Helmetman

Use the "[" and "]" keys to switch between vessels (A kerbal is a vessel ) So first go to the other vessel and then use those keys to switch to you kerbal. Not working? Me: I'm not sure why you can't access your Kerbal directly though. Have you highlighted (selected) the "Kerbal" in the tracking station? If not it will not be listed and you can't switch to it.

Exactamente

Hanging arms, google eyes (0_0), closed mouth and a heat bar that looks like his 3rd leg is on fire. He also forget to put the planes lights off, he's in frenzy. I thought Kerbal heat resistant was 800 Fahrenheit, or was it 800 Celsius? Oh wait, the unit of measurement is Kelvin right? 526,85 Celsius then. IIRC, that's hotter then my oven. But realistically, I always thought Kerbals were amphibious. So instead of freaking out, they just go blank and shut down for a while, but they still instinctively walk across as you press key strokes ironically I'm pretty sure they're amphibious by the way. It explains why they almost need no food and why the food cupboard in the pic below might contain enough for a Eeloo return mission. This will finally put a end to the discussion how Kerbals survive so long without available food containers. They don't need any, they require no excessive meals like we do. Heating Kerbals is like slowly heating a frog, get my drift?

Many fighter pilots and concorde passengers have reported the curvature at a altitude of 60-70.000feet. But can be much less apparently according to you. Someone needs to tell Mike this Even if the pacific route to Narita doesn't show this to him, he can spend bucks to get a tourist ride on a mig-29 fighter jet to get him to about 60.000feet. If that doesn't show him he needs a optician or stop flying at night jk.

These people wont stop. Even if he realizes it's round he's still going to spread, brainwash people or even litigate for his own gain because he already has attention, maintaining it gets him richer and foolisher. The latter is unnoticeable to the subject, but that is his problem. A few kilometers, define few? My nephews Airbus A330 flies at FL 410 (12.5km). Just over a dozen is not "few" to me, your conceptions may vary. And you can test the curvature of the earth by holding a sheet of A4 in front of you in front of the cockpits canopy. I suggest Mike Hughes to do the same. But I don't know if this works on the passenger windows as they might be to small. 45° angle, staged poorly (no mission control?) and a ripped up parachute. Sounds like a yokel having done plenty of bungee jumps, cliff jumps and skydive (adrenaline junky) and now thinks he's god and assigned to judge all that is right.

@Pand5461 If only the guy could glue the stick to his hand But realistically (non ksp'ish) your very right

This! You'll make your own moon *cough* asteroid by placing it around Jool wherever you want. It wouldn't suffice as a moon object (it actually would be ) but I would want asteroids to be better with a variety of spikey surface textures. They're procedurally generated yes, but add more specific surface features to them please. The current asteroids look like polished rocky semi spheres, or now that I think of it, polished diamond ore. There should be more variety in this. I would like a actual inner moon of gilly size. Maybe rescaling the Joolian system by moving Laythe further out. This will make trip to Jools moons even easier, and I'm not particularly after that either. It seems whatever one may come up with, it brings always a new caveat to the scene. Why don't we, unlike the real Jovian system, throw some Martian system objects into the game like Phobos and Deimos around Laythe? Maybe actually get Laythe closer to Jool to rebalance the game again. Because natural sattelites around Laythe will make Laythe trips easier, but harder when you move Laythe closer to Jool. You won't have a Jovian system analogue with inner moons, but I don't think you should want to copycat real existing orbiting systems to KSP anyway. I like the creativity of a new system, otherwise I play RSS.

@Agustin For some weird reason that is one of those very obscure things that I've missed on so far. I did saw pictures of interior view and videos but thought they were a function of either the mods you mentioned or another one. Glad to be wrong On topic...

When using the AGU I put it on a longer arm made of structural parts or LF tanks and then attach the engines to the far end. Angle them a bit so they don't fire against the module I'm willing to transport. Then I pull the craft rather then pushing it. If you push it like you would normally as most of all rockets are like that you will have a greater balancing issue over towing. It is not recommended on rocket in a atmosphere by the way, just to let you know. Try to push a box by standing tall to the highest reachable window. You'll use 2 hands blimey and you still whining how it almost fell out of your hands. Rather, let someone grab the box on the next floor who tows it from your hands over the railing in a second or 2. In part this is because it's harder to push things above your head, but like I said, in part. Pulling it causes the CoM to trail towards the thrust vector. This means you have to do less of correction because it will auto correct itself, if you have to correct at all. Pushing it causes the CoM to trail of off the thrust vector, like a stick will fall of your hand trying to raise and balance it. This makes a stick or your vessel easily turn over when firing to hard. Pulling it means placing the thrust vector in front of what your willing to transport like a crane. In that case, the stick of the guy below would be hanging in it's hand, rather then balancing it. Because that's what you do when pushing, your basically balancing a candle. Basically it's this principle vs this principle If you do go for pushing then makes sure your engines are farthest away from the CoM (you can eyeball this) This means the relative offset of CoT and CoM becomes less. And only if you have sufficient gimballing range on your engines ( I recommend the vector ) the distance from the CoT to CoM creates a longer levering arm. That means that less pronounced control strokes will give similar corrections. Of course you don't want it to long otherwise it will become wiggly especially under high thrust. I hope this has helped you. Buahaha, getting our attention by exchanging sentiment, Great. I hope it was only your humour since we're talking pixels, but yeah very poor indeed

