KSP Difficulty Selection planned

[LoganMalone]

I have 3 stranded Kerbals on the Mun. On the first landing, the rocket tipped over while on a 45 degree slope. The other two were rescue missions which landed safely, however both had so little fuel left that it's impossible to leave the Mun. Anyone have this happen to them? I'm disgusted that I use so much fuel to make a Mun orbit, and spend 90% of it to land and stop horizontal movement that I stopped playing KSP until I can figure out what I'm doing incorrectly. There is no guide or hint as to what I should be doing or learning better, etc. for Mun landings.

Since the Mun is so close, you'd think that it would be easy on new players just getting into the game to learn how to do all the right things in order to land and conserve fuel, however its pitted with so many craters and hazardous slopes with high ridges that it's almost impossible for a new player like myself to land and at least get a slight bit of satisfaction that all those calculations I did actually paid off. If you're wondering, yes I'm playing the stock game in Career Mode with only MechJeb installed.

As far as listening to Scott Manley videos, his videos are good, however he is a seasoned in it and not a novice to KSP.

Any other players feel this way when you were new to KSP and learning?

Edited July 5, 2014 by LoganMalone
clarity

[Kryxal]

Some things did seem impossible till you get the hang of them ... then there are things you just learn to plan and design for better.

Of course, there's a fair chance it's a bit of this, bit of that ... what does your rocket look like anyway?

[Claw]

Agreed. If you post a picture of your ship, you will probably get more advice than you thought possible.

I'm also sure a few of the people with tutorials will wander through here too.

[LoganMalone]

Here is my designed rescue mission rocket.

[LoganMalone]

If there was a mod that would show the points of improvement from launch to Mun landing and return flight, that would help new players identify what exact part we need to improve on. Its like learning how to fly a commercial plane, there are too many small steps at the granular level that impact in the success or fail of your flight. Same with KSP.

[entaran]

Only really simple thing I could suggest is strap a pair of radial (small) fuel tanks to the side on decouplers of that final stage with small engines under them and use them for your descent, then the lander shown there is purely an ascent stage. It's a little more mass but it should be a lot easier.

Also mechjeb is absolutely awful at landing. Quicksave in orbit and just land over and over and over again until you get the idea. Basically, the easiest (reasonably efficient) way to do it is to burn retro from orbit until your surface horizontal speed (read the surface info tab on mechjeb you have installed) is zero or within 1-3m/s. then just drop vertically and wait till you're about 800 metres TRUE altitude before you even start slowing down.

However that make for hard targetting. Start with that, then you can refine it into a single movement with some time and practice. But seriously, strap some radial tanks/boosters to that to do the landing for you, then just ditch them on the surface of the moon. - Seeing as you're basically stock, if you shove a probe core under that lander can or between it and hte pit, you could fly there unmanned and bring back 2 kerbals.

[AlamoVampire]

Hiya! I have a question. You state you lack fuel enough to leave the mun, but is your issue on fuel not enough to make orbit or leave the Mun sphere of influence (SoI)? I will work from the assumption that you can make Munar Orbit. Knowing you use MechJeb will make it easier kinda (depends what functions are available to you in your career atm). Assuming you have its maneuver planner, ascent guidance and the rendezvous docking systems unlocked, launch your vessels into orbit at the mun. Then launch a rescue ship and use MJ to get to 10-20 meters and zero relative speed. Then EVA your kerbals to the new ship. Once it cant carry any more kerbals return them home. Do it again with a fresh ship to get any remaing kerbals.

Anyway thats my suggestion best of luck

[r_rolo1]

Your lander is way too high for the leg width ... that will not help with the stability and ease of landing. And if you want two places, why not the bigger lander can or simply two of the smallest ? Also, the lander has too little fuel for making a landing and coming back to Mun orbit ( you probably need 600 units of fuel for the payload you have ) ... ANd BTW , what engine are you using ? Can't see it in the pic ..

About the rocket ... well, it is hard to say from that perspective, but it looks to suffer the same issue than the lander : too thin for it's height . The 6 SRB also seem too much to be fired at the same time ( there is no point of trying to get above 200m/s at launch due to the atmosphere, so most of that SRB power will be wasted ) and you probably would do better with atleast one engine at launch that can gimbal ( for control issues ).

