How to fly to another planets effective without mechjeb?

[paul23]

The difficult "part" is in calculate the angle offset you need to have between kerbin and another planet. And another thing is "guessing" (calculation is also very much possible) the delta-V.

Basics

As said you would do a Holman transfer. And for simplicity you could consider the start and final orbit to be circular. In that case why don't you just try? bring yourself in a (in planar) orbit around kerbal by escaping from kerbin. Add a node and start adding (removing) delta-v until your transfer orbit touches the orbit you wish to achieve.

Then you start moving the maneuvering node around your original orbit. (While making sure you keep touching the desired end orbit). At some point you will have an encounter with the planet you wish to achieve (always within 1 year/full circle). And there you have your most efficient orbit planned.

Life support

Now this orbit might be almost a full year in the future, and then another 3 year transfer. For stock KSP this isn't a big problem: just time skip. However as you said you use a life support mod. This changes things around a bit. Initially you still wish to make a hohmann transfer. However you would not like to wait 100 days before you can start the transfer - while orbitting kerbol already. So what to do? Well there are several methods but one keyword is most important: plan it. The goal is still the same, what happens is still the same - but you need to calculate everything a bit more.

- First method you could do is do the same as above. Once you found the time & position for the transfer orbit, note this time - and then press "revert mission". Then just a bit before the time you noted you launch your craft. In such a way you leave kerbin at the right time. - This might be a bit "cheaty" but it's nothing more than letting the engine do the calculations for you.

- Secondly is doing the calculations by hand. The calculations aren't that difficult, a bit involving yet but not too difficult. Basically you calculate the half - period of the transfer orbit. You then also calculate the angular speed of the resulting planet (based on a circular orbit), and then you calculate the offset between the planet. If angular speed is omega and the transfer time is T the difference in degrees is:

alpha = 180 - omega * T

Notice however that this in principle only works with circular resulting and starting orbit. For any elliptical orbit this is quite a bit more involved - Not quite possible to solve algebraically.

- Which brings us to the third method: use a numerical solution - so let the computer calculate the transfer point. Either use one of the many websites or use mechjeb.

Reflection

Is this "best"? Well here it becomes even more difficult, and this is a question that can't be solved in a simple topic. What is the definition of "best"? The Hohman transfer will use the least amount of energy/delta V. And it will be a good solution. However is lowest amount of delta-V all that is required? Is delta-V a killer requirement?

In real life hohmann transfer is hardly ever used on interplanetary transfers. One reason is that the transfer window is very limited, it's not easily possible to do fly-bys and plan trajectories to other planets from a Hohmann transfer.

But the more important reason - also for KSP is time requirements. The Hohmann transfer is typically quite slow, with a bit more delta-V you can make the transfer quite a bit faster. And this is a choice you will have to make: do I want to optimize for delta-V, or time + delta-V?

[Polnoch]

I make some screenshots too.

Now my active mods:

My orbit station without any docking

Orbit station with:

1) kerbal's Mun/Minmas lander,

2) buster module for lander (help to lander fly between Orbit Station and orbits around Minmas and Mun)

3) Vessel for Science data(I need to move it on Kerbin after all missions for Mun and Minmas) and recover Kerbonauts missions (some times I take this kind of missions, and give to kerbin both - science data and recovered Kerbonaut)

4) On this screen doesn't exist. Refueller, for refuel buster module and lander.

Minmas un-management lander:

My first un-management lander to Mun

Explorer-5, one in series. I launch 6 same un-management vessels for Duna and Eve, but not all achieved destination, becouse fuel ended

This craft also can't make pereapsis below:

And this is my re-usable, re-refillable lander on Minmus:

- - - Updated - - -

Also, in your previous post, you mentioned a mod that limits your Oxygen supply - to make it more realistic -, but you also say that your ships are "unmanaged", and you explain that as "there are no Kerbals onboard". But if there are no Kerbals, what does it matter if you have less oxygen? It doesn't make it easier, but it doesn't make it harder, either!

Still my English is not fine Please see screenshots. I had un-management landers on the Mun in the past. Now I have re-usable (by orbit station and refueller) management lander for Mun and Minmas.

