Misconceptions you used to have

[Superfluous J]

As a kind of masochistic torture for myself, I went back and watched my very first KSP videos that I recorded almost 2 years ago in 0.22, just to see if I was truly as bad as I think I was. I actually wasn't, though some things stood out.

I kept calling the Kerbals "Kerbins."

I kept calling Kerbal Space Center "Kerbal Spaceport."

I kept checking science readings in different situations in the same zones, expecting different results (hey, Science was new back then).

Anybody else remember dumb stuff they thought or did way back in the good old days before we actually knew what we were doing in this game? Also, I'd like this thread to be newbie friendly so feel free to point out stuff that others said, that you just now realized was wrong.

[Columbia]

I used to think that KSP Aerodynamics (pre 1.0) were the most accurate.

There are a lot more, but I just.. can't remember them.

[Geschosskopf]

I used to think Sepratrons had little utility. Then I discovered dragsters, rocket launchers, and fireworks .

I originally thought Minmus and Mun had about the same gravity, so that a Minmus lander would work on Mun. That misconception didn't last very long.....

I once had the notion that rovers had practical value for long-distance trips, until I tried it a few times .

For a while, I thought asparagus staging was actually necessary to get anything to orbit because that's all anybody did in videos and all everybody talked about in the forum. Now nearly all my rockets are either SSTOs or have some SRBs to start with, and that was even before the 1.x air changes.

There was a time when I thought that the only way to warp ahead X number of days to a transfer window was to build a rover, drive it off the runway, and warp ahead counting sunrises. This led me to discover that while the game ran on 24-hr days, Kerbin's actual day-night cycle is only 6 hours. That explained why it always got dark sooner than expected when I was flying or rovering around on Kerbin . And then I discoverd Kerbal Alarm Clock and haven't used a "timekeeper" rover in years.

[SpenSpaceCorp]

To orbit, go up.

[Geschosskopf]

I used to think that KSP Aerodynamics (pre 1.0) were the most accurate.

Given that Kerbin is several times denser on average than osmium, I still think that way. Its atmosphere cannot possibly be made out of anything resembling the gases we have on Earth, so it being a "soup-o-sphere" is in fact to be expected.

[Robotengineer]

I used to think MechJeb was cheating, now I'm reformed.

[problemecium]

I used to place way too much faith in specific impulse. I sort of do now, but I've come to understand why using a 48-77 or an ant may be better for tiny probes than a massive LV-N.

I used to think fairings didn't make much difference in the 1.0 aerodynamics, or at least not enough to justify their weight. They do now o_O

I used to... okay, I still do this. I put way too many copies of Science experiments on my landers. For those unaware, duplicate Science does not decrease the total available and thus does help harvest it faster, even if duplicate experiments get less points individually. Still, four barometers and an extra reading in the command pod is overkill when the Science drops to zero after two readings xD Not to mention this was on a Mun lander before the barometers worked there.

[RocketBlam]

I started some time previous to 23.5, and I guess my biggest misconception was, I didn't realize there was any kind of save function (F5). So I flew many missions, including missions to the Joolian moons, without saving at all. As I recall, I still had the recall function, but I usually crashed rather than recall.

[Superfluous J]

I started some time previous to 23.5, and I guess my biggest misconception was, I didn't realize there was any kind of save function (F5). So I flew many missions, including missions to the Joolian moons, without saving at all. As I recall, I still had the recall function, but I usually crashed rather than recall.

Ouch. I learned that F5 was a thing during my attempts to successfully land on Mun and return for the first time ever. After about 5 full missions (which seemed to take forever each time, but really probably were like 10-15 minutes each) that all ended in failure due to crashing into Mun instead of landing, I thought "OH MY GOD WHY DOES THIS GAME NOT HAVE SOME SORT OF SAVE FEATURE."

Then I realized I never checked.

Of course, the very next time - after quicksaving in orbit - I landed successfully.

[Corw]

I thought 1.0 would be good.

[Felsmak]

Wait, what? Is 0.22 already almost two years old? (Screams internally)

Edited July 10, 2015 by Felsmak

[Tourist]

I didn't realise struts broke off when the stage they were attached to was jettisoned. I thought that if I had a strut connecting a two sections, it would drag the jettisoned stage with me. So I came up with a number of methods to detach them, such as connecting them directly to a decoupler, or in one case to a plate attached to a decoupler. As a result I thought struts were useless... I'll let that sit there for a minute... I ... thought... struts... were.... useless.

Not sure how I discovered that my elaborate work-rounds were unnecessary.

For bonus points, F5.... oh how revelatory to find this magical button.

