Friend Bear

Yeah. The real problem is on Earth where land is usually owned by someone profiting from the mining operation (even Federal land profits the Federal government). But in space, no one can hear you scream...wait wrong idiom. I mean, in space, everything is everyone's. The universe is a large drum circle. However, I do think mining creates ownership of the extracted thing in space (read earlier, I believe this is subject to proportionate distribution among space-faring and/or non-space-faring nations but can't remember how the UN finally concluded in this regard) and not the rock landed on. Been a minute but they kinda tried to address it in the OST. Someone else have input on that section?

True. That is why it might be better for companies to work together rather than completely compete. That way, they can coordinate efforts. Kind of like how oil fields work now. They are owned by the landowner (sometimes a company, sometimes not), a contractor is hired to organize efforts, an excavation company is used, an extraction company or two is used, the end. It actually might be hard for a single company to spend the money to get up there, lock an asteroid in orbit, then mine it, alone. - - - Updated - - - Not far off, I totally believe it. The reason we have wars on earth =P

I am not throwing out the entire concept. I expressed where and when it is appropriate and never said it is always unjustified. Plus, I am merely responding to the blog. The question posed was would I buy it. I said yes and no and expressed when and why. It is self-evident that if I don't think it is worth it I shouldn't buy it. There is absolutely no reason you should be taking this personally. This is a forum for opinions and mine are only targetting unjust DLC, NOT all DLC. There is a reason I so exhaustively analyze my response. If i didn't then everyone would conclude my thoughts the same way you have. Please read all posts. And to throw it out there, the HearthFire thing concerns value. The core game is $60 with hours and hours of play time, miles and miles of ground to cover, quests all over the place, and a core story. Hearth is $15. That is 1/4 the cost of the core game. My issue comes from not whether the DLC is fun, but why did they arbitrarily price it at 1/4 the cost of the core game? Is there 1/4 the land to roam, 1/4 additional quests? They priced it at $15 with the necessary code already in place and the personnel already hired and working on separate, related projects. The core game's cost makes sense - new engine, new everything. That is my issue with DLC. All I am talking about is ensuring DLC is worth it. When I say no to reskinning DLC, it is because I use the safe assumption the DLC will cost $15-$30 and did not require nearly 1/4 or 1/2 the effort the core game did. But when it does require that effort, effort should be rewarded. If it is mind-blowingly fun (couldn't find this word's definition on google), and adds a ton to the game, simple or no, then I will likely get it. I do buy DLC on occasion, but it has to be worth it. Knowing Squad, they won't skimp. This is useful input but I have already addressed it. My whole point is based on this. As I said, a whole new world with a new experience might justify compensation. I have to see (remember how I discussed Everquest versus WoW; is the latest WoW worth $60?). But if it is merely a reskinning in high-depth, it is harder to justify. But I said this...100 times. No reason to keep talking about the same thing. Again, why are you making this personal? I used colorful language fully aware of its definition. Bum-rush isn't even an actual, recognized English word. That's like me saying you used the slang, "wicked," incorrectly. You can say all you want but I won't contribute to your discussions anymore. You are only out for blood, not finding the answer as per the blog's request. And I can never understand why people take these things so personally. If you notice, I never once attacked you.

I agree. I read the posts and I don't think there is a conspiracy of any sort. But I am aware that many companies will continue to release DLC because it tasted the delicious cash. I have higher hopes for Squad, but my rant is entirely against DLC altogether, with few exceptions. I am also going off the title of the blog: Would you buy a DLC. Also, I did discuss both DL and DLC, but the issue is games in the past had enormous expansions. Everquest, Everquest Ruins of Kunark, etc. These were $25 expansions to the core that added to the game. When you bought Everquest, you knew you were getting the 3 continents, and so on. Conversely, you buy KSP, you know you are getting its solar system. That is why the potential at a supplemental game is more understandable. In comparison, what I'm saying here is we bought this space sim, so unless there are major changes, DLC is unjustifiable. Skyrim for example...You can own multiple homes. Kinda annoying you can spend, what $15?, to have your own home in the woods! I also concluded that if it were a different game with huge changes, I would probably buy it. But not DLC that is a simple reskinning. That is mainly where I went with it. I just had to rant about DLC because it has ruined so many games (the core games miss so much now because they bum-rush them to release, underload them, sell them at full price, and expect to sell the additions to the core that should have been included, later). But I guess this is why I hate DLC versus a new game. It just hints at the idea that the game was incomplete, whether true or not. But then expansions got bad, too. Compare Vanilla WoW to the latest expansion. You buy WoW for $60 (back in the day) and it came with a lot of content. Fast forward years later, you spend the same $60 on 5 new levels, 2 new abilities, one new race, and half a continent. Where is the balance in cost? Ignored, because people are willing to buy into that ridiculousness. Again, I do not want what I am saying to be misconstrued as a back on Squad. It absolutely is NOT that. I love their product and already mentioned it is worth every penny, if not more. I'm speaking generally.