But did you read my message about enough resources? Legs are USELESS, if you fall down at 300 m/s and have no fuel to slow down! Even with a thousand legs, you are going to be a puddle!

Yes, I did. But I had problem with fuel because I can't, in start game, fast slow down horizontal speed. My first Mun lander can't landed correct, because I burned all fuel, when I tryed to find horizontal ground and fix horizontal speed, and, landed with little horizontal speed. I thought, he has same problem.

But you've still CHEATED, because the autopilot did it all for you!

But I never used autopilot in my career. And I don't want use MJ, becouse it include it.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Polnoch

[paul23]

That mun lander is way to high to land. It will be so top heavy that it's impossible to land except on perfectly flat surfaces. Try to keep the aspect ratios about 3/4th as high vs wide as you've done there. On minmus this is less important - both because most areas are way more flat than on the mun - and because the gravity is lower (so it's much easier to get in an unstable equilibrium).

Also is that an ant engine?

I'm highly doubtful that engine is most efficient - an LV 909 would do the job much better probably.

[Polnoch]

Really, just TRY to play the game the hard way first. No mods. As long as you haven't done that, you don't know ANYTHING!

But I understand that you do not WANT to believe me. I think that you're afraid of failure. You want to win without risk of losing. But my dear, if there is nothing to lose, then you aren't really winning anything at all. You're just lying to yourself!

Anyway, I'm not going to try and convince you any further, because we don't want to get mad at each other, do we?

If you like a challenge, try to do it my way. And if not, then not. It's your own choice.

Could you please named which my mod is cheated? And, why? I think, I haven't cheated mods. Probably Kerbal Engeneer only one, but it support calculate delta speed in hangaar. I usually don't use it information when I launch. I looking for completly-not cheated alternative.

If game has mods - it's not automatic become to cheated status. It can be more difficult (becouse life support mod exist...), and more intersting (becouse KAS, KIS, PlanetaryBase extended game). Or you think, AlarmClock is cheat? It only support to game with more vessels (becouse without Alarm Clock your brain support... probably 2-3 maneuvers)

[magnemoe]

8) Also Kerbal Engeneer is some cheat, but I don't know another way to understand delta of speed of all stages. If anybody know, please tell me.

I say that providing dV information also during flight is an must its also something who is planned for stock, my car tells me estimated range on fuel left why not an spaceship?

Without it you fly blind.

[Polnoch]

Also is that an ant engine?

Do you mean ISP?

ISP of LV-909 Terrier =345 in vacuum, but ISP of ant engine = 315. But Mass of Ant engine = 0.02, and this is really little! Also, to this craft I attach Oscar-B tank ( 0.225 mass). How I can use LV-909? It's mass bigger then mass of LV909 (0.5)

- - - Updated - - -

I say that providing dV information also during flight is an must its also something who is planned for stock, my car tells me estimated range on fuel left why not an spaceship?

Without it you fly blind.

Don't worry, I installed it before I registred here. It's not my peradventures bad advice - to install KER. I only has feel pangs of conscience,

becouse KER include flight engineer. Anybody, how do you think, is flight engineer some cheater, or it's my paranoia?

[radonek]

Also is that an ant engine?

I'm highly doubtful that engine is most efficient - an LV 909 would do the job much better probably.

Not necessarily. 909 weights half a ton. If half a ton minus weight of an ant (pun inteded) of fuel gives you more delta-v then what you save with 909, ant is a better option. Ant is a good choice for really tiny probes.

[BoilingOil]

Could you please named which my mod is cheated? And, why? I think, I haven't cheated mods. Probably Kerbal Engeneer only one, but it support calculate delta speed in hangaar. I usually don't use it information when I launch. I looking for completly-not cheated alternative.

If game has mods - it's not automatic become to cheated status. It can be more difficult (becouse life support mod exist...), and more intersting (becouse KAS, KIS, PlanetaryBase extended game). Or you think, AlarmClock is cheat? It only support to game with more vessels (becouse without Alarm Clock your brain support... probably 2-3 maneuvers)

I'll tell you why...

And, please tell, how are you can make Hohman-Transfers without any external tools.

