VincentThacker

With HyperEdit, you can put your craft into an insane circular Kerbol orbit that is several million exameters with an orbital velocity of 0.1 m/s. Pretty sure that would take quadrillions of years to complete. Of course, in real life, this is not very possible as the SoI of Kerbol is infinite in KSP. Thus, technically, you can be at infinite distance with an infinite orbital period

Re-enter more aggressively instead of less. This will allow less time for the heat to build up. Ideally, the periapsis should be at around 15 km or less. Bring some radiators to dissipate the heat, or use a bigger heat shield

This is perfectly normal. Most of the time, an intercept trajectory will be an escape trajectory unless you're aerobraking. In other words, when you reach the target body's SOI, you'll almost certainly be traveling at escape velocity. The "predicted path" which shows "Mun escape" is provided you do not burn to change your trajectory. Once you're in the Mun's SOI, just burn retrograde at periapsis to bring the craft from escape trajectory into an orbit.

Yes, you can delete unneeded/outdated quicksaves without affecting your progress.

I'm playing a Career mode game with no mods (except MechJeb), and this is the largest rocket I've been able to build. It works well for traveling within the Kerbin system so far, but I want to start going to other planets, but it clearly lacks enough Delta-V to do so (only 7500 m/s). I only have all the 90-Science nodes of the tech tree researched, plus Heavier Rocketry and Command Modules. I would like to increase its Delta-V to (hopefully) 10000 m/s, but am unable to do so. Adding more boosters renders its TWR too small to lift itself. Any ideas? Picture here

Dear NathanKell, Why are the planets in RSS so inclined? Also, Saturn and Pluto's moons are not inclined. According to Wikipedia, their moons should have around the same inclination as the rest. What may be the reason for this inconsistency?

The Mun never had an atmosphere in any version, as far as I know.

I don't think all big rockets are negatively affected by SAS. My Space Shuttle stands at almost 450 tons (475 with maximum payload), with lots of struts connecting the solid boosters, orbiter, and external tank, and does very well with SAS. At first, (when I was very noob), I did not use struts, and the solid boosters wobbled, and the whole thing fell apart. With struts, and SAS, it is very smooth. You've just got to strut it more (and at the right places). By right, SAS is supposed to stabilize by exerting opposite forces to the current direction you're rotating towards. The reason why it does not do so on larger rockets is because they "bend" too much. When a rocket "bends" (oscillates) too much, by the time SAS corrects the pitch/yaw/roll of your rocket, your rocket will have oscillated to the "other" side, making it even more unstable. In other words, your rocket "bends" faster than SAS can correct each oscillation. That is the reason why "bendy" rockets tend to break when using SAS. If you find it hard to control your rocket, try making your rocket less "bendy" (make it more rigid). Also try to add control surfaces or more vectoring engines and see if it helps.

I've tried before, and everything failed horribly. Firstly, you cannot lower the throttle once started, so that means you either have to have low thrust all the way or high thrust and getting ripped apart. Secondly, SRBs are heavy and expensive. I only use a pair of Kickback clusters for my Space Shuttle (which is accompanied by the engines of the orbiter and fuel tank). In my opinion, it isn't feasible to have a stage made entirely out of SRBs.

I get the infinite gravity part, but what I don't understand is why the object will fall through the planet. It is going at a near straight-down path from the solar system. I terminated it already (to prevent any possible lag). P.S. Why does my content need to be "approved by a moderator" when my profile says "no restrictions"?

The easiest way to fix this is just to add a bit of weight below the rocket (opposite the seats) and try again. Yes, Kerbals do have mass. From the wiki,

Hello, I've read this forum a long time and found it very helpful to me in KSP. So today, I launched a Space Shuttle to service one of my Space Stations. During re-entry, it tore apart at 20,000m above the glistening sea. Luckily, the Mk3 Command Pod (and the Kerbals inside) survived the splash. However, when I entered the Tracking Station, this happened. It's a 99 Large Landing Gear. What could have happened?