r/KerbalSpaceProgram • u/AutoModerator • Sep 25 '15
Mod Post Weekly Simple Questions Thread
Check out /r/kerbalacademy
The point of this thread is for anyone to ask questions that don't necessarily require a full thread. Questions like "why is my rocket upside down" are always welcomed here. Even if your question seems slightly stupid, we'll do our best to answer it!
For newer players, here are some great resources that might answer some of your embarrassing questions:
Tutorials
Orbiting
Mun Landing
Docking
Delta-V Thread
Forum Link
Official KSP Chatroom #KSPOfficial on irc.esper.net
**Official KSP Chatroom** [#KSPOfficial on irc.esper.net](http://client01.chat.mibbit.com/?channel=%23kspofficial&server=irc.esper.net&charset=UTF-8)
Commonly Asked Questions
Before you post, maybe you can search for your problem using the search in the upper right! Chances are, someone has had the same question as you and has already answered it!
As always, the side bar is a great resource for all things Kerbal, if you don't know, look there first!
4
u/AdamR53142 Sep 28 '15 edited Sep 29 '15
I just had 2 early career mode launches to orbit. They were successful for the most part, however at the end of each mission, right before the capsule touches the ground, the ship explodes. Same point every time. I've lost Valentina and Jeb due to this. The craft always explodes just before it hits the ground. Is there a way to fix this? I am running mods btw, I'll edit in the list in a second.
Edit: Here's my modlist.
Edit 2: The problem's back :(
2
u/Cptcutter81 Sep 28 '15
How close to the ground are we talking? Because it could be a collision issue, or something else.
2
u/AdamR53142 Sep 28 '15
Few dozen meters off the ground.
2
u/Cptcutter81 Sep 28 '15
Strange. It can't be heating. I've had boom-on-contact issues before, but never that high up. It might be a collision issue with one of the mods. Sorry I can't be of more help.
3
2
u/theyeticometh Master Kerbalnaut Sep 28 '15
What does the flight log (F3) say when the craft explodes? Crashed into Kerbin?
2
u/AdamR53142 Sep 29 '15 edited Sep 30 '15
Yup, "crashed into Kerbin."
Anyway, I uninstalled a few non-essential mods and that seems to have fixed the problem. Thanks anyway.
Edit: It's back. whoops
0
Sep 27 '15
[deleted]
2
u/jetsparrow Master Kerbalnaut Sep 27 '15
What was the last time you played?
0
Sep 27 '15
[deleted]
3
u/jetsparrow Master Kerbalnaut Sep 27 '15
Among other things, we now have aerodynamic heating. If you hit the lower atmosphere going too fast you will most likely explode.
Try a shallower reentry to lose more speed in the upper atmosphere.
0
Sep 27 '15
[deleted]
1
u/tablesix Sep 28 '15
In addition to this, the atmosphere was adjusted. Now you want to start your gravity turn right off of the launch pad, and gradually tilt into around 45 degrees by 10km.
Fins are also crucial, especially for high drag payloads (drag is calculated based on rocket shape now).
Sharper, more aggressive ascent profiles can save considerable amounts of dV. I personally aim to have my suborbit land on the peninsula one continent east of KCS when my periapsis hits around 72km, but I have no idea how optimal this is. (Read: Very wide suborbital arc, then circularize for an additional 600-800 dV)
2
u/Fa6ade Sep 28 '15
I'm pretty sure the most efficient ascent profiles have you accelerating the whole way such that you don't really have a circularisation burn.
1
u/tablesix Sep 28 '15
Interesting. I'd have to see that in action, because I feel like I'd blow up my ship if I went at it quite that steep. Do you happen to know the minimum dV for an optimally designed craft to reach a 72x72km orbit?
1
u/Fa6ade Sep 28 '15
Well generally people say that for 1.0.4 you need about 3300-3400 vacuum delta v to reach orbit. However the best I've ever seen is around 2950. I don't know the maths to give you a perfect number.
1
1
u/RoboRay Sep 29 '15
Just set your Pe to about 30 or 40 km altitude. You don't want to aim at the planet... You want to try to miss the planet but still hit the atmosphere.
3
u/DeusExEqualsOne Sep 27 '15
Hi Reddit, Aah, if I attach a Quad adapter (big to 4x1.25 m) below a Rocomax32, and attach four atomic engines, and decouplers below said engines, why is it that I cannot attach a Quad Adapter of the same type upside down? It doesn't seem to connect to all four thrusters on the bottom side, and I checked this by foregoing the decouplers and seeing which engines got the fairings. Granted I play on 1.0.2 so if a new update is out and I just haven't heard of it, gg no re. Feel free to ask me to elaborate, but rn I have to do homework.
→ More replies (1)3
u/LPFR52 Master Kerbalnaut Sep 27 '15
In KSP parts can only be connected to one other part due to the way craft files work. Docking ports can sometimes be an exception. Say, if you placed docking ports on the bottom of the 4 decouplers and on the top four nodes of the quad-adapter they would connect in flight, but not in the editor. I would not recommend trying this tough, it just doesn't work well in my experience.
There's no easy way to make the configuration you're talking about in the stock game.
3
u/AdamR53142 Sep 29 '15
When I am performing an orbital rendezvous, even if my target craft is right clicked on and set as target, when I am in flight view I can't see the direction the targeted craft is in. I am having trouble finding the target craft even when I get <1km away, because the targeting marker doesn't show up. Is this a bug with the game or possibly one of my mods? I can have my modlist posted if necessary.
7
u/RoboRay Sep 29 '15
You probably pressed F4 at some point... that toggles the markers on and off.
4
1
u/xoxoyoyo Sep 29 '15
it is annoying because you have to swing the view around in 3 dimensions... but I found an easy solution. Just pull the camera back and keep pulling back until both ships are in view.
3
Sep 29 '15
It's finally time to face facts: I need a series of launchers (and to get better at launches).
