. Actually flying the thing is pretty good for what it is. I'm still running it through high altitude tests to see how well it does (which is more just an in-case option, as at these altitudes I'm either on my rocket stage or descending from orbit), but otherwise as long as I avoid my tendency to just want to land it straight down (i'm impatient ) I can land quite smoothly, especially now that I can maintain my pitch at low speeds. Found out after a rather disastrous test run (Talking large scale stall from 30km up straight down to surface impact) that my CM does drift rear of my CL just as I run out of fuel. My solution thus far is to just move everything I have left forward prior to reentry, which the VAB tells me should work out fine just fine. Is there a way to have this done automatically, besides TAC Fuel Balancer? That'd be nice, as my idea regarding fuel lines didn't do anything. But as always, I still want to optimize. So here's a bunch of pictures for you guys to criticize. I am having an issue with my rocket engines (From Space Shuttle Engines), where the gimbaling and trim tends to wig my plane out of wack, particularly in space. I can compensate for it (as I set the trim speed for both down to 0. Even on a regular rocket they gimbal way too fast, so I did this first thing), but I'm still trying to find settings for them that lets me turn my ship about without having the gimbals get stuck somewhere, thus making the ship go all wacko. I have considered just turning gimbal off (I know have to keep Trim on to maintain the angle I have them set for) but then again, gimbals are always nice for that little extra maneuverability. I'm also trying to weave around the intricacies of reentry. Basic reentry isn't an issue, and actually I've been having problems NOT descending in such a way that doesn't produce reentry heating (lowest I've gone is 8k). While I'm sure that's actually an awesome thing, it is kind of disappointing. It looks neat. But even so, I can't decide if I want to just accept that or find an angle to go for that gives me that classic harrowing reentry. I'm also curious about the B9 control surfaces, and specifically the settings I should go for on them. Right now I have them set to default, but I'm wondering if different settings might provide some benefit. Anyway, pictures!

If your rockets are flipping out, its because they're either far too top heavy, don't have enough lift and torque control to maintain a particular AOA, or are being flown at an AOA that it can't handle period. Its likely a mixture of all three. Solution is to build heavier as you go lower, not the other way around (in my experience, CM should be ~75% up the height of your first stage). And then ensure that whatever you're using to control your rocket while still flying in the atmosphere can control it. Bigger wings and stronger ASAS/SAS/Reaction Wheels. For planes its the same idea (outside of the mass issues, thats different for planes). If you try going from a 5* pitch to a 90* pitch without doing it gradually, you're going to have a bad time as your plane/rocket ends up stalling which will lock out all the control until you bring your pitch angle back down closer to your prograde marker. The solution there is to keep your pitch angle close to your prograde marker. Depending on your craft there is an maximum AOA (IE, the difference between your pitch and prograde marker) that you can go to without stalling the craft. You can check that using FAR's tools to see where the craft begins to stall. With the crew pod issues, thats up to the mod authors to fix if the issue is what I think it is. However, if the pods have some RCS on them, you can mount some thrusters on to it to help compensate. And I'd recommend turning the aerodynamic failures back on. It'll teach you to be more efficient. (Hint: High TWR + large AOA = Too much stress = Failure) Before I got used to FAR's flight model, my rockets always fell apart in flight because they'd ascend too fast and I'd pitch way too hard. But now that I fly properly and design my rockets such that the TWR doesn't get too high, my rockets are more stable and capable than ever.

Today, I found out that you can just burn straight up towards the Mun.

That is true, but it isn't fair to the people who argue in favor of ISRU to have to counter arguments that are based on the assumption that you would be forced to use ISRU, complex or otherwise, which simply is not the case. And as far as the dev's go, with Kethane being present (and Interstellar to a lesser extent), I can agree that they'd be better off focusing on other things. If anything, I'd rather see Kethane get a complexity pass rather than see it become stock. And also, it still really isn't complicated at all. All I can say to people who think that is something that really isn't nice. Now, I can say that it is convoluted (and indeed, much of that graph is actually redundant, especially for a game), but complex? Nope. I don't think that people shouldn't use it just because its complicated and they don't like that, I just think that if you don't see a reason to use it, then don't. Its the same issue with ARM parts. ARM parts (while admittedly slightly more efficient they should be) are meant to be used for payloads that are much larger than most people have gotten accustomed to building. Things like interplanetary vehicles that don't have to be constructed in orbit or larger space station components, for example. Just because for smaller payloads they're completely overpowered for the job doesn't mean you should use them for those payloads. Real rockets aren't built like that. You don't take just any old payload and shove the largest most powerful rocket under it when a smaller rocket can be constructed to specifically lift that payloads weight range into orbit. But even so, a lot of these issues stem from the fact that KSP isn't limited like real rockets are. At least as far as career players are concerned, budgets are going to eliminate a lot of these issues. You aren't going to put the SLS under a small probe when you'd spend 99% of the cost of the entire mission just on the rocket to get it into orbit.

