I Can't Escape Kerbin ;c

[nekogod]

I've made a short video where I build and fly a very simple 2 stage rocket to orbit and back, I do manage to neglect to use the engine slow down enough though and break my chute, killing Jeb =(

I do have a couple mods, KER and Deadly Reentry, neither affect how the ship flies and the construction is fully stock.

It's up but is poor quality at the moment, once youtube have properly processed it, it'll be HD

One thing to note, this rocket has about 900m/s more delta v than needed to get to orbit if you fly perfectly, so there should be plenty of margin if flown badly and can be used to practice to get as close to that 4550m/s ish of delta v to orbit. As you can see I don't do anything particularly complex and get it there about 150m/s over par.

Edited January 20, 2015 by nekogod

[Pecan]

It didn't seem that complicated but maybe I've been playing too long!

I must say, I think yours is the better vehicle for a newbie as it demonstrates staging, different TWR requirements and all sorts of good design things (and is probably easier to operate) :-)

Mine's just a lot more 'bare minimum' *grin*.

[Kesa]

I've spent one month or so on the demo, not watching any video, and learned many thing on my own, though it was a bit slow and frustrating. I still don't watch that much video but love to discover things on my own, even though I have to admit I've found immensely usefull informations here in the forum, and also that I've been doing some very noobish mistakes even after 2 or 3 months (~100+h?) of game (maybe I still am (: ).

learn things one at once, and find your balance between the time spent on game and on tutorials, enjoy!

[KSK]

I must say, I think yours is the better vehicle for a newbie as it demonstrates staging, different TWR requirements and all sorts of good design things (and is probably easier to operate) :-)

Mine's just a lot more 'bare minimum' *grin*.

Why thank you! I'll definitely be giving your design a go too - SSTO rockets are not something I've played with and I'm kinda intrigued.

[Pecan]

Well since my bare minimum is 4 parts and the 'executive' model still only has 11 you can see how easy SSTO rockets are to build. Ascent and landing are normal for a rocket so they're familiar, if not easy. With the gimbal on the skipper and the advanced reaction wheel the thing's pretty agile. The only things are it has basically no deltaV spare in orbit and you have to use a bit of power before touchdown as the 'chutes will only get your descent down to ~-20m/s - but that only leaves you 15m/s to scrub off at low throttle for a safe landing.

Here's SSTO 40 (I don't go for imaginative names, it can SSTO a 40t payload, a skipper can SSTO 5t) parking at the office:

Parachutes aren't strictly necessary at all but without them you need more fuel and you have to be good at timing a suicide burn, which I'm not.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Pecan

[Zenechules]

Well thank you all for the read, you are all very knowledgeable players.

Sorry I haven't checked the forum in a few days

I have taken everything here into account and I am now able to send almost any contraption into orbit, (Though getting to the Mun without mods / debug remains a feat) before this post I was so naïve.

KSP has a great community, in time when I can consider myself an experienced kerbal I plan to help out a rookie

Once again thank you everyone who've posted, I've learned so much from the community here & on similar posts, this is an amazing forum.

Quick List of what I've learned(Off the top of my head tbh)

• SAS (Didn't even know it existed.)

• Aerodynamics

• Prograde Marker

• Apoapsis & Perapsis

• How to actually leave Kerbin

• COM balancing

• The importance of stabilizers

• Weight distribution

• Total Mass MATTERS

• Lots of de-couplers

• "Air Breathing" Engines (Yes this was the problem when hitting 10km, thanks for tip KerikBalm)

• Fuel lines, yay.

• You keep your horizontal speed, not your vertical.

• A lot of informative video links, photos, and text.

• PARACHUTESSSSSSSSS!!!!!

Thx, and hope I didn't leave anything out, sorry if I did!

[WanderingKid]

If it helps, a video I did on getting to the moon with no mod assistance and no upgrades to career mode:

While you may not want to use the particular ship involved, I also walk through how to get there without maneuver nodes and the like.