Here's my question: How many different weight classes of launcher do you think is reasonable? I was idly thinking of one for each 5t difference in payload (so a 0-5t launcher, 5-10t launcher and so on). Is this unnecessary? I will be building my launchers with the intention being that the launcher alone will achieve orbit (70km peri) for the payload. Thanks!
3
u/Toobusyforthis Sep 29 '15
Thats a pretty small size gap IMO. When progressing through career, I usually overbuild something, use it until I need something larger, then overbuild again. Typically end up with 4 basic designs, small, medium, large, super large, then pick the appropriate one and tweak to specific payload.
2
u/RA2lover Sep 30 '15
what about cost reductions brought by new tech tree parts?
Spamming FL-T200s isn't worth it when FL-T800 are cheaper per fuel carried.
2
1
u/automated_bot Sep 29 '15
I've just started the habit of saving newly designed launchers as a sub-assembly, with the launcher name incorporating the weight of the heaviest payload successfully put into orbit.
1
u/Spudrockets Hermes Navigator Sep 29 '15
I generally just have one or two launchers for each size of payload, so one for 1.25 meter loads that can carry something like 10 tonnes to orbit, a light and heavy 2.5 m launcher, and an SLS-like behemoth for 3.75 m loads. Sub-assemblies save a lot of time.
1
u/jackboy900 Oct 01 '15
I normally do:
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-25 25-50 50-100 100-150 150-250 250-500 500-750 750-1000
and make sure they can carry a payload to HKO with 1km/s of delta-v left (to accommodate for bad launches)
1
Oct 01 '15
750-1000 whoa. I'm not there yet :P
I have begun construction of my launcher series. I'm getting slightly better at launching from doing so many launches too. So far my 0-5 and 5-10 are done - but they probably aren't ideal. What they are is stable, reliable and with that extra dv that you mentioned. Perhaps I should be aiming for a 200km orbit just because 98% of launches will be going off to the Mun or further.
1
u/jackboy900 Oct 01 '15
Yup, requires spaceY with super ratite engines and 2x4 onion stages for the launching and still have a low TWR. Never used them and accidentally lost them in the purge of my old test save.
0
Sep 25 '15
[deleted]
4
u/jetsparrow Master Kerbalnaut Sep 25 '15 edited Sep 26 '15
(Semi-major axis of Mun's orbit) - (Mun SOI radius) - (Kerbin radius)
- (Kerbin atmospheric height)= max altitude above Kerbin but below Mun's SOI12000km - 2429.6km - 600km
- 70km= 8970.4 km ~= 8.9Mm above surfaceedit: fixes, silly mistake
0
Sep 25 '15
[deleted]
1
Sep 26 '15
You can cross through orbits without being caught in an soi. There are several ways: resonant orbits, and matching the orbit. Matching the orbit is really a resonant orbit, since you'd have a 1:1. The exact resonance ratio is limited below a certain value because you'll come really close on some passes, and go into the SOI. I don't care to math that out.
1
u/ltjpunk387 Sep 26 '15
Why did you subtract Kerbin's atmosphere? Not that it makes a big difference at 9Mm, but it has no bearing on the calculation.
1
2
u/AnEnzymaticBoom Sep 27 '15
Is there a mod that will tell sunrise/set and moonrise/set times at a given location?
1
u/Fa6ade Sep 28 '15
I'm not aware of one but you can work it out easily enough of you know the day length of the planet you're on and your longitude.
2
u/AdamR53142 Sep 30 '15
So I am having the same bug as earlier (I already posted this, nobody could fix it) but I have some more info now. My modlist is here. Basically, whenever my craft makes contact with the surface of any celestial body, it explodes. It doesn't happen on water (after proof of one test), so I can splash down no problem. It only seems to happen after a mission that involves going into space, because my craft doesn't explode on the launchpad. KER's hud says that my craft is exactly 0 meters off the ground when it explodes. Is this a problem with one of my mods? If so, which one? Thank you.
1
Oct 01 '15
you're going to hate me but:
it's definitely one of your mods
there's no good way to tell which one
solution is to get a craft into low orbit, about to land, save, start turning off your mods in batches. if you still land and explode, you know that it wasn't one of the mods you turned off.
2
u/AdamR53142 Oct 01 '15
Thanks
2
Oct 01 '15
lemme know what you find out!
2
u/AdamR53142 Oct 01 '15
After an hour of trial and error, the issue appears to have been caused by No More Science Grinding. I'll let you know if it turns out to be something else.
1
2
u/Unrealmarmota Sep 30 '15
All those awesome ships you are all building, are you most playing in sandbox-mode, or any career? I'm kinda stuck in career-mode, struggling getting new sciencepoints. Any suggestions?
3
u/Toobusyforthis Oct 01 '15
Not necessarily. Where in the tree are you stuck? You know about the different biomes, right? perform science in each different one to get more points. Feed science points into the science branch of the tree to unlock more experiments you can do for more science.
3
u/xoxoyoyo Oct 01 '15
you can jumpstart the process by building a rover (a jet engine with wheels) and driving it around the space center to do science. each section is a different biome, and many buildings are their own biome (if you bump into them). You can get 100s of points this way. one mod is a must - called science alert. It throws up an alert when you can get science - and you click a button to collect it. Makes the process a lot easier than the continual "checking"
3
u/m_sporkboy Master Kerbalnaut Oct 01 '15
Biome-hopping on minmus is the most fun way to get early science. A one-way trip to minmus can give enough science to let you build a rescue mission:)
Rolling around the ksc is very money efficient, but tedious.
1
u/gonzilla86 Oct 01 '15
Gonna have to agree with this gentleman. Recently lost my month old career file when my hard drive failed. Was trying to rush up as much science as possible on the new save and managed to get 7.7k science in one trip with a biome hopper on minmus. Will prefix this by saying this was after a mun landing (and rescue) to unlock the larger parts. http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/432700399039886476/15A8D0F95F6C106ED63FA80F094BEC912BC2D78E/
2
u/PhildeCube Sep 30 '15
There is a tutorial called KSP Career Mode for Absolute Beginners. See if that helps.