Oh, and don't let yourself to be discouraged by Manley lightness about doing stuff: regardless of his RL backround , he does things look easy because he has years of practise landing on the Mun. In the beginning he didn't even knew from where to make the insertion burn to the Mun ( just go to his archive and dig deep ... I am following him since those days , so I know )

Edited July 5, 2014 by r_rolo1
Misinterpreted the image

[LoganMalone]

Hiya! I have a question. You state you lack fuel enough to leave the mun, but is your issue on fuel not enough to make orbit or leave the Mun sphere of influence (SoI)? I will work from the assumption that you can make Munar Orbit. Knowing you use MechJeb will make it easier kinda (depends what functions are available to you in your career atm). Assuming you have its maneuver planner, ascent guidance and the rendezvous docking systems unlocked, launch your vessels into orbit at the mun. Then launch a rescue ship and use MJ to get to 10-20 meters and zero relative speed. Then EVA your kerbals to the new ship. Once it cant carry any more kerbals return them home. Do it again with a fresh ship to get any remaing kerbals.

Anyway thats my suggestion best of luck

All my rockets have not enough fuel to escape the SOI. I stopped using MechJeb and have been using manual calculations and maneuver nodes, etc., it just feels better to learn the process things this way. I could try the radial tanks again. My first photo has two side mounted fuel tanks for that very purpose. However I got low on fuel during the descent and had to use them to stop horizontal movement...then upon landing my fuel is down to about 20 units left out of 180 units. By the way, the more fuel I carry usually causes me great difficulty in obtaining orbit circulation. I most probably need to go back to the drawing board and recalculate everything from scratch on a whiteboard or notepad.

Thanks

Edited July 5, 2014 by LoganMalone

[Yemo]

That looks huge, as in too big.

The first thing I learnt was, that mastering the controls is key. For flight, for EVA, for landing/docking.

First the camera orientation is essential.

Then training is necessary to not press S when you want to press ctrl. I put a very small craft in stable orbit and trained with EVA...

The second thing I learnt was, that payload, fuel and thrust balance is necessary.

If the last stage has more much more fuel than necessary, the whole fuel/thrust balance needs reevaluation. Delta v is not almighty, only helpful (get the Kerbal engineer mod to display the crucial values).

[LoganMalone]

Seeing as you're basically stock, if you shove a probe core under that lander can or between it and hte pit, you could fly there unmanned and bring back 2 kerbals.

I have no idea what you're talking about, LOL. I'd have to see what you're referring to. I just started making probes and successfully landing on the Mun. I had 6 of them that didnt have enough fuel to get off the Mun either so I've been destroying them at the space station.

[LoganMalone]

Your lander is way too high for the leg width ... that will not help with the stability and ease of landing. And if you want two places, why not the bigger lander can or simply two of the smallest ? Also, the lander has too little fuel for making a landing and coming back to Mun orbit ( you probably need 600 units of fuel for the payload you have ) ... ANd BTW , what engine are you using ? Can't see it in the pic ..

About the rocket ... well, it is hard to say from that perspective, but it looks to suffer the same issue than the lander : too thin for it's height . The 6 SRB also seem too much to be fired at the same time ( there is no point of trying to get above 200m/s at launch due to the atmosphere, so most of that SRB power will be wasted ) and you probably would do better with atleast one engine at launch that can gimbal ( for control issues ).

Oh, and don't let yourself to be discouraged by Manley lightness about doing stuff: regardless of his RL backround , he does things look easy because he has years of practise landing on the Mun. In the beginning he didn't even knew from where to make the insertion burn to the Mun ( just go to his archive and dig deep ... I am following him since those days , so I know )

Here is my lander with engine photo and description. It's the LV909 engine.

[Claw]

Well, here are my thoughts on your lander, but I am just one opinion in this place.

Things to get rid of...

- Get rid of the extra monopro tanks, unless you reallllly want them. They are unnecessary for your rescue mission and only add weight. The lander can comes with some monopro so it's there for small maneuvers if you need/want it.

- Get rid of the MK1 pit and and replace it with the lightest probe core you have.

- Don't forget to move the parachutes. If you have a flat probe core (other than the sputnik one), then you can also get away with the smaller stack mounted chute. It should be capable of supporting a return of a lander can and probe core at Kerbin.

- Get rid of the Advanced SAS unit. You probably don't need one at all on this lander since the lander can and probe core will be enough torque.

- Swap out the two Z400 batteries for 4x Z100s. It will be only half the power, but a whole lot lighter. 400 electricity should be enough for your rescue operations.

- You can consider cutting the number of lights from 4 to 2. 2 should still probide enough light and will drain the batteries slower.

- Move the connection point of the landing legs up some. That'll help with the tipping.

All those things should really lighten the load. Plus if there is a mistake, you won't strand another Kerbal. Just make sure you kick out the crew member when you launch the rocket so there is rescue space.

I also agree with adding some drop tanks to the side. Don't forget to put some engines on them or run some fuel lines.

