MBobrik

Upload it, double click on it, a menu opens with various means of accessing it.In the upper right somewhere you will find a direct http link to the jpg. then just insert it here as an image.

yes you do, it's free.

try http://imgur.com/

You shoud launch when it is at a certain angle to get there as fast as one can go, but if you just want to get there, it doesn't really matter. Just get your apoapsis to the mun orbit,fly there, and when you are there, circularize and then proceed like you wanted to rendezvous with the mun. you can even select it as the target.

what about starting with an equatorial orbit to begin with ? It's easy. the space center happens to be exactly on the equator. just fly exactly straight east.

try this one

I think your biggest problem is currently not being able to explain what exactly is your problem

Use the delta-v map to determine how much delta-v you actually need. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25360-Delta-V-map Then build a more efficient, or just bigger rocket that satisfies those demands. kerbin-> LKO 4500 m/s LKO->mun transfer 860 m/s mun transfer -> mun orbit 210 m/s mun orbit -> mun 640 m/s and back mun -> mun orbit 640 m/s mun orbit -> mun escape 210 m/s mun escape -> kerbin 860 m/s ( you will just re-enter so you won't need further delta-v) = 7920 m/s, say 9000, with a comfortable reserve. use for example the Engineer redux mod to compute the delta-v in VAB

. If you, and, in fact, many trying to replicate your experiment, fail, then, yes. the hypothesis on which it is based has been falsified. If something would not count as testable just because it is possible to make excuses when it fails the test, nothing would be, because excuses can be made up just always and anywhere.

Killed four kerbals trying to find the south-west anomaly ... only to discover that it is floating cca 100 m above the ground and thus inaccessible by a rover...

devices are marked red.

. . You build the device, you activate it. Works ? Good for you. Doesn't work ? Hypothesis falsified. Just tell me, how it could not be a testable hypothesis ?

empirical test : Payload = 3 ton, dV = 1339 m/s, TWR= 5.78, Mass = 6.375 ton . Payload = 3 ton, dV = 1324 m/s, TWR= 6.67, Mass = 5.04 ton = you really saved 1.335 ton, but there seems to be something off with my equation

. Dunno how you did the equations but Mtotal = (FuelRatio-1)/(FuelRatio-exp(dV/g/Isp))*(Mengine+Mpayload) . where tank FuelRatio = Mfull/Mempty = 9 g = 9.81 dV required = 1500 (Mun orbit up and down with some reserve) Mpayload = 3 ton gives for Isp = 800 Mengine = 2.25 Mtotal = 5.392 ton but for Isp = 300 Mengine = 0.27 ( 3 * 0.09 ) Mtotal = 3.566 ton = given the same performance ( TWR dV Mpayload ) you can build a much lighter lander using 24-77. . either that, or my calculations are wrong

Other possibility for smaller landers is Rockomax 24-77 3 produce the same thrust but together weight only 12 % of LV-N. They eat more fuel, sure, but for small landers the reduction in dry mass pays out.

Done. This one can make full turn at its top speed. 3 x SAS and wheels as close to COM as possible seem to do the trick. Now comes the Minmus test. .

I've managed it. Creating rover so stable that it can drive on two wheels w/o flipping. Almost unflippable. I had actually hard time to flip it intentionally. The secret ? Make it so tiny that probe SAS torque is stronger than the torque from the wheels. now the same with a bigger can

Did you lock the gimbal of your front engines ? thrust vectoring and being in front of the center of mass don't work properly together in KSP.

There was nothing personal in my comment. You've just been so good at describing this myopic attitude that I've mistaken you for one of its proponents

then stop talking like you were actually justifying it

There were sure quite a few lazy fat naysayers back then too . Yet we moved past them and here we are. Maybe this time they are going to win, and our species as a whole loses the game. But I don't want it to end that way. Do you ?

During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries.[17]

1. The resources spent to sending groups of cavemen out over the desert is NOT an investment, it is a loss, because those resources are being sent outside the African savanna and outside of circulation. Doing it your way our ancestors would never leave east African savanna and all human history would not happen.

You can have a shaped charge. then 80 % of the blast is converted to thrust.

actually, kerbals on EVA can fix this and deploy panels manually