Tricks, hints, and important lessons

[paleorob]

There was a thread like this before the forum catastrophe and I haven't seen a new one crop up yet. I figured we'll give it a go here. The idea is to post neat things that help you play the game that may not be obvious from the outset. I'm not talking about mods, I'm talking about basic stock parts to the game that players, maybe even experienced players, may not know about or take advantage of. Since I'm starting this thread off I'll also start off by dropping the newest hint that I have stumbled across.

Mount the ASAS unit low on the rocket to avoid wobble on long skinny rockets. A lower stage of 2 orange tanks and one gray "trashcan" tank, plus a trashcan/poodle upper AND a wide/funky payload (my Mun base) or a long payload (MOSS core) are able to make a gravity turn and exit the atmosphere without the usual oscillations that accompany long rockets in KSP. Pictures to demonstrate:

This was also lifted with the same basic design.

[Atanar]

If you want to have kerbals in a rover/whatever hanging to a ladder, make sure they have something above their head, it will prevent them from wobbling off.

Landing gear has lights that are very bright and do not consume power.

[Tw1]

Just little tips? Or should we be adding things like big bits of design theory we've come up with?

[Wijbrandus]

Someone add how to build a huge [FLUFFY BUNNIES] lifter that will move my large payloads into orbit.

(Although I'm all over that first pic! Thanks!)

[Canopus]

If you want to help people you need to get you facts right. The ASAS applys no Force of its own so it doesn't care were you put it on your Rocket. I would do it the opposite way and put it near the top of your vehicle so you can use it for later stages.

[kookoo_gr]

lately i have noticed that for no reason when i have a Rockomax X200-32 Fuel Tank and on top of a FL-R1 RCS Fuel Tank or a Rockomax Brand Adapter 02 due to the acceleration when launching sometimes they disconnect. The solution place struts along the length of the two connection of the two parts so they won't disconnect.

[Richy teh space man]

When making ships without a crew, make sure you include power for them otherwise your ship will stop working when it runs out.

[Brofessional]

In vacuum, you can use time-warp to stop a ship from rotating and potentially save RCS fuel and/or time.

[Wijbrandus]

lately i have noticed that for no reason when i have a Rockomax X200-32 Fuel Tank and on top of a FL-R1 RCS Fuel Tank or a Rockomax Brand Adapter 02 due to the acceleration when launching sometimes they disconnect. The solution place struts along the length of the two connection of the two parts so they won't disconnect.

I just discovered this myself. What is the most efficient way to put struts along them? I'm finding I need to space them out from the hull using a box frame on each end.

[Czman007]

Approach getting SOI encounters with bop, pol, or gilly more like orbital rendezvous than the usual way it is done. This will save you a lot of time and frustration.

[Bowak]

With a new design always test your staging in a 'simulated' launch, dropping anything except SRBs early so you can be sure that everything's in the right order and that you won't find yourself ditching a vital component half way across the system. I view this also as a way of testing the abort procedure for a failed launch.

[paleorob]

If you want to help people you need to get you facts right. The ASAS applys no Force of its own so it doesn't care were you put it on your Rocket. I would do it the opposite way and put it near the top of your vehicle so you can use it for later stages.

That is the downside is that it can't be used later. You are correct it applies no force of its own. By putting it closer to the base of the rocket, however, it ends up experiencing less movement (at least on rockets that have gimballing engines and/or fins at the bottom) since the point of rotation is at the motor (or fin). If it is traveling through less of an arc it will not want to correct for a large arc, thereby keeping the ship stable. Try it yourself if you don't believe me.

[Temstar]

I should probably get around to remake that engine clustering thread...

What's the consensus these days with engine clustering? Is everyone still using cubic struts or the new fancy radial attachment points?

[falofonos]

Not mine originally but if you want to use Mainsails, put the shortest fuel tank you can between the motor and the orange tank, strut them together with 4 symmetric struts and the mainsail won't overheat.