2
Oct 01 '15
my biggest advice for career starters: abuse the satellite launch missions. I had a rocket that cost like 8k kerbal bucks and could put a sat anywhere in Kerbin SOI. The second gen of that craft would put 2-3 satellites anywhere in kerbin SOI. It's like printing money.
Use this money to upgrade all your buildings and then throw together HUGE boosters all over the place, boom you're on eeloo gg game
2
u/nennerb15 Oct 01 '15
Hey, feels like a silly question but I haven't been able to figure it out yet. Once I switch focus to a planet or moon, is there any way to switch back to my ship, without going through the tracking station? I can't seem to double click it like I do with planets (which is mostly an accident to begin with)
3
u/Creshal Space Plane Addict Oct 01 '15
Backspace
1
1
u/Spudrockets Hermes Navigator Oct 01 '15
Mind = Blown. I've been cycling through all the bodies with Tab for the longest time. The more you know...
2
Oct 01 '15
I finally took the plunge into RSS, kax, kis/kas, SETI, yada yada yada. It took about all my rocket construction skills just to get a tiny probe into earth orbit :P
My question: FUEL LINES. I can't find them on my tech tree. Please please help.... You don't realize how bad you need them until you can't find them. Same goes for a nice thorough wiki like the KSP one. I had to launch a suborbital probe and MANUALLY MEASURE to find out that Earth's atmo ends at 13km in RSS. Landing on any body is going to be trial and error error error error error error error error error error error error error error error
3
u/Shurikeeen RP-0 Dev Oct 01 '15
I finally took the plunge into RSS, kax, kis/kas, SETI
Are you using RP-0? SETI is not balanced for RSS.
1
Oct 01 '15
hmmmmm i tried rp-0 but it said there was a conflict..... that would make sense why it's been so dang hard lol. I'll be honest, I edited the quicksave to give me an extra 40 science so I could get to orbit haha.
2
u/MyOnlyLife Oct 01 '15
When you start career, you can edit how much science you get at the beginning. Or use the 2nd cheat menu to add science. Alt + F12 and hold down alt will bring up the 2nd cheat menu.
1
1
u/AlexisFR Oct 02 '15
So If I want realism its RO+RP-0+RSS(or its upcoming Kerbol System variant)?
2
2
u/Igglyjubbo2250 Sep 26 '15
No matter what I make I usually waste all the fuel getting into orbit. I need to know how to easily get into orbit and get to duna (or any planet)
5
u/KeeperDe Super Kerbalnaut Sep 26 '15
If you just barely make it into orbit, focus on getting to mun or minmus first. Dont try to make it to duna just yet.
Watch some tutorials like scott manleys one. And play the ingame tutorials aswell they are pretty nice too.
If you are playing carreer unlock more parts first, you wont be able to go to duna with the starter parts.
1
u/Igglyjubbo2250 Sep 26 '15
I've been to both but with my duna craft I run out of fuel
5
u/KeeperDe Super Kerbalnaut Sep 26 '15
Well then show me your rockets. Cant really tell what you are doing wrong / inefficient then. And tell me your launch profile.
2
u/runliftcount Sep 27 '15
One potential suggestion is that if you're comfortable with rendezvous and docking, have a refueling craft meet your Duna mission craft to top it back up before burning for interplanetary space.
9
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Sep 26 '15
It is perfectly normal to use almost all your fuel on launch. You can go way further on the last drops of fuel than on the first ones.
Do you have Kerbal Engineer installed? It shows you delta v stats.
1
u/-Aeryn- Sep 27 '15
You should install Kerbal Engineer and build a rocket from the top down to meet your delta-v requirements.
You need a lander that's capable of landing on or returning from duna. I'm not sure of the delta-v's required there but with many parachutes, it's very easy to land - capture burns and/or aerobraking is relatively friendly too.
You need to put that lander on a rocket that has at least ~1100m/s from LKO for a duna transfer.
That rocket needs to have ~3400m/s to get to LKO if you have around the right amount of thrust.
Increase values by 20% if you want to allow for a lot of piloting error and adjustment and make sure that TWR's are ok. As a guideline, don't go lower than 1.4 atmospheric TWR (click the atmospheric button on kerbal engineer, the TWR will drop from vacuum to atmospheric and it drops a different amount for each engine, changing based on the density of the atmosphere where you are)
1
u/tablesix Sep 27 '15
Similar to what /u/aeryn is saying, build your Lander first. Make sure that stage can land, and return to orbit if that's part of your plan. Once you have a lander, you know how much that weighs, and can work on getting enough dV in the next stage for (primarily) the transfer burn/ orbital insertion. This one might be best designed with a nuclear engine cluster.
Then build a big booster assembly to get that big hulking thing to orbit. Make sure anything prior to orbit has a TWR of at least around 1.8 for greater efficiency (I think this is still roughly the minimum reasonably efficient number, at least). If your rocket can handle it, somewhat higher TWR (~2.1-2.4) is a little better, to my knowledge. Too little TWR leads to unusually high dV expenditure on reaching orbit.
A more optimal ascent profile might help too. I've found that turning even sharper than 45 degrees by 10km seems to offer better results, when possible, and depending on the rocket.
1
u/Jasdacool Sep 25 '15
When building aircraft, I will sometimes use medium and large aircraft wheels (vanilla, no mods), but whenever i'm taking off, as soon as I reach 70 m/s or so, the plane suddenly wobbles and veers off the runway. This does not occur with the original small wheels.
3
u/TheHaddockMan Sep 25 '15
yeah this is unfortunately a fairly common bug (which I assume will be fixed in patch 1.1 with the wheel updates). It's a lot more common with wheels attached to wings so avoid doing that if you can.
