cantab

Well, there's a fair bit still to do with KSP, but I don't want them to be developing KSP 1 forever. I'd like to see what else they can come up with, and I'd like to see what they can do with KSP 2, when they're free to make some big changes to overcome limitations in the first game (for example, they could switch to a custom physics engine that doesn't have Unity's issues). I would counterague firstly that the Kerbol system is not the solar system. A rocket that in the real world can make LEO can make orbit around just about any celestial in KSP (ignoring details like limited engine restarts and propellant boiloff that KSP doesn't simulate). In Delta-V terms the complete Saturn V-CSM-LM stack is up there with Tylo and Eve land and return missions in KSP. True, KSP's rockets are a bit worse to partly counteract this, but still the Kerbals have it easy for space exploration.Secondly, how many ISRU missions have there been in real life? None. How many ISRU missions are actually at the stage of building the hardware? None. With a few exceptions KSP's stock parts are based on past or present stuff, not future plans. If we allow ISRU in the game, why not allow nuclear electric engines? Why not allow Orion Drive? Why not allow space elevators? Etc.

Yeah. They add mass and drag, but because they add *less* drag per unit mass than most parts (expressed by the in-game "Drag" value) they can help stabilise the rocket. Basically a rocket is stable with low-drag parts at the front and high-drag parts at the rear. Conversely draggy parts up front, such as the cupola, make the rocket want to flip.

Time spent developing the ISRU is time spent not developing something else. Such as better aerodynamics, more parts, fixing the bugs that continue to plague the game, or even getting the 1.0 release out and Squad going on to develop their next big thing. And while it's highly likely to be enjoyable, highly likely to enrich the game, I don't see ISRU as a core part of the game. I wouldn't say it's something KSP needs to be an accurate and fun experience, in the same sense that it needs better aerodynamics and needs bug fixes. True, you can level these accusations at most game features (career mode, for example), but it should still be remembered that there's an opportunity cost to everything. And that, as I previously stated, if Squad put in every cool feature they'll end up with a bloated mess.

As much as anything else, you probably need to learn about transfer windows and phase angles, and thus how to make efficient interplanetary transfers. Various sources can help you with this.In terms of what your ships can do: A ship that can do a Munar orbit and return can do a one-way flyby of Eve or Duna, or make orbit with aerobraking. With precision it can get back to Kerbin with a gravity assist but that's more advanced. A ship that can do a direct ascent Munar landing can orbit and return from Eve (with aerobraking) or Duna (no aerobraking needed), land on Gilly, possibly land on Ike, or do a one-way flyby of Dres (in a favourable window) or Jool. The comparisons come from delta-V maps. This simple one is good for visiting other planets: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/images/7/73/KerbinDeltaVMap.png These more sophisticated ones are harder to use but give lower, more accurate, values for visiting moons of other planets: http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalAcademy/comments/1qu5jv/deltav_charts/ PS: By "direct ascent" I mean a mission that takes off from Kerbin, lands on the Mun, takes off from the Mun, and lands back on Kerbin, staging along the way but without any dockings or rendezvous.

One thing to watch out with with the large ASAS is it has weak connections. You may need to brace past it with struts if it's in your rocket. In the niche case of a ship that has an external seat as its only command module, I believe the Inline Advanced Stabiliser will still provide full SAS functionality, whereas the Inline Reaction Wheel will not. Even then, though, an inline reaction wheel and a Remote Guidance Unit is lighter. Otherwise, the Advanced Stabiliser should only be picked if you need the extra weight or size to balance your ship, or for aesthetics.

I don't think that many people *do* think hydrogen = oh noes explosion. But then, when it comes to vehicle propulsion it's scarcely an issue with hydrogen powered cars and hydrogen stations so rare. The pressurised storage aspect, though it does create some hazards, probably isn't much of an issue given plenty of people have happily had their cars converted to run on LPG (AKA Autogas, CNG, etc.) Detecting leaks by smell can be enabled by adding an odourant to the fuel, as is done with LPG and natural gas.

Where's that? Modded Minmus?

Probably "Control from here" set to a point that isn't facing in the same direction as the engines are thrusting, for example a docking port on the side of a ship. You can right-click any manned or unmanned command module, or docking port or claw, and choose "control from here" to set the navball orientation to that part. (SAS will also use that part as its reference, which matters for wobbly rockets.)

Indeed its very presence, its non-solidness, and its texture rule out it being an asteroid. Do you have terrain scatter turned on, and are there similar-looking (but not balanced) rocks to be found nearby? If so, it's a misplaced bit of terrain scatter. If not, it may be a deliberately placed easter egg.

You can right-click any command module or docking port and choose "control from here", which aligns the navball with the way that part is facing, and also uses the orientation of that part to control SAS (important on wobbly ships).If you don't have any part facing the correct way, though, you're stuck with having to deal with the misalignment. Being 180 degrees out isn't too bad, but some other angle like 90 degrees will be a major pain.

