What are some of the most useful techniques in this game that you know of?

[septemberWaves]

@Alpha 360 Currently I'm more interested in rocket-assisted landing for shuttles. Quite a few times in the past I've built a space-shuttle-like vehicle that works perfectly, except for the fact that I can barely land it because the safe speed for hitting the runway is too low for the wings to provide enough lift as it decelerates to that speed. So I thought that rather than redesigning the whole shuttle to have more wing area and subsequently redesigning the launch vehicle (which tends to be massively complicated and a challenge to optimize), it'd probably save some mass to just stick a retrorocket under the nose and fire it immediately before landing. Parachutes would probably work too, of course, but everyone uses those. In my testing process so far I started trying out rocket-assisted takeoff too just while I was experimenting (since I've had a few planes in the past too that could definitely have benefited from a boost at takeoff) but I started testing mainly for landing systems.

[Tyko]

1 hour ago, septemberWaves said:

@Alpha 360 Currently I'm more interested in rocket-assisted landing for shuttles. Quite a few times in the past I've built a space-shuttle-like vehicle that works perfectly, except for the fact that I can barely land it because the safe speed for hitting the runway is too low for the wings to provide enough lift as it decelerates to that speed. So I thought that rather than redesigning the whole shuttle to have more wing area and subsequently redesigning the launch vehicle (which tends to be massively complicated and a challenge to optimize), it'd probably save some mass to just stick a retrorocket under the nose and fire it immediately before landing. Parachutes would probably work too, of course, but everyone uses those. In my testing process so far I started trying out rocket-assisted takeoff too just while I was experimenting (since I've had a few planes in the past too that could definitely have benefited from a boost at takeoff) but I started testing mainly for landing systems.

Buran had jet engines so it could do a powered landing   

[KerikBalm]

On 2/19/2018 at 2:01 AM, MaximumThrust said:

Puting a retrograde rocket engine on SSTO space planes, very small engines gives a TWR of 0.5 when it's almost empty. Helps a lot when landing, and can be used to correct the landing site from the upper atmosphere without turning around and risking lose control.

Meh, I've experimented with retrorockets before, but I don't bother with them. For the upper atmosphere, varying AoA should be enough to correct your approach to the landing site. For landing, I prefer a raidal mount drogue because it can stabilize and slow the craft. I have used retro thrusters for some duna spaceplanes because of the thing air and low gravity (very bouncy touchdowns), but now I just build them to be VTOL - They are vertical lift rockets, and I just pitch up to slow down.

Spoiler

 

6 hours ago, Alpha 360 said:

Some of my most fun creations have been RATO SSTOs where I would put two thumpers on the wings of the plane, then fire them up to get high into the atmosphere so that the whiplashes work enough to get half of the way to orbital velocity. If you haven't built a RATO SSTO, do so. Its an unforgettable experience. 

Ummm.... if you decouple the SRBs, then its not a SSTO. If you keep the SRBs, then you're taking a lot of excess dry mass and causing a lot of excess drag. You should not need any help with Whiplashes (or rapiers) getting to orbital velocity, and then should take you to more like 3/4 orbital velocity, not half. I've only used RATO to help accelerate on the runway, and even designed RATO boosters with sepratrons and parachutes so that when I decouple before the end of the runway, the SRBs land on the runway (before leaving the 22.5km physics bubble) and I can get 100% recovery.

[RizzoTheRat]

Docking:

Switch between the two vessels, set both to be controlled from the docking port and target the other vessels docking port, then set SAS to point towards the target.  All you need to do now is nudge the RCS to keep the prograde vector on the target, and control your approach speed.  Perfect docking every time even in pitch dark.

 

@septemberWaves filmed earlier....

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by RizzoTheRat

[maceemiller]

Reducing the gimbal on engines can aid a smoother launch on various designs. Also I find keeping a speed of roughly 500m/s through mid-atmosphere helps too.

Edited February 20, 2018 by maceemiller

[Nich]

When landing a shuttle at KSC from orbit simply put the orbit line into the ground at the KSC.  Then pitch to 30 degrees.  If you are over shooting pull back more.  If you are undershooting pitch down.

[Spricigo]

 

You can avoid dealing with a lot issues when piloting if you deal with them at the editor.

[blakemw]

On 2/17/2018 at 11:24 PM, RizzoTheRat said:

Radial out when landing, why the hell hadn't realised that sooner? 

