cantab

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/28428-Orion-aka-Ol-Boom-boom Blast yourself across the solar system by riding the shockwaves from nuclear bombs. Awesome enough for you?

While it would be rude and royally .... people off, for many mods they could do that without permission.Anyway, something spaceplane related is my bet. We know Squad were working on revamping that stuff. You could be obliged to say that by an NDA. (I don't think that's likely, but you could.) Ah, but if it was Majinr's own resources system in stock that objection would disappear.As for other candidates, what about planets by the Planet Factory dev(s)? That would fit with it not being a straight inclusion of the mod, since PF has to handle celestials differently from the game proper.

IMHO a good backup should be automatic and should offer some protection against user error and software bugs, as well against hardware failure. Usually this is done by keeping older versions of files. Ideally it should also protect against malice. That's harder - malware can easily wipe (or in the case of ransomware encrypt) an external hard drive or a network drive. But it can't obviously wipe a drive that's disconnected, and I've yet to hear of any malware trying to wipe online backups. If you have important financial, legal, or similar documentation on your computer - ie the kind of stuff you would want if your house was destroyed - it would be a good idea to not have your backup in that same house. And if you feel you need your PC, you might want to think about speed and ease of recovery (which is something a full system image can be good for). Of course you can never totally protect against malice or error, since something could always break your backups and not show itself until much later, but you can do a reasonable job. For smaller amounts of data online backup is a good approach, provided you're on an unmetred and sufficiently fast internet connection. For larger amounts a pair of (or more) backup drives, periodically rotated between being connected to the PC and stored somewhere safe, is better (but more expensive) than a single one, and a good backup program will handle keeping previous versions of files without duplicating stuff that hasn't changed.

Agreed, really nice base. Looks like the parts are strutted together, I'm guessing some concealed way of making it all one piece. As for me, I landed on Ike. The landing was a straightforward "stop and drop" affair. VOID telling me my TWR, kerbalmaps telling me where's flat (picked an area around 60 N spanning the prime meridian), and delta-V going begging made it easy. Even lifted off a bit after just to turn the ship so the solar panels were facing the Sun. And just so you know it's not the Mun,

That's an unusual parking orbit, but I think you've got the approach from there about right. Target the moon in question, and when you cross through the AN/DN, set up a combined retrograde and normal burn to put your orbit in the same plane and with low relatively inclination. For the inner moons I suggest making that retrograde burn down to low over Jool for an aerobrake to lower apoapsis, but watch out for the other moons interfering!

Unsuccessfully. But it was meant to land on its wheels, under parachute with a little engine burn for touchdown. It worked OK on Eve, despite being a little front-heavy under chute. Rover in question.

In my view, RAID is not backup. There are many data loss scenarios and it only protects you against one, hardware failure. Rather, RAID (ignoring RAID 0) is about availability - being able to keep the system running despite the hardware failure. Important for a server, maybe useful for a desktop especially if you rely on it for business, but no substitute for real backups.

This is basically a challenge to set up a "cycler" trajectory - one that encounters one or more celestial bodies on a regular basis. It seems to boil down a repeating free-return trajectory, and is been something I've been meaning to look at for a while, so maybe I'll give it ago, though setting one up that requires no course corrections may be a tall order in KSP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_cycler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler

I would expect a deflected control surface to produce a fixed maximum force. How much torque that force then generates depends on the distance of the surface to the CoM. KSP aero being KSP aero though I may be wrong.

Yes. Duna's atmosphere is quite thin so you often will need some engine thrust for touchdown, but you can shed the bulk of your speed without them. Just be careful - if you come in fast over high ground your chutes can rip off on fully opening.

