Claw

Yep, here is the Machingbird Challenge thread. Althoug it looks in need of an update. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/27296-The-MachingBird-Challenge! Stock high speed is 2377 m/s (oh noes, I fell to fifth place!).

Yeah, as has been stated there are two separate, long standing challenges that do just this. (And the stock Maching Bird challenge is something over 2370 m/s I believe.)

Yeah, looks like the decoupler is mounted on the wrong node. Try right clicking and select "Decouple." See if that helps. (EDIT: I doubt this will work. I don't know what I was thinking last night...) I know it worked before, but having the decoupler on the wrong way will result in this sort of thing.

I hate to say it too, but there are several circumnav challenges, including VTOL, plane, boat, and rover. Perhaps see if you can think of something unique or some unusual (but realistic to work around) rule to jazz it up a bit.

Anyway, I've been using the mobile version of the site a lot and it would be nice if the "give reputation" button was available. (I'm not sure if this is SQUAD modifiable...) Cheers, -Claw

You don't need to create an account if you use imgur. You can upload directly to the main page, to include making albums. I didn't know that when I first started using it. The only downside to not using an account on imgur is that after you post the image, it's basically out of your hands. They do give you a "delete" link that you can copy and paste somewhere (like into a word document), then you can use that link later if you want to delete a picture that isn't in your account. But you won't be able to change the subtitles and such. Cheers

You have actually answered your own question. You'll need to upload your pictures to a picture hosting site like imgur, photobucket, or tinypic. Imgur is pretty popular because of the album capabilities. After you upload, place the URL inside img tags. [NOPARSE][/NOPARSE]

Edit your original post and click "Go Advanced." From there you can change the prefix with the dropdown, then save. By the way, welcome to the forums!

Well, while the debate of orbit names is an important detail, I think it might be clouding the OP's question. Perhaps we should ask what you are trying to accomplish. Perhaps knowing that will help us come up with alternate solutions. I understand that you are asking about stationary orbits, but to what end? Perhaps there is another way to accomplish your goal.

I'm right there with you on the slow exploration thing. Your guess is right. I was trying to find a way to say it with few words, but it sounds like you already have an idea of how it works. What I found that helped me was to set up a practice lander that's up in around a 10 or 15km circular orbit. Keep a quicksave of it up here (in orbit). Then drop the PE to something like 5km (as you practice more, move this lower and lower). After setting the PE, I would also set up an empty maneuver node on the PE to give you a countdown to the PE when in the flight view. (This helps later when aiming for precision landings.) As you approach the PE, do like you said and burn toward the retrograde marker to slow horizontal and vertical at the same time. When you first start practicing with a high PE, the burns can be kind of slow. It gives you a chance to get the hang of pushing the retrograde marker around. As you get more and more practice, lower the starting PE as I noted above. The descent burn will be at higher power, which means you'll have to be a little quicker at making steering corrections. Eventually you can get to the point where you can place the PE right where you want to land, and then park your ship at the exact spot you want. Whenever I go to the Mun, Minmus, or Kerbin, I practice precision landings (or at least pick a spot) even if it isn't needed. If you are chasing the retrograde marker, try to relax and keep it up in the blue half of the navball. If you panic and start burning at full throttle while flipping the ship in all different directions, it will probably end badly. Practice, practice, practice. Think of it as getting experience in a simulator. So quickloading is totally acceptable.

I keep thinking about attempting something like this. I did the Polar Challenge which was a land vehicle to the North Pole. For starting the game clock, you can also run your craft off the edge of the runway fast enough, it also starts the clock. I wanted to ask about the final picture though. From my experience with the Polar Challenge, if you save/load at all it resets the stat screen (unless they changed it in 0.23.5). Is the intent of the challenge to do it all in one sitting? Because my Polar Challenge took 12 game hours. Even at 3-4x, it took me a while and I couldn't do it all in one straight shot. Also I'm thinking about building a boat for this one. Are boats allowed? Or only ground vehicles? And I saw the "no adding or losing parts," but what about refuelling? Thanks! -Claw

Hmm, see if you can move this ship over to a stock install and replicate. If you can, great! Post the details and pics here. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/58-Support-Bugs If it turns out to be the mod, then I would recommend posting the bug report to the mods thread so the mod author can fix. Either way, I'm not sure if two Jebs is good or bad. There might not be enough boosters on Kerbin to satisfy them both! (And keep an eye out for which is the evil Jeb...)