Absolutely fine with that. My intentions were not to discuss current events. Rather, I want to compare them to future potential events to show the difference in how public awareness will play a role. This is important because public awareness, interaction, cooperation, and even public attempts to bar progress in this area play a major role. By showing what effect legislation has shows the level of potential impact of public interference. As seen, I imagine it would have little, assuming the rest of the UN nations don't complain (but being that only American's do, I think future cooperation in mining is safe; yes I can say this because I am American and I see first hand people complaining about things they never look into themselves every day). Sorry if it seemed otherwise. I will state a disclaimer in my post.

I absolutely understand where you are going with this. This is why I think legislators need legal training. *DO NOT discuss current events. The issues discussed here are public awareness in the event of space/interspace interaction between nations and merely uses current events to compare the role of international legislation. Again, this is about public awareness and its role, not current events. The Iran nuclear deal; the president has sole discretionary authority concerning foreign nations. The law(s) Congress passed were actually unconstitutional. Rather than interrupt the public's awareness of how government works, he kept it good natured and treated it as ruling law because the Supreme Court could not interlocutorily review that legislation and deem is unconstitutional in time for the deal to stay together since negotiations were so time constrained and strenuous. That is to clear up the concerns internally in the US (and the US, alone). As for law generally in the US, international treaty and the U.S. constitution are supreme. Next is federal law, followed by executive action (without the advice and consent of the senate), then state legislation. Space is regulated by the UN. While we have dramatic sway, we are still subject to international treaties and regulations, no matter what our Federal legislation says. Why this is all important and trumps the public awareness issues is because it would be out of our hands. You will have people saying "you can't do that because Rush Limbaugh said so!" But their congressman can't just waive his pretend wand and do something because our laws will still be subject to the UN. Comparison: The Iran issue was entirely internal with constitutional interference ignored by congressman who have absolutely no legal training (they are all dentists and librarians, etc.). Potential space issues go through international awareness/checks and balances, and we cannot walk into the UN and say "our people disagree." All we get is our permanent seat vote as a member of the UN and the OST (and arguably the ally countries, but this is limited both by those countries beginning to enjoy their unilateral decision making, such as the UK and Japan, in addition to there being so few countries actually under the OST). Again, I totally get where you are going with this, but it is different since it is mostly external with other nations rather than internal with consitutional conflict, alone.