Cool Animating things such as doing stuff, opening and closing of doors is just for starters imo. I would also like to see through the cockpit window to see the Kerbals sitting there and doing stuff when assigned to nothing. You can look from within the cockpit to the outside world, but not from the outside world into the cockpit. Basically the IVA interior should be loaded outside a vessel and all windows shouldn't be opaque, all the way to being completely transparent if you ask me. Unless Kerbals are gangsters requiring dark windows to protect their identity or something, yeah, in space, right... I'll only say "IR" I want to see Jeb and Val drink tea in the Mk 3 crew cabin, spilling it over the flight displays and getting into conflict (of all sorts) Behaviour will be linked to their courage and stupidity levels (determining several stereotypes for Kerbal behaviour)

@GalileoDidn't know this was a revived older mod, had I only known about this earlier EDIT: Snipped Didn't read the OP correctly. Never repped you, and your rep isn't on par with your total post count yet. Let me help you with this

If bits and pieces of this game were once "major gameplay" updates to you then why can't you remember? A few key taps and some mouse clicks will get you overviews of updates. That's the same with a ex-mate. While they age they become less popular and if you forget to water her ditch they'll become abandoned By the way, things happen you know. And you say it yourself, "ex-popular" I can't make things popular for you (or anyone) because other chose to popularize other mods. Tell me what in KSP is stagnating exactly, because you know something I don't. Pacman hasn't died in nearly 4 decades, so I'll give KSP a century at least. It seems you have preconditions on what determines the designation "being dead" Making assumptions on self formulated preconditions to construct a argument is never really a attention getter. As long as there's still a copy available and you keep playing it your keeping it alive. If there was something nostalgic back in the day that appeals to you, know that it is your nostalgia. I think your a troll by the way, so I probably shouldn't even type this. But it might be better next time to put the topic into a question. As in- Is KSP dead these days? Rather then stating that it is.

Maybe... Any chance you have SAS targeted at a node (other then stability assist) Maybe you don't notice it and it's activated. This would cause the ship to yaw (A and D) and pitch (W and S) but it wouldn't affect roll (Q and E) So you might be fighting the yaw and pitch cause SAS tries to maneuver elsewhere to i.e. pro/retrograde, radial in/out or normal/antinormal. Since this doesn't affect rolling (Q and E) you might find this part to be unaffected. And thus it only looks like a bug while it isn't. Maybe you unintentionally turned this on?

if the slope is to big you can try to zigzag. So don't try to ride over the steepest part of the hill in front of you, but curve over the hill in hairpin bends. Added to that, increase friction on the wheels and if proven not useful try to add more wheels. I make Eve rovers and have them carry a ISRU to supply fuel back to the ship. In some cases I give the rover a small boost so it will climb the hill using a smaller engine. I hate roving on Eve though. When I do rove on Eve I pick a specific course using "Bon voyage" or "Mechjeb rove autopilot" let is finish and then do something else. Repeat everyday until you get to your destination, rather then babysit your monitor until your Eve rover gets somewhere, which is tedious like a teddy.

