Matt_Lowne WATCH THE MUSIC VIDEO VERSION ► goo.gl/1B8pt3 SSTO TUTORIAL FOR BEGINNERS ► goo.gl/TMB3jk Download the craft, and all my other SSTOs, here (Ctrl+F "Mun Phantom 2 Download" for the lazy): forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/i...
I noticed that your escape burn just barely exited its SOI. Maybe you know this, but I was under the impression that it's more efficient to get your periapsis all the way down into Kerbin's atmosphere (at whatever altitude you prefer to aerobrake at) with a single burn from your orbit of whatever moon you're returning from, adjusting the position of the maneuver node as needed to make sure it points approximately moon-retrograde after giving the node it enough prograde dV to make the ejection orbit's path relatively straight. That way you're taking advantage of the Oberth effect while close to the moon, translating a given amount of dV into a greater reduction in the periapsis of your orbit after you leave the moon's SOI. It's just like making an ejection burn for a planetary transfer to one of the inner planets or to low solar orbit (or to an outer planet, except in that case you're ejecting prograde, that's the only difference). On another note, if the _name_ of Kerbin's closest moon is "Mun", then saying things like "a flyby of the Mun" is like saying "a flyby of the Minmus" or "a flyby of the Jool". Does that make it clear why using the article just sounds _wrong?_ Articles are never used with names in English unless you're talking about a ship ("the Titanic" or "the Duna Explorer" for instance). So saying "the moon" or saying "Mun" is fine, but every time I hear "the Mun" like that I just cringe. :) Anyway, to me it seems more fitting to pronounce it like "moon" because (a) they're kerbals, (b) it fits in with the way we just call our moon "the moon" instead of having a unique name for it, and the little green men could just be spelling it differently, (c) if some of the devs pronounce it one way and some of them the other, that's not a good argument for or against _either_ pronounciation, and (d) it was written with the umlaut on the side of the ship on the title screen, which _is_ a good argument for that pronounciation. Taken together, I prefer the umlaut. Additionally, if you pronounce it that way, you never have to worry about whether you say "the" or not because it will always be correct either way. ;) I would guess that the only reason that umlaut didn't make its way into the actual text name displayed in the game is that they either just didn't bother to do it originally and never considered it worth going back and changing, or they didn't want to make use of any of those special characters for some reason (font compatability, maybe?)... Hmm, someone should make a mod to "fix" that. :)
Challenge: "Copy that, landing elsewhere" Basically land somewhere else than the Runway next time you're coming back from an interplanetary trip. And don't lose any parts. Rules: From an interplanetary trip, land at one of the following without unplanned disassembly: EASY: Land at the Insular Airfield (southeast of KSC) MEDIUM: Land on an uneven surface (wherever you want) HARD: Land on water (wherever you want) VERY HARD: Land at KSC2, the desert pyramid, a DSN station (i.e. Nye Island) or either the North or South Pole INTENSE: Same as VERY HARD but also land at an Easter Egg at your destination (i.e. if you went to Duna, you could go see the Face on Duna) SUPER MODE: Impress me. And everybody else. You'll probably do this option.
I would rethink the water landing, I suck at piloting so much I haven’t landed on the runway, ever. Instead, I either land by the runway, or ditch in the ocean
The best way I found to combat flat spins and abnormal movements is ensuring your craft is slightly to moderately nose heavy compared to your center of lift during re-entry. If your craft is back-heavy during re-entry, your craft is going to want to have the heaviest section traveling in the prograde direction, which means the back of the craft will want to flip around and fly backwards, and the problem arises that SAS has no idea how to fly backwards, hence why your craft will try to flip out of control. If that's something you're wanting to try (Flying and landing backwards), it's best to turn SAS off and remember to disengage any active RW's and remember all your flight controls are reversed. Otherwise, ensure your craft is nose-heavy and you should have a rather uneventful re-entry.
I LOVE KSP EVEN IF I AM A FREAKING NOOB!!!!!!!!!!!!! I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL THE COLLAB WITH THE OTHER U-TUBERS!!!! THANK YOU MR. LOWNE!!! Sorry for my over-enthusiasm, but seriously though, keep up the good videos!
Hi Matt, thanks so much for all the inspiration for SSTOs. I have KSP on Xbox though, I was wondering if you could possibly list the components used from nose to tail on your next SSTO video? Sorry if that is asking too much.
A good tip for beginners on SSTOs is to try and keep your attitude (where your pointing) as close to where your prograde (the yellow circle) as possible. If the angle between these two things is too great, your plane will become unstable and stall.
You talked about the manouvre node and how to burn. But if you throttle at 50% instead of 100%, you can simply burn your estimated burn time before your node, no calculating required. So let's say you have your 1 min burn, normally you'd start at 30 seconds before you node, but at 50% throttle, you can just burn 1 min before your node.
i made a minmus ssto with a small rover that can seat to kerbals or be remotely guided but during the landing on minmus i had hit the ground on a slope so i lost 2 rapiers and an elevon 5 but i managed to land on kerbins south pole even when i went into a spin at 4000m height
been watching yours and others KSP videos for a while now, im having so much trouble just getting a rocket to the Mun and back before it runs out of fuel, i had less trouble back in 2015, i dont know what im doing wrong lol, just basic equatorial takeoff, OCD says i have to rotate the rocket in the hangar and pitch down to get an equatorial path/orbit, (its too late to change this ive been doing it that way since i started playing) and equatorial Mun orbit and landing, last attempt i was just able to get back using monopropellant, its like the game has been tweaked to be a little more realistic, so too much over engineering to account for ones inefficiencies just wont work :D im having to learn KSP all over again, except the pitching down for east at take off, thats staying :D EDIT: Fine Controls????? this might solve my Space Plane problem, those darn Kerbals not reading the documentation again :D
Yeah for those who aren't sure, for more stability, you'd want to move all of the fuel forwards. The farther your center of mass is in front of your center of lift, the easier it will be to fly forwards.
Matt, yout the LF/Ox tanks at the front of your fuel tanks where you should do the opposite. I guess you chose your approach for aesthetic reasons, but considering you spend all your LF/Ox on ascend with the close cycle RAPIERs, you better keep all the LF only tanks in front of the empty ones to counter balance the mass of the NERVs.
Try in your next phantom type SStO to place 4 Rapiers radially like an X with 2 liquid fuel tanks in front of each Rapier and a shock-cone at the front Trust me with this it makes your SStO so much more stable and almost requires a pair of canards at the front for manouverability
I forgot to mention that it works even better with the engines placed like a Ж instead of an X That is so much weight that you can influence the center of mass so much
I am actually solo oolong love glad someone a dressed the mün/mun prenounciation issue. this reeeeeeeeeeeaallllyyyy was annoying me so much. Matt, you're my favourite KSP player.