[rynak]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned clearly yet is, fins or even winglets.

Sure, you can go brute force and just add more SAS.... but inside the atmosphere spins are better compensated with winglets or at least fins.

Checklist:

- Make sure the weight of the rocket is centered. Easily achieved by just mounting everything symmetric.

- As a beginner, make it at least two stage. First stage should be SRBs, because they're efficient.

- Add at least 1 SAS stabilizer - it should be either close to the top or bottom (so, far away from the center of mass)

- Add 4 winglets to the bottom.

- Rotate the entire rocket, so that you already have 90 degrees (East) at the bottom of the navball, when you launch. This way, you dont have to spin.

- Depending on the speed of the first stage, SLOWLY start turning down towards 90 (E), until you hit 45deg pitch, somewhere between 6000-12000m

- Once Apoapsis reaches 40km, slowly start turning further towards horizontal. A plugin like VOID is very useful here, because it has a HUD readout showing you the orbital stats without you having to go to the map.

- At first, target for 80KM AP. Once you reach that, cut down the throttle and wait until you're almost at AP.

- Now burn to raise your PE above the atmosphere - get it to about the same as the AP to circularize your orbit (again, a HUD like the one from VOID helps a lot). The speed will be at about 2300ms.

Congratz, stable circular orbit. From here, everything becomes MUCH easier with regards to thrust and fuel (EDIT: In fact, so much easier that your normal engines will be excessive - its much easier to adjust an already existing orbit, with those tiny "ant drives" - They're really useful).

Next step: Learn how to change your orbit (Altitude, Eccentricity, Inclination), then go for one of the most difficult things: Transfers, which is meeting with another object in space - be it a moon, planet or vessel. For the later, an important thing to keep in mind, is that speed in space works upside down: Say you are behind a vessel and want to catch up: Acceleration means slowing down. Deacceleration means going faster. Yup! Basically, forget about speed and think about orbit diametres and such - a circle with a smaller diametre is shorter, than a larger circle - and increasing speed will make the circle larger. Another way to phrase it is this: Your puny vessel is powerless - it's the planet that is doing all the work for you.

Edited January 23, 2015 by rynak
added remark about small engines in space

[Pecan]

As a beginner, make it at least two stage. First stage should be SRBs, because they're efficient.

- Add at least 1 SAS stabilizer - it should be either close to the top or bottom (so, far away from the center of mass)

- Add 4 winglets to the bottom.

- Rotate the entire rocket,

I disagree with all these construction tips.

SRBs are 'ok', just, but liquid-fuel is much more controllable.

SAS placement doesn't really matter but it may as well be central as anywhere else. You only need to add its mass if the craft is otherwise awkward to handle. Depending on the command-pod or probe-core you have you may already have sufficient torque.

Winglets are just wasted mass and completely useless out of atmosphere. Reaction wheels help you turn, winglets just hide a bad design.

Since there's no reason to spin anyway, there's no reason to rotate the rocket. Head East using yaw (press D) like in all the videos and tutorials.

[Sirrobert]

Well thank you all for the read, you are all very knowledgeable players.

Sorry I haven't checked the forum in a few day

All that knowledge comes with playing for years already. Soon you'll walk your kerbals around on Duna and think back on how you fumbled.

A quick tip to get to the Mun:

Once you are in orbit, rotate the map view so that you are looking down from the North pole (so the Mun moves counter clockwise in a circle from your perspective).

Rotate the map view so that the Mun is on the right side of your screen.

Put a manouver node at the bottom of the screen. Add prograde deltaV until you have an encounter.

Manipulate the manouver node to get a proper encounter. For example, if you pull it back a little you can get a cheaper encounter.

Or to put it in super simple terms: Burn once you see the Mun rise on the horizon, and you will get an encounter.