[Xannari Ferrows]

"Don't land too hard. The landing gear might break!"

[kiwi1960]

I thought Jeb was awesome...

then, along came Val.

[r4pt0r]

Up till about .22 when I went to the mun I burned straight up and let the mun intercept me, no orbiting at all.

[Streetwind]

I used to think that larger diameter rockets would fly so much farther. They were so much bigger after all!

[Sharpy]

I started playing shortly after 1.0 came out but only after reading tutorials that said nose cones only increase drag. My early rockets looked very 0.18

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't realise struts broke off when the stage they were attached to was jettisoned. I thought that if I had a strut connecting a two sections, it would drag the jettisoned stage with me. So I came up with a number of methods to detach them, such as connecting them directly to a decoupler

Same here. First I learned the tree problem as the rockets ceased to attach to the second decoupler. Then I got the advice to use the struts... so I strutted it to the second decoupler.

[Superfluous J]

Wait, what? Is 0.22 already almost two years old? (Screams internally)

Yup, it "just came out" in October 2013 when I started my series.

Up till about .22 when I went to the mun I burned straight up and let the mun intercept me, no orbiting at all.

Oh there's another one. I used to think that the best (as in least used dV) way to go to other planets was to burn straight up at either sunrise or sunset during the transfer window.

[Sharpy]

Actually, that's a pretty efficient way providing you can get the encounter.

All the fuel you use up to make an orbit is in fact a wasted resource with only purpose of making direction change easy.

[TokiTech]

I thought Kerbin is the same size as earth and the space travel is near as real-world simulated.

[Reactordrone]

Given that Kerbin is several times denser on average than osmium, I still think that way. Its atmosphere cannot possibly be made out of anything resembling the gases we have on Earth, so it being a "soup-o-sphere" is in fact to be expected.

Current atmosphere is actually more dense than the pre 1.0 atmosphere it's just that drag is lower now.

But on the topic at hand, in my first Mun landings I used to stop dead in my orbit at about 50km and drop straight down keeping my retrograde marker aligned using translational RCS burns. Those ships used a lot of fuel.

[Superfluous J]

Actually, that's a pretty efficient way providing you can get the encounter.

All the fuel you use up to make an orbit is in fact a wasted resource with only purpose of making direction change easy.

Not true. I tested it extensively. You can hide the gravity loss by packing on massive TWR but then you're lifting more into space than you need to. That fuel you "use up" making orbit gets you going 2.2km/s (or so) and when you eject to your target planet, you get to use it. If you do a proper gravity turn, you'll get to 2.2km/s having used less fuel than you used going straight up.

We're "only" talking 10-20% loss here, which for some of us is within the expected losses for the mission, but why *guarantee* 10-20% losses when you can *guarantee* to not have them?

[_stilgar_]

I kept calling the Kerbals "Kerbins."

I'm sorry, but why would you call them "Kerbins", when "Kerbal" is literally the name of the game?

[Streetwind]

Actually, that's a pretty efficient way providing you can get the encounter.

All the fuel you use up to make an orbit is in fact a wasted resource with only purpose of making direction change easy.

That's a very common misconception that I had too, once upon a time I just couldn't understand how orbit could cost less than a direct burn.

To change my opinion on the matter, it took someone sending me a scenario file with a little Mun lander positioned in the perfect spot for a direct ascent return to Kerbin - literally sitting under the Mun orbit's retrograde vector. All you had to do was throttle up and it would fly directly retrograde out of the Mun's SoI. No need to touch the steering controls.

...except that it didn't have enough fuel to drop its periapsis into Kerbin's atmosphere that way... not even anywhere close, in fact. But, if you first took the thing into a 10km Mun orbit and then performed a regular retrograde ejection burn, you easily got the periapsis all the way under Kerbin's surface.

Going into orbit really is cheaper. Always. Everytime. No exceptions.

Bonus: even New Horizons, the fastest manmade spacecraft ever that got shot towards Pluto in what's pretty much a straight line from Earth, went into low Earth orbit first and then burned for ejection.

Four days to Pluto flyby! The hype is real!

Edited July 10, 2015 by Streetwind

[TheLoki]

Bigger is better

More thrust gets you further

For higher DeltaV add more fueltanks and more engines

My ever first Mün lander had about 2 orange tanks, 6x2silver tanks, all equipped with mainsails in an asparagus staging (thanks to youtube). The actual lander was ontop of that thing, upside down with a docking port, a MK2 Pod, white 2.5m tank and a skipper engine as far as i can remember. Do not know the DeltaV as i haven't installed mechjeb or KER at that time.