EdFred

Ummmmm....7.5m/s at 4400m with the G meter in the green? Oh, yeah, blazing fast.

You guys do realize you can make these changes yourself in the cfg file right?

I'm pretty sure that info is buried in a dll or an asset file. Searching through all KSP files with Notepad++ the term Minmus showed up in Search "minmus" (52 hits in 7 files) C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\Squad\Resources\ScienceDefs.cfg (17 hits) C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\Squad\Resources\StoryDefs.cfg (12 hits) C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\KSP_Data\sharedassets0.assets (6 hits) C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\KSP_x64_Data\sharedassets0.assets (6 hits) C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\Launcher_Data\settings.cfg.bak (3 hits) C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\readme.txt (5 hits) C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\settings.cfg (3 hits)

I thought Kerbin's rotation was already in the ecliptic.

That moment when after waiting on the launch pad with solar panels deployed to keep batteries charged while time warping, you forget to undeploy them on launch.

The attempt of Kirk to fit in the 20th century by using "colorful metaphors" in The Voyage Home are high on my list.

I always make my planes with an angle of incidence of 5° on the wings. If I make it 0°, I need the entire runway.

From what I read, Jolene Blalock was a huge Trekkie prior to her getting a role in the franchise.

I just started (re)watching all of TNG on Netflix last week, Monday Starting with the S1E1. I'm currently up to S2E17. I'm partial to all of the Q episodes.

I've made at least 6 different Kerbin-Eve Surface-Kerbin single launch, no refueling ships. It's not that difficult. 2.5km/s dV to Eve is over kill. Even at non optimal launch windows I am rarely above 1.5km/s dV

Above 2000m any of my Eve landers would be able to return to Kerbin. From Eve 0m, I only have about 400dV left upon reaching orbit with my Eve Lander. However, I still have 3000dV left in my orbiter. It all leaves Kerbin as one ship, but it decouples in orbit around Eve, into the lander and orbiter.

I unlock all on one tier before moving on to the next tier.

Built a Duna lander. No engine braking needed. I still don't get everyone that says, "Chutes won't slow you down enough on Duna." Yeah, well, this 2 Man lander can complete with 2 of everything science on it says other wise. Touches down around 7m/s with chutes only.

It depends. Going to Eve, I found that the launch window doesn't have to be that close. Another 500dV on the transfer stage is no big deal, since aerobraking erases having a non-optimal intercept angle. Moho on the other hand is all about efficiency, because if that intercept angle is off, the dV required to get into a Moho orbit gets insane.

Will have to check when I get home. I want to say the lander is under 80t.

Sent another one man lander can mission to Eve's surface near sea level with return ascent. From 31m MSL, I still had 300+dV left after obtaining a 100x100 orbit, so I think I've gone as light as I can. Aerospikes and 48-7S, ftw.

Bill, keep your eyes on the runway!!! ( I love that in the screen shots, he's looking elsewhere)

In real life no one (ok, maybe 1 person, somewhere might) uses them in that manner, though.

Spoilers and flaps both make the airframe "dirty" or increase drag. Increased drag means a steeper approach path for the same forward velocity. Spoilers decrease lift and increase drag, while flaps increase lift and increase drag. Spoilers used in flight are generally used at higher speeds, and flaps at lower speeds. Many, if not all, airplanes have a maximum flap speed which is lower than the maximum spoiler speed - if the plane is equipped with spoilers. Once on the ground spoilers increase the weight on the landing gear, which helps in braking.

The bold part is incorrect. Flaps do increase lift (and drag), but they also increase the ascent/descent path without increasing forward velocity. They do allow planes to fly at lower speeds, but they do not flatten the glide path. There's a reason we use flaps for short field take-offs and landings with obstructions - and it's certainly not to come in flat. You want to come in flat, leave the flaps undeployed.

Completely depends on design though. You don't land a 747 at the same speed as a Cessna 172. Same with KSP. I've designed planes that fly as slow as 20m/s, and others that won't fly unless they are over 100m/s.

I'll take what I teach with my real life students for final approach (no, I don't fly space planes, but I am a flight instructor) and try and modify it a little for KSP: Set up for a long final approach and you only need to worry about 3 things #1 Runway alignment #2 Approach path (glide slope) #3 Approach speed Unlike Geschosskopf, in KSP I prefer chase mode, and I set up my camera so I am just above and behind the plane. With runway alignment, just make sure the runway is a straight line in front of you. It doesn't angle left, it doesn't angle right. The ends of the runway should be vertically aligned in your sight picture. If the far end of the runway is left of the near end, you are left of path, and need to turn right. If the far end is right of the near end you are right of approach and need to turn left. Once lined up with the runway, the trick with the approach path is to pick out a spot on the runway to use as your aiming point - usually the numbers or the aiming markers (the large white blocks) - and keep it in the same spot on your screen. Maybe an inch (2.5cm) or so above the nose of your plane. If the aiming point starts to rise up in relation to your plane, you are starting to get below your approach path. So you need to climb a little (add a little power when you do). If the aiming point starts to sink in relation to your plane, you need to descend a little (reduce the power a little here). If you keep that point stationary on your screen, you are good to go. How fast should you be flying your approach? A good rule of thumb would be see what speed you take off at (assuming you've designed your plane to not use the entire runway on takeoff) and add 20% to that. Once you are over the end of the runway, reduce throttle to zero, and slowly start to raise the nose of the aircraft. If done correctly, you will still descend, your speed will reduce, and you will touchdown just like you are supposed to. This is (roughly) what I teach in real life in real planes. Funny thing is, it's actually easier in real life.

I start my turn in the 6k range, but only going about 10-15 degrees, and slowly rolling over so that when I'm at 10k, I'm just about at 45. From there it varies slightly depending on the TWR, but my experience pretty much seems to be about the same as 5th.

You can't make a blanket statement of TWR needs to be 2, or it needs to be 1.00000000000000000001. I've found with my rocket designs, neither one of those are most efficient. For my designs, I aim for a TWR in the 1.6-1.7 range. This allows for full throttle without needing to throttle back to avoid hitting terminal velocity - with my designs. Lower than that, and I don't make it into orbit without tapping into the transfer stage.

Stock landing gear is NOT indestructible. I have destroyed many a landing gear.