THAT is why! You need help to make Hohmann Transfers, but I do not worry about making it perfect or super efficient. So I do not make a Hohmann Transfer yet, but I can make transfers without external tools. For me, THAT is an accomplishment! I've already sent probes into orbits around several planets. You have that too, but you had help, and I did not!

I can do maths problems without grabbing for my calculator or phone all the time. I can do it in my head, I can do it with a pencil and a piece of paper, or I can use a slide ruler or even a logarithmic table (just a book with difficult numbers). If you can only do maths with your calculator or phone, then you know NOTHING of maths. If your phone runs out of power, you cannot do your math problems anymore. But *I* can!

And that's why I say: FIRST learn to do things the difficult way, and THEN use tools.

You say you want the game to be more of a challenge. Ditch KER and ditch StageRecovery and a few others. Make it harder for yourself, and show that you can do things the hard way WITHOUT a mod holding your hand. That's a real challenge!

[Padishar]

Don't worry, I installed it before I registred here. It's not my peradventures bad advice - to install KER. I only has feel pangs of conscience,

becouse KER include flight engineer. Anybody, how do you think, is flight engineer some cheater, or it's my paranoia?

KSP is a single player game and, unless you are competing in challenges with defined rules then, there is no such thing as cheating. Just play the game in whatever way gives you the most fun and don't listen to people that say ridiculous things like:

if you haven't ever tried this without mods telling you what to do, then you haven't really achieved ANYTHING

Most of the mods you've used don't actually tell you what to do and, in any case, so what if they do. Even if you use every autopilot feature of MJ to fly your mission, you've still built a vessel and decided which particular maneuvers you needed to tell MJ to do at what times and the vessel was capable of doing them. This is considerably more than "haven't really achieved ANYTHING".

Edit:

You say you want the game to be more of a challenge. Ditch KER and ditch StageRecovery and a few others. Make it harder for yourself, and show that you can do things the hard way WITHOUT a mod holding your hand. That's a real challenge!

I think you're misunderstanding what the OP is asking for. In any case, your advice doesn't make a lot of sense. KER and StageRecovery do not "hold your hand" and removing them may well remove lots of the fun of the game. Lots of people want to know how much deltaV their vessel has without having to do the considerable calculations that would be required. Just make your own decision about what you find fun and play the game whatever way you like.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Padishar

[BoilingOil]

Wanting to know is one thing, but not being able to play without is something else, Padishar.

I want to know how to land a ship on the Mun, shy of adding yet another mod to hold my hand on the way down. Once I;ve succeeded in several landings on different planets, and have proven that I can do it, I may want to do it more efficiently, and add mods to help me! But I do not want to be dependent on those mods! That's the kind of challenge that I'm talking about!

[Montag]

A mod you should have is Precise Node. It will tell you the ejection angle when you are leaving a body to use with the window planner.

edit: Warzous mentioned it. I do not recall if MechJeb gives the ejection angle.

[r_rolo1]

Well, there is a stock way of doing interplanetary Hohmann transfers in a relatively efficient fashion, but it is cumbersome and, to be honest, something that no one on their right mind would do.

For the sake of documenting the insanity, let me drop it in here:

First of all , you need a way to know how much dV you need and when to burn. About the when, you need something in orbit in the equatorial plane, but for commodity reasons I recommend a orbital period of atleast one day. You then drop a manouver node either 45º from planetary retrograde in dark side ( if you're going to a more exterior body ) or 45º from planetary prograde in the light side ( if you're going to a more interior body ) and push prograde until your heliocentric orbit touches the target planet one.

Then, you right-click on the manover node. The node will change to a small widget with two bottom buttons. The right one adds orbits to your manouver node ( one per click ) and the left one takes orbits out of your manouver node. Click on the add orbits until you get atleast a really close encounter ( this is why I recommend a orbital period of atleast one day: the buttons hitboxes are small and glitchy, so adding a lot of orbits is a chore. Since LKO has 30-40 min of orbital period, if you have to wait for 150 days for a good encounter, you'll need almost 1000 clicks :/ if you're doing it from there ). That will give you a good idea of when to burn.