As stated by aegolius13, it's better to make use of the Oberth effect. Some basic calculus will evaluate this, but just see Wikipedia for some basic to mid depth information on the maneuver. Burning closer to the Pe of the departure planet (Kerbin in this case, but accounts to every gravitational body) for a escape trajectory is more efficient then doing the interplanetary burn later on. So getting into a escape trajectory and then doing a interplanetary burn is more costly Delta-V wise. To get to Moho I would use Eve as a gravity assist to change your inclination around the ecliptic to match that of Moho's. You need next to no Dv for this other then a well executed fly by (gravity assist) of Eve. Matching it's inclination (Moho's orbit angle around the sun) will deduce the Dv required to slow down at Moho. It's also important that you match Moho on its Apoapsis around the Sun. Kerbin has a completely circular orbit. Moho has a somewhat considerable elliptical orbit of 6.3 million Kilometers by 4.2 million kilometers around the Sun. Adding to that is that Moho is much closer to the Sun overall. So the relative speeds are much greater on top of the previous mentioned fact. This also means that the penalty of slowing down between moho's Pe and Ap around the Sun is much greater then that of any other planet. This means that with a inefficient approach when not minding inclination or Moho's Pe around the Sun but using a direct approach from Kerbin to Moho you can need as much as 6000 Delta V to get into Moho orbit upon arrival during a unfavourable launch window. Taking the efficient approach when minding a inclination change and arrival at Moho's Ap then you can get as low as 3200 m/s Dv (maybe even less). For this you pick the right launch window and you'll use Eve to lower your Pe around the Sun and change the inclination. Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean you have one stage burning to SOI escape, then undock and recover that stage back at Kerbin? As in, is it a recoverable launch system your getting at? So the answer to this is "Yes" Not just in Moho's case but in any case. Also, you don't need to assemble anything in LKO. It's perfectly possible to get crew and some science equipment to Moho in a single launch. Unless you have a potato computer that can't run on many parts, then I would do multiple launches and assemble what's required in Orbit. The planeshaped vessels are probably SSTO's using ION engines or a combination of that with LF and LF/O engines (ION engines is the engine with the blue exhaust) ION engines are often optimized for low volume, drag and weight. ION engines are very low powered and not much fun to play with if you value your real life minutes. But they're very efficient and only work fluently with a lighter less complicated vessel to deduce part count and weight. Nuclear rockets may do the same but are bulkier due to stats (weight and isp) of the Nerva engine. So that's why the nuclear rockets are larger while doing the same. Both methods can be used for transfer to Moho and back. ION engines are way to small for considerable payload. So if you bring multi tons to the scene, go the nuclear route and only use a ION on the latter stages if that turns out beneficial in deducing total mass, parts at launch. Moho missions using ION engines are often a probe or 1 to 2 crew vessels with the only intention to land a kerbal there and do a few small experiments and get back to Kerbin again. You only need about 12.5 km/s Delta V to get to Moho and back. 3500 m/s to get into LKO. (can be less if your going for optimal efficiency) 1670 m/s to get a Moho encounter (can be less, about 1100 m/s using Eve as a gravity assist) 3200 m/s to slow down at Moho. 1800 m/s to land at Moho and return to Orbit. 2370 m/s to get back to Kerbin (1570 m/s Dv when using Eve to assist back to Kerbin) So that's 3500 + 1670 + 3200 + 1800 + 2370 = 12.540 Dv and not 16 km/s. And it's going to be less if you take the Dv shortcuts using the gravity assists. But I haven't thrown spare Dv numbers into the mix so I'll add up a couple of hundred for the entire mission. Have you verified the data of the Dv sheet posted (wherever the source of this Dv sheet is located)

@DAL59 Clear

Haven't used tweakscale much myself. I don't think it will matter much. Tweakscale does exactly what the name says, it scales things. So part values should be maintained I think, but I'm guessing here as I've only used TS a couple of times. My take on this so far... But if those values are maintained you won't get any benefit other then the benefit of the square cube law. I haven't magnified how numbers of wet and dry mass scale up with TS. But tweakscaling something should change the square cube values even in KSP, right? Also, SLT matters (sea level thrust), but not much. The difference between vacuum thrust and atmospheric thrust parameters shown on the part information list is the ISP difference between 1 atmosphere (the Launchpad) and space (70 km up) The ISP gains immediately as you gain altitude, and you only need a few kilometers altitude to be halfway to your vacuum ISP. It's better to have a vacuum optimized rocket rather then a atmospheric optimized rocket. Unless you takeoff from Eve, have a very high twr rocket with a very early gravity turn I wouldn't even waste my time optimizing it for optimal atmospheric efficiency. You often do better giving your rocket more thrust and making it more aerodynamic then to nitpick a engine for the 1st minute of flight, but you can obviously. I wouldn't use the Aerospike ever, but I did a few times on Eve. It has good atmospheric isp, yes! But they're quite heavy for the thrust they provide. I wouldn't necessarily advice against non gimballing rocket engines like the aerospike. Some good placed fins far enough down and some adequate reaction wheels and a well timed gravity turn will get you to orbit trust me. But I simply wouldn't because the aerospike just isn't the best choice imho.

