I'm a new player and I'm looking for tips and tricks

[Interstellar Yeet]

1 minute ago, Geonovast said:

Well... no.

Minmus flybys will still get you a good amount.

Plus, every planet and moon has biomes... you can collect more science from the Mun simply by landing in a different spot.  There's also science from high and low orbits.

Here's a biome map of the Mun:

Yeah well I actually already did a flyby of Minmus so I wan't to land there next time I go there. But from what I've heard and seen it looks like it's easier to land on minmus? Is that right? 

[Geonovast]

2 minutes ago, Interstellar Yeet said:

Yeah well I actually already did a flyby of Minmus so I wan't to land there next time I go there. But from what I've heard and seen it looks like it's easier to land on minmus? Is that right? 

Yes and no.  You need to build your lander to suit to Minmus.  Minmus is smaller, so has much lower gravity.  You need a lot less fuel to land and take off, but because of the low gravity, a tall lander can very easily tip, and if you come down too hard you may bounce.

Built your lander short and wide, and make sure it touches down nice and soft, and you should be ok.  I think it's also easier to land on flat ground on Minmus, as you can just land on the frozen lake things.  (not sure if it's actually supposed to be ice)

[FinalFan]

2 minutes ago, Interstellar Yeet said:

Yeah well I actually already did a flyby of Minmus so I wan't to land there next time I go there. But from what I've heard and seen it looks like it's easier to land on minmus? Is that right? 

Yes, once you're at Minmus it's much easier to go from one biome spot to another compared to doing the same on the Mun.  Getting there is trickier but doing multiple biomes is easier.  If you're willing to fool around with docking then this is also a situation where having an orbiter and a tiny biome hopping lander that docks with it might come in handy.  

Plus it's very easy to tell the major types of Minmus biomes apart.  Flats, slopes, highlands, easy!

[Superfluous J]

4 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

Minmus is smaller, so has much lower gravity.  You need a lot less fuel to land and take off, but because of the low gravity, a tall lander can very easily tip

But as a bonus, the reaction wheels in the pod are often more than enough to right a fallen vessel. That ship that fell over on Mun could likely be righted if it were lying on its side on Minmus.

[Interstellar Yeet]

15 minutes ago, FinalFan said:

Yes, once you're at Minmus it's much easier to go from one biome spot to another compared to doing the same on the Mun.  Getting there is trickier but doing multiple biomes is easier.  If you're willing to fool around with docking then this is also a situation where having an orbiter and a tiny biome hopping lander that docks with it might come in handy.  

Plus it's very easy to tell the major types of Minmus biomes apart.  Flats, slopes, highlands, easy!

Getting there is tricker? I nailed it on my first attempt ever. I just built my first interplanetary rocket and then i went into orbit and launched myself right at minmus, then I orbited there a bit and collected some science and i flew home. Was probably a thousand times easier than landing on the mun.

[FinalFan]

12 minutes ago, Interstellar Yeet said:

Getting there is tricker? I nailed it on my first attempt ever. I just built my first interplanetary rocket and then i went into orbit and launched myself right at minmus, then I orbited there a bit and collected some science and i flew home. Was probably a thousand times easier than landing on the mun.

For me the inclined orbit is annoying to hit.  Not hard exactly but more of a hassle than the Mun's easy peasy dead level orbit.  It's easy if you wait for KSC to cross the orbital path before launching, I suppose.  Or maybe it's just me.  

[Interstellar Yeet]

1 minute ago, FinalFan said:

For me the inclined orbit is annoying to hit.  Not hard exactly but more of a hassle than the Mun's easy peasy dead level orbit.  It's easy if you wait for KSC to cross the orbital path before launching, I suppose.  Or maybe it's just me.  

Riiight, that's where I learned about inclined orbits which i didn't know was a thing until I started playing. Actually when I quicksaved before I departed from the Mun on my way home I tried to set a manouver node and I was like "hold on a minute here, why is my trajectory opposite of the kerbins orbit". And then I realised my lift of was the wrong way haha

[Kroslev Kerman]

On 11/2/2018 at 4:52 AM, Interstellar Yeet said:

I can't land on minmus because I lose control for some reason

uhm use the auto sas and use the retrograde marker it will be easyier and have enough reaction wheels or RCS

[Interstellar Yeet]

3 minutes ago, Kroslev Kerman said:

uhm use the auto sas and use the retrograde marker it will be easyier and have enough reaction wheels or RCS

What exactly is RCS and reaction wheels? is the reaction wheels those you unlock in advanced flight or control or whatever its called? 

[Kroslev Kerman]

RCS Use monoproperlant and they are found in Command in Control

example of RCS is SpaceX's Cold gas thrusters

[FinalFan]

1 minute ago, Interstellar Yeet said:

What exactly is RCS and reaction wheels? is the reaction wheels those you unlock in advanced flight or control or whatever its called? 

Yes, let me explain what he means.  You were losing control literally, due to going out of antenna range of home base.  But a lot of people have trouble by burning retrograde to land ... if they stop moving down then suddenly retrograde could be the completely wrong direction!  Once you are close to the surface make sure your SAS is set to "hold steady".  