To know how much dV you need , it is slightly easier: just pick something on the parking orbit you will use, put a manouver node in the right place ( the same ones as above, in the when item ) and burn until your heliocentric orbit touches the target planet one. That will give you a good idea of how much dV you'll need

To actually plot the orbit you want, I'll assume you already have the ship in parking orbit and that you waited until the time you got in the when item. Put a manouver node in the places we discussed in the previous items, push the prograde until the heliocentric orbit of your ship touches the target planet ( if you done things right before, you'll have atleast a close encounter ) and then juggle the manouver node to get the actuall SoI intercept by either adding burn time in any useful direction, adding more orbits via right click , changing the departure angle, or just plot a mid- transit correction burn ( if NASA does it , so can you ). Then just burn and go

This method, besides being cumbersome, does not quite work as well with Moho ( due to the inclination diferences, the transfer to be really effective must catch Moho in either the descending or ascending node of his orbit relative to Kerbin and that restricts quite a lot the times when you can burn ) and Eeloo ( due to the Eeloo quite eccentric orbit, for a efficient transfer you want to catch it in it's periapsis, something that again restricts a lot the times where you can burn for it ). But alas, apparently this is how the devs want us to do things

Disclaimer: this will not tell you how to stop when you get there. You can do a aerocapture, burn to slow down, use that planet moons gravity to help capturing your ship ( only really works in Kerbin, Duna and Jool. Gilly is not exactly massive enough to help here ) or a combination of the three. Neither this will give you elegant gravity assists. For that I recommend Arrowstar excelent KSP Trajectory Optimization Tool ( external tool, not a mod ).

Edited November 5, 2015 by r_rolo1
Added a small correction

[BoilingOil]

Well, there is a stock way of doing interplanetary Hohmann transfers in a relatively efficient fashion ... <snip>

Cool! Now THAT is something one must try at least once without any tools. Even if only to be able to say that you've given it your JebDarnedest best shot!

For the moment, though, *I* am satisfied with being able to get into an orbit around other planets, even if I don't use the Hohmann technique! Because I got to do it on my own.

- - - Updated - - -

I wanted to come back to this one for a moment...

KSP is a single player game and, unless you are competing in challenges with defined rules then, there is no such thing as cheating.

In *my* book, there is, if you say that you mastered all achievements, but never did any of them without help from external tools. You've programed some tools to do it for you... those tools, thus held your hand.

Most of the mods you've used don't actually tell you what to do and, in any case, so what if they do. Even if you use every autopilot feature of MJ to fly your mission, you've still built a vessel and decided which particular maneuvers you needed to tell MJ to do at what times and the vessel was capable of doing them. This is considerably more than "haven't really achieved ANYTHING".

You did NOT fly the ship though. Telling an autopilot where to go and then waiting for said instrument to do it, is not the same as doing the maneuvers yourself at the right moments.

I think you're misunderstanding what the OP is asking for. In any case, your advice doesn't make a lot of sense. KER and StageRecovery do not "hold your hand" and removing them may well remove lots of the fun of the game. Lots of people want to know how much deltaV their vessel has without having to do the considerable calculations that would be required. Just make your own decision about what you find fun and play the game whatever way you like.

No, I did not misunderstand. I just don't agree with the assumption that she has done it all and needs even more mods to make it harder.

KER is not holding your hand? In KER you get to see when each stage's tanks are empty, so you can start the next stage. What's wrong with right-clicking the tanks and checking for yourself? And this is only ONE of the things it does for you.

And StageRecovery not a cheat? It gives you back money that in an unmodded game you would not have recieved. It gives you an unfair advantage over people who play a vanilla game.

All those things are in fact cheats. Now understand me well: I don't mind people using those cheats. In the Sims 2 community, I'm known for creating mods to change the game experience... Under the same name that I'm using here, by the way.

But what I *do* object to, is those same people saying that they've completed every challenge the game has to offer!

So, ok, maybe my advise isn't what Polnoch asked for. Maybe this isn't what she was hoping to get. But it *is* the best I can give her. If she doesn't want to even TRY, if she just decides to ignore it, that's her choice and I don't mind. She has the right to play the game every way she likes. But I had to at least offer my opinion.

Edited November 5, 2015 by BoilingOil

[SalehRam]

One reply has taken my attention in all of this: that this is a single player game and people play the way they are happy about...