@DDE Even better

I also got the Steam version. Almost everyone runs this game on PC. There are a few weirdos all platform ksp lovers, and so some have a Xbox copy besides their pc version. They're the minority though. Most that haven't gotten the pc version desperately want it on pc but don't have the money for better pc hardware so they play on console as they usually already own one. If everyone had the money for a good pc and we're all informed on the differences and modability on the pc version then I bet the console version of KSP would currently have next to zero sales. Meaning more next to zero then it does now Check the total post count in Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One) to see my point. Last reply was more then a week ago (12 nov)

Not that this proves much cheaper. Or that it is a good idea for a return profit at all. The idea of catapulting just isn't. But what about building a several kilometer deep elevator. A elevator that can push several hundred Metric ton and accelerate it to, euhm, let's just say to sub/transonic velocities. In the last few hundred meters reaching the surface acceleration will stop, clamps will be released and the engine ignited. The rocket pushes on it's own power a 100 or so meters below the surface when the rocket clamps releases the elevator from the rocket. The elevator platform is then timely decelerated to stop before the end of the tunnel so it doesn't collide with the installation on the surface. The rocket then shoots out from below at transonic velocities only to maintain velocity up to and after Max Q. So you need less thrust only to maintain it. So a TWR of 1.05 should suffice, so that's less engines (less weight), less thrust (fuel consumption) and less time spent for the firing rocket engines in the denser part of the atmosphere. The elevator probably needs a lot of equipment, air circulation to maintain sane air pressures within the tunnel it's launched from. This is completely hypothetical, I wouldn't know how to get a orbital rocket several clicks under, but let's assume all that equipment were in place. But as for any randomly thrown out idea there's probably a gazillion of reasons why this is impossible, or not? It's probably not worth the investment. It would pay back over a very long time period as the project would be quite costly. But for the big bucks invested it will pay back over time if you could properly manage this.

It is so obvious that with some local gravel or dirt one could make a small lump for heightening elevation from available soil. But you can't do that in KSP unfortunately, there is no spade or a ability to use your hands to interact with the ground or anything, but this is the idea behind it. Whenever I forget a ladder or when my cockpit is to high due to long front gear then I temporarily set gravity to 0.33 in the debug menu and then use my jetpack to get back in the cockpit. Then I tell myself there was a ladder there in the most delusional sense After all, I could have made a lump, and KSP doesn't have to know right? So unless the height is so much that I require a hill, or a construction that is required that can never be locally assembled by Kerbal hands, only then I'll discard this behaviour of mine. But this is just one of those personal playthrough rules of mine. And generally I don't forget the ladder or make sure he gets in any other typical way. I know the gravity slider is a in game cheat/tool. But realistically a sentient being would allow himself to build a temporary lump from dirt or even staircase/ladder from available twigs, plants etc. So with some logical reasoning it isn't a cheat, but simply a good help in the circumstance described in the OP. If you got more crew in the vessel one could also give a helping hand from the cockpit hatch. But Kerbals are not very helpful to one another in this game. Atleast Val should be able to get on Jeb's shoulders to reach for the cockpit hatch. Close contact behaviour is primitive in Kerbal kind. To facilitate this behaviour Kerbals require equipment, which is sad but accord. By the way, if your mission was already finished you can recover the Kerbal first and then the aircraft in the tracking station. Just saying if this is the case.

What's your native language? Some youtubers have playthroughs in local languages (Russian, portugese, german, French, dutch, Spanish etc) It's often better to understand something by watching a video rather then reading the wiki, especially if it's narrated in your own language, something you would likely prefer I guess. Until your electric charge runs out

If something is sturdy or reinforced it is internal construction that keeps it from collapsing like a house of cards. That is how I make my rockets. Is it not strong enough? I redesign the stages or I use autostrut. That stupid strut part adds to parts, is very draggy and your craft still wobbles. I also got the feeling I'm building a cable bridge rather then a rocket when I go nuts using the strut part, because obviously I had to back in the day. No Struts for me. This part also behaves odd. The width of this duct is probably wide enough for 1 person to live underwater but straw like enough to suffocate a whole family submerged 3 feet under. Apparently it plumbs several hundred units of LF/O per second, probably up to infinite amounts. That while in real life it's not possible to plumb fuel between several stages (yet), no mind at the rate some engine setups can consume fuel in KSP. Realistically you'd need a hose for the cryogenic oxygen separately from the rocket propellant. Because of this I set myself the rule to not asparagus stage ever, even on Eve where you don't necessarily require this. Although I'm sure to make the exception there if I were to do a challenge in that area, but otherwise no fuel ducts will be used in my gameplay. I still use parallel staging. I just add MOAR engines to the necessary stages and limit thrust on some stages while activating new ones (if necessary) when dropping the spent ones. When you do it right it is only less efficient then asparagus to a minimal degree. Asparagus staging is only worth so much and really diminishes ultimately.

