Orbit the planet?

[foamyesque]

you cant orbit guys you cant have too much fuel and it have not been update to orbit and who knows when the full version comes out?

What on Earth are you talking about?

[nasa123]

you cant Orbit on this game yet! :o :o

[Darrknox]

you cant Orbit on this game yet! :o :o

Have the users of this community been trolling me for the past week and half!?

[nasa123]

Have the users of this community been trolling me for the past week and half!?

lol!

[foamyesque]

you cant Orbit on this game yet! :o :o

Yes you can, you crazy, crazy man.

[GeneKerman]

If I can figure out how to orbit, ANYONE can!

[Rickenbacker]

Speak for yourself, Nasa . After following the instructions in this thread I flew balls to the wall to 10.000m, then pitched over and tried to keep my VSI going up slowly while increasing horizontal speed. I hit 4300m/s at 46.000m, and after some adjustment burns I'm currently in a stable orbit at between 42.000 and 46.000m - close enough for (Kerbal) government work!

[Firartix]

Hm, i cant get to orbit :/

Lacking of fuel to get the full burn to the horizontal orbit speed, i really cant go faster than 500 m/s

I believe my problem is the payload, but i cant get to make very big rockets - i seriously fail at atmospheric maneuvering somehow (rocket start going circle 'n stuff, and the more i try to correct it the worse it get)

So i tried to build a perfectly stable rocket that could fly upward without any intervention (boosters balancing!) other than stage dropoff and cruise speed control to get around orbiting range.

Ends up around 40km with 1/3 of fuel.... but.... 3 engines and 3 tanks. That might be the problem i guess, makes the rocket too heavy maybe?

So i tried putting an extra solid booster on last stage for orbit, but it breaks the whole rocket balance... also adds enough weight to make reaching 40km with liquids this way almost impossible

Screenshot of my current rocket => http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/193/stablerocket.png

What kind of design should i be using? :/

[cjameshuff]

I believe my problem is the payload, but i cant get to make very big rockets - i seriously fail at atmospheric maneuvering somehow (rocket start going circle 'n stuff, and the more i try to correct it the worse it get)

Use fewer solids and make sure you're turning your SAS on.

Screenshot of my current rocket => http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/193/stablerocket.png

What kind of design should i be using? :/

Fewer solids, and solids only on the bottom stage...they can get you moving early on, but they burn out before giving you any real speed, so you don't want to carry them around. Stack fuel tanks...you've barely given your rocket any fuel...and put a liquid stage above the tricoupler.

[kurohone]

the real trick you learn is angle management. Figuring out when to make the transition from horizontal to vertical flight is the key to making orbit. too late and you'll end up on a ballistic arc without enough horizontal velocity, too early and you'll end up cutting it too fine, reentering the atmosphere too early.

I still haven't managed that trick, so I end up in crazy elliptical orbits that I then have to try to make circular more circular, which wastes fuel. Still working on transfer orbits too. It turns out that rocket science is really hard!

[foamyesque]

Hm, i cant get to orbit :/

Lacking of fuel to get the full burn to the horizontal orbit speed, i really cant go faster than 500 m/s

I believe my problem is the payload, but i cant get to make very big rockets - i seriously fail at atmospheric maneuvering somehow (rocket start going circle 'n stuff, and the more i try to correct it the worse it get)

So i tried to build a perfectly stable rocket that could fly upward without any intervention (boosters balancing!) other than stage dropoff and cruise speed control to get around orbiting range.

Ends up around 40km with 1/3 of fuel.... but.... 3 engines and 3 tanks. That might be the problem i guess, makes the rocket too heavy maybe?

So i tried putting an extra solid booster on last stage for orbit, but it breaks the whole rocket balance... also adds enough weight to make reaching 40km with liquids this way almost impossible

Screenshot of my current rocket => http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/193/stablerocket.png

What kind of design should i be using? :/

This one.

Barring user error, it can put you to escape velocity and return with a minimum of fuss. Just watch for the tendancy to spin.

[Dani-Sang]

So if my velocity is between the orbital velocity and the escape velocity, I will get elliptic orbits right?

[Rickenbacker]

So if my velocity is between the orbital velocity and the escape velocity, I will get elliptic orbits right?

Yes, and by inputting your apogee or perigee plus the speed at the time in the orbital calculator, you can get a graphic representation of your orbit. You can then change the speed around until you get a rougly circular orbit, and if you match that speed in the game, voila! You're in a circular orbit! That's the way I did it.

[Rickenbacker]

Use fewer solids and make sure you're turning your SAS on.

Fewer solids, and solids only on the bottom stage...they can get you moving early on, but they burn out before giving you any real speed, so you don't want to carry them around. Stack fuel tanks...you've barely given your rocket any fuel...and put a liquid stage above the tricoupler.

I agree with the above. Solids are very inefficient in the upper stages, because you have to carry all those inactive solid boosters up from the ground. I only ever use solids to get that initial kick off the ground up to 2-3000m or so, from then on fuel rockets are much more efficient per weight.