I am not good in math and I find doing calculations is something that will steal the fun of the game from me... why would you object me using tool that will help me loe the game because you hate these tools?

This the same talk about MJ that we see... as long as I am loving my game, and not doing it wrong, so whatcis your issue for me usìng mods?

Making KER wrong because it will let you know when your tanks are empty is the same way as having nasa blindky design acship an launch it to space... Now this maybe the point of KSP (doing things blindly snd stupidly) but what about those who want ro know this informatipn? You make their game or logic wrong because you are of the group thst loves things with no metrics/calculations?

I'd say this is a relative logic, and one should not call other people method wrong just brcause he is using different way or he don't like the other methods...

In fact, KER might be a challenge by itself. You can establish a baseline for your rockrets performance and then you can work on any design you have to make sure it doesn't go below that line...

What if you make a design with large lander? Don't you have to meet your baseline? You will spend hours doing this challenge in VAB and those hours will be more fun that the time you will spend doing calculations that KER can provide about your ship...

So again, many aspects and many views. None of them should be called wrong just because we don't like them.

Edited November 6, 2015 by SalehRam

[BoilingOil]

SalehRam, I don't hate those tools, nor do I object to anyone *using* them. There is nothing inherently *wrong* about any of them. And I have agreed that anyone should play their game the way they like to play, too.

The ONLY point I'm trying to make is this:

Just assume that you're playing a single player FPS. If the only way for you to complete that game is, to use a cheat or a mod that at the start, immediately gives your character the biggest bad-butt gun there is, did you really win? NO! You only ran through it by the shortest route possible. You've completed the killing spree, but you haven't worked yourself up to a level where you could find and liberate that gun in-game.

If that is fun for you, I can understand that. Sometimes I also want to blow off some steam, and just full-on killing the bad guys is all that I need. But I do NOT claim that I've won the game, if cheating in the biggest gun was the only way to do it!

If you can only win by cheating in the biggest gun, then it doesn't matter anymore how hard you make the monsters that you have to face, does it? Because you're just going to blast them away with your biggest gun again!

And the same applies here:

If you can only get there with those tools, but not without, saying that you completed every challenge in the game is essentially a lie. If you then go on to say that you want the game to be a bigger challenge, but refure to even TRY playing without those tools, then you are contradicting yourself!

So you get some more mods to make it more challenging. What for? You just use the tools again, or you install new tools to help you. So your game keeps growing top heavy with tools, and you STILL cannot play the game without it! And in the end, the game did not become more challenging either, because the tools made short work of it! There is no end to this cycle, and you'll never be satisfied! THAT makes no sense to me!

Sometimes, less is more!

Edited November 6, 2015 by BoilingOil

[tseitsei]

BoilingOil:

If I CAN do my dv calculations on a piece of paper with no helping tools (which I can) but I'm still using KER to give me dv readings while building, do you consider that cheating?

I just do it because it's too boring/time consuming to do the calculations by hand every time you build a new vessel... IMO that's in no way cheating.

Just similarly I COULD calculate optimal launch windows myself (I know how to do it) but I wont because it takes too much time and gets boring quickly. Instead I use launch window planners coded by some other people (or quite often just eyeball it...).

[BoilingOil]

BoilingOil:

If I CAN do my dv calculations on a piece of paper with no helping tools (which I can) but I'm still using KER to give me dv readings while building, do you consider that cheating?

I just do it because it's too boring/time consuming to do the calculations by hand every time you build a new vessel... IMO that's in no way cheating.

Just similarly I COULD calculate optimal launch windows myself (I know how to do it) but I wont because it takes too much time and gets boring quickly. Instead I use launch window planners coded by some other people (or quite often just eyeball it...).

No, as I said before: if you have proven that you can do it without the tool, then you need not rely on it: if the tool were unavailable for whatever reason, you would still get where you wanted to go. In that case, there is no harm in using it. In my personal opinion, IF you only use it because you cannot play without it, THEN anything you accomplish using that tool, doesn't count as a real achievement. Because without the tool, you could not have done it. That is cheating.

