cantab

Pick some length of time, say 3 minutes. Set up your manouevre node as normal. Start burning 3 minutes before, keep burning until 3 minutes after then stop. Note down (or memorise) the delta-V remaining. You should now be in an elliptical orbit with periapsis at your manouevre node. Advance the node one orbit and reduce the delta-V to what was left to do from last time. Repeat as many times as needed, and watch out for the Mun interfering!

Thrust and specific impulse are very different things. And in that ship the engines being proposed were vast by KSP standards, 10 metre diameter. It's no surprise that they produce nearly 900 kN to the LV-N's 60. EDIT: As it happens the real NERVA was also about 10 m wide, and according to Wiki gave 330 kN of thrust. In ksp we can trounce that with a 3.75 m wide LV-N cluster.

Kerbin used to have salt flats, but Minmus nicked them.

A while back there was some discussion of what KSP's fuel and oxidiser are. I came up with an obscure combination that matches the properties well, but really I think it's more based on RP-1/LOX performance. The LV-N's vacuum Isp is about right for a NERVA-like rocket. The atmospheric Isp is too low, the real NERVA managed 380s, but that was done for gameplay balance reasons; it's already far and away the best engine for medium and large interplanetary ships, the atmospheric nerf prevents it being the best engine for launchers too.

Extra large decoupler? Find the part.cfg and remove the PhysicsSignificance line

There are various bugs around with EVAing Kerbals. The one where a Kerbal in a seat gets bumped and becomes uncontrollable, yet remains attached to the craft, can be solved by editing the persistence file

The best you can do is attach a claw to any part with a flag and stick that on your asteroid.

After Eve and Duna, Jool probably is the easiest to get to, with the bigger SOI and lower inclination compared to Dres.

What would be too complex would be essentially designing a rocket engine (or any engine) from scratch.

v0.2 release out, adds more parts.

Some wheels turning opposite ways to others? Too much mass for too little wheel?

Yeah. There may be some option or other I'm missing, but it didn't give the desired behaviour for me.

Since the Soviets failed to launch Polyus, nobody has made a credible attempt to "control" space. And until there is an outright war or desire for outright war between two superpowers, nobody will.

It affects the font size in the VAB tooltips too, for example the parts tabs. Before (with Module Manager 2.0.5): https://flic.kr/p/nrj1J5 After (with Module Manager 2.0.6): https://flic.kr/p/npehww Note the label positioning is thrown off too, I had the cursor pointed right at the utility tab in both cases.

SurfaceNodes: Make part placement make sense. Download SurfaceNodes v0.2 What does SurfaceNodes do? SurfaceNodes rectifies this sort of limitation in the stock game: If you can't see the image, in stock KSP I can attach a pair of 1.25m fuel tanks to a 1.25m RCS tank, but I cannot attach a pair of 1.25m RCS tanks to a 1.25m fuel tank. More specifically, for any part that in stock: Cannot be surface attached (AKA radially attached) to another part. Can have other parts surface attached to it. Will look reasonably sensible if surface attached to another part. SurfaceNodes will provide a suitable attachment point and enable surface attachment. SurfaceNodes will not change the behaviour of parts that can already be surface attached, even if the stock behaviour is a bit odd (for example the Launch Escape System). Nor will SurfaceNodes do anything to parts that currently cannot have other parts stuck onto them, which includes most engines. Can I see some example ships that use it? A small lander using surface-attached Oscar-B tanks. What parts are done? As of v0.2: 1.25 m and 2.5 m RCS tanks Oscar-B tank All reaction wheels/SAS modules Octagonal Strut All stack batteries How do I install it? Download the zip file (see above) and unzip it into your GameData folder. What parts will be done? What parts won't? See the comments in SurfaceNodes.cfg in the download. I am still unsure on how to treat the manned command pods, though I do intend on ultimately including them. Since they are not rotationally symmetric, a single surface attachment node will restrict the designs possible. Doesn't Editor Extensions let me enable surface attachment? Yes and no. Editor Extensions enables surface attachment, but it doesn't configure the attachment points properly so you get significant part clipping, like this. Will craft made using SurfaceNodes work in stock? I don't know. Why not try it? What's the license? SurfaceNodes is copyright 2014 Thomas Swift. SurfaceNodes is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ SurfaceNodes includes Module Manager, copyright 2013-2014 Ialdabaoth and sarbian. ModuleManager is licensed under "a CC share-alike license". Can I contribute? Sure! If you want to develop part patches, post the parts you're going to work on here so others don't duplicate the effort. You can also help by testing, or by creating craft that showcase the mod.