[Czman007]

I should probably get around to remake that engine clustering thread...

What's the consensus these days with engine clustering? Is everyone still using cubic struts or the new fancy radial attachment points?

I still use engine clustering on almost all of my rockets, it's just so much more useful than a mainsail. I still use the cubic struts to do it also.

[Splode]

If you want to help people you need to get you facts right. The ASAS applys no Force of its own so it doesn't care were you put it on your Rocket. I would do it the opposite way and put it near the top of your vehicle so you can use it for later stages.

Wrong. ASAS does provide some torque like an sas unit. Having it lower on the rocket mounts it closer to the engine, which is the only moving part (as it gimbals). As a result, the asas will be better at damping any wobbling as it is attached close to the only control suface, and doesn't over correct. there is no reason to be rude, you just end up looking silly.

[GoldenShadowGS]

That is the downside is that it can't be used later. You are correct it applies no force of its own. By putting it closer to the base of the rocket, however, it ends up experiencing less movement (at least on rockets that have gimballing engines and/or fins at the bottom) since the point of rotation is at the motor (or fin). If it is traveling through less of an arc it will not want to correct for a large arc, thereby keeping the ship stable. Try it yourself if you don't believe me.

I thought the center of control is at the current commanding module. For example, you can use a docking port in the middle of your rocket and set "control from here"

[Qumefox]

Wrong. ASAS does provide some torque like an sas unit. Having it lower on the rocket mounts it closer to the engine, which is the only moving part (as it gimbals). As a result, the asas will be better at damping any wobbling as it is attached close to the only control suface, and doesn't over correct. there is no reason to be rude, you just end up looking silly.

Actually no.. ASAS provides no force of it's own.. all it does is control other things that do provide rotational force.. Capsules, SAS modules, and RCS.. If you don't believe me, stick a mechjeb on an ASAS unit, launch it into space, decouple it so it's just the mechjeb and the ASAS module, and you'll find it has zero ability to rotate itself at all.

All ASAS does is tell the parts of the ship that CAN impart rotational force what they need to do to point the ship in a certain direction. That's it. ASAS is just a brain. It has no muscles.

And in regards to the OP.. I've played with this before.. the location of the ASAS module doesn't seem to matter on my install. It behaves the same no matter what.. The solution to ASAS induced oscillation for me is to just use less control authority.. For example.. Using less gimbaling engines, or locking the gimbals on all but a few.

[DMagic]

One of the tricky things I've learned to deal with is how to assemble off-world bases. The best way, I've found, is to test everything on Kerbin. It's best to use the subassembly loader, but even if you're pathologically averse to non-parts mods you can do testing without it.

Lining up docking ports can be tough, and to make sure your base is really stable you have to be very accurate with their positioning. You can test all of your components on the launch pad, or near it if you aren't using subassembly loader.

Here I've connected 2 parts of my Minmus base using subassembly loader and put them on the launch pad. Sometimes your landing legs will break if you try to deploy them on the ground. You can use your landing engines to take some of the strain off of them, but that can be a little tricky. The other way is to attach a few launch clamps, then drop the whole thing to the ground once the legs are already deployed, you might still need to use the engines a bit though, to slow down the descent.

Here it is on the ground. The wheels are on detachable radial structural points, which is nice for getting them out of the way, and for keeping your final part-count down.

To check if everything really fits well together try activating and deactivating time-warp. If your components mostly stay in place then your docking ports and landing struts should be aligned fairly well. Another way to check is to decouple the docking ports and see if they line up. The ports have been decoupled here, but they still line up almost perfectly.

This part demonstrates a few other things. First, having a wide, detachable wheel base lets you drive around and dock to your base and get rid of unnecessary parts (the final component has just 12 parts, but the whole landing apparatus has 100). Also, those fuel tanks hanging on the sides help to keep the center of mass balanced, which is something that caused problems with the truss segment above.