Going out into the wilderness with a fishing rod and staying alive on fish is an accomplishment. But going out into the wilderness with only a piece of string, and STILL staying alive on fish, is another level! Sure, it's more tedious: you'll have to make your own make-shift fishing rod from a branch that you find, or break off a tree. But once you have it, you can use it again and again. But because it's more tedious, it's also more of a challenge, more of an accomplishment. It's a more satisfying experience, too, because you've learned not to rely on a store-bought fishing rod. There is the difference.

I can figure out the square root of any number using pencil and paper, to any required number of decimals. I know the technique, and I've done it many times - just for fun, to train myself and to stay sharp. So now if I need the square root of any number, I know that I can get there. It goes quicker with a calculator, but if none are handy I can still make the calculations!

I could even get me a log-table, find the log of the number in question, and look up half of that number to find the square root. Or I could use a slide-ruler. I've done all these things repeatedly.

When the first pocket calculators came available, people were allowed to use simple ones (non-programmable) at exams. I did not! I just had my log-table and my slide-ruler. I was one of the first to finish the exams, and still had better, more accurate answers than most people with calculators. Everyone can get a square root using a calculator, but I can get a square root, period! And as a result of that, I have great admiration for people of generations before me, who made short work of complicated calculations without any of those tools! Because I know what was involved! I have still not accomplished anything as great as they did!

Edited November 6, 2015 by BoilingOil

[tseitsei]

Ok in that case I pretty much agree with you

And also as you said, there is nothing wrong if someone wants to use those tools even if they dont know how and why they work... Everyone chooses how they want to play .

But I agree with you that if you wouldnt be able to do something without mods then you cant really say you can do that...

[BoilingOil]

You got it, tseitsei, that is exactly the sentiment that I wanted to convey.

[QPDO]

In the end thats what the OP wanted to convey. He had the impression you needed MJ to get anywhere. All this elitism crap tells him is that he is too stupid or cheating. Who needs Jeb uses it. Who doesn`t doesnt use him. Its also a good way to see how he does it and start learning the slick way from there. Sometimes it feels like some guys have some serious self esteem problems here. The poor guy even believes he is more hardcore because he is playing with life support. But actually... who cares? As long you dont do challenges its your way how you play. Trying to force an opinion on somebody shouldn't be the way in any case though.

PS: Sometimes it even smarter to not play with "hardcore" mods as they tend to make your part counts grow....

[BoilingOil]

Well, excuse me, but to me the phrase "I want more hardcore" (literally from the top post) sounds like they want a challenge! The challenge is to try without tools and see what you can learn from it.

I know what you are saying QPDO. But really, I'm not going to call anyone stupid or dumb, EVER. But the game isn't just about doing the missions, but also about learning how to do it.There is nothing elitist about saying that they aren't trying that. They spent €40 - or $50 - on a game that can teach them new stuff. And in one month time they have seen all corners of the game but have not challenged themselves. To me that sounds like they wasted their money. Isn't that just a pity? I think it is! If I spend that kind of cash, I want to get some bang for my buck!

There are tons of things that I cannot do, but I will never stop trying, because I want to learn. I want to think that maybe someday I will be able to do it myself. But if I never try it on my own, I know that I never will!

If you have the tools that tell you what to do, you never need to learn how to think for yourself. The tools tell you what you need, and as long as you comply everything is fine. You'll reach the finish line, but you will not learn anything new from it.

Edited November 6, 2015 by BoilingOil

[Warzouz]

If you have the tools that tell you what to do, you never need to learn how to think for yourself. The tools tell you what you need, and as long as you comply everything is fine. You'll reach the finish line, but you will not learn anything new from it.

Why do you say that using a tool doesn't increase knowledge. This is totally false !

Looking at what MJ does is a very efficient way to learn how to do something and even be better than the autopilot ! It's not that different than looking at a youtube video ! Even KER data can teach a lot to a player.

With your point of view we shouldn't event using dV charts or read wiki tips. Are Scott Manley video cheats ? Should we even find the rocket equation ourselves ?

KSP as many lacking systems : no dV display in VAB, no surface altitude in regular view mod, poorly designed interface (including manoeuvre nodes). Many mods are very logical holes fillers (especially many KER features, precise node, KAC)

Of course going to the Mun without mod is easy, when you have few hours of game experience. But reaching Moho without "Precise Node" like mod to tweak the node parameters is more pain than accomplishment.