Well, this isn't addressing your quetion pertaining to rovers. I too find the tree a bit imbalanced with regards to where the rover parts are. However, on another note: - You can take more than one crew report also. After you do a crew report, simply exit the capsule, "take" the capsules data, then "sore" the data (all via right-clicking). Also, Crew and EVA reports transmit for 100% science gain anyway. So you don't have to store them unless you really want. - As for Mun landings, it sounds like you have the basics so just practice. Build a very simple lander with a modest TWR and enough fuel. Then do some F5-F9 practice until you get a good feel for when to start the burn. The mechanics are the same as Minmus except that you generally have to start the burn a little earlier. Unfortunately, if you are using the method where you stop all horizontal speed, then drop straight down, that is a lot more inefficient on the Mun.

Inclination changes are always cheaper when you are going slower. So "cheaper" when you are at the higher orbit, or at the AP of an elliptical orbit. Depending on how much of an inclination change is required, it may also be cheaper to establish a highly elliptical orbit, change inclination, then circularize. That takes a bit of time though.

You are asking to do something that is pretty difficult. It seems like it should be easy, but the way that KSP stores the rotation angles makes it difficult to just go into the save file and flip it around. Your best option is probably to hyper up a new assembly and put it in place.

Without knowing which you are looking at, dV maps are usually cumulative. So the dV to get to the planet is in addition to the dV required to exit Kerbin's SOI. Most maps also assume an optimal Homann transfer to the target planet. So there will be a specific time that you would have to leave Kerbin in order to use those numbers. You can use AlexMoon's transfer window calculator. http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ (haha, I knew I'd get ninja'd, but I didn't think it would be that much.)

When I first saw them I just thought it was some little atmospherics they threw in as a test for some future addition. I thought that was nicer than "it's a bug."

That's a nice looking probe. Maybe you could add some details about what mod is on there and what all you're planning to do.

Dude. This is looking great! I do have a concern for it though. With all those wing panels as fuselage walls, you'll need to be careful about getting a messed up CoL when you put alpha (AoA) or beta (yaw) on that thing. I recommend grabbing that whole thing in the SPH, then doing some shift-pitch and shift-yaw changes (5 or 10 degrees) and make sure the CoL doesn't end up in front of the CoM. Depending on the design of the rest of the nose and tail, you could end up with a craft that wants to go out of control if you put a little sideslip on it because of the reaction you get off the fuselage wing panels. Well, this pitch down might be caused by having those high mounted engines. Don't forget to check the alignment of the CoT vs CoM. If the CoT is high, you can get a pitch down moment that causes it to nose over. It could be other problems too, but don't assume that more powerful engines will fix it. By the way: Those poor landing gear...

If it wasn't cheaper, it probably save time since the craft didn't have to drift way out there. And like you said, learning new tricks is always good.

It's easiest if you look at it from exactly perpendicular from the plane you want it to move on. Then shift-click and move your mouse only sideways. Imagine how the navball looks when you launch. There are the cardinal directions (north, south, east, west). The more perfect you can place the camera on one of those 90 degree lines, the better. Angle the view so that the "left/right" is pointing straight down one of the cardinal directions, and "up/down" is perfectly level. Don't angle the camera up or down, it only complicates the movement. Then move the ship in three movements. One to fix it's fore/aft, one for left/right, and one for up/down. Be perpendicular for the sideways moves. The up/down can be done from either of the sides. For up/down, you can also shift-click and scroll up/down with the mouse wheel and not cause lateral movement.

Yeah, sorry. I wasn't trying to copy and paste all the nuances. I was just addressing this specific statement, which was the one I quoted. So my statement was meant to be aimed at placing symmetric type parts. But you're right, what I said isn't fully correct.

The last engine placed is the first to burn out. But when placing via symmetry, the last one placed is the one that is mirrored, not the one that's under the mouse cursor. For symmetry higher than 2x in the VAB, it seems to place symmetry clockwise when viewed from above, but I haven't confirmed that absolutely.

Hey! I'm sorry, I don't use many mods either, but I hope you find what you're looking for. There are certainly a ton of mods out there. Good luck and have fun. Welcome to the forums!

Hi, and welcome! Yes, large spaceplanes are a bit uncommon, especially stock ones. I don't think any of my designs are too crazy though. They can be a bit tricky to build and fly, but they certainly a lot of fun.