[Firartix]

Those were on first stage already <.<

W/E my issue was just lack of SAS, i guess one module for a whole big launcher isnt enough

After a little bit of try/error i managed to get my first orbit, which also somehow happened to be almost perfect (< 1 m/s vertical) around 60km altitude (aimed for 40) after very slight modification using micro-engine.. Deployed parachute during orbit, but in the end, i used micro-engine to deorbit and got back on ground without too much problem (well... excepting how the capsule exploded after a parachute 5 m/s landing.... still not explaining it)

Btw um, how exactly can you know about the perigee and apogee values? Do a full orbit and manually look at distance? (well i guess in my case they were pretty same, but i cant get to reproduce a clean orbit...)

[millsw]

I've done a couple of landings in sight of KSC after 1-3 orbits but that's a lot closer than what I've managed. Main problem being that you are effectively throwing a wild guess as to when to deorbit burn (and for how much).

My Kerbals demand a better set of flight instruments from the KSC management before setting foot into that capsule death trap again!

Hmm, in fact there really should be multiple cabin/capsule models with different features - so you could go for a very light spartan 'guys in a tin can with a window' or with a more high-tech setup with such bells & whistles as a flight computer...

+1

The spartan one can be what we have now.

A high tech one would have to be heavy, But give you autopilot and complex gauges.

[GeneKerman]

I put SAS on the SRBs so I don't haul them past the time I need them.

[foamyesque]

I put SAS on the SRBs so I don't haul them past the time I need them.

I just don't use SAS. It's too bloody heavy for what it does; winglets are a superior option.

[the_bT]

I found winglets behave strange when you put them on something that is not the end of a stack. Wich might not be a problem when you put them on boosters that are on radial decouplers... But I'm careful with winglets for now.

[GeneKerman]

I just don't use SAS. It's too bloody heavy for what it does; winglets are a superior option.

But winglets have drag. Of course, if you mean winglets on the SRBs, that's different, as they're getting jettisoned with them.

[rdfox]

I just don't use SAS. It's too bloody heavy for what it does; winglets are a superior option.

Really? Even above 35km, where there's no air for the winglets to bite into?

(Winglets also are of limited help if you're doing multiple long parallel stages; the parallel stages will still wobble all over the place, and the winglets might collide.)

Need to retest my only design to make orbit again, this time with the orbital calculator--I didn't have it, and I got bored while still going up last time, so I fired the retrorocket and ended up completing about 3/4 of an orbit before coming down into the nightside glitch...

[foamyesque]

But winglets have drag. Of course, if you mean winglets on the SRBs, that's different, as they're getting jettisoned with them.

I ought to go and do a couple of straight-up shots of my SSTO design to show you the differences. It's pretty damn dramatic.

rdfox: Why in heaven's name would you need any more SAS juice in orbit than what the CP can provide? What t'heck are you launching?

I will concede that SAS can be of use, but I like to keep them to a minimal as much as I can. They're a crutch and lead to sloppy design and sloppy piloting. =(

[Xivios]

Wow, that's elitist...

*hugs his rocket with the 33 SAS modules*

[cjameshuff]

rdfox: Why in heaven's name would you need any more SAS juice in orbit than what the CP can provide? What t'heck are you launching?

The capsule SAS damps out rotation, it doesn't maintain orientation. I keep a single SAS module on my uppermost stages just for this purpose.

I will concede that SAS can be of use, but I like to keep them to a minimal as much as I can. They're a crutch and lead to sloppy design and sloppy piloting. =(

If you define sloppy design as anything that's particularly assisted by use of SAS...and they're an assist to piloting, allowing you to spend more time monitoring altitude and velocity instead of constantly tweaking your orientation.

As for winglets, I've never seen the need for them. I'm out of the atmosphere almost immediately anyway. Real orbital launchers rarely use them, for this reason...they mostly just add drag.

[foamyesque]

The capsule SAS damps out rotation, it doesn't maintain orientation. I keep a single SAS module on my uppermost stages just for this purpose.

But... maintaining orientation is easy, and, once in orbit, only relevant for like quarter-seconds if that.

If you define sloppy design as anything that's particularly assisted by use of SAS...and they're an assist to piloting, allowing you to spend more time monitoring altitude and velocity instead of constantly tweaking your orientation.

I mean the attitude of 'If it doesn't work, add more SAS', that is quite prevalent in various designs. People treat it as a magic wand instead of trying to solve underlying issues.

As for winglets, I've never seen the need for them. I'm out of the atmosphere almost immediately anyway. Real orbital launchers rarely use them, for this reason...they mostly just add drag.

And yet, you haul a third of a tank's worth of utterly dead weight to orbit with you... I know which one has the bigger performance penalty.

EDIT: In fact, here's a test. I used my SSTO triple tank, LFE, chuteless layout. Tested without stabilisers of any kind, with the paired winglets the original design has, and with a SAS module. The SAS module required use of a decoupler to dodge the sticky-pad bug, but the decoupler was fired at the beginning of the trip and consequently did not materially affect the results.