In three tests I was able to get an E-class on a collision cause within 10 minutes wall time from starting a new save file, and editing would let you choose an easier-to-intercept orbit, so I'm saying no. The asteroids used must be spawned by the game's normal procedures.I've also clarified that if you are putting the asteroid on a collision course in normal gameplay, for the New Kerbin Order or Little Brother bonuses, you may do so with a regular engine driven tug but have to finish before launching your deflection mission. So you can't send one ship up to push an asteroid onto a collision course then shove it off with the bomb/missile.

The problem then is that your diagram is not complete, it's only part of the rocket. I'll try and do one of the full rocket later, hopefully it'll be clearer than the analogies. They aren't mirror images, but 180 degree rotated counterparts. Mirror images would be worse since the centre of mass would shift radially away from the centreline of the rocket. (Incidentally, such a shift is something KSP *does* model.)

I fully intend on using Hyperedit to replace the descent stage of my Mun lander that got deleted by debris cleanup because it didn't have a probe core.

No, but it will have turned. And if we both jump off when it's turning, ensuring our jumps are radially outwards so they don't apply any new torque, then the turntable will continue turning. That jumping off is the analogue to the rocket expelling burnt fuel from its engines. Two tanks round the core, like Falcon Heavy, creates no problems in the first place. It's when there's more tanks with feed around the rings, like we often do in KSP, that has the rotation issues.

I suggest dropping the delta-V readout. I don't know about MechJeb but it can slow things down with KER, since it's running a simulation of the craft's engines and fuel flow, repeated many times a second. For a launch you don't need it, you should know you have enough delta-V, and you can check how efficient you've been once you're safely in orbit.

Probably simpler with one craft. Landing on wheels should be reasonable, if not then add some legs too. An interesting idea might be to combine ion engines for hovering with RCS for translation. Keep the craft level, set the ion thrust to minimise your vertical speed and use the RCS to give you some horizontal speed. Periodically tweak the ion thrust as you burn off RCS fuel and xenon. You can easily cruise about without worrying about hitting the ground (aside from running into hills).

Perhaps the flaw is in my (mis)use of the term "net torque". To take a terrestrial example, if we stand on a turntable and both start walking clockwise, the turntable will turn anticlockwise. The whole system - us and the turntable - does not rotate, but the parts of it rotate in opposite directions. We don't need to leave the turntable for that rotation to occur. If we stop the turntable will stop turning, but it will not revert to its original orientation. Likewise in a rocket, pumping fuel between tanks in a clockwise direction will make the rocket body turn anticlockwise, even if the fuel isn't expelled. In practice, of course, the fuel is expelled. (And no you can't fully cancel it out by pumping the fuel one way and the oxidiser the other, because the fuel and oxidiser do not generally have a 1:1 mass ratio.)

Funnily enough, when one of my landers fell over I was able to take off after pointing it DOWNhill. I think that helped the pod torque lift the nose a little, which was enough to get off the ground and go to space.More recently I had a 2-stage lander that I was able to right by first tipping it on its head, then pumping fuel to the descent stage tanks before flipping it.

No, it would be a reactionless thruster if there was net force. If you're pumping fuel clockwise around a ring of tanks, it's true that the entire system will experience no torque, but the body of the rocket - which is what matters - will experience a counter-torque.

Looks more like the Beluga, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga Today I built an RCS-powered lander to test a mod I'm working on. Nice and wide, surely any fool can set this down without tipping it right? I tested it on Kerbin with infinite fuel, and, well...