Because I'm pretty sure that prior to 1.3 radial out would be relative to orbital velocity even when the navball was in surface mode, it would still be "somewhat vertical" but the error was enough to make it fairly useless. And I think that this was an undocumented improvement in 1.3, so experienced players continued to believe radial out in surface mode was useless unless accidentally stumbling across it. Now it's amazing for improving safety of landing especially when relying a lot on thrust vectoring.

Edited February 21, 2018 by blakemw

[Guest]

On 2/20/2018 at 3:56 AM, septemberWaves said:

retrorocket under the nose

You don't want a retrorocket, you want a hover rocket. A retrorocket will just plonk you onto the ground harder. A hover rocket will make it possible for you to stay in the air as you slow down to a safe touchdown speed.

(I've been working on the same problem in a different context -- Duna -- and hover rockets are definitely the way to go. You don't even have to give it full VTOL capability, STOL is enough.)

[MythicalHeFF]

When you’re trying to do a Tylo gravity assist to get a Jool orbit for free, have your Pe be about the same as that of Tylo’s orbit. It makes it THAT much more effective, and I’ve been able to get straight into a Laythe-crossing orbit over and over again. This technique also saves effort when sending a whole fleet of craft to Jool, as you’ll end up with about the same trajectory every time.

[Guest]

Speaking of Jolian gravity pinball, it's also relatively easy to get a low-energy capture by any of the major moons. Gravity brake off Tylo like Kerman says, but make it so your inclination is as close to zero as possible and your new Pe is as close to your target moon's orbit's Pe as possible. After that, you just need a little adjustment burn to encounter the moon at your Pe; your relative speed will be quite low and you'll only need a small burn for capture. 

I'm not all that good at this but have managed to end in an equatorial orbit around Laythe for less than 350 m/s, starting from a very rough intercept of Jool (with no aerobraking involved).

[A_name]

On 19/2/2018 at 3:10 AM, Streetwind said:

Understanding mass fractions, and the implications of that understanding on rocket design. Originally written not as a guide but merely as an answer to someone's question, I now constantly find myself linking this post to others because it just keeps being relevant.

Also, realizing that I can steer and use the engines during physics timewarp took me way longer than I care to admit 

Finally, making maneuver nodes is a skill not to be underestimated. You'd be surprised how many people with four digit gameplay hours still struggle with this.

Can you give an ELI5 for the non-engineers among us?

[Streetwind]

59 minutes ago, A_name said:

Can you give an ELI5 for the non-engineers among us?

For what? The mass fraction thing, or the finer points of manipulating maneuver nodes and transferring from any orbit to any other orbit?

[A_name]

1 minute ago, Streetwind said:

For what? The mass fraction thing, or the finer points of manipulating maneuver nodes and transferring from any orbit to any other orbit?

The mass fraction part.

[Streetwind]

The post I linked is the ELI5 version. The only thing in it that is above elementary school math is the natural logarithm of the Rocket Equation, for which I explicitly tell you to use a calculator. The wall of text may look intimidating, but it only is that long because I included multiple easy-to-follow examples.

Of course, trying to make something easy to follow is one thing, succeeding is quite another. Tell me what part stumps you, and I'll attempt to rephrase it better.

(...Tomorrow, after I wake up.)

[A_name]

2 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

The post I linked is the ELI5 version. The only thing in it that is above elementary school math is the natural logarithm of the Rocket Equation, for which I explicitly tell you to use a calculator. The wall of text may look intimidating, but it only is that long because I included multiple easy-to-follow examples.

Of course, trying to make something easy to follow is one thing, succeeding is quite another. Tell me what part stumps you, and I'll attempt to rephrase it better.

(...Tomorrow, after I wake up.)

Thanks dude, I appreciate it. I did read through all of it a couple times before asking, FWIW. It's not really the maths that are the issue, but rather the concepts. I know, I'm stupid :P.

Let me take a shot at it and you can say if I'm on the right track:

1. Divide stage total Dv by its Isp.

2. If the result is <8: stage is inefficient, add more fuel (or change to a higher Isp engine?)

3. If the result is >8 and <12: nothing to do

4. If the result is >12: split into two stages

Thanks again!

[Spricigo]

3 hours ago, A_name said:

Can you give an ELI5 for the non-engineers among us?

I still preffer his version but that is mine:

DeltaV= a * b * c

If you want deltaV to be bigger you need to make a, b or c to be bigger (while the other two letter don't change, at least not much)

a is some constant. You can't make a constant bigger.

b is the engine I_sp . You make it bigger by picking an engine with bigger I_sp .

c is ln(m_t/m_d). You make it bigger by making m_t bigger or m_d smaller. But after some point you'll not notice much difference when you change those.