Absolutely NOT DLC is some ridiculous thing phone games and Blizzard came up with in leiu of subscription based pay methods. As it pertains there, why would KSP be a subscription game. Similarly, linear/semi-linear non-mmo games have taken it on, as well, and have lost a lot of credibility because of it. Why sell all of Skyrim in one package when you can keep selling the core game DLC that should have come with the original purchase? I purposely do not buy those because their intentions are wrong. Compare completeness of a 2002 game versus a 2013 game that requires DLC to enjoy the full experience. I have even seen recent games where the DLC and the core game don't even add to the full experience that should be had. When we bought KSP, we bought KSP, not cartoon KSP or misapplied physics KSP; as in, if I purchased "KSP that is not realistic!," then a realism mod that costs money can be understandable. But I bought KSP, and it is implied it is up to par and realistic based on the fabricated solar system it is played within. Conversely and similarly to my previous point, if I bought KSP: with OUR solar system, then I expect it to be realistic in that sense, as well, rather than purchased as such later. While many will argue realism KSP is like buying an alternate version of the game, they forget to incorporate all the programming that has already been accomplished to make the core game and the manpower used to create the expansion. Given, if it takes heavy manpower to create realism, might be compensable. But realism implies N-body physics, something the moderators are happy to remind you will never be included in any version of KSP, ever. So ultimately, will I buy dlc for something like a reskinning that should be a simple mod(simple as in the state of the mod, not its programming and application), no. I cannot support that market. Perhaps compensating the mod creators is a possibility depending on the difficulty and desire, but that is discussion best for another forum since it delves into opening the door to every mod creator charging awkward amounts for hard to measure services/goods, coupled with licensing problems. But will I buy dlc that creates an entirely new experience? maybe...maybe. ---- Now I just have to vent, sorry. Remember in the 90s when they justified high cost (being $25 a game) in saying they had to print the box and sell the cd? Then the boxes were made smaller, but the price went up to $30 for games on average? Then steam started late 90s. While steam is not the best example because it has so many discounts, it lends itself greatly to my point...Many manufacturers dodge production costs and sell via DL and DLC..but at what cost? Now games are $60 and DLC averages between $5 and $30. Why do they get away with it? Same reason people only complain about attorneys and not medical care...because it is an expected cost versus a necessary one paid for out of pocket instead of through insurance; the created status quo. A vast majority of players are kids who use their parent's finances to fund their gaming, and the big companies know this. The best example? Call of Duty. It is a reskinning of a reskinning of a reskinning with no story, can be run on a potato, yet seems to cost more and more each subsequent release. They don't even update their engines like Battlefield with Frostbyte. My point - give what your customers paid for, even if "what they paid for" comes later. This is especially true when an Alpha or Beta program is sold, no matter the price. Don't create an expectation then fill that void with fundable joy. Squad, I know you won't do this to you customer base. You are awesome. This is merely commentary on the rest of the gaming world. For example, KSP cost an amount they felt justified charging, and rightfully so. I would have spent more. They also charged that amount to get boosted in their early years and it succeeded. Now if they want to increase cost, they should wholly feel justified. That increased cost may even suffice for future remodeling/application without needing to charge for DLC. Upcoming on consoles, an increase in cost is not a bad idea. A lower cost on console makes parents and kids think its a kids game, when children will absolutely get frustrated. On the other hand, a price that matches the market will catch the majority of gamers' eyes and make them realize this is a difficult/rewarding experience. But I didn't get my degree in marketing, that is just how I think.

Following this, I have also had the reverse happen for taller rockets with awkward COM. When I ran into this problem and the design wasn't absolutely horrible, I upgraded my engines and went a bit faster. The problem occurred between 75 and 250 m/s; where my rocket would uncontrollably turn down, catch the air, and face downward without being able to recover. I fixed it by making the rocket faster to cut through that heavier atmosphere faster. Not the most certain fix but it works assuming your rocket is going really slow.

Id love if you post a picture of the ship. We suggest things but for all we know it is this exceedingly tall rocket with far too many parts. If you want a mod that helps but does not autopilot (and therefore, ruin the game), look at EngineerRedux. Gives per stage weight, thrust to weight ratio readings, and delta v. Far be it for me to tell you how to build the rocket; I'd rather you figure it out on your own. But this lets us point you in the right direction per rocket rather than giving you general knowledge without realizing that knowledge's applicability.

OOh yeah I think you are right. It is no weapons of any sort on celestial bodies, no WMD's in orbit (which made the Star Wars program unseekable ... unless it is actually up there). He isn't, I am. But I do remember the moon treaty was signed by like...2 nations. I don't even think the US signed it? - - - Updated - - - But the beauty of the OST is that it puts liability on the launching nation. SapceX launches from the US and blows up the Chinese station...the US is on the hook. The US can then seek collateral proceedings against SpaceX, but as far as the UN is concerned, the US is the baddie. This limits these possibilities. Plus, companies tend to not have the sway they do in the US, worldwide. While they do in some nations, there are others willing to combat it; Spain and Germany for example. But it is a threat, sure.

No I don't, and very interesting. Is it that the pod never orbits? Maybe it is the pod that delivers and returns astronauts in a single journey...But doubtful knowing the time it takes to get to ISS and the likely orbit it would attain. But this is still scientific study with transfer made to another nation, I believe. Even if not, the purpose was different. But good argument against scientific acquisition when issue arises with, say, extraction of a core of palladium or something of greater value. Plus, you know the UN. It would just be a strongly worded letter to the selling state, which in this case is un-locatable.

But the difference is scientific study versus resource acquisition, which that portion I mention does. Again, as I said, it has been a minute and for all I know it was speculation on the part of the person I was in touch with (Airforce JAG who works in aerospace for the US and deals with the UN). However, there is certainly a difference between resource acquisition and scientific study. Member or no, no nation can interfere with another's use, exploitation, and exploration of space. BUT exploitation is subject to rules once returned to Earth. Again, been a minute. The thing I am certain of is the scientific study being unimpeded. --- So really, it comes down to collection of samples versus drilling for gold.