Other things to consider: Are you sure you don't have the smaller control surfaces? Wiki lists them in the same tech node. Try moving the ailerons closer to the middle of the wing. Which control surfaces are affecting roll? You can right-click them and turn various functions on or off. For example if my plane has separate ailerons and elevators/canards, I like to ensure they control only roll and pitch respectively. Do you have pod or reaction wheel torque on? Try turning it off. Alternatively, try turning it on and disabling aerodynamic roll control, relying just on the torque to roll your plane.

Didn't use Shift+Tab and accidentally throttle up the engines did you? If you can (and will) revert back to before your Mun ejection burn, do that burn to put you right back on course for Kerbin, no need for a second manouevre.

In this situation, just copy the KSP folder onto a USB stick. If you have a good stick you can run it straight from there, otherwise copy it to your laptop. You might not even need administrator intervention to run it, depending on whether the computer's been really locked down or not.

In .23.5 at least the game fails to predict SOI changes when the ship in question doesn't cross the orbit of the satellite body, and may either show nothing or show the SOI change much too late. For example if you put a ship in a circular orbit a little smaller than the Mun's, the game will never tell you you're going to enter the Mun's SOI until it happens. (And then because the ship was moving slowly relative to the Mun it probably crashes.) KAC relies on the game's own prediction so it's subject to the same issue. The game can also show closed orbits that extend outside the SOI of their primary. In the tracking station I've found it does this for unselected vessels, but then when you select it it correctly shows the vessel as leaving the SOI. Try that for your awry satellite.

My approach is simple. Design a rocket that can lift as much as possible in a single stack, ie without any boosters. Save it as a subassembly from the uppermost fuel tank. Then stick as many of them together as you need for a payload. No fuel lines needed.

KSP's reaction wheels are godly, even with .24's nerf. So probably yes.

For a one-time deal, the Mun and Dres both have canyons you can orbit through, passing below the altitude of the surrounding plateau.

For stations, if you're not using something like KAS or Quantum Struts, wait until you have Sr docking ports, you'll benefit from the stability. And watch your part count on the station. You can design a tug to put your modules in place, or else arrange their RCS etc so it can be decoupled after the module is attached, so that you don't have loads of redundant hardware left around. For interplanetary ships, I would suggest a modular design with three parts, your orbiter, lander, and transfer stage, linked by docking ports. Whether you actually launch them separately or together is up to you. The lander can be left behind at the destination, though you might employ the trick of taking a probe core from it so the mission gets recorded as returning from the surface. The orbiter can land back on Kerbin. The key is the transfer stage - park that in Kerbin orbit, then you can refuel and reuse it for your next mission.

Maybe centre of mass far forward and insufficient control. Solution is add more reaction wheels, fins, or even RCS/vernors. Maybe centre of lift far forward. Fins belong at the bottom of the rocket. Maybe too much flex in the rocket is causing it to be difficult to control. Solution is to add a probe core further down, right-click it and choose "control from here" before launch. Make sure it points the right way, and be ready to switch ships after staging drops that core.

Flew a lander onto the VAB, no big deal there, then buzzed it so closely with a plane that they actually touched, and kept right on flying.

Fffffuuuuuu... I was going to look for this but completely forgot. Shoulda set an alarm on my phone.

In this case it's referring to a highly elliptical orbit with periapsis low (say 70 km) and apoapsis up high somewhere. It's what you'll get if you have to do your ejection burn in more than one go. You can burn something like 800 m/s, orbit round, then burn the rest. Watch out for the Mun! Easiest way is to correct on entering Duna's SOI with a normal+radial burn, a more efficient way is to make a mid-course correction about halfway along your transfer.

Having crash-landed on Duna and killed Bob Kerman, I fully intend to send another example of the same lander design, just to see if it can come down safely with better piloting (ie a shallower entry).

This is a forum announcement. Would Whackjob please report to the Challenges forum. That's Whackjob to the Challenges forum. Thank you.

Alt+. will force physical timewarp in space. Only goes up to 4x though.Anyway, I try to build ships with respectable twr If that's not an option, I'll probably browse the forums while keeping an eye on KSP.