As an advanced topic, it sounds like you are stopping all horizontal velocity before the vertical. This is certainly an easier technique to start with, but it can burn a lot of fuel on the Mun. You'll either need to pack on more dV for the lander, or try a more fuel efficient descent. If you can do most of the burn pointing at the retrograde marker, that tends to be a bit better. It takes some practice chasing around the retrograde marker. You also don't want to slow down too much while still high above the surface or you'll burn extra fuel. The goal is to get the retrograde marker to the top of the navball right as you're approaching the surface. There's more to it than that, but hopefully that's enough to get you started practicing.

Minmus is an easier first target once you rescue the guys. It takes the same skills as the Mun but it a lot more forgiving.

Good Luck,

-Claw

Oh yes. As for the lander height. It does look a little tall, but if you're able to land it like that then it's good enough.

[r_rolo1]

A LV909 is probably enough for what you want, but for safety, you could use 2 47-s engines. But you need more fuel in that lander or less lander, as Claw suggests above

Regarding landings in any body with no atmosphere , there are 3 main techniques that work well:

1) Point at retrograde. Self explanatory: you are in orbit and you burn retrograde, changing the orientation of your ship as the speed vector moves to compensate. It is not the more efficient way but it is the easiest one to learn, so I recommend you to try it.

2) Suicidal burn. THis ones suposes you already killed most of your horizontal speed ( or had little to begin with , due to a colision course ), and it means that you mesh the button to start burning at the last possible moment in retrograde fashion. More efficient than 1), but really not recommended if you don't know well your ship abities/ don't have nerves of steel.

3) Lowering the periapsis of your orbit + horizontal burn. Assuming you're in a mostly circular orbit, you burn at the exact oposite side of the planet you want to land and lower the periapsis of your orbit ( that will get into directly above the place you want to land due to the burn ) as low as you can/dare ( depends of the altitude of the place you want to land and the altitude of the planet in the orbit you are in ... be careful with tall mountains ). Then wait until you get to periapsis and burn horizontally as fast as possible until you killed all the horizontal speed. You might need some extra burning at retrograde to make corrections, but in theory ( periapsis at 0 m and a perfectly flat planet ) you can simply do the above and turn the ship upside up ( since you do not have vertical speed at periapsis ).

This is the method that is the most efficient ( burns at high speed are more efficient ( Oberth effect ) ) and, while also nerve wracking, it is far saner than 2) . But it requires some finesse pretty much no one has in the first attempts, so it is far better to start with 1 )

Edited July 5, 2014 by r_rolo1

[LoganMalone]

All the advice I've been given, I'll put to use. I didnt know that shaving off a few bits of mass could made a difference. I'll rework the design and not send any more Kerbals to the Mun, I've made a mess trying to rescue the stranded ones thus far. I'll just send probes up and hopefully I can get few of the kerbals back. They have a lot of science that I desperately need, else I'm at dead end in the science progression. If I successfully return my kerbals fine, if not then I will be forced to abandon them on the Mun and move on to Minmus. I can't even imagine going to another planet if the Mun is this difficult. I'll have to spend a lot more time studying how others do it without mods of course.

By the way, what is the learning curve time in this game anyway? Weeks, months, or years? I'm just curious.

[LoganMalone]

A LV909 is probably enough for what you want, but for safety, you could use 2 47-s engines. But you need more fuel in that lander or less lander, as Claw suggests above

Regarding landings in any body with no atmosphere , there are 3 main techniques that work well:

1) Point at retrograde. Self explanatory: you are in orbit and you burn retrograde, changing the orientation of your ship as the speed vector moves to compensate. It is not the more efficient way but it is the easiest one to learn, so I recommend you to try it.

2) Suicidal burn. THis ones suposes you already killed most of your horizontal speed ( or had little to begin with , due to a colision course ), and it means that you mesh the button to start burning at the last possible moment in retrograde fashion. More efficient than 1), but really not recommended if you don't know well your ship abities/ don't have nerves of steel.

3) Lowering the periapsis of your orbit + horizontal burn. Assuming you're in a mostly circular orbit, you burn at the exact oposite side of the planet you want to land and lower the periapsis of your orbit ( that will get into directly above the place you want to land due to the burn ) as low as you can/dare ( depends of the altitude of the place you want to land and the altitude of the planet in the orbit you are in ... be careful with tall mountains ). Then wait until you get to periapsis and burn horizontally as fast as possible until you killed all the horizontal speed. You might need some extra burning at retrograde to make corrections, but in theory ( periapsis at 0 m and a perfectly flat planet ) you can simply do the above and turn the ship upside up ( since you do not have vertical speed at periapsis ).

