imaspacestation

Swamp gas reflecting the light of Eve, nothing to see here, move along...

Been playing without any mods recently and had a question regarding maneuver node markers. In previous game versions, we never had SAS that can hold maneuver marker, so the way I remember always doing burns was to align with the maneuver marker at first, and then just keep stable all the way through the burn, which would bring you from half-way to the prograde/retrograde marker, then on top of it, then half-way to the other side. Now with the SAS being able to hold the maneuver node, is it better to hold that marker instead? Or just use it to align and then switch to stability like the old way?

If it only tugs between planets/moons, I don't see how anything but the most simple designs would be of any benefit. Slap on as many engines as you can bear (the more, the less burn time), enough fuel for the intended destination and payload, and RCS that's balanced for the tug itself. Now if the tug was used to perform orbital construction or any other kind of maneuvers, then you have a bigger challenge - your RCS would need to be balanced with the extra payload mass in mind, and that's no easy feat. In those cases, the way I usually do it, is the tug's RCS is balanced for itself, and then when I design the payload in the VAB, I load up the tug as a subassembly and attach their docking ports - then I add RCS on the payload in such a way as to balance them together. The payload does not need any RCS fuel, only the RCS thrusters. That way when they are docked in space, they are balanced for maneuvers. And if you don't want the RCS left over after construction is done, you can place them on pylons or octagonal struts attached to small decouplers that you can jettison at the end of construction.

On top of what everyone else has already mentioned, the biggest tip I can give you now is to start small again with the new physics. Make a small craft just for orbiting, and see if you can get it into orbit. Then build on top of that. You have a lot of stuff to re-learn, but don't worry - everyone had to go through that since the move to 1.0+, and it's not that hard. In fact, once you've got the hang of it, you wouldn't know how you had ever managed to build and get those kind of monstrosities to orbit before.

Personally I find no use to planes other than SSTO space planes. I once went on a Kerbin biome science spree with a plane, and let me tell you all that long-distance flying at 4x physics warp is not really worth it - better just hop a rocket and be done with it. Contracts to survey or take temperature scans, etc, are even less worth the time and effort. So for me, the only point of plane parts are Space Planes. They are much harder to build and pilot than a rocket, but it's an excellent change of pace for when you feel you're getting burned out on KSP. It's quite a challenge designing big ones that can carry a high payload to orbit.

I have an inkling who they might be... Praise the Sun!

There are times when gigantic ships with enormous part counts and complicated, unstable, wobbly structure will simply implode when switching focus to it, because physics suddenly gets applied to it all in one frame. The solution is to not build such monstrosities, or use the Kerbal Join Reinforcement (KJR) mod.

How do those asteroids spawn? Just randomly, and is there a limit? Add a whole bunch more and you got your ring

Are you confident? I do use KJR all the time, maybe it really is the cause...

I get this problem too. At first I thought it was only because I was using FASA Launch clamps, but then I saw it happen with the regular clamps when playing stock, too. Sometimes I also lose control of my ship when that happens.

I have never heard of the small RCS engines overheating from their own use, but perhaps you have (or had earlier) another source of heat pointing at the RCS blocks? During your ascent or maneuvers maybe?

I really liked the look of the old styled MK1 Inline cockpit, and think that the new one looks really bland and bare. Is there a mod that changes the look of it back to the old styled model?

Everyone has already mentioned - use a high AoA when re-entering so that your belly will slow you down. However I just wanted to add that you need to be careful here, because once you start slowing down and getting deeper into the atmosphere, the plane might not be able to sustain the high AoA and you might lose control, so just remember to keep adjusting it as you slow down and descent.

Did you say VTOL SSTO? That beast... Me want... P.S Have you been successful in transitioning from hover to flight?

Try to land slower. A proper landing would see you at near stalling speed when touching down. In fact, the final touch down should be a stall, but that's actually pretty hard to accomplish in KSP, so just try to go as slow as possible, but be sure you're well lined to the runway, because you won't be able to do much maneuvering at low speeds. And then add drag-chutes

Why aren't you crashing them into the Mun instead Also, haven't tried the mod yet - what happens if an asteroid hits Kerbin? Pretty low chance it would hit the KSC I would think, and besides you can just repair it.

You're right! I didn't think of it that way.

Will people stop posting such melodramatic poasts if someone makes some new parachute parts that can survive at higher speeds and temperatures?

Oooh, this is interesting. Any bonus for destroying both in one launch?

I thought the entire point of the game was to learn new things and solve challenging problems in this simulated space environment. So then why whine when something you're used to do one way gets changed and you have to learn a new thing to solve a new challenge? I'd understand if you were playing some MMO or something and your favourite class got nerfed and you can no longer roflpwn your face on the keyboard with it, but for this game? I just don't get it.

And you can fit into those while depressurized? Can the capsules be re-pressurized after?

I almost never do any manned missions. Everything is with probes. Only time I do manned missions is if I can take surface samples, and if that happens it must be a 3-kerbal mission for pilot/scientist/engineer. Even with probes if they crash, it's a revert or savegame load. Even with sandbox. And every probe mission must have the max number of science instruments available.

It's good someone posted these, otherwise since most major publications only focusing on one thing, these kind of news just slip through the cracks for the general public. I'm curious to know, did anyone eventually plot out a course for that debris and simulate what could have happened if it had actually hit the space station? I remember that time when a dead satellite collided with the MIR space station, but it didn't seem like that was a complete disaster, and nobody died. So what would happen if the ISS were hit? Do they have some kind of emergency procedures for that eventuality?

What would that matter since you can time-warp? And who in a game about designing your own spaceships would want to use other's than their own?

I know what an Abacus is, and actually had a toy one when I was a child, but I've never seriously used it. What advantage does it have over using just plain pen and paper?