cantab

If you want to transfer from a moon to another planet, or vice-versa, the charts here are helpful. http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalAcademy/comments/1qu5jv/deltav_charts/ They're more complicated that the chart posted previously, but it's explained in the reddit thread. Basically you've got two routes: you can go directly to or from the moon, or you can go via a low periapsis over its parent planet. The former approach is only suitable with larger moons, and you'll see the charts don't give the values for Gilly or Minmus. Just remember what's never a good idea is to via a low circular orbit over a planet unless you launched from it.

I fear that would structure career mode a bit too much though, even with wide branching. The current career mode gives you lots of options. Fed up of science farming Minmus and the Mun every single game? Ignore them completely and make your first landing on Gilly. Hate the whole clicky clicky science system? Get all your science from contracts.Also, your idea would easily lead to the issue, not uncommon in games, of earning stuff after you most want it. So you somehow manage a mission to Eeloo with rubbish solar panels, get better panels for it, well you've just in a sense proven you don't need those better panels and unless you go to Eeloo again your next mission probably won't be so demanding on the power front.

Hmmm...yet another idea occurs. The OP never said we had to use just one carrier. Take the ten Nimitz-class carriers to the stillest waters you can get them to, put them nose-to-tail, bridge over the gaps, and you have a ten-thousand foot runway for the Shuttle/Buran/Dream Chaser/Skylon/whatever to land on.

RCS Build Aid is a big help, it'll tell you whether your engines are providing off-centre thrust, not just your RCS, and can plot the wet/dry CoM and tell you the offset. By minimising both of those you can make even pretty asymmetric things fly straight.

Never hit your space station with the ship you were trying to dock?

Necro much?

I dunno, Duna can be tricky to land on. Chutes alone aren't usually enough and they can rip clean off if you're not careful, and engines alone will need a hefty chunk of delta-V for descent because the atmosphere just doesn't slow you down that much. I'm 0/2 from attempts so far. Also, while going to Duna or Eve doesn't require much more of a rocket, interplanetary travel is a considerable step up in working out your manoeuvres. But if Duna and Eve really do seem too easy, there's nothing stopping you making a trip further afield instead. EDIT: Poos and Giggles?

Not much. Just did a course correction on my Laythe mission, about 25 Edays out from Jool's SOI, to put it on course for a direct Laythe aerocapture.

Perhaps some pictures would help. Here's a simple single-stage rocket, with an LV-T45 engine: That's respectable enough, it'll get you into orbit. But once you've burnt up most of the fuel and are down to say your last can or two, you're still dragging around the empty fuel tanks. Empty tanks in KSP are kind of heavy. You're also using an engine that's more powerful and heavier than you need. Here's a simple two-stage rocket, with the same amount of fuel, and an LV-909 engine for the second stage: Even though the first stage has to lift a bit more weight, once you're down to your last two cans of fuel you can ditch the empty tanks and engine from the first stage. The upshot is that we get 25% more delta-V from the same amount of fuel. This rocket could land on Minmus (but not come back), or fly past the Mun or even Duna or Eve. This is a rocket with silly staging: Don't build rockets like this unless it's as an example (like here) or for a laugh. The extra weight meant I had to switch to bigger engines (Skippers) for the lower stages. The whole thing weighs over 2 1/2 times what the single stage rocket did, and I shudder to think what the cost would be like in .24. Yet despite that, even this gets more delta-V from the same fuel than the single stage!

Well the classic"nuclear option" is an OS reinstall. If you have suffered a malware infection it's the only really sure way to be clean again. It doesn't take too long, though installing software afterwards can. But then you might take it as a chance to NOT install the stuff you haven't actually used in a while.

2 monitors on one computer for me, KSP in windowed mode.

Drilling them out will be a bit tedious but it's nearly sure to work if unscrewing fails.

The delta-V for a manoeuvre, combined with its direction, defines the manoeuvre. It can't not be in the game without ditching the manoeuvre planner outright. The delta-V of a rocket, on the other hand, is a derived property - important, yes, but a consequence of the rockets engines, mass, and amount of fuel. While it would be nice to have, it's not required for the game to work - as proven by the game working fine without it in stock.

Yup, the game recognises the other space centre's launchpad as the launchpad biome. Editor extensions lets you switch between VAB and SPH editing modes, and with that between launching from the pad and the runway. It might let you work around this issue. And congrats on a nice bit of flying getting the rocket onto the KSC West pad.

Eve SSTO. If it's ever accomplished (and that's a big if) it is as good a candidate as any for the ultimate KSP plane.

The key with this is to figure out what direction you need to make your return burn in. It's not always intuitively obvious, so set up a manoeuvre in an hour or so and play around with it. You should be able to drop back into Kerbin's SOI pretty soon, and assuming you didn't overdo the escape burn you won't need much delta-V.

I did a bit of messing around for this. My attempt to jump in my existing rover on Eve got me a score of zero - never even got it off the ground. I also found the stock wheels are basically always traction-limited, even on Kerbin. Increasing the weight per wheel increases top speed, as does adding rocket downthrust. It'll never be as fast as simply using rocket thrust forward, but I reckon 30 m/s out of the stock ruggedised wheels is possible.

Unless he trips and disintegrates. Which is very prone to happening when running on Kerbin at high physics warp.The Time Control mod, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/69363 , would probably make a foot circumnavigation less intolerably slow, I'm betting you can get good speeds with a Kerbal since it's just one part. However I still don't see the challenge as that interesting. There's no design aspect like you have with a vehicular circumnavigation.

Sky and telescope are predicting a much fainter magnitude 7, http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/observing-news/happy-times-comet-watchers-08202014/ . Too faint for the naked eye but within the reach of binoculars or a small scope.

No way that I know of to run PC software on a Windows RT device. They use different types of processor (PC is x86-64, RT devices use ARM), I doubt Microsoft would allow a PC emulator in the Windows store and even if they did performance would be poor. There's usually an "xbox" app, I don't know if it offers any more games or just the same ones you'll find in the regular Windows store. Ultimately Windows RT looks set for the old vicious circle of few people buying the device so few developers write apps for it so few people buy the device.

If you think maths is cryptic, you should try Perl ;-) But I'd contend that code along the lines of dV = Isp * g * ln(m1/m0) is using meaningful variable names. Terse, yes, but meaningful and instantly recognisable by anyone familiar with rocketry. And explainable in a few lines of comments for the benefit of anyone who's not come across it before. Coding the rocket equation as output = in1 * const1 * ln(in2/in3) would be using meaningless variable names.

600-ish hours playing here. Still managed to crash two different landers on Duna.

Start by learning how to get into orbit round it. That's a good mission to do in itself.

You've waited nearly a year since its release already, may as well wait a bit longer for the PC version.