This is the method that is the most efficient ( burns at high speed are more efficient ( Oberth effect ) ) and, while also nerve wracking, it is far saner than 2) . But it requires some finesse pretty much no one has in the first attempts, so it is far better to start with 1 )

I will have to sort all those out. My kerblas are all stranded in craters with steep sides with inclines and slopes. The other thing I'm dealing with is trying everything you've mentioned plus trying to land in a relative close proximity under 1 to 3 KM away. My most recent rescue rocket landed safely, however it was 75.6KM away. There is no way that a Kerbal should be forced to walk that distance, LOL. That would take a years walking time with their little legs.

[Kryxal]

Try a suborbital hop ... it won't hurt anything since you're using probe-ships. That or reload the quick-save if you made one before starting your landing.

Oh, by the way, for a precision landing, try setting up an orbit at 8 km that passes over the spot you want to land then drop a node to zero your velocity over it. Start your braking burn half the time to the node of the length of the burn, then just bring it straight down (honestly, I'd probably burn a bit earlier and a bit less, but more practice here).

Also, your Kerbals have plenty of monoprop to get themselves out of craters, so don't worry too much about being spot-on, just fairly close.

[r_rolo1]

By the way, what is the learning curve time in this game anyway? Weeks, months, or years? I'm just curious.

It depends If you have a good steady hand and some backround in physics ( rember, rocket science is physics ... ), you can learn the game pretty fast. But don't let yourself be discouraged: after all , it took NASA decades to do their first landing, so you are far ahead

On the landing planning, if you use point at retrograde, you need to take in account that you will still have horizontal speed and that the Mun is rotating below you ( barely, but still ... ). That probably explains your 75 km in diference . The issue is that it is hard to judge how much earlier you need to burn without having some experience in descents ... and that is why people with some experience ( like Manley ) tend to prefer suicide burns or the lower periapsis + horizontal burn technique, since those allow for far finer control of the landing place.

If you want to train the place where to land, you can do what I did back in the day: I chose myself a place where to land ( say, the twin craters ) and try to land there with the same ship until you made a bunch of sucessful landings. That will give you a idea of how much earlier you need to start burning.

And yes, you would do well in training on Minmus, since it's gravity and flat surfaces at 0m make things far easier....

P.S ANd in case of you being worried with your kerbals being stranded ... like Kryxal says above, they have a lot of monopropellant in stock. In fact it is even possible to put a Kerbal in Mun orbit from the surface on the Mun using only their monopropelant. Not that I advise you to try that , but just to say that they do not need to walk

Edited July 5, 2014 by r_rolo1

[Alshain]

Make sure your landing legs are as close to the center of mass as you can possibly get them and still be able to land without touching the engine to the ground. That will help prevent tipping over. OR, move your center of mass by removing and dropping heavy items down on the build... or do both.

The point being if your legs are jointed at or near the center of mass, you shouldn't tip over as easily. If you can get them joined above the center of mass, it would be difficult to tip it over. That is why the radial engines, though inefficient, can make a good choice for beginners. Also you can build radially, the wider your legs, the easier it is to land, but really the CoM is the key. Looking at your picture above, you have enough clearance under that thing for a elephant to run underneath.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Alshain

[Eric S]

Things to get rid of...

One other thing, swap out the heavy landing gear for the medium, that lander even as is doesn't need the heavy.

[Claw]

One other thing, swap out the heavy landing gear for the medium, that lander even as is doesn't need the heavy.

Very true. Unless it's needed for landing strength. (I know, not by much...)

[Vanamonde]

Low and wide landers are indeed the key to avoid tipping over.

If you like it, the craft file and a written moon walkthrough can be found here.

[LethalDose]

Any other players feel this way when you were new to KSP and learning?

Yes. OMG yes. You are not alone.

You may want to try getting the hang of powered landings on Minmus first. It's low surface gravity and flats are much more forgiving. When you feel comfortable-ish landing on Minmus, then you can come abck and try the Mun again.

[MadChris48]

Another really useful tip to achieve the most efficient landings is to place a maneuver node right near the surface of Mun (or wherever) and pull the retrograde marker to kill all your velocity. This will give you a maneuver of the most efficient burn to land.

[technion]

The other thing I'd add is that precision landing to arrange a rescue really is a lot harder than it sounds. Personally I find it easier to build a working rover, land it somewhere nearby and rove on over. If that sounds quite advanced - that's because I see rescues as advanced.

In other words, have a try at simply managing a land and return of a new rocket, before concerning yourself with the rescue. He won't die if he's left there while you skill up.

Finally, you mentioned having very little fuel, but you might surprise yourself with how little can actually return to orbit from the Mun. Once there, the option to rendezvous in space might be an easier than trying to meet up on the ground.