The problem with this is that those full fuel tanks make the whole thing way too heavy to test on Kerbin, the wheels will be destroyed almost regardless of how you deploy the thing. Which brings up the other thing that launch clamps are useful for, draining fuel on the launch pad. Just attach an engine if you need one and burn most of your fuel before you drop it to the ground, you might still need to use the landing engines for a gentle drop though.

Now that you have the thing on wheels, you can just drive it off the launch pad. Take it all the way past the little drop off and you can put something else on the launch pad without clearing it first.

Doing this, you can put together as many segments as you want without using the subassembly loader. It's also useful to see, not only if your docking ports line up, but if you can actually put things in position and dock them properly. That way you can put together something like this without actually going off-world first.

Using this method I put together this eight-component base on Minmus on my first attempt (well, if you don't count the 2 or 3 times it took to properly land my first truss segment). Everything lined up well for docking, and nothing freaks out when I turn on and off time-warp.

Edited May 31, 2013 by DMagic

[Atanar]

I should probably get around to remake that engine clustering thread...

What's the consensus these days with engine clustering? Is everyone still using cubic struts or the new fancy radial attachment points?

Yeah, you should, cause I am a bit confused what you mean.

[itsme86]

Holy crap, DMagic! Nice presentation.

[Spartwo]

Angle lower stage propulsion roughly 5 degrees out to increase stability although decreasing usable delta-v.the effects start to become negative at 30 degrees with wild spinning on throttle up.

[triffid_hunter]

Someone add how to build a huge ass lifter that will move my large payloads into orbit.

I use the following asparagus stage to launch up to 50T into orbit:

Asparagus staging is your friend!

If you're not already familiar with asparagus, search the term on these forums then come back and watch the video

• if you find that your launch stage still has fuel left when you're done with it, add some probe cores and a docking node so you can spin it retrograde and deorbit it.

• when you make something that will be jockeyed into position with an RCS tug, put RCS ports on it. this will help balance the RCS force vs. CoM of tug docked with payload.

• MechJeb's Smart A.S.S / PAR- orientation is more useful for docking than MechJeb's docking autopilot

• Put at least two RTGs on your payload. Then you'll never have an uncontrollable rocket due to no electricity if you spend too long in shadow, and they'll balance each other's weight and drag.

• MOAR STRUTS!

• Launch stage size and complexity increases exponentially with payload mass. Consider possibility of smaller payloads assembled in orbit using docking ports

• Multiple docking ports in a specific arrangement will always clamp more strongly and allow less wobble than a single port. Save a craft with the bare minimum of parts, or use SubAssembly Loader.

• If you want strong CMGs, edit GameData/Squad/Parts/Control/probeStack<Small/Large>/part.cfg and increase rotPower to 30/50 respectively. Now the probeStack<Small/Large> will give usefully powerful Control Torque- not just SAS torque.

• If you want symmetrical flameout on your spaceplane, edit GameData/Squad/Resources/ResourcesGeneric.cfg and change IntakeAir to STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH and add fuel lines from intakes to engines as necessary

[Sabor]

If your SRBs constantly explode almost as soon as you detach them, taking stuff out with them and you can't figure out why, strut your mainsail engine to its tank. They like to slightly slip and catch SRBs coming down

[Mr Shifty]

I use the following asparagus stage to launch up to 50T into orbit:

I used a similar 4-symmetric stage to launch my first successful Minmas landing last night, but it was kind of a fiasco. I was having trouble controlling the final long rocket stage (it would not turn around the long axis to, literally, save itself). I eventually stuck 4 radial engines on long struts sticking out from the side. Trying to keep the thing pointed along my orbital route while at 50km up ended up whipping the Mainsail and lower orange fuel tank off the end of the rocket. Luckily, the radial engines were suspended off the side of the upper orange tank and got me the rest of the way into orbit. (And the payload was a lander with a couple LV-N's on the back for Kerbin to Minmas transport.) I'm just wondering how you make that last long rocket stage controllable.