KSP already has a very steep learning curve. Many mods lower the learning curve, they don't hinder you to climb as high with or without them. They just take players on a different path.

[Padishar]

I'm a new player too, and I haven't even landed a ship on the Mun in Sandbox without crashing yet.

I'm sorry if this post offends you. That is not what I'm trying to do here, believe me. It's just not that easy to master this game.

The word "cheating" very strongly implies a dishonest action and your continued use of it, especially in a thread that wasn't really anything about cheating (despite the OP unwisely using the word a few times), is offensive.

Your admitted inexperience with the game and quite low level of achievement don't really lend your voice much authority so you might want to back off a bit in trying to push strong (and misguided) opinions. Personally, I found the game quite easy to master though I did have a very solid understanding of all the physics involved in both space and atmospheric flight. I had landed and returned from both Mun and Minmus within two days of buying the full game.

So, ok, maybe my advise isn't what Polnoch asked for. Maybe this isn't what she was hoping to get. But it *is* the best I can give her. If she doesn't want to even TRY, if she just decides to ignore it, that's her choice and I don't mind. She has the right to play the game every way she likes. But I had to at least offer my opinion.

No maybes about it. It's not what she asked for, not even remotely on the same subject let alone what she actually wanted to get. I simply can not understand why you felt you had to offer your opinion about a subject that wasn't being discussed.

No, as I said before: if you have proven that you can do it without the tool, then you need not rely on it: if the tool were unavailable for whatever reason, you would still get where you wanted to go.

When I started playing the demo a little over two years ago I enjoyed it very much but I very quickly came to realise that performing any kind of significant mission would not be enjoyable without an easy way to calculate the deltaV and TWR of vessels so I had basically decided not to buy it. I then happened to see a youtube video where someone was using KER and it was only after investigating the mod that I decided to buy the full game (back at 0.23). Now, I only ever play without the KER mod during experimental testing. In my case, if the tool were somehow unavailable then I would either write it myself or simply find something else to do that would be more fun.

[BoilingOil]

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.

[Polnoch]

Sorry for long check: I had more work, and haven't time to game, and, in game, I waited transfer window (I know about warp, but... I waited :) )

Now I want to try make fuel-effective, hohman transfer fly to the Moho. I tried, and can't :( I don't understand, how I can setting up correct maneuver parameters.

[IMG]http://s18.postimg.org/pj58lakcp/screenshot69.png[/IMG]


This is probe on retrograde orbit around Kerbin. Moho locate below Kerbin, closer to Kerbol then Kerbin, and, If I understand correct, I need have a retrograde orbit for Hohman's transfer maneuver.

Also, I found bug in KSP: if probe's (does space ships has this bug too?) orbit is retrograde, maneuver's blue marker incorrect. It locate on 180 degrees then correct angle - on opposite side!

[COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='paul23']That mun lander is way to high to land. It will be so top heavy that it's impossible to land except on perfectly flat surfaces. Try to keep the aspect ratios about 3/4th as high vs wide as you've done there. On minmus this is less important - both because most areas are way more flat than on the mun - and because the gravity is lower (so it's much easier to get in an unstable equilibrium).
[/QUOTE]

You was correct: my re-usable, and re-tank-up'ed lander was bad for Mun. I re-construct new lander, and with new one, visit more biomes in Mun

New lander and buster module docked to station (to move science and tank up fuel)

[IMG]http://s1.postimg.org/o8pk1anb3/screenshot67.png[/IMG]


[IMG]http://s3.postimg.org/3p9la53xv/screenshot65.png[/IMG]


[TABLE="class: gt-baf-table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][COLOR=#000000]deceleration to get a good Mun's orbit:[/COLOR][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


[IMG]http://s16.postimg.org/wfmk1np39/screenshot57.png[/IMG]

landing

[IMG]http://s28.postimg.org/ieityr0pp/screenshot41.png[/IMG]

Night on the Mun (I forgot about spotlights, but I will mount it to the lander, I have an engineer on my orbit station and KSP + KAS mods ):

[IMG]http://s4.postimg.org/960aqdfh9/screenshot60.png[/IMG] Edited November 16, 2015 by Polnoch