Note that without an upgraded tracking station you don't get a visual conformation when you reach an encounter, so I suggest practicing this in sandbox first

[moogoob]

I would say KSK's design is a pretty good place to start - it's pretty much what I said, and practices some solid real-life rocket theory (as mentioned before - staging, thrust-weight ratios etc).

Play around with different engines, fuel amounts, types/sizes of decoupler etc. Maybe try adding boosters.

[KSK]

I would say KSK's design is a pretty good place to start - it's pretty much what I said, and practices some solid real-life rocket theory (as mentioned before - staging, thrust-weight ratios etc).

Play around with different engines, fuel amounts, types/sizes of decoupler etc. Maybe try adding boosters.

Cheers! I tried a variation on the same design, with four BAC-C SRBs on radial decouplers, and they don't actually make a whole lot of difference. You end up with a bit more fuel on-orbit, but the staging is more fiddly, and I found that I was dropping the SRBs about the same time that I was starting my gravity turn. Not impossible by any means, but requires a bit of quick button mashing, which might take a bit of getting used to.

Zenechules - the last item on that list is definitely the most important. I remember my first successful flight around the Mun, back when I was playing the demo. No maneuver nodes in those days, so I was pretty stoked about getting to orbit the Mun and even more stoked to get my trans-Kerbin injection burn right. Everything was smiles and unicorns until my capsule got to 30 km from the surface and no amount of space bar thrashing was able to deploy my non-existent parachute. RIP Jeb, Bill and Bob.

[rynak]

I disagree with all these construction tips.

SRBs are 'ok', just, but liquid-fuel is much more controllable."

What do you need to be controllable in the first stage?

SAS placement doesn't really matter but it may as well be central as anywhere else.

Unless i'm mistaken, torque is applied at the point where the part is. So, it is a lever - therefore it is most effective away from the CoM. Of course, if SAS instead is complete magick, that ignores the position of the part position, then placement would be arbitrary.

Winglets are just wasted mass and completely useless out of atmosphere.

Did you miss where i said that it is more effective IN the atmosphere, and proposed to put it at the bottom (hence it would decouple with the first stage).

Reaction wheels help you turn, winglets just hide a bad design.

X_X Okay, i'm out of here - sorry for having wasted 2 mins of my life argueing.

[Red Iron Crown]

Unless i'm mistaken, torque is applied at the point where the part is. So, it is a lever - therefore it is most effecting away from the CoM. Of course, if SAS instead is complete magick, that ignores the position of the part position, then placement would be arbitrary.

Placement doesn't matter for amount of torque imparted, it simulates a real reaction wheel in that way. Occasionally placement can matter if the ship isn't sufficiently rigid. The magic part is that it's not saturable, but that's an abstraction that matters little most of the time.

RCS ports work the way you describe, more leverage when further from the CoM.

[rynak]

Interesting - thanks for the info!

[KSK]

Think of reaction wheels as a store of angular momentum, which you can transfer to your craft. Doesn't matter where that store is placed. For RCS on the other hand, Rynak is exactly right - the further you put 'em from your centre of mass, the greater the turning moment.

With regard to winglets, one situation where I've found them to be extremely useful is on my standard cheap satellite launcher (BAC-C first stage, LV909 + RT-400 tank upper stage). Having winglets lets me tip the darn thing into a gravity turn, which is kinda useful. Other than that, I confess that I don't tend to use them much, but there might be some interesting trade-offs between using relatively lightweight winglets vs the heavier reaction wheels required for Rockomax sized parts and upwards.

Heh - beaten to it by RIC!

[SirBlazinGames]

I have a quick and easy basic tutorial of Kerbal Space Program... if you really want an answer I geuss you can watch this XD

[Pecan]

What do you need to be controllable in the first stage?

Unless i'm mistaken, torque is applied at the point where the part is. So, it is a lever - therefore it is most effective away from the CoM. Of course, if SAS instead is complete magick, that ignores the position of the part position, then placement would be arbitrary.

