BoilingOil

So you post a review, only to see the mod be invalidated the day after, as the new update on KSP is pushed upon us. Isn't *that* a waste of your effort. Let's just hope the author will be around soon to announce their update.

Thanks for starting this topic, Kergarin! Now I've been warned. I've found sending a probe into solar orbit to be surprisingly easy; most of the time it's sufficient to just pack enough fuel to accelerate out of Kerbin orbit without a target. But if that bypasses the low end missions, I'm going to be careful not to do that too soon in career mode.

Hehehehe, yeah, *that* could indeed happen!

If it works, yeah... Otherwise, use the 5,000 in saved funds to double the number of Thumpers. Have six in stead of three! Suddenly, there's dV to spare

"Aerodynamic improvements" - the thing that sticks in my craw is, that whether or not the changes actually *are* improvements, is a matter for debate. They may be *intended* as improvements, but for now they are merely untested *changes*. But that's just me nagging!

That does indeed look a lot better. I see that some have already suggested you add some SRBs. I would go so far as to suggest that you replace the triple rockets at the bottom with those SRBs - Thumpers, most likely, if they are available to you.

True, there is a limit, but your design had not reached that yet - - - Updated - - - Actually, they said that *after* having mentioned that they replaced the fairing with a larger one. I guess that's the 2.5 mtr version

In the center column, I see a small ring between the FL-T400 (?) tank and the FL-T800. just around where those fuel lines attach the side tanks. What is that? And why *is* that stage connected with fuel that hangs below it? Perhaps, removing those fuel lines and removing (or at least moving) that ring, might do some good to stability. Although, not much, from the looks of it. I'm also quite worried about the change of symmetry. I'd prefer keeping symmetry on my rockets the same from top to bottom. Not two-ways at the bottom and then three-ways at the top, because that spells disaster. But that's just *my* opinion.

That little thing under the fairing in the picture, what is it? If it's a stack separator or similar device, I'd put it *inside* the fairing, at the bottom. That way, when it is activated, they are both separated from the payload. At the same time, it would remove the drag-inciting bottle-neck in the design. That might already be helpful, though perhaps not as much as other suggestions that have been made. In fact, if it's a reaction-wheel, I'd probably *still* hide it inside the fairing.

I know of no other place to access that information either. I thought there might be a way in the R&D centre or in Mission Control, but I couldn't find any.

Wow! That's everything I always wanted to know (at least since starting to play KSP ). I'ma copy this to a text file. Thanks, Snark.

I think that after two or three more attempts, I will give up trying to land that pod (I've figure out that it's actually "Orbiter 1A", not "Kerbal X", which one gets in that tutorial). It seems that after the transfer, there just isn't sufficient dV left to safely land the thing. Maybe a suicide descent (or whatever it was called) would do, but that's extremely tricky if you haven't even made a normal landing yet. And the tip about quickj-saving the game, while probably very valuable in other cases, doesn't help in these tutorial missions: every time I try F5, I get "You cannot quicksave in this mission." Anyway, landing is only optional; the mission is about getting into an orbit around the Mun, and I have. Many times. I should be happy with that and move on Anyway, thanks guys, for trying to help.

For me, those two words went together quite well from the moment I learned about calculus. But I understand how for most people that would be different. Sometimes, these numbers can just make your head spin! - - - Updated - - - Nice edit to include eliptical orbits, Gaarst. Also, I must point out that it took me a bit to actually see what I was looking at. At fist, I was like "Hmm, the speed of the vessel must be sufficient to overcome the gravitational force working on your vessel, which is dictated by the height of your orbit. That's complicated, if this height (R or (Ap+Pe)/2) is what you want to calculate in order to get the required speed (v) that gets you around the planet in a specific time (T)!" But it is not at all complicated, if you ignore v altogether, and simply use the aforementioned time (T) directly, which the above formula does! Thank you again for this most insightful response!

You know, I've said what in my opinion had to be said. I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me. If you don't, then don't. And if you don't even want to consider it, that's not my business. If you want to misinterpret my words, hey, I'm used to that too. Doesn't really matter much. I have agreed that everyone must play the game the way they want. If you want to ignore that and only use against me what you don't agree with, so be it. I find that a poor way to discuss a difference of opinion, but why would you let that stop you? Anyway, since my opinion appears to bother a couple of you, I will refrain from voicing it again.

You are so right about that, Highguard. KSP is awesome! And some of you guys here are awesome as well! I've already discarded a number of highly inefficient rockets that I had created, in favor of some cheaper, lighter ones made with the knowledge that I've collected here in only two days!