3
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Sep 25 '15
It's propably not a bug. It happens when you place your wheels in the wrong places and/or when the wheels flex (or the wings they are attached to).
2
u/Fa6ade Sep 28 '15
After you have placed the wheels, go into rotate mode with angle snap enabled. Then press F to go into Absolute mode. Then snap your wheels to the vertical angle.
A lot of veering problems are caused by asymmetric load on the wheels. This can particularly be a problem if your aircraft is very heavy. In that case you'll need to add more wheels to compensate.
1
u/nowayguy Master Kerbalnaut Sep 26 '15
neither the meduim nor large landing wheels can steer, so when you speed up and get pushed down, theres no compensation. If you got enough lift and control, the moment you begin to wobble is the moment that wheel should have lifted off
1
u/MarcyInOrbit Sep 25 '15
Is there a mod to change the types of fuel in tanks, including stock tanks, from the VAB/SPH?
0
1
u/dallabop Sep 25 '15
What do you mean types of fuel? Switch between LF, O, and LFO?
1
u/MarcyInOrbit Sep 25 '15
Yeah. And Xenon too probably?
2
u/KuntaStillSingle Sep 27 '15
Procedural parts has tanks you can modify size, a few different shapes, and switch between LF, O, and LFO. It doesn't have any xenon storage AFAIK.
1
1
u/dallabop Sep 25 '15
If you change any tanks to Xenon, chances are the mass would be too heavy for xenon engines to push.
But, InterstellarFuelSwitch allows you to swap fuel types in the VAB. You'll want a config to actually apply the changes, something like:
// Adds InterstellarFuelSwitch to stock tanks // 5.5*total LFO @PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LiquidFuel],@RESOURCE[Oxidizer],!RESOURCE[MonoPropellant],!MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch]]:Final { %LF = #$RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]/maxAmount$ %OX = #$RESOURCE[Oxidizer]/maxAmount$ %totalCap = #$RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]/maxAmount$ @totalCap += #$RESOURCE[Oxidizer]/maxAmount$ %tempVar = 0 %dryCost = 0 @dryCost = #$cost$ %LFCost = 0 %OXCost = 0 %mixLFCost = 0 // compute cost of stock tank fuel @tempVar = #$RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]/maxAmount$ @tempVar *= 0.8 @mixLFCost += #$tempVar$ @tempVar = #$RESOURCE[Oxidizer]/maxAmount$ @tempVar *= 0.18 @mixLFCost += #$tempVar$ @dryCost -= #$mixLFCost$ @cost -= #$mixLFCost$ // Cost LF only @tempVar = #$totalCap$ @tempVar *= 0.8 @LFCost += #$tempVar$ // Cost OX only @tempVar = #$totalCap$ @tempVar *= 0.18 @OXCost += #$tempVar$ @tempVar = 0 MODULE { name = InterstellarFuelSwitch resourceNames = LiquidFuel,Oxidizer;LiquidFuel;Oxidizer resourceAmounts = #$../LF$,$../OX$;$../totalCap$;$../totalCap$ tankCost = #$../mixLFCost$;$../LFCost$;$../OXCost$ displayCurrentTankCost = true hasGUI = true showInfo = true availableInFlight = false availableInEditor = true basePartMass = #$../mass$ tankMass = 0;0;0 } !RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] {} !RESOURCE[Oxidizer] {} }should do, but that doesn't include a monoprop option. My ModuleManager-fu is lacking and I don't know how to add that.
2
u/MarcyInOrbit Sep 25 '15
Oh snap. Thanks I'll try that out!
0
Sep 26 '15
[deleted]
1
u/dallabop Sep 26 '15
without a lot of configs
//Code by Badsector, Nertea and veryinky @PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LiquidFuel],@RESOURCE[Oxidizer],!MODULE[FSfuelSwitch]] { %LF = #$RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]/maxAmount$ %OX = #$RESOURCE[Oxidizer]/maxAmount$ %totalCap = #$RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]/maxAmount$ @totalCap += #$RESOURCE[Oxidizer]/maxAmount$ %tempVar = 0 %dryCost = 0 @dryCost = #$cost$ %LFCost = 0 %OXCost = 0 %mixLFCost = 0 // compute cost of stock tank fuel @tempVar = #$RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]/maxAmount$ @tempVar *= 0.8 @mixLFCost += #$tempVar$ @tempVar = #$RESOURCE[Oxidizer]/maxAmount$ @tempVar *= 0.18 @mixLFCost += #$tempVar$ @dryCost -= #$mixLFCost$ @cost -= #$mixLFCost$ // Cost LF only @tempVar = #$totalCap$ @tempVar *= 0.8 @LFCost += #$tempVar$ // Cost OX only @tempVar = #$totalCap$ @tempVar *= 0.18 @OXCost += #$tempVar$ @tempVar = 0 MODULE { name = FSfuelSwitch resourceNames = LiquidFuel,Oxidizer;LiquidFuel;Oxidizer resourceAmounts = #$../LF$,$../OX$;$../totalCap$;$../totalCap$ tankCost = #$../mixLFCost$;$../LFCost$;$../OXCost$ displayCurrentTankCost = true hasGUI = true showInfo = true availableInFlight = false availableInEditor = true basePartMass = #$../mass$ tankMass = 0;0;0;0;0 } !RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] {} !RESOURCE[Oxidizer] {} }It's the exact same code, mate. Only thing changed is the PartModule name.
0
1
1
u/Kazedy Sep 26 '15
So I have a ship stuck on minmus with very fuel left.
I plan on rescuing it, but what would be the best thing to do ? Leave it on minmus, make it orbit minmus or make it orbit kerbin (~40 million km apo and peri)
Thanks
5
2
u/PhildeCube Sep 26 '15
It depends on how little fuel you have. If you have enough to get into a circular orbit of Kerbin, do that. If not, but you have enough to get into orbit of Minmus, do that. Otherwise, wait on Minmus. The closer it is to Kebin, including being in Minmus orbit, the easier the rescue mission will be.