ISRU, whether its as simple as Kethane or as in-depth as that picture used in the first post, isn't really that complex at all. That has to be the weakest argument against resources in my opinion, because it has no real weight. For one, it wouldn't even be necessary for people to utilize it. ISRU as a concept is meant to help reduce the costs of space travel as well as providing a way to extend the distances that we can actually reach. We can reach the Moon without having to utilize its resources, and we can also reach Mars without doing so. The point in suggesting it however is so that doing such things can be more easily backed financially. But where ISRU shines is when you want to go farther than that. We could build a rocket (or several) that could send a manned mission to say, Jupiter or even Neptune. But without ISRU you'd end up spending a vast amount more than you would have to make the mission a success. And thats because ISRU would cut out a massive amount of the payloads you'd need. And that's how it would be in KSP, and exactly how it works in mods that provide such things. It isn't necessary to integrate it into every single mission, but going for it will reduce a lot of what could be required. For instance, instead of packing in the fuel needed for both transfers between Jool and Kerbin, you can pack in fuel for just one transfer, and refuel in Jool's SOI. ' Two, even if they put in a system like the one in that picture, is still not even complicated. The only complicated part about it would be learning the different converters and what you need to find for them to work (and honestly, who upon opening KSP for the first time looked at all the parts and automatically understood what they were all for and how they functioned?). Actually using those parts wouldn't be (and definitely shouldn't be) any harder then hitting the space button. Hell, SSTO's are more complicated than that. Even those who call the idea tedious really don't have it right, because while yes it could be, the fact of the matter is, most of what you'd do on the surface or in orbit of any planet or moon is going to be tedious. Until they make interactions more involved (and thus delegating possible ISRU to simple background noise that you let run while you do other things on the surface), thats not going to change.

I imagine this is regarding the disregard of things that seem to be closer to the realm of fringe science than serious scientific effort. I can agree that that isn't a good thing at all as far as progress is concerned, but then again, it really depends on what we're talking about. For instance, the example in that second quote. That is pretty much the same idea as using a ten ton weight to crack open a walnut. Sure it solves the problem, but in a way that's just not efficient. You'd spend a vast amount of effort getting the solution (much less acquiring the materials) to work than it would take to actually implement that solution. But then, take the fourth quote. Violating the third law of motion isn't something scientists should be shooting down automatically, especially if the ones presenting the idea had enough weight in their arguments (IE, proof of concept or close to it. The quote seems to imply they did in that case). Even so, however, it still depends. The ones who presented that particular idea may have been using something outlandish to accomplish it, producing the issue I laid out above. I don't know much about that particular NASA program but from what I know of NASA, they'd be looking for something they could implement at a reasonable cost, in both time and effort required. (money has a lot to do with it to. NASA doesn't have that big of a budget after all)

So, after accomplishing the great rigors of creating a functional plane in KSP and then getting used to FAR's flight model (Because now its totally worth it), I've been working on an SSTO. And I've gotten a design that should work (after tweaking it a bit after the last test flight it should be able to establish orbit) but I want to refine its tail end, because the way I have my plane constructed I end up with my engines getting destroyed during landing. (and during take off I have to either be very careful pitching up or waiting until the end of the runway gives me clearance) Even coming in as slow as I can without losing control of the plane ends up with the engines colliding into the ground. The rest of the plane is fine, but the entire engine assembly just goes kablooey. I did manage to land it once, fully intact, but that required me pointing my plane at the largest, flattest area I could fine and then giving myself a side view so I could refine my AOA as I got closer and closer to the ground. And while I could just maintain that angle (which I tried on the next two flights), there its literally zero wiggle room. And while I trust in my skills as a pilot to nail that angle every time, I don't like that a plane is locked to a single angle for landing, with any other angle resulting in some kind of rapid dis-assembly. So, here's my plane: Now, some side questions. First is about FAR. I know all the ins and outs of what it does to Kerbin's atmosphere. But what about flying elsewhere? While I've never actually flown anything on any other planet (nor have I ever really been to any other planet after playing this game for a year ), I'm wondering what to expect and what I should keep in mind once I eventually design something to fly on another planet. Is it easier like it is on Kerbin, or is it harder in places? Or both? I'm also wondering how you guys determine your max payload for a spaceplane. I do have a small satellite I'm aiming to take into orbit with this thing, but that isn't very heavy at all, and if it can't take that into orbit then I'm back to the drawing board anyway.

Could always build a colony somewhere. But if you're looking for science, not much to do except going for different biomes or just plain visiting whatever planets/moons you haven't been to yet. There really needs to be more ways to collect science. Hopefully .24 helps that a bit.

There is kerbalcomics, but he hasn't posted anything since last September. Shame really, he was pretty funny.

Build a space station in low Kerbol orbit. Just going places is for chumps.

Oh definitely. Even in stock KSP you can still have the parachutes get destroyed if you come in to fast and you deploy them before you slow down enough. But if you're talking about having wings fall of and such, not without a little lithobreaking.

^ I'm certain thats the case. Shave off that extra 4500 dV and you end up at ~6k, which is about right depending on payload. Granted, it can be more if you want to account for possible course corrections to and from and the possibility of establishing LKO again (Which takes less coming from space than it does from the surface). But I don't think the OP plans on any of that.

Okay, new bigger issue, that is probably connected to the previous one I had. After figuring that I'd just live with the atilla engines being weird, I decided I'd set up some reactors so at least I could pretend I was using it properly. However, after building a basic mobile one, I've found that I can't interact with any of the parts. Not the reactor, the electric generator, the radiators, nothing. Only non-Interstellar parts have anything I can interact with. Not really sure why this is. I'm going to try a clean re-install of the mod just to see if a missing file somewhere is the issue, but if not then I don't know.

Well yeah, but thats the thing. I'm not using any reactor, but the engines still work at the stats I gave earlier.