cantab

On my Linux install I have KSP.x86 and KSP.x86_64. It's only just occured to me to compare performance between them. (And heck, to check which one actually runs normally). I only have 4GB RAM total, so I don't know if 64-bit would help or hinder in that case.

You probably could. The RCS thrusters have a TWR of 40:1 in Minmus's gravity. The only real gotcha is not having smooth throttle control, but since low-gravity worlds are forgiving you can probably get away with it.

What on Kerbin happened to your airfield!?

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/File:KerbinDeltaVMap.png The figures there tend to be best case scenarios without gravity assists, so add a bit of a margin for targeting higher, inclined, or retrograde orbits. The big factor though is that the delta-v splitting between the deorbit burn and the landing burn is largely up to you. Most efficient overall is a small deorbit burn, a descent that goes halfway round Minmus, then a big landing burn to kill the horizontal speed. But also perfectly viable is a big deorbit burn and a near-vertical descent, then a smaller landing burn to kill the vertical speed. In that case, you need about 100 m/s of dV if you fall from 10km up. (I assumed constant gravity, so that'll be a slight overestimate, but then you want a safety margin anyway). Edit: Something I noticed on safety margins. Delta-v maps give about 3.2 to 3.4 km/s needed to go from (real world) lunar orbit to the Moon's surface and back. The Apollo LM had 4.7 km/s, around 40% extra. And remember that Neil landed with less than 30 seconds worth of fuel left on board Apollo 11. Now, while many of us aren't so bothered about killing or stranding our Kerbals, if you don't want trial-and-error gameplay don't cut your dV margins too thin.

Well while I'd like an Orion drive on my rocket, I wouldn't like one on YOUR rocket! The same, for that matter, goes for the otherwise excellent mass driver. So I think I'll settle for a nuclear electric rocket. One with decent enough thrust that I can make a normal planetary transfer, and good enough Isp that I never need worry about fuel. It'll stay in space, and I'll have a little SSTO tender with a SABRE/RAPIER engine to get on and off planets and moons.

I think the basic physics would work, but the Kerbals would still try to float around and thus bump into the ring rather than walk on it.

Indeed, it's not at all efficient. The idea was just to make something simple.Then again, it's not as bad as you might expect. KER says it has 4907/5674 atmo/vacuum delta-v. I just quickly flew it, and with a flatter ascent profile than I previously used (I normally ascend too steeply I think) I had ~790 dV left once I'd reached an 80km orbit.

It does. But lift-off is lift-off.

The Mk1 pod, four FL-T800s, and an LV-T30 makes it into orbit just fine, though it might not be able to deorbit.

Arguably it's not a gap. If the new parts are 5m, then each size is twice the one below.Indeed, on thought 3.75m parts might sit a bit awkwardly. You couldn't cluster 2.5m ones below them, though 1.25m parts would go fine.

Is that TWO cupolas on the top of your Mun rocket? Small wonder you're having trouble with that kind of weight. You'd probably need to look at adding another, larger stage below the whole thing. (Or another outer layer if you're asparagusing).

They should be recognisably their prototypes, and ALSO look not out-of-place compared to the existing parts. Of course, the existing parts vary somewhat in appearance. Compare the Rockomax engines to the LV ones for example, or the small and large solid boosters.

Some rockets do use pressurised tanks, often with helium but a few fuels can use their own vapour pressure. The advantage is that there's no need for fuel pumps, the drawback is that the tanks are heavier.

Yup, just duplicate the program folder. And yes, that does still work if you bought KSP on steam.

I don't think I could have. The engine was an LV-T30 so would have been running its alternator, and anyway it was a manned ship so AIUI running out of electricity will lose me my attitude control but not my throttle.In this case I lost WASD and X, but Ctrl (not Shift, that was an error!) still throttled me down. Which makes me think it was either a bug in KSP or a stuck key on the keyboard.

I'm not sure I'd want there to be two different versions of the same experiment, that might make things a bit confusing. I wonder if the tech tree shouldn't be tweaked a bit though. The materials bay is the heaviest experiment, it's one of the more effective at giving science points - and it's the second one available. Seems a bit against the run of tech trees normally.

The habitable zone to my understanding is basically that if a planet is not too close and not too far from its sun, it CAN have liquid water on its surface. That doesn't mean it will. After all, never mind Venus and Mars, the Moon has no oceans and it's in the SAME orbit as the Earth! The main other factor, of course, being that it needs the right amount and type of air. Not enough, and water can never be liquid. (If you have a vacuum chamber you can demonstrate water boiling at room temperature when the air is sucked out.) Too much carbon dioxide and the surface will be too hot.

When am I allowed to separate the LM, and when must I return to the CSM by? After entering and before leaving the Mun's SOI?

Scott Manley mentioned it in his video on gravity assists. There's just not enough benefit from a Munar slingshot. I believe the Mun just isn't moving fast enough and isn't massive enough. You can use it to escape Kerbin, but not really to get anywhere else. Though you can set up to get back into Kerbin's SOI for a gravity assist off it, but even that's of questionable benefit for the player time setting things up and game time in transit.

If you've got a command pod or reaction wheel on there, it might try to turn the rover. Try disabling the torque (right click the component in question), or changing the rover driving controls so they don't overlap with the spaceship controls.

Sure that doesn't mean you've already got the science out?

What IS draw mode 0 for the conics? As for biomes, I suspect more objects with biomes would come with more parts. Otherwise there'll be too much science compared to what's needed for the tech tree. Tbh, without mapping mods the biomes are a guide dang it anyway.

The radiation environment around Jupiter owes a lot to Io's atmosphere. Things may be different around Jool, since Laythe has more gravity so won't shed its air so easily. Plus even if there's high radiation in space, it's all particles (not gamma rays) so Laythe's atmosphere itself will effectively shield the surface.

Oh go on then, there's always this modern classic.

I've noticed I get "Jettison" as something on an engine I can set an action group to. I think it's supposed to release the fairing, but I've never seen it do anything. Maybe I don't have the right ship set up though.