It has been a minute since I looked, but I believe the OST makes it so anything acquired in space needs to be evenly distributed to other member nations. This is why countries aren't jumping up and saying they want to spend billions to mine (even though private companies located in a country are counted as that country for these purposes). - - - Updated - - - Doesn't necessarily invalidate the ban. The remaining countries would still enforce it, just as is the consideration with North Korea's speculated programs. (just read above, didn't know North Korea signed the treaty; interesting) Also, if I remember, the weapon ban is on all weapons that make a minimum of one orbit around the earth. While ballistic missiles are most commonly found in space (and do not qualify because they do not make a full orbit), the misconception forgets that any weapon cannot make an orbit. This is why you will not find a pistol on the ISS.

Right, but my point is we didn't have those, what, 6 years ago? Possibilities seem endless. I'm not saying these are the seed for lift potential delivery vehicles. I'm saying they are evidence of far more options, undiscovered. I believe UV scatters less. This is one of many options. They are still experimenting with celestial body heat as it relates to conductivity of Mars and its inner core(s). Further, if I remember, UV plays a major role in plant growth. A less inhibiting atmosphere would help permeate growth, but needs to be explored and controlled. I am not sure what the point of this sentence is, but I sense hostility. I have gone out of my way to show the opposite so I think I'm done. If you want to see the thread you started, take a look at your first post. It sure wasn't about anything I am trying to spur conversation on.

This is awesome. Really it is all I wanted. It leads to discussion of the inevitable versus the possible. But most importantly, now we know what the opinions are based off. --- To build off this, the study of alternative fuels is ever more important. For example, an Australian physics graduate has successfully made an ion engine that behaves similarly to the xenon fed NASA engine, but is instead fed by metals of varying atomic mass. Apparently, they have the most success with magnesium and it is almost twice as efficient as xenon fed ion engines. While the study does not show an alternative means to leaving a celestial body, much more so with an atmosphere, the point is there are alternatives. This one was discovered and proven nearly a year after public awareness of the xenon fed ion engine exploded. As for the sun light, you (unoffensivley) forgot to incorporate two things: first, the ability to generate solar energy is done numerous ways (for example, solar thermal is not used on movable machinery but is used for powerplant based energy production and is likely a bad example due to both presence of dust and lower solar temperature on Mars (again, which we would not have known precisely without going there)), each of which perform better and better exponentially year after year; second, that, on Mars, there is much less atmosphere causing reflection and refraction that otherwise interferes with solar panels. Remember, half the rovers are powered by solar on Mars now and the ISS is running numerous experiments around the clock, using the majority of its power and not breaking into reserves that I have heard (yes, the ISS gets more sun, but my point is we generate a ton, even with old solar panels). --- I applaud your incorporation of hydrogen. This has been a basis for many arguments for colonization plausibility. Addressing issues head on allow discussion into the alternatives expressed.

I much prefer educated discussion of the possibility of colonization (e.g. what it would take; obstacles to address; etc.) than a lot of argument based on speculation. I am not trying to be aggressive or attacking, but I have heard all these same things before on the news and popular discussion. However, I see no where in this analysis what the precise issue with radiation is. What are the levels? How can we address this? Then we proceed. Similarly here, how can we explore these issues without literal space exploration? Discussing it on earth does not tell us the mineral content or majority element presence on Mars. But landing there with rovers, as we have done, is a step in that direction. What is the dv that we need and what does that translate to in the real world? What can our ships produce? Have we explored the possibility of ignoring orbit and going straight back to Earth on returns? Most importantly for these analyses is the gravity issue. Are we even certain the smaller gravity will play a significant role in our inability to colonize? We will not know until we see for ourselves. The experiment with the twins, one of whom is on the ISS, and the effect of low gravity on the human frame is a step in that direction, but that only leads to further speculation, albeit based on more accurate study with both earth and space for comparison; one against the other. My point is merely how can we know these things without trying or at least approaching it? You may say we cannot get blimps to Venus (weird idea btw, Mars is more understandable, but for example), but just saying it is hard to does not let us find out why or conclude the impossibility. It prevents us from approaching it. Now to show you I am not attacking and instead addressing the issue bit by bit. As you said, you approach the problem one step at a time. If the first thing we did was say, "screw the moon! Let's go to Mars!" . . . We would be in trouble. But baby steps get us there only if people will open their eyes to the possibility.