Reaction wheels use electricity to point you in whatever direction you want.  Very handy.  Your command pod or probe has a weak version but you can unlock strong ones.  

RCS does a similar thing with tiny little rockets that spin your rocket, but can also move it side to side, up and down, etc.  Weaker than regular engines obviously but good for docking and for keeping you upright when landing.  Uses monopropellant fuel.  You have a little in your lander can and command pod unless you empty the tiny little tank.  Big tanks sold separately.  If you use RCS make sure to space it out evenly.over your ship, e.g. 4x symmetry in the middle of a small lander.  

[Interstellar Yeet]

4 minutes ago, FinalFan said:

Yes, let me explain what he means.  You were losing control literally, due to going out of antenna range of home base.  But a lot of people have trouble by burning retrograde to land ... if they stop moving down then suddenly retrograde could be the completely wrong direction!  Once you are close to the surface make sure your SAS is set to "hold steady".  

Reaction wheels use electricity to point you in whatever direction you want.  Very handy.  Your command pod or probe has a weak version but you can unlock strong ones.  

RCS does a similar thing with tiny little rockets that spin your rocket, but can also move it side to side, up and down, etc.  Weaker than regular engines obviously but good for docking and for keeping you upright when landing.  Uses monopropellant fuel.  You have a little in your lander can and command pod unless you empty the tiny little tank.  Big tanks sold separately.  If you use RCS make sure to space it out evenly.over your ship, e.g. 4x symmetry in the middle of a small lander.  

Hold steady? I've never flied with a pilot... I've used a scientist for all my missions

[Kroslev Kerman]

if you have the Making History DLC you can get the Gemini command pod which can hold 2 kerbals a scientist and a pilot

[FinalFan]

Just now, Interstellar Yeet said:

Hold steady? I've never flied with a pilot... I've used a scientist for all my missions

When you flew to the Mun, it had a probe, yes?  Was there a little red or green circle to the left of the nav ball?  Anyway, these little circles, if available, tell your probe and/or pilot to do certain maneuvers automatically: "keep it pointed prograde", etc.  The most basic one is "keep it pointed in the direction it's in now; if something turns the ship try to turn it back to here" AKA "hold steady".  

Retrograde is what you do do slow down ... But if you are about to land and you go up a little then "retrograde" points your nose at the ground!!  So, hold steady near the end.  

[Interstellar Yeet]

Just now, FinalFan said:

When you flew to the Mun, it had a probe, yes?  Was there a little red or green circle to the left of the nav ball?  Anyway, these little circles, if available, tell your probe and/or pilot to do certain maneuvers automatically: "keep it pointed prograde", etc.  The most basic one is "keep it pointed in the direction it's in now; if something turns the ship try to turn it back to here" AKA "hold steady".  

Retrograde is what you do do slow down ... But if you are about to land and you go up a little then "retrograde" points your nose at the ground!!  So, hold steady near the end.  

Yeah thanks I know that I'm just pointing out I've never used it so far. My pilot as the ability to do it but I haven't tried it. So let me get this straight, if I have no antenna contact with kerbin, and I can not control my ship, can I use RCS that runs on electricity combined with a leveled up pilot to hold a retrograde angle while trying to land on the far side of the moon for example? if this makes any sense....

[FinalFan]

Just now, Interstellar Yeet said:

Yeah thanks I know that I'm just pointing out I've never used it so far. My pilot as the ability to do it but I haven't tried it. So let me get this straight, if I have no antenna contact with kerbin, and I can not control my ship, can I use RCS that runs on electricity combined with a leveled up pilot to hold a retrograde angle while trying to land on the far side of the moon for example? if this makes any sense....

You made perfect sense, and you're  almost right.  RCS is the one that uses special rocket fuel.  Your Kerbal COULD use this, but the one with electricity (often called SAS) is a lot better ... you can refuel it RCS is usually saved for when you want to actually move around in space, not just twirl the ship around.  

[Interstellar Yeet]

3 minutes ago, FinalFan said:

You made perfect sense, and you're  almost right.  RCS is the one that uses special rocket fuel.  Your Kerbal COULD use this, but the one with electricity (often called SAS) is a lot better ... you can refuel it RCS is usually saved for when you want to actually move around in space, not just twirl the ship around.  

Wow! That's actually really cool, and I'm really happy I actually made sense. I'm learning so fast! 

[Geonovast]

22 minutes ago, FinalFan said:

You made perfect sense, and you're  almost right.  RCS is the one that uses special rocket fuel.  Your Kerbal COULD use this, but the one with electricity (often called SAS) is a lot better ... you can refuel it RCS is usually saved for when you want to actually move around in space, not just twirl the ship around.  

It's more than just that, it's usually a bad idea to use RCS just for orientation changes, as, unless everything is perfectly balanced around your Center Of Mass, your orbit will change.  Won't happen with reaction wheels.

RCS is good for small, precise orbital changes.  Generally when you're going interplanetary.  A small puff of monopropellant from half a solar system away can change your trajectory thousands or millions of kilometers, so it's great for setting up planetary encounters.

It's also essential for docking.  (Technically not required... but a lot easier, especially for beginners).