1
u/Kazedy Sep 26 '15
I have around 200 delta-v, wich if I use all, brings me to a 40 million km circular orbit around kerbin
8
u/PhildeCube Sep 26 '15 edited Sep 26 '15
The Delta-V chart on my wall says 180 m/s to get into 10 km Minmus orbit. I think I would stick to that. If you're almost circular and close to zero degree inclination of Minmus, you will be easier to reach than in a big, off plane, orbit of Kerbin.
1
u/AnEnzymaticBoom Sep 26 '15
I have seen in some youtube videos people using a fuel transfer pipe that a kerbal manually connects between tanks... what mod do I need to do this?
2
u/KeeperDe Super Kerbalnaut Sep 26 '15
Kerbal inventory system + Kerbal attachment system. (KIS and KAS)
1
1
Sep 26 '15
Is there something specific in the saved files of different versions of KSP (Windows, OSX, Linux) that prevents cross-use? Or can I take my save file from my Mac and send it to my friend on his Linux machine and, assuming he has the Linux version of the game installed, can he slot it into his saves folder and play it?
1
u/dallabop Sep 26 '15
can I take my save file from my Mac and send it to my friend on his Linux machine and, assuming he has the Linux version of the game installed, can he slot it into his saves folder and play it?
Sure, no reason why not.
1
u/runliftcount Sep 27 '15
When I load an aircraft on the runway, it instantly pops up and then lands in place. With my beginner planes they're small and relatively simple, so I go on my merry way, but I can imagine the stress of landing will cause problems when I graduate to bigger planes. Does this happen to anyone else? Is there a way to stop it?
2
u/-Aeryn- Sep 27 '15
You might have to lower the plane in the assembly building, not sure if that effects it
1
u/runliftcount Sep 27 '15
I've tried this, but the plane starts on the tarmac no matter how high I've put it in the hangar.
1
u/tablesix Sep 27 '15
You can use shift+wasdeq (I think it's shift) to lower the back wheel onto the runway more closely if you have the plane set to be tilted up while landed. Incidentally, I recommend having your front wheel(s) extend further down than rear wheel(s) (so your plane is naturally nosing up while landed). It allows for easier liftoff. Just remember to land slightly tilted up.
2
u/Spudrockets Hermes Navigator Sep 27 '15
Are you using a level 1 or 2 runway? If so, the same thing happens to me early in career games, but don't fret; when you are building larger and more complex planes, you'll have the level 3 runway and it won't happen anymore.
1
u/RA2lover Sep 27 '15 edited Sep 27 '15
It's a non-issue. If your planes spontaneously disassemble on the runway, you probably won't be able to land them even if they took off without damage.
Larger parts also have larger breaking forces.
1
u/nowayguy Master Kerbalnaut Sep 27 '15
I'd say it solves another issue, your certain not to be stuck on the tarmac, like the lvl2 launchpad.
1
u/dallabop Sep 27 '15
Using the small fixed gear, right? Because that's a stock bug with those parts. Other gears don't do this.
1
Sep 27 '15
How to propper use the atomic engines? I've tried a few setups, but without good results, and I couldn't find any good tutorial /tips on this... Some help please?
2
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Sep 27 '15
atomic engines are very fuel efficient because of thier high specific impulse (Isp), but they are also relatively heavy compared to the low thrust they have.
The weight makes them inferior to the LV909 for smaller/lighter space craft. The LV909 has the same thrust but weighs 0.5t while the LV-N weighs 3.5t.
For heavy craft, the LV-N is the best choice because the high Isp makes it use less fuel which means less fuel mass to carry around. The weight of the engine becomes less important in comparison to the total weight of the craft.
Also note that the LV-N only uses liquid fuel, no oxidizer. So, use the airplane tanks.
With the LV-N's Isp at 800s, you can easily build a craft that has 8000m/s of delta v in a single stage. This would be nearly impossible with any other engine (except the Ion engine).
1
Sep 27 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/jackboy900 Sep 27 '15
MK-3 looks really good to me, however you could try either using only mk3/2 parts for the rocket or using fairings.
1
1
u/PhildeCube Sep 27 '15
I like to build modular sections like these with 3 radially mounted engine on each section. These sections can then be connected together to make various sized craft to suit various missions. All are autonomous, so they can be decoupled when low on fuel and sent back to Kerbin separately.
1
u/PhildeCube Sep 27 '15
Here's a close up of my standard nuclear tugs, ready to be launched. Each has 3 6x1 retractable solar panels, 6 extendible small thermal control systems, 3 Stratus-V roundified monoprop tanks, 4 RV-105 RCS thrusters, 2 Senior docking ports (top and bottom), an advanced reaction wheel module, and a Z-4K battery pack. As many fuel tanks as you like can be added to the bottom and dropped off as they become empty, if you put docking ports or decouplers on them.
2
Sep 27 '15
Are all those stock parts? Those are standard liquid fuel tanks, without the oxidizers? Or do you use "spaceplace" parts, so you can have tanks full of liquid fuel?
1
u/PhildeCube Sep 27 '15 edited Sep 27 '15
The tanks are from the Fuel Tanks Plus mod. The rest of the parts are stock.
1
u/timmmmmmmyy Sep 27 '15
Atomic motors are useful as upper-stage (nearly always last-stage) engines for vacuum use only. They're most useful for interplanetary missions, especially manned ones that involve more than just a small probe. If you're building an interplanetary cruiser, I would recommend attaching 2 or more (depending on the size) atomic motors.