It would be cool if this was possible ofcourse, and I know that this is the discussion at hand, I'll see if I can add advice of my own. But does it really need to be a SSTTSAB (Single stage to tylo surface and back) I also find the term SSTO vague. Single stage to orbit, hmm, okay then! So why does the same term apply when it goes single stage to orbit, then goes to Tylo to get back in one piece? Why is it still called a SSTO when it goes beyond orbit to land elsewhere and get back home again? Why not SSTELB (single spaceship to Extraterrestrial Lithospheres and back) Remember: It is single stage to orbit. It already did that when it entered LKO. There's nothing more to prove to qualify for the term SSTO, regardless of what the vessel does next. SSTO is getting to orbit from a surface without shedding any hardware. A SSTO is still a SSTO when it stages after getting to orbit. Whether that is when achieving LKO or entering Tylo orbit. Hereby a idea you might allow if the original manner/method of this challenge proves unreachable. Try making a two stage SSTO. So that's a SSTO that can get to LKO or LTO but can stage into two separate vessels. One stage is the ship itself and all the raw engine power, landing gear, fuel tanks to get to tylo surface and back. The other stage is what holds your interplanetary ION engines (assuming you'll go the ION route), solar panels and all the stuff you don't require on Tylo's surface. Land, get back to orbit again, dock with the module you left in LTO and thrust your ass back to Kerbin. Land as you took off, with everything you brought with you, minus the fuel of course. Result: Same as a SSTO in that you bring everything home. You just stage at the destination to make it easier for you.

1st of all. A picture of your plane? I don't know what your level of engineering is. But in the lower left corner of the VAB and SPH are the following 3 buttons. Center of Mass (CoM) Center of Thrust (CoT) Center of Lift (CoL) Activate these when building your plane. The pics below are not of a plane, I just strapped something together in my own career. You want CoT (pink orb/arrow) to move through the center of weight (CoM) Sailing boats have there CoT (from the wind) high up against the sails. That's why you have to feather the sails in order not to keel over. Same with rockets and planes, although they use rockets and not sails ofcourse and the term is not to keel over but besides that, kinda similar. This effect is shown on the 2nd pic by offsetting the engine. This is very over the top ofcourse, but sometimes a pixel or two of offset from the CoT to the CoM can in combination with other factors turn into disaster. The CoM is the center of weight and thus the pivoting point for the thrust vector and lift itself. The blue orb (CoL) keeps that center of weight (CoM) aloft. Move the CoL to close into the CoM and you'll get stability issues. Unless you fix things with front and rear stabilizers it will be like walking on a ball control wise. It will be a very flippy floppy turn upside down airplane ride. Move the CoL to far from the CoM in any fwt and aft direction and you get control issues and additional problems when going into high speed/altitude or even suborbital flights. Good Bad What is the total mass at launch? What is the total mass with tanks half full? Half the weight or thereabout? If you get to 120m/s over the entire course of the runway, you simply don't have the thrust. Add more engines. With fuel tanks drained your momentum is greater because you have more thrust compared to the total weight. Factors of thrust against units of mass (TWR) and greater momentum with drained fuel tanks scale up. The result is, a much shorter takeoff roll. Those figures aren't that strange to be honest. What is wrong about KSP are the aerodynamics. They fail, simply put. 120m/s you say? That's like 430 km/h. Isn't this the category where bricks with air pockets start flying? In ksp you can only do so much. Add moar wings? Put incidence on the main wing. This allows it to catch more air at the same nose up attitude since incidence on the wing creates a greater angle of attack when pitching up during takeoff. You can use the strut part. Attach it to the wings from the fuselage to reinforce it. It looks nasty though and struts produce considerable drag. So that's not to kindly for a plane that wants to go fast. There is a other strutting solution. Go the the main menu > settings > General Tab (default) and check "Advanced tweakables" Now go back to the SPH (your plane) and right click any part and use the "autostrut" button. Generally a wing that is autostrutted to "Grandparent part" or "Root part" will be strong enough. Oh, and like is already said. Don't put gear on the wings, only on the fuselage which is sturdier. You can still use the Move tool in the SPH to drag the landing gear to a favourable position, so that they look as if they're attached to the wings while they actually aren't. There's not much on Kerbin, or any planet for that matter. Unless you like mountain views, find easter eggs or build something like a base on a location of your choosing. I do think you'll find it sporty, challenging and fun to go elsewhere. Getting a plane to work is one thing. If this is a game you keep hanging on to you will most likely do all the other stuff and get your rigs all the way across the solar system. Have fun flying though