Fair enough. I like the idea. I think it would be helpful because it would reduce the hyper-extensive use of satellite, orbital telescope, and ground telescope cooperation in order to acquire information on a single point in space since, ideally, this telescope would do what a collection of telescopes do, now. The only issue is how hugely expensive it will be. Hopefully it would be a collected effort by many nations, which, sadly, leaves the U.S., China, and the Koreas out of the equation. (Think of medical research...if it doesn't make money, the U.S. won't fund it. When was the last time you saw the U.S. look beyond chemotherapy for cancer treatment?)

Given almost every space-faring UN and otherwise affiliated nation signed resolutions against weapons in space and are equally ready to enforce that agreement on non-signing parties, space weapons should be avoided altogether. However, there is much to discuss about Mars. Seems awkward you would attempt to limit discussion. I would hope at least one other person would like to seriously discuss things that are relatively possible. No, we are not discussing tearing apart black-holes and travelling through time. Theory is great but it requires the mind for it and technological know-how. Otherwise, it becomes a blog post of "what I wish for," rather than a directed, well-meaning attempt to better humanity through prospective growth. Discussion of Mars and colonization would be discussion about a planet near similar to ours going through a process that can arguably be said to have occurred to Earth, but at an accelerated rate purely because of an inhabitants (humans) ability to do as much. Without exploring the how, you cannot even begin to approach the possibility of accomplishment and instead stay rooted in your living room using a telescope to dream of reaching the stars rather than succeeding in doing so. The hope for new ventures and adventures; the desire to reach new places; the drive to create new mechanisms for travel, communication, and day-to-day application; these all played a role in attaining the stance civilization holds today. Hence, the goal, even further, the desire to reach Mars and create sustainable living is not only a scientific possibility, but arguably a necessity. Now, I am not saying we have the ability to succeed tomorrow, but I am saying we have more a need for it over a telescope that will tell us more accurately things we generally already have information about on areas of our universe we cannot reach. Further, seeking that goal will create scientific discovery that will not only enhance our ability to get a telescope like that into orbit and space, but additionally, make application of that telescope possible and, realistically, more useful. Ultimately, reaching Mars forces us to engineer better and strive for more, whereas a telescope will cost money in a world that is not willing to pay for it.

Do what I do...try something new each time. First time I had issues, I introduced TAC Lifesupport mod and played the game with that. Forces you to keep the Kerbals alive. Then, I decided to make a space station that incorporated renewables to play with TAC. This required use of USI Kolonization mod; really complex mod with lots o' parts and works with mining mods and TAC. The time after that, I thought to make stations I can send to other planets for refueling and off-world orbital stations with renewables, etc. All this time, I used RemoteTech (will be incorporated in 1.1) which made the game harder. The mistake I made though was playing career on the hardest hardest mode each time. I did it the first time, which is good, as you should. But once you know you can keep them alive, can save money, and play safe, don't ruin a super super intensive, solar system wide game with hard modes and no income. Hard mode is to prove to yourself you can do it or have fun trying. But once you have the skills, let yourself be flush with reasonable amounts of money and go from there (e.g. turn up the income per contract to 300%; have max starting cash and even consider cheating with alt12 to get enough cash to upgrade all buildings all the way or to where you want, then ditching the money; give yourself free science to be somewhere on the tree rather than the very start (important when you use 50+mods as your tree becomes hard to deplete in acquisitions)). Just try something new each time. You do the tedious stuff enough and it takes no effort. For example, the only tedious thing I do now is setup my satellite network for RemoteTech. First time was fun/hard; launched one at a time. Third time, boring because I did the same thing...But it became fun again when I realized I could launch 4-8 in one rocket and set them adrift in orbit for a quick uplink in 1/8 the time. Play persistently to find alternatives and new ideas, not to rinse and repeat, and you are good.

There are two possibilities: 1) Above is right, it is likely a bug. I ended up having to delete the ship and try again when it happened to me. 2) BUT I have also seen this...Since I assume the ship you are trying to dock to is the one rotating, do you have a pilot in that vessel or an advanced enough radio controlled unit to engage SAS? If no, once the pilot leaves, SAS cannot be engaged. The smallest burst can cause the rotation. It could even be a combo and I have seen that...where I had no pilot and after timewarping it decided to rotate even without an initial force (unless thrusters now interact with nearby objects as standard engines do).