TL/DR: to increase deltaV: increase Isp, increase propellant mass and reduce non-propellant mass.

But those are just principles. If you want actual numbers use some kind of calculator.

 

[Superfluous J]

4 hours ago, A_name said:

I know, I'm stupid

Not getting the core concepts of some of the fundamentals of ROCKET SCIENCE on the first read do not a stupid person make.

[A_name]

2 hours ago, Spricigo said:

I still preffer his version but that is mine:

DeltaV= a * b * c

If you want deltaV to be bigger you need to make a, b or c to be bigger (while the other two letter don't change, at least not much)

a is some constant. You can't make a constant bigger.

b is the engine I_sp . You make it bigger by picking an engine with bigger I_sp .

c is ln(m_t/m_d). You make it bigger by making m_t bigger or m_d smaller. But after some point you'll not notice much difference when you change those.

TL/DR: to increase deltaV: increase Isp, increase propellant mass and reduce non-propellant mass.

But those are just principles. If you want actual numbers use some kind of calculator.

 

So add more fuel, got it! ^_/s

51 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Not getting the core concepts of some of the fundamentals of ROCKET SCIENCE on the first read do not a stupid person make.

That's nice of you to say

[Streetwind]

8 hours ago, A_name said:

Let me take a shot at it and you can say if I'm on the right track:

1. Divide stage total Dv by its Isp.

2. If the result is <8: stage is inefficient, add more fuel (or change to a higher Isp engine?)

3. If the result is >8 and <12: nothing to do

4. If the result is >12: split into two stages

Yes, that is what I was trying to say - looks like you understood it just fine  

Of course, you are allowed to form your own opinion and disagree with mine - for example, you could say that you prefer different target numbers. These are meant more as a guideline on "what to avoid doing without good reason", namely straying too far from the middle ground in either direction, than hard and fast rules on what you "must do" at all costs.

[Hans Dorn]

2 pages already and nobody mentioned the Moar Boosters technique?

Am disappoint.

 

 

[MaianTrey]

On 2/19/2018 at 5:53 PM, Atkara said:

Speaking of docking, locking target tracking has the pilot/probe core manage rotation, leaving translation to you. With this and docking mode, find yourself in a WASD situation.

I've gone as far as to manually map the mouse's side-buttons to docking/normal mode.

Mine is related to this --

There are docking translation hotkeys that make it unnecessary to switch between normal and docking mode. The keys, I,J,K,L,H,N

I - Translate Up
K - Translate Down
J - Translate Left
L - Translate Right
H - Translate Forward
N - Translate Back

This lets you still keep WASDQE for your pitching and rotation.

[Atkara]

7 hours ago, MaianTrey said:

There are docking translation hotkeys that make it unnecessary to switch between normal and docking mode.

I know and used them. Switching to docking mode controls is me, feeling more comfortable using WASDShfCtrl for translation with the left hand, with the right hand firm on the mouse, controlling the viewpoint. These, while the craft's pilot/probe core rotates the craft accordingly (target/anti-target tracking).

If your pilots aren't advanced enough (or haven't unlocked the end-tier probe cores/fly-by-wire module) you're better off with the traditional system. Although I've gotten so used to docking mode, that in the early stages of my current career, I'd still use it for docking. But then again, I don't remember the last time I docked at slamming speed -so I have all the time I need.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Atkara

[Clipperride]

On 20/02/2018 at 1:45 AM, Alpha 360 said:

Some of my most fun creations have been RATO SSTOs where I would put two thumpers on the wings of the plane, then fire them up to get high into the atmosphere so that the whiplashes work enough to get half of the way to orbital velocity. If you haven't built a RATO SSTO, do so. Its an unforgettable experience. 

@Alpha 360 and @septemberWaves both mention using solid rocket boosters to get planes up to speed quickly.  Another method is to build a rocket sledge!

[Tyko]

6 hours ago, Atkara said:

I know and used them. Switching to docking mode controls is me, feeling more comfortable using WASDShfCtrl for translation with the left hand, with the right hand firm on the mouse, controlling the viewpoint. These, while the craft's pilot/probe core rotates the craft accordingly (target/anti-target tracking).

If your pilots aren't advanced enough (or haven't unlocked the end-tier probe cores/fly-by-wire module) you're better off with the traditional system. Although I've gotten so used to docking mode, that in the early stages of my current career, I'd still use it for docking. But then again, I don't remember the last time I docked at slamming speed -so I have all the time I need.

I have an extended keyboard and use the cluster of arrow keys plus right Shift and right Control keys for translation. It works great