Chewy

I always include the short ladder sections in my inventories for this reason. It's hard enough to let one kerbal hover long enough to detach/attach a part, and much much harder for two or more... Just have an engineer attach five small ladder sections or 2 or 3 retractable ladders before the other four go on eva. It works as long as you use [ or ] to switch vessels and you don't need to time warp.

I'm not at my computer, so I can't check this, but I think your problem is that you have your batteries between your fuel and your engine. I don't think fuel flows through batteries, so if you move the batteries further up the stack above the fuel tanks, I think it will work in space.

I think I see the problem. You have two issues going on. One is that you're ejecting out of Kerbin's influence in the wrong direction. Two is that Eve is in the wrong position relative to Kerbin when you make your transfer 1. Once you are in low Kerbin orbit, you should make your transfer burn on the light side of the planet. Remember that Kerbin itself isnt stationary and has orbital velocity around the sun as well, so if you want to make a Hohmann transfer to lower your sun PE to Eve's altitude, you need to eject from Kerbin in the opposite direction to the direction Kerbin is orbiting the sun. Your transfer burn should therefore be occurring sometime between sunrise and noon. Adjust the position of the node so that your trajectory angle lines up with Kerbin's retrograde vector at the Kerbin escape point (you might need to zoom out to see Kerbin's path around the sun) 2. Since Eve is also in motion around the sun, you need to schedule your departure so that Eve happens to be near your PE (around the sun) around the same time you arrive there. Since Eve is in a lower orbit, it is traveling faster than Kerbin, so you need to leave when Eve is behind Kerbin by about 60 degrees. This alignment will allow Eve to catch up to you while you are in your transfer orbit. You might also have to do an inclination correction at some point during the transfer (at the AN or DN). You should be able to get an encounter for less than 1500 m/s dv if you do these two things (less if you luck out with the inclination)

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case here... All the ships used were created after the mission was accepted. I actually accepted the mission long before unlocking the mining parts, knowing that I would probably have to land the parts on the Mun with fuel tanks mostly empty and later fill them after harvesting some ore.

I guess I've never shared a craft file before... let me know if this link doesn't work - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxB0Xp0LEmJ4NUVxcmRoeUFhYVE&authuser=0 To trigger the glitch, you only need to try to decouple the probe core from the docking port. It disables all control, so it just continues in whatever direction it was heading... if you trigger it while heading towards water, it will break the game when it hits the water (only a game restart is needed... doesn't break the save). I can't figure out what causes the glitch, because if I do the same thing with another docking port, it works exactly as it should. I suspect it has to do with the node the probe core attached to or something. Have fun!!!

This may require some testing... I'll get back to you on this.

I found an interesting glitch today. In career mode, I was trying to complete a contract to build a Mun Outpost that needed to support 11 kerbals, include a research lab and 4000 units of liquid fuel. I launched the outpost in 3 pieces that were docked together on the Mun's surface, and then I filled the fuel tanks with a nearby drilling rig (and using KAS) in order to meet the 4000 units of fuel requirement. For some reason, the program doesn't think I have a facility with an antenna, a docking port and the ability to generate power... which I have all of those things (and all pieces were made after the contract was accepted... since I think this is also a glitch I used the cheat menu to complete the contract). The glitch comes when I try to decouple a probe core that I used during the launch from one of the docking ports. The probe core doesn't detach and instead the whole outpost starts to slowly float off the ground and I lose all control. Kerbal Engineer shows no mass. Has anyone else come across this glitch? I suspect it has something to do with how the probe core is attached to the docking port because I'm not able to remove the probe core using an engineer and KAS. http://i.imgur.com/hnLyw1K.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UX5rUed.jpg http://i.imgur.com/dts7aP0.jpg http://i.imgur.com/ftHiyVx.jpg

That's why I love this game. It constantly gives you new challenges, and encourages you to engineer solutions to your problems created by exploring new ideas and trying new things. I've typically leaned towards designing my payload to fit the rocket rather than the other