Did you miss where i said that it is more effective IN the atmosphere, and proposed to put it at the bottom (hence it would decouple with the first stage). X_X Okay, i'm out of here - sorry for having wasted 2 mins of my life argueing.

What I want controllable in the first stage is thrust and gimbal. Oh yeah, SRBs can't do those so can't steer, maybe that's why you need to add wasteful mass with reaction wheels and winglets.

Reaction wheels have been discussed quite a few times but the results have been inconclusive as to whether placement matters at all. The essential thing is though that there are pivot points, NOT levers. RCS, say, applies a translation force so is more effective for rotation the further it is from the CoM, exactly as you say. SAS applies a rotational so is most effective AT CoM, otherwise you're trying to turn the mass of the ship around an end-point. Push-pull goes at the ends, twist goes in the middle ^^.

Sorry you felt 2 minutes was too long to spend learning something. For anyone who's spent the time and thought a bit, knowing that winglets on a vertical design are NEVER a good solution in stock KSP will be helpful.

[StrandedonEarth]

Actually, I find steerable winglets on the first stage to be quite helpful, as the souposphere can be too much for reaction wheels to counteract/overcome. Especially useful for first stages that can't gimbal, like SRB's. Having just re-created my super-heavy-lifter for 0.90, it can be difficult to get the struts placed just right. Plastering winglets all over that first stage onion ring of S1-SRB's keeps it under control, where it would otherwise take a stupid amount of reaction wheels. Yes, know it's compensating for an imperfect design, but sometimes that's easier. My point is, they do work, especially in the early game when control options are few.

I know that the current stock aerodynamics don't compare to real life, but even the mighty Saturn V had (small) fins on the first stage.

[moogoob]

I agree with both of you who're talking about winglets - they are inefficient most of the time, but sometimes can be useful. I use them in two situations:

1. when I've got a completely solid first stage (my "Fool" class launchers)

2. when my centre of drag is too far forward which really only happens when doing something silly like trying to launch spaceplanes on the front of a rocket stack. Four to six steerable winglets on the bottom really help move the COD backwards and prevent my whole craft from going flippy-floppy at 6KM up.

[Pecan]

when my centre of drag is too far forward which really only happens when doing something silly like trying to launch spaceplanes on the front of a rocket stack. Four to six steerable winglets on the bottom really help move the COD backwards and prevent my whole craft from going flippy-floppy at 6KM up.

I thought later that that is actually the time they are worth their mass.

StrandedOnEarth just proves my point otherwise - IF you've got a bad design and IF you've restricted yourself to uncontrollable SRBs you MIGHT have to add otherwise useless, massy winglets. Apart from that, in stock, if anyone wants to show me a design with winglets I'll show them a more mass-efficient one without; generally just by taking the winglets off.

[Sirrobert]

Mass efficient, or Funds efficient?

Cause in career mode, SRBs are better for that initial push, because they are so cheap.

My go to satelite launcher is basicly 1 gigantic SRB with winglets, which is enough to get to orbit. And than something tiny to get to whatever Mun it needs. Can't get it cheaper

Edited January 26, 2015 by Sirrobert

[Pecan]

Mass efficient, or Funds efficient?

Cause in career mode, SRBs are better for that initial push, because they are so cheap.

My go to satelite launcher is basicly 1 gigantic SRB with winglets, which is enough to get to orbit. And than something tiny to get to whatever Mun it needs. Can't get it cheaper

I repeat "if anyone wants to show me a design with winglets I'll show them a more mass-efficient one without". Bet* I can do cheaper for a given payload though.

[*Not really, but you remind me to mention - I went in a betting-office for the third time in my (long) life yesterday, just to see if they had odds on the next SpaceX landing attempt. They didn't, but are getting in touch with central office].

[StrandedonEarth]

After reviewing my design I realized my old version used canards instead of winglets; I didn't need nearly as many of those. But yeah, solid first stages is about the only time I use any kind of fins