RCS also tends to make space stations resonate themselves apart.

[FinalFan]

3 hours ago, Geonovast said:

It's more than just that, it's usually a bad idea to use RCS just for orientation changes, as, unless everything is perfectly balanced around your Center Of Mass, your orbit will change.  Won't happen with reaction wheels.

RCS is good for small, precise orbital changes.  Generally when you're going interplanetary.  A small puff of monopropellant from half a solar system away can change your trajectory thousands or millions of kilometers, so it's great for setting up planetary encounters.

It's also essential for docking.  (Technically not required... but a lot easier, especially for beginners).

RCS also tends to make space stations resonate themselves apart.

You're right, and using RCS as fine control for interplanetary maneuvers is among the most satisfying things I've done, but we're still working on the basics here, and the context is primarily landing on a body—even docking is still on the horizon.  It's good to avoid getting into bad habits, but on the other hand I want to avoid overwhelming with other tidbits.  The basic thrust* is the same—SAS when it will do the job, RCS when SAS isn't enough. 

But I suspect you meant that SAS is the one more likely to tear apart stations, right?  I don't have much experience there, but what little I do have suggests that SAS is the more dangerous one in that regard. 

*Ha ha. 

[Geonovast]

1 minute ago, FinalFan said:

You're right, and using RCS as fine control for interplanetary maneuvers is among the most satisfying things I've done, but we're still working on the basics here, and the context is primarily landing on a body—even docking is still on the horizon.  It's good to avoid getting into bad habits, but on the other hand I want to avoid overwhelming with other tidbits.  The basic thrust* is the same—SAS when it will do the job, RCS when SAS isn't enough. 

But I suspect you meant that SAS is the one more likely to tear apart stations, right?  I don't have much experience there, but what little I do have suggests that SAS is the more dangerous one in that regard. 

*Ha ha. 

Well, I think we're confusing SAS with Reaction wheels here.

The reaction wheels are internal to the command pods, as well as there being external reaction wheel units.  These run on EC only and don't affect orbit when you use them to reorient a craft.

RCS is the little jets that move your ship around using monopropellant.

SAS is the stability system... it can control both the reaction wheels and RCS.

RCS, unless tuned way down, is much, much stronger than the reaction wheels.  And since the SAS is very... over-reactionary, space stations tend to tear themselves apart when SAS is turned on to stability hold and RCS is enabled.

There are ways around that, of course, but since we're sticking to the basics for now, until docking or interplanetary travel comes into play, there's no reason whatsoever to even include RCS on the ship yet.  The reaction wheels built into the pods will be more than enough for the ships the size the OP is using.

So yes, it is really SAS being dumb that causes the stations to shake apart.  RCS just enables SAS to self destruct more quickly than the reaction wheels, so it's generally not a good idea on stations, especially since re-orientation on a station usually doesn't have to (or shouldn't) happen quickly

*some of this was intended also for @Interstellar Yeet as I'm sure you knew most of it.

Also, @Interstellar Yeet, sorry if you're feeling a bit like poor Haskell here.

[FinalFan]

15 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

Well, I think we're confusing SAS with Reaction wheels here.

The reaction wheels are internal to the command pods, as well as there being external reaction wheel units.  These run on EC only and don't affect orbit when you use them to reorient a craft.

RCS is the little jets that move your ship around using monopropellant.

SAS is the stability system... it can control both the reaction wheels and RCS.

RCS, unless tuned way down, is much, much stronger than the reaction wheels.  And since the SAS is very... over-reactionary, space stations tend to tear themselves apart when SAS is turned on to stability hold and RCS is enabled.

There are ways around that, of course, but since we're sticking to the basics for now, until docking or interplanetary travel comes into play, there's no reason whatsoever to even include RCS on the ship yet.  The reaction wheels built into the pods will be more than enough for the ships the size the OP is using.

So yes, it is really SAS being dumb that causes the stations to shake apart.  RCS just enables SAS to self destruct more quickly than the reaction wheels, so it's generally not a good idea on stations, especially since re-orientation on a station usually doesn't have to (or shouldn't) happen quickly

I can't argue with your definitions.  Usually only one thing turns on when I hit the SAS button, but of course the SAS also controls the RCS when they both happen to be on. 

I had thought that the reaction wheels on very large objects were prone to setting up a self-aggravating resonance in a way that the RCS thrusters by themselves were not prone to doing, but I can certainly believe that I was just wrong due to never leaving RCS on as long as I left reaction wheels on.  You're sure about this? 

[Geonovast]

5 minutes ago, FinalFan said:

I can't argue with your definitions.  Usually only one thing turns on when I hit the SAS button, but of course the SAS also controls the RCS when they both happen to be on. 

I had thought that the reaction wheels on very large objects were prone to setting up a self-aggravating resonance in a way that the RCS thrusters by themselves were not prone to doing, but I can certainly believe that I was just wrong due to never leaving RCS on as long as I left reaction wheels on.  You're sure about this? 

Unless they've fixed it in recent updates.  I stopped putting RCS on space stations in 1.3.1, and if it's not meant to dock or leave Kerbin's SOI... it likely won't get it at all.