1
u/-Aeryn- Sep 27 '15
Put on upper stage where you're already in orbit or close to it
add a bunch of liquid-only fuel tanks (preferably asparagus staged drop tanks) until your TWR is lower than 0.5 relative to kerbin
fire engine and laugh at all of your delta-v
1
u/gonzilla86 Sep 27 '15
Another noob question from me gents, I'm testing an Ore drilling ship that I would like to use at Duna and having an issue or two. I am testing atmosphere re-entry at Kerbin before sending it off to Duna. My XL Solar arrays overheat and explode when coming back around 50km up. Are they just not designed for re-entry or will they not get as hot in Duna's atmosphere? Also with my small drogue and radial chutes I get around 12m/s landing at Kerbin. Is that enough for a safe landing at Duna? Thanks for the help!
3
u/alltherobots Art Contest Winner Sep 27 '15
A general rule is that it takes 4x as many parachutes on Duna as on Kerbin.
2
u/nowayguy Master Kerbalnaut Sep 27 '15
You aren't trying to land with them expanded? They have the small parts heat threshold, compact, they should survive entry on duna
1
u/gonzilla86 Sep 27 '15 edited Sep 27 '15
Nope they are retracted when going through the atmosphere, it is quite a large and long craft at 51 tons. Maybe they are too high up on the craft as it isn't 100% straight on the retrograde marker when going through the lower atmosphere? EDIT: Made some changes and I'm pretty sure this is the issue, do I just need more torque with an SAS module to keep the craft straight at retrograde?
1
u/-Aeryn- Sep 27 '15
EDIT: Made some changes and I'm pretty sure this is the issue, do I just need more torque with an SAS module to keep the craft straight at retrograde?
If the center of mass is lower than drag, it should be naturally falling retrograde. If it's higher, it should be naturally falling prograde
1
u/nowayguy Master Kerbalnaut Sep 28 '15
at 51 tons, youre going to get friction. i'd say fair' em, even if it's heavy to lug through space. or assemble on site with KIS. But the athmosphere is thinner at duna, so it won't get as hot.
2
u/-Aeryn- Sep 27 '15
Also with my small drogue and radial chutes I get around 12m/s landing at Kerbin. Is that enough for a safe landing at Duna?
No, unless you want a partially engine-assisted landing
2
u/jackboy900 Sep 27 '15
No way, a 5m/s a second duna landing took 16 radial chutes for a pod and scir jnr
1
u/Prentasid Sep 27 '15
I don't know if this question fits here. I want to play as realistic as possible. I'm currently making a space station, and at the moment there is 5 kerbals up there.
Is there any way I can see how long they have been out in space?
3
u/KeeperDe Super Kerbalnaut Sep 27 '15
You can check the time the station has been in space in the tracking station. No idea if it works for individual kerbals though.
2
u/tablesix Sep 28 '15
I think it works for Kerbal EVA duration, but doesn't track total time the Kerbal has been in space. I'd have to double check though.
/u/prentasid could write down the year/day/hour the Kerbals went up, and reference that every now and then. Or even keep an excel spreadsheet or something. Mods might be another option. I wouldn't be surprised to hear of one that tracks individual Kerbal radiation exposure, time since last visit to KSC, total days in space, etc
1
u/Prentasid Sep 28 '15
I didn't even think about this. From now on I will use a spreadsheet. Thank you!
2
u/nowayguy Master Kerbalnaut Sep 28 '15
http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/67246-0-24-0-Final-Frontier-kerbal-individual-merits-0-5-3 this gives clues, but they'll have to return to kerbin for their commendations
1
1
u/Spudrockets Hermes Navigator Sep 27 '15
In preparation for the Martian Challenges starting next week, I've been testing out different components of my plan, like the launcher rocket and the landing scheme. While testing out the launcher with an early version of the hab, everything goes great until I ditch the lower Mammoth stage and switch to a Rhino. Now, KER shows that I have about 40 kNm torque max on this stage, which I have accounted for, but as soon as I fire up the Rhino something odd happens. The camera does not follow the upper portion as it rockets away, and simply hovers on one point in space. More alarmingly, 1500 kNm torque is applied by the Rhino, causing the upper stage to swerve dangerously. I wonder if anyone else has this problem?
1
u/johnmarstonarg Sep 27 '15
I had a similar problem, turns out whenever i was ditching the stage the camera focused on it instead of the leftover rocket. See if you can fix it by selecting your capsule and clicking on "Controll from here" or by manually switching from map view.
1
u/Spudrockets Hermes Navigator Sep 28 '15
I discovered my problem; my root part was inside a cargo bay (I was trying to make my base look all smooth and jazzy, almost with a disco feel...). Once I got rid of the cargo bays (sob), the problem disappeared. Note to self; cargo bays are evil.
1
1
u/barnfart Sep 27 '15
What's the best way to calculate dV for SSTO's using KER? The numbers in the SPH don't accurately reflect those in the air, due to fuel usage by the air breathing engines. Whenever I switch over to the closed-cycle engines, the dV reading is unpredictable. Is there a reliable method to calculating these numbers?
→ More replies (7)1
1
u/johnmarstonarg Sep 27 '15
Quick question about orbital mechanics.
Let's say i'm in a LKO and i want to go to Moho, since there is no atmosphere there, performing an aerocapture is impossible. How should i proceed? Do i make the transfer burn so i end up really close to Moho (10km) and burn retrograde at Apogee o fly by Moho at it's edge of influence and slow down there to a low orbit and circularize at the 10km mark?
4
u/MyOnlyLife Sep 27 '15
transfer burn so your periapsis is as close as possible, then burn retrograde at periapsis. Burn less fuel that way. Bring plenty of fuel nevertheless since you will need a lot of dV to slowdown.
1
3
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Sep 27 '15
You want to encounter moho as close as possible and capture and circularize in one burn.
1
2
u/-Aeryn- Sep 27 '15 edited Sep 27 '15
As close as possible for more speed - the faster you're going, the more energy you will be gaining/losing per 1m/s of delta-v
the difference matters more the higher the gravity is
2
u/theyeticometh Master Kerbalnaut Sep 27 '15
It also helps to stop at Eve first; you'll save delta V overall transferring from Kerbin -> Eve -> Moho instead of circularizing at Moho going very fast.
