Leatherneck

Well that solved my problem I think. I wasn't paying attention, and going nuts wondering why it wasn't working, since I had near identical orbits to what was asked. Going in the right direction helps lol. EDIT: Yes. I just had to flip my orbit around.

^ This. The first Space Station I built, was to force me to learn docking. I told myself no interplanetary missions until I could dock consistently. I found that around 150 km was my "sweet spot", and there's a tutorial video or two that I've seen that also puts it there. Not sure why the OP is opposed to watching one, especially the Scott Manley one, but to each his own.

@Amramand Murph Thanks for the information. Like Nao, I too know how wings work, and for me Bernoulli's Principle has always been the simplest explanation of lift. There's a lot less math involved, and the simple diagram usually is enough to satisfy curiosity.

Okay, where's the source on that? Your description goes directly against Bernoulli's principle, or you are also describing it incorrectly. The air going over the top of the wing (standard shape) has to move faster than the bottom, which causes lower pressure on the top, and the higher pressure air underneath pushes the wing up. It has nothing to do with air being pushed down. This is why you can stall an aircraft from too steep of an angle of attack, because the air flow "breaks" and you get a dead zone which breaks up the effect. Flaps (back of wing) and Slats (front of wing) will affect the shape of the wing to alter for changes in airspeed and the desire for more/less lift, but the principle remains the same.

Of course they're going to ignore your post, it's far easier to ignore it than address it with a valid counterpoint.

I agree, but Deadly Re-Entry should be a toggle off option for newer players at least.

For starters, we're doing Aerospace Engineering, which encompasses both. You can't really have one without the other, and since both are in the game, ignoring the aerodynamics is basically like only exercising one arm, so I would not say it is a relatively small part of the complete picture. It affects the rockets, SSTO Spaceplanes, and standard aircraft. You shouldn't need a mod to have a relatively accurate model in a game that chose to include aerodynamics. We're not talking about DCS or MSFS, but as it is we launch square rockets because round ones are less aerodynamic... It's not about aesthetics either. I've built a lot of stable aircraft to explore the many biomes of Kerbin, and people have made wonderful stock craft that don't need a mod. However, for the beginning player, exploring Kerbin with an aircraft shouldn't be as frustrating as it is. If you have to come to the forums to understand the basics of making a plane with the system currently in place, that should say something. Launching a rocket is far more intuitive, because it's simpler to an extent as it is. I want resources and economy just as much as everyone else, but this is right up there. I like to play stock (although I use Chatterer, Protractor, and Kerbal Alarm Clock, but that doesn't affect the game mechanics) but I shouldn't have to use a mod to enjoy a part of the game just because people want a new feature before fixing the less than ideal one.

Now just needs some scarlet & gold.

I'd have to go with this. My lander can now be shaved of a lot of extra mass, and I don't have to send multiple missions, probes, etc. While I can't speak for anything past Duna yet, I'd assume the efficiency of packing the Science Lab with a light lander is going to save me more weight overall.

Great job! I only just got my first rover onto Duna about an hour ago, which you'd think I'd have accomplished sooner with 176 hours put into KSP. Partly out of procrastination, partly to master the Mun/Minmus and Docking, and partly because I thought it was going to be far more daunting. Fortunately, it was not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. I may have experienced rapid vehicle dis-assembly with the sky crane in the process, but I got the rover on the surface long enough to transmit some science. Too bad I forgot a solar panel... However, I did get a good spot with the rover to land on, so I think a manned mission is the next step. I agree that it is really even more rewarding though when you make a manned round trip.

Lol. You wanna know why Bill and Bob freak out every launch? It is because Jeb is saying "You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?" (The quote is from Armageddon.)

It gets cold when you aren't under your bridge.

I've only done something similar between Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus, but I slingshot around. Catch the SOI on a burn, do a course correction to get a change in orbit, then use the gravity to pull my course in the direction I need. I've found I need a good window to do stuff like that. Best way is how NASA did the Apollo missions to the moon, doing a "Figure-8" without obviously going back and forth. Also, what side of the planet you catch makes a difference in speed. One way will slow you down, good for saving Delta-V if you're planning on surveying that object, and the other will speed you up which is what Scott Manley is probably doing. I'm not sure which video you're referring to though, so I can't say for sure.

EDIT: ^ Best answer.

Lol, I had to show my wife this, she laughed. To the OP, congrats. Just don't try to put more boosters on space mountain if you honeymoon at Disneyland. Security gets mad.