Though it stretches the definition of lander, and of not EVAing down, you could do this with one part, a small ladder. * Stop the orbiter dead, with as low a surface altitude as possible. * Release the ladder. * Quickly EVA the Kerbal over and grab the ladder. * Reorbit the orbiter. * Let the Kerbal fall to the ground holding the ladder. A similar approach could be used to land in just a command pod (preferably a plane cockpit).

At design-time, using multiple docking ports will mean you can only dock at specific orientations.

You probably got booted out of the Jool system by Tylo. That's a big heavy moon and can really give you a strong gravity assist. People have used Tylo assists to get them on their Kerbin return trajectories, which is comparable delta-V wise to the situation you're in. As mentioned, power is a big issue. According to the wiki, if you go more than 206 Gm from the Sun, your solar panels will cease generating power. Thus, if you want to establish a wider orbit you will need to "hibernate" your probe, by right-clicking at least one battery and disabling it. I suggest disabling all the batteries this way to give yourself more to work with. You'll then have to count on the nuclear engine for all your manouvering, the ion engine would flatten your batteries way too fast. If you stay within that distance limit you can use the ion engine, though you might be in for some slow burns. You've got enough delta-V to establish a polar or retrograde orbit round the Sun, which would be fun. If you fancy a big impact, get in a solar retrograde orbit with periapsis level with Moho's orbit and then make a correction at some point to get the impact course. You'll hit it at a closing speed in excess of 25 km/s.

To actually see one in the game, though, you'll need to rendezvous with it. The two main approaches are Kerbin orbit rendezvous, where you meet up with it once it's in Kerbin's SOI, and solar orbit rendezvous where you meet it in interplanetary space. Obviously the OP managed the rendezvous somehow or other. Claw wrote a good tutorial on solar orbit rendezvous, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75759-Asteroid-Rendezvous-Outside-of-Kerbin%E2%80%99s-SOI

Put a big fuel tank at the end of each arm, part-full. Transfer fuel between them to adjust your station's centre of mass.

Hmmm. I had the opposite, reducing resolution gave negligible performance improvements. Then again, 60 fps is complete wishful thinking for my system.

Kasuha that's insanely good. First I saw Tylo and I was like, that's ballsy. Then I saw Laythe and I was like, surely not a Jool-5? Then I saw Vall. Now I want to do my own Jool-5. After my Duna and maybe Moho missions though.

Whatever you like. Landing them at the space centre seems popular. I'm taking one of mine to Duna with a gravity assist off Kerbin. If it's career mode, taking them to as many different situations as possible and taking surface samples in each gets lots of science.

You've given separate boards for the 1.25, 2.5, and 3.75 m sizes. Are we supposed to not use larger parts in our lifter for the smaller-sized leaderboards, or is it just that the different weights will handle differently?

My recent solution to the LV-N fairing issues has been to avoid fitting decouplers below the LV-N. This also implies avoiding the use of a central LV-N. Not done a nuclear-engined lander, but here's a couple of transfer stage designs https://flic.kr/p/nkQxru Not the best picture I know. For the larger one, I've used a central 1.25 m stack, which includes some of my support equipment like the probe core, and the engines around that. For the smaller ones, I attached an XL girder to the bottom of the fuel tank, then used part clipping to add the 4-way adapter to the same bottom of the tank. Rotating the girder or adapter 45 degrees keeps the engines just clear of the girder. Either way, the launcher then attaches below to the central element, and it all goes up with no troublesome fairings around the LV-Ns.

Depends on the positions. Planets close enough to one of the stars would orbit that single star. The other star needs to be far enough away to not perturb the orbits into a collision or ejection. Planets far from both stars orbit the barycentre and are known as "circumbinary planets". The stars need to be close enough together, compared to the planet's distance, that they act like a single mass.

Indeed. To add, I believe the fuel in the orbiter's tanks will be emptied in this order: Rockomax 16 tank first. (The one you clicked). Rockomax 32 tank next. (The one below it). FL-T400s last. (The ones with the nukes under them). Even though when you're running your engines the fuel flows automatically, when you manually transfer fuel you need to select a tank in a stack that is still full.

Bit of an old thread here... So far I've used a couple of approaches. My lightweight Moho lander had the rover stuck on the side attached to a decoupler, with a counterweight (a detachable science module) on the other side, though I landed it on the Mun without the counterweight. I strongly urge you to ensure you either set the parking brake or can control your rover before separating it from the lander. I did neither and it ended up rolling more than 4 km away! Note that I've yet to take the ship to Moho. For my Duna mission, I opted to build a lander-rover, capable of touching down on its wheels, and launching back into orbit intact. This was one of the longer and trickier builds I've done though. Getting a rover I was happy with and packing enough delta-V for the launch wasn't easy, since I wanted something that could handle a rollover and I was dead set on using the cupola. Again, I've yet to take it to Duna, but I expect it to work. (Not a great shot, but best I have.) For lander-rovers, a 2-stage approach would make things a lot easier, avoiding having to haul up the heavy rover equipment back to orbit, but it lacks a bit of finesse in my view.

I will require a sample of nerve gas for science.

The apoapsis and periapsis depend on the semi-major axis and the eccentricity.