I will try to find a previous post I had and post below. But generally, as said above, the smaller the better. They are more stable and, because of their weight, have plenty of delta V. Get Engineer Redux. It is a mod, but it has no autopilot. It merely tells you stage per stage delta V, thrust to weight, etc. Very handy dandy. ------- Here is what I posted in another question in the forum. It is kind of out of place but discusses generally what to do with atmo, gravity, etc.: The rocket is too tall. You can do a couple things, but I would suggest taking out one of the inside orange tanks. if you want to make up for that lost delta v, toss in an extra non-orange tank on the first and second stages to increase that overall initial thrust duration. Next, you are probably turning down too suddenly. I do not know mechjeb (and I suggest playing without it. I imagine it is nice when you know all about the game and want to get lazy, but it fails to teach you how to play it better. Trial and error will help you with these analyses) but it sounds too me like you do not have enough vertical velocity OR you have too much vertical velocity and you are burning out those asparagus too early, forcing a climb at an altitude under 60k with the single, internal, 3rd stage mainsail. This is not always a problem, but when your rocket is hugely tall and your Thrust to Weight ratio is very low, it causes issues. Mainsail is buff, yes, but two orange tanks in dense atmosphere is rough, especially with a large final stage sitting atop. As you launch, immediately, and VERY DELICATELY, aim the rocket a degree or two East. From there on, let gravity turn you and use about half throttle. The idea behind the best, most stable climb to orbit is not speed (although you need it to qualify the climb since too slow a climb destroys any chance of horizontal acceleration a minute into your climb to orbit) but instead burn time. (as for speed; what I mean is that a low speed reduces the usefulness of your overall deltav, while a high speed can do the same. If you are going fast at low altitude, even near horizontally in preparation for orbit, you lost a lot of potential delta v because you fight atmosphere. On the other hand, if you go too slow and lose your asparagus without burning any horizontal, sure you got into space, but now you have to burn 2000+ delta v horizontally to get an orbit in a short window with a single engine because once you are at the peak of your climb, it becomes harder and harder to stay out of the atmosphere with a low horizontal velocity). But careful; this means your gravity turn will be more aggressive. You do not necessarily need to aim into your prograde the entire time. Back off a bit and aim more vertically if it is too aggressive. 45 deg is ideal at 35-45k altitude, for example. This slow, natural turn prevents the bend you are seeing. Lastly, if you have to have a long rocket, use struts. Make the entire thing as solid as you can throughout.

I have heard of issue with mechjeb and asparagus, but that was a long time ago. I would just fly without it (more fun anyways). Sorry that is not incredibly helpful. However, I support the notion sepratrons are a good idea. Also, look at Space Y mod. It has sweet decoupler/sepratron parts to keep partcount down and staging simpler. I presume that helps with programming it into mechjeb. No need for the attitude. Pictures play very little role here and you have given a sufficient explanation even without pictures; identifying staging is the issue.

Reading it and without pictures, I think I have an idea of what happened. You have two fairings, both of which decouple/eject at a different stage, but one clips through the other? Sounds like you just have an issue of collision. While clipping is sometimes ok, the programming has become more strict with clipping of movable parts since pre-.9. I would try to avoid that entire. Alternatively, use a single fairing through both the transfer and final stage. Once you get to the fairing stage-wise, you are high enough (upper of 45k) that removing all fairings would have only a beneficial impact of less overall weight and therefore more delta v. That high up, there is very little issue with atmosphere. In fact, you can even deploy solar panels in the upper atmosphere safely (although that just causes minor drag if you are keeping that close of attention). Ultimately, use a single, longer/bigger fairing to save weight and collision issues.

Also: (if not mentioned yet) Scott Manley does an excellent job tutorializing most things in the game. Search for his videos when you need to learn something (e.g.: asparagus staging, SSTO, docking and rendezvous). AVOID mods like mechjeb that do the work for you. They do not teach but merely supplement the gameplay with as near perfect moves as software can get. Most the fun comes from experimenting and making ridiculous things. --- Watch a couple streamers intermittently, as well. Sorry to do this but I am only going to suggest a couple because they try to address every question asked, do so thoroughly and correctly, and spend a majority of their stream teaching, anyways. Know that I have not given to any streamers and this is merely neutral information based on personal knowledge and application. Watch: OverloadUT DasValdez

You will be using alt or ctrl (cant remember, been a minute) to angle parts rather than being forced to work with 90 degree angled parts. You will also work with infernal robotics http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116064-1-0-4-Magic-Smoke-Industries-Infernal-Robotics-0-21-3 It has hinges and the like. Wish I could tell you more but I rarely use infernal (but it IS good) and there are so many options, I am better suited to open the door to your creativity rather than limit it with known application.