Oh, I'm totally in the same boat as you, I oppose dumbing things down. I was just saying that the OP's approach to games might not mesh well to how the OP approaches real life. The logical answer to every problem is to complain it's broken when you don't understand it right? Complaining on the same forum that has tutorials clearly shows us nerds we have been doing it wrong. Wait... Okay, I see your point. That's not the game's fault, it isn't the game's job to remind me to do things that should be routine, nor it is it the game's job to tell me that my design is terrible and going to explode mid-flight. Next the OP is going to complain that they ran out of fuel because some other unrelated space program never did. Hell, I love the fact that I can make some great designs, and then it goes haywire because I forgot something, didn't do something right, etc. There's all sorts of things Last night for example, I was sending a probe to Moho. Had about 7 days until my window, so I figured I'd launch my probe, get it into orbit, take care of some other flights and time warp to my window. So my window rolls around, and my probe is reacting sluggishly because I forgot a SAS, and still had one stage to go before it was better, but playing in map mode so didn't think much of it. As a result I miss my window by a lot because of the SAS thing, so Duna has a window in 14 days so I figure I'll just change up my mission and I'll shoot another probe to Moho later. Duna's window rolls around and.... no response. wtf?! Turns out, I was so preoccupied with what I was doing, being in map mode kept me from seeing that I forgot to deploy my solar panels... Oops. On the plus side, now I can launch a new one that has SAS.

Kind of a harsh statement, as there are a lot of variables to consider. Maybe OP is a tad short in their history lessons? OP is comparing the starting capsule to the Gemini Program when it should be compared to Project Mercury, that had short missions, like 15 minutes with the longest one not even lasting 2 days! (Side note, I'd not mind having a Gemini-esque capsule. between the start and when you get the Apollo-esque one) Frankly, the reality of it is that in career mode, over the span of one week in game (Kerbal Time), you can basically cover (and probably surpass) most of the actual real life space programs. Skills aside, it doesn't take a player all that long to go from a craptastic rocket, to Mun and Minmus missions. In a month (Kerbal Time) I have put a space station in orbit over Kerbin, landed Kerbals nearly a dozen times on Mun, and completed a manned and unmanned Minmus mission. Some players have reported that they can pretty much open the entire tech tree in only a handful of missions. Think about that. Yes, career mode and the tech tree needs work. However, what's the point of giving a player the tools for a prolonged space flight when they should be mastering getting something into orbit first? So much of the rest of the game is understanding those mechanics, because docking, going the Mun or anywhere for that matter hinges on what you learn with the first tier. Seriously, in those 15 minute missions, you can get really high levels of science doing very little. Between an orbit around the equator, and an orbit around the poles, I generated a ton of science. Add in just screwing around KSC, and there's even more science to gain. By then, plenty of missions just trying to aim re-entries for specific biomes for science, I had more than enough science to get solar panels before I even was in space long enough to need them. I'm no Scott Manley, but by the time I was designing craft that realistically needed solar panels, I already had them unlocked.

Yeah, if you do most of the work with the rescue ship, Jeb shouldn't have to use too much to close the gap. It is possible, as I had to do something similar once with an ailing space craft that was unable to maneuver at all.

Lowering the vertical engine more? Placing it on a pylon versus a wing for example. It would keep the aesthetic, but alleviate some of the control issues.

Lol same here, my first docking attempt when building my Space Station I ran out of Mono-propellant, so I had to get very creative with what little liquid fuel I had left. I ended up doing this multiple times (would dock, then re-load the save) to practice. Funny thing is that I ended up having to send up a new module of the one I spent so much time trying to dock because I forgot to put couplers on it for the rest of the modules. However, I can now fairly consistently dock with my Space Station, and I rarely need all that much Mono-propellant to do it anymore. I've gotten rather efficient with docking, so think I'm ready to start working on my first interplanetary setup.

All of these are good points. Also, test them on Kerbin. If it flips or does something crazy there (like the grassland), it will be 100x worse on Mun and Minmus. Of course, I've also had super stable rovers on Kerbin that freak out on Mun, but that's because I didn't widen or lower the CoM enough.

Very nice. This was very similar to the one I had made, but a physical hard drive failure trashed it along with a good portion of the needed portion to boot windows. So, catching up on the forums while I am recovering that PC... Then the joy of re-installing some of my Steam Library begins.

Same here. It's next to the other post options, so I kinda saw it right away.

Harriers are already naval.

I thought so. I keep meaning to install that one, but always get sidetracked.