cantab

Did you actually calculate that it would miss the SOI, or did you just trust the game when it didn't show an encounter? Because that's a known bug with circular orbits near enough to those of moons; there's no prediction of the encounter until it happens. (And then you hit the moon, because your velocities are similar.)

Hard to see, but it looks like something might be off on your top stage.Also, you might try moving the main engine up a stage, so it only fires after you drop the boosters. The three BACCs have plenty enough thrust on their own I reckon. You don't want to go too fast on the ascent or you waste fuel fighting drag. In any case, if you just want to orbit the Mun and Minmus, you don't need much at all. A spacecraft consisting of the parachute, Mk 1 pod, FL-T200 tank and LV-909 is more than enough to get from low Kerbin orbit to Munar, Minmus, and even Duna orbit and back. Key is to get it into LKO without using its own fuel. The rocket you've shown would do the job I reckon.

My objection to this, though, is not the density per se. It's that if the fuel has a density of 5000 kg/m3, then the tanks we see are mostly empty space. I'm sorry, but in my view that's just too silly even for KSP.

I did some of my own dV calculations. I know I can do them. So now I let KER handle it. SlyReaper, props for explaining the transfer windows though. That's something that had rather baffled me.

Seems a bit odd that they didn't let you talk about it. Maybe because it's something not on the science curriculum? Still, at least it set a bit of ambience.

I only fired the game up to check some stats for my deduction of what KSP's fuel is, but while I was at it I decided to launch a little baby rocket. I thought it would just go up and down, but instead... it made orbit Just an antenna, nosecone, remote guidance unit, FL-T200 tank, and 48-7S engine. *Now thinks KSP is too easy.*

I believe your existing career save will work and give you everything new but the asteroids. With .24 set to bring the big career changes, maybe take .23.5 as a time to focus more on sandbox.Also, am I the only person who's not OMG WANT ARM NOW? It's going to be cool and all, but really, I'm hardly short of stuff to do in the KSP I have.

Wow, you actually managed to Kessler KSP. That's quite the achievement (since parts don't fragment like in real life).

Indeed this can be helpful. Just remember to hit the square brackets after you drop the stage to switch to the upper part of your rocket.

It's meant as a generic liquid fuel and not anything in particular. But our three knowns are the oxidizer:fuel mass ratio, the maximum vacuum Isp, and the fuel and oxidizer density. Density is a bit uncertain. It's often thought that the units for fuel are litres, but I really don't think they can be. The FL-T200 has an overall volume of 780 or 1500 litres, depending on if you take the diameter as 1.25 m or 1 m. For it to only hold 200 litres of propellants is absurd. I believe the fuel units are gallons. The FL-T200 has a volume of 170 to 400 gallons, depending on whether you use the smaller or larger size and the imperial or US gallon. This, then, gives a fuel and oxidizer density of 5 tons per thousand gallons, or between 1000 and 1300 kg per cubic metre, depending on which ton and which gallon is used. A far more sensible value than the 5000 kg per cubic metre you get from assuming the units are litres. (Note that choosing different volume units for the fuel does not affect the relationship between volumetric fuel flow, specific impulse, and thrust. The volume units cancel out.) With that issue out of the way, we can pick some candidate fuel/oxidizer combos. A list is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_fuel#Bipropellants And after some looking and thinking, I have a best candidate: Monomethylhydrazine/Beryllium fuel Dinitrogen tetroxide oxidizer The mixing of beryllium into the MMH lowers the ox:fuel ratio and raises the Isp. The density remains around 1200 kg/m3. It's not an exact match, but it's plenty close enough for KSP! The combination is also I assume hypergolic, which fits with the engines being repeatedly re-ignitable, and what I see as the general simplicity of the Kerbal Space Program.

Even if the claw can't be attached in the VAB, it's still possible. Build a ship that's just two claws stuck together, and pick it up off the launchpad or runway with a rover/skycrane/whatever. Grab the other claw onto your launch vehicle and you're ready to go.

Destroying the asteroid with an impactor, on the other hand, seems to be very possible. Certainly it looked like the asteroid went away in Danny's video. You need to hit them fast which makes it really hard to do, but that's what F9 is for.

It may just be that attaining a closed orbit is enough, even if you don't actually make one full circle.

Is it ever -50 at sea level? If not, the possible liquids are more varied. The wiki mentions even water is possible, thanks to the high atmospheric pressure.

Probably the same as anything else. It would make sense for larger ones to have more heat tolerance, though it might be something you don't notice anyway if even the small ones aren't going to be destroyed.I'll probably attempt to impact one, precisely because that's very hard to do.

If you return the craft intact, you get science if it entered orbit which I believe is over and above, if not fully distinct, from that for a flyby. It's not a big amount, but it's there. For the same reason, if you don't return at least a part of your lander to Kerbin, you miss out on the science for return of a landed vessel.

Are you factoring in the need to match speeds with it? I expect getting any science would be impractical, if not impossible, if the thing's flying past you at several hundred m/s.

From what's said above, it's not that saves are incompatible, but that only NEW saves started in .23.5 will feature asteroids.

Likewise, the thing I have attempted and have yet to master is landing at KSC.

I'd consider using MechJeb at least for the correct launch to orbit. It's easier for you to talk when you're not actually having to control the ship. Also, if at all possible get some other computers and install the KSP Demo on them. Print out a controls "Cheat Sheet" - just WASDQE, Shift and Control, Space, and M will do it. Sit the Kerbal 5 on the pad and let people try and reach orbit themselves. Assuming you're a student, you might want a teacher around to make sure no one person hogs the computer for the whole session.

Flinging stuff, it sounds like. Which is a good idea thanks to the aforementioned reaction wheels being able to keep making torque.

I think the orange tank will stay. It's distinctive and a well known part, not to mention being just the ticket for SLS boosters. I concur the other Rockomax tanks warrant a reskin to look more like rocket parts and less like oil drums.

Not necessarily. If quantum mechanical uncertainty is not fundamentally true, then not everything imaginable need be physically possible. There might be no initial state for a region of space that could lead to the Kerbol system.

Reaction wheels and control moment gyros have no limit on overall dw, though Real ones may have a net limit.

Once or twice, not often. And yes, it's tricky to get the timing and the inclination really spot on.