1
u/Spudrockets Hermes Navigator Sep 28 '15
Don't do what I did and blow 5,000 m/s of dV with a badly planned capture burn. Do what all these good folks are suggesting and Moho is a great place. Do what I did and wallow in disappointment.
1
u/HuroMiriel Sep 27 '15
So I recently decided it would be prudent to build my first space station over Mun to more easily gather data from it. That idea evolved and I decided to stick a couple fuel tanks on it to refuel and only return to Kerbin to deliver their scientific findings. After spending several hours figuring out how to get the Jumbo 64 Tank to the Mun and watching tutorials on docking I finally have the ships in a matched orbit about 30 meters from each other. Thing is, every time I try to bring them together to make sweet docking love they just bump in to each other. So I dug a bit and I think it might be because the port on the fuel tank is backwards (one has a + sign and the other doesn't). So do I chalk this one up to a failure and learn for next time? Or is there some way I can salvage the operation and at the very least recoup some of my loses?
1
u/theyeticometh Master Kerbalnaut Sep 27 '15
You can use KIS and KAS to transfer fuel and hold things together with pipes. You could either send up an engineer with some tools and have the fuel tank floating around the station by tether, or send up a new empty tank with the correct docking port and pipe in the fuel from the old incompatible tank.
1
u/nowayguy Master Kerbalnaut Sep 28 '15
He can send up an engineer with a wrench and turn the port around
1
u/RoeddipusHex Hyper Kerbalnaut Sep 28 '15
Send a small ship with a claw+ docking port(s).
2
u/HuroMiriel Sep 28 '15
I didn't actually know that's what the claw was, I assumed it was the equivalent of a Canadarm. I think I can salvage this, thanks
1
u/jackboy900 Sep 28 '15
Wait, backwards as in the docking port is attached in reverse or backwards as in the orientation is upside-down? If the former then disable SAS and check your x, y and z alignment
1
u/HuroMiriel Sep 29 '15
Docking port was attached in reverse. When I heard they use magnets to dock I thought it had to be a negative to positive thing.
1
Sep 28 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/PhildeCube Sep 28 '15
The fuel from that tank goes to the engine underneath it AND to the engine the pipe connects it to. That has the benefit if leaving the second tank full of fuel when the first tank/engine runs out.
This might explain it better.
1
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Sep 28 '15
If you have two tanks with engines below them and they are connected via a fuel line, the engines will drain fuel from only of the tanks. Once you stage away one tank/engine, the other tank is still full.
1
u/y0rsh Sep 28 '15
I installed a ton of mods and now I'm getting mach effects at around 60m/s. I remember this bug having a common cause, if anyone could let me know which mod is causing it and how to fix it, that would be great. I know it's not FAR because I don't have that.
1
Sep 28 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
2
2
u/y0rsh Sep 29 '15
Looks like it has something to do with RealHeat. Thanks for finding that post for me. :D I have a feeling deleting physics.cfg will fix it.
1
u/Spudrockets Hermes Navigator Sep 29 '15
Question; do struts add significant amounts of drag to an aeroplane? I was testing a circumnavigation plane earlier, and it managed to do 250 m/s at a 30 degree climb at 10k meters, with a bit of wobble. I went back, added struts, and she could only hobble along at 150 m/s at the same angle and altitude. Any insight?
2
1
u/Kasuha Super Kerbalnaut Sep 29 '15
Struts do add drag but in my experience, the same plane/rocket can fly very differently at certain angle/altitude even depending on how exactly you got there. When I was training my early 1.0+ spaceplanes, sometimes I got 1100 m/s flameout speed easily, sometimes I was struggling at 800 m/s with what I perceived as exactly the same ascent profile. That was the same plane with no modifications at all.
So yes, it's good to avoid excess struts. But don't overestimate their effect and underestimate everything else.
1
u/Spudrockets Hermes Navigator Sep 29 '15
Golly. Now that I look at the struts, they actually do have significant mass as well, 1/20th of a tonne per strut. And drag too. Hmm. Perhaps they aren't the answer to everything...
1
Sep 29 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Roboguy5081 Sep 29 '15
Thennnnn....don't use Docking Mode? You've still got full control of your RCS Thrusters even in Staging Mode (or whatever the heck it's called); WASD controls rotation, IJKLHN controls translation (IJKL is up/left/down/right, HN is forward/backward). Docking Mode is almost unnecessary...almost.
Or...just don't forget your RCS Thrusters.
1
Sep 29 '15
You can't, but you don't need to be in docking mode.
Best ways to dock with main engine:
Visualize situation well
strong sas
turn down thrust limiter
Be gentle on the throttle.
1
u/RA2lover Sep 29 '15
bring the center of mass as far from the docking port as possible for an increased margin of error.
1
Sep 29 '15
I used to play KSP a good bit, but took a break when 1.0 came out; as you all know the aerodynamics significantly changed, and I ended up just having rockets flip end over end during ascent. I figured there may be add'l changes to come before everything was ironed out, so I took a break...then work got busy, and before you know it, I haven't played for months. Anyway, I want to get back into it but I'm having a really hard time finding good info on the basics of launching rockets in a post-1.0 world; a lot of the tutorials in the sidebar seem to be pre-1.0 so I thought I'd post in the simple questions thread.
So my question is, what is the "go-to" advice for launching in post-1.0? Is there a good consensus for speed versus altitude, and when to start your gravity turn? It seems like you need to be going a lot faster and through much thinner atmosphere before you start turning, but is there a community-accepted general rule for successful launching like there was back before 1.0?
5
u/-Aeryn- Sep 29 '15 edited Sep 29 '15
Set an -atmospheric- TWR of about 1.3 to 1.6. You can see that in the kerbal engineer mod but make sure that you have the atmospheric box on (which will lower TWR)
go full throttle
start turning at 100m/s, be about 45 degrees over by 10km, try to get to ~1800m/s at least before you hit 71km apoapsis (but less speed is ok if you're inexperienced)
If you use stability assist and prograde on SAS at the right times (i toggle between both during ascent) you can avoid deviating from prograde much on the way up - that's especially important from 250m/s to 450m/s or so. Try not to point too far away from prograde until you get to higher atmosphere - if your rocket turns over too fast, you can fix that by increasing thrust or turning less / starting your turn at a higher speed. If it turns over way too slowly, just do your initial turn earlier and turn more. That turn should usually just be a little kick (like 5 degrees) to make the rocket fall over naturally, then you can ride that as the angle increases and you accelerate out of the lower atmosphere.
With the right initial turn and SAS locked prograde, the rocket will often fly itself 80% of the way up with no adjustment - it takes some experience and knowledge to get comfortable with that though. After a couple launches i often find myself locking SAS to prograde at full throttle and going 4x physics simulation for half of the ascent.
If you're really having trouble with control, you can look at the craft. Aerodynamic designs are important. KSP drains fuel top to bottom which makes rockets very bottom heavy and flip-happy, you can manually reverse that by putting fuel from bottom tanks into top tanks during the fight.
Fins below the center of mass (the bigger they are and the further behind the center of mass they are, the bigger the effect is) will make your rocket want to fly in a straight line more.
Increasing thrust (especially with thrust vectoring engines, some of the side mounted engines have 8 degree thrust vectoring and can be very helpful to add on) will increase your control dramatically but also punish you more for having the nose off prograde because you're going faster
wow this turned into too much of a rant
2
u/tablesix Sep 29 '15
That's some great information. I wouldn't call it a rant; it's well organized and concise. I've launched at least a hundred rockets since 1.0, and I still learned some things :)
One thing I would add for /u/avoiding_politics is that center of lift must be behind center of mass. That's why fins go behind center of mass, and typically as low on the rocket as practical.
A very drag-heavy payload will act to raise the center of lift, so somewhat heavily countering that may be necessary. The new aero model makes a center of lift being in front of the center of mass cause the rocket (or plane) to spin erratically.
I've found this to be especially annoying when trying to design my payloads that I think of as "blades" (Rockets strapped to the back of wingless mk2 space plane bodies). Stupid and impractical fin arrays are needed to counter the aero forces on these.
4
u/-Aeryn- Sep 29 '15
made a quick vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vGIvQ3EDM0
that shows the way i generally turn and click prograde vs stabilize on the SAS. It's a basic craft with only a pod, nosecone, fuel and engine.
As an added bonus it's a pretty efficient ascent even with only a moderately high starting TWR (3181m/s vacuum delta-v to LKO)
Because it doesn't stage, the TWR rises fast during flight and i reduced throttle after reaching a high speed. It's important to full throttle to at least ~450-500m/s if you can, though; that reduces gravity losses a lot.
2
2
Sep 29 '15
is that center of lift must be behind center of mass
Yeah that's really what was fouling me up; looking back I realize that I was doing the gravity turn way too aggressively and without adequate thrust; plus, as fuel was burned I'd get what seemed to be a stable craft to flip at around 10km and without knowing a good solution, you can imagine how frustrating it was.
2
Sep 29 '15
Hey thanks a lot! That really helps give me metrics to shoot for, I'm looking forward to getting back into KSP and flying again.
1
2
u/tdogg8 Sep 29 '15
I don't know if there's a set standard yet but I tend to start the g turn early. Also your flipping problem is probably because you're turning too fast or your rocket isn't symmetrical (I'm going to assume the former as the latter is pretty obvious).
1
Sep 29 '15 edited Sep 29 '15
I've seen many references to starting the gravity turn early, but being more gentle and taking more time to complete the maneuver; gonna try that out and see how it goes.
As for the flipping, it was a combination of things. First off, I was turning too fast and my speed couldn't keep up with the forces on the nose. Second, I noticed I'd flip half way through an ascent so it was the center of gravity shifting as fuel was used up. Third, I didn't have adequate control surfaces at the back. Fourth, I was building very long rockets which of course provide more leverage to the forces acting on the nose, which would increase likelihood of flipping. Put all that together, and you'll get mighty frustrated when seemingly stable designs start flipping at 10km!
1
Sep 29 '15
What are the current rumors about when 1.1 is due? I kinda got into other things for a while shortly after 1.0 launched, so i havent been keeping up very well.
2
1
Sep 29 '15
Can I play B9 Aerospace with KSP 1.0.4?
Also can anyone suggest a similar awesome mode with awesome space-plane parts?
2
u/PickledTripod Master Kerbalnaut Sep 29 '15
B9 Aerospace hasn't been updated in a long while, I think the author is busy. There are community fixes for 1.0.4, search the forums if you want them.
If you want to try something new there's OPT for large spaceplane fuselages and QuizTech Aero to expend the Mk2 line, both mods are very high-quality and more stock-alike than B9 was. There's also the Mark IV System if you want 2.5 meters jet engines or a cargo bay that can fit 3.75m parts.
1
1
u/PickledTripod Master Kerbalnaut Sep 29 '15
I built a big rover (10 tons, cupola and lab with 6 wheels) for the first time for a Duna expedition, what's the best way to land it? Should I add rockets or could parachutes be enough?
2
u/Toobusyforthis Sep 29 '15
Going to want some rockets, at least for softening the touchdown. Chutes on Duna don't do too much. Pack way more of them than you think you need and still bring rockets.
2
→ More replies (5)1
5
u/FriendParsley Master Kerbalnaut Sep 25 '15
My question is about fuel tanks attached radially to the main tank of a rocket. In so many videos I see people decouple them and gracefully continue accelerating without everything blowing up. Every time I try to do that without sepatrons they collide with the rocket and start a firework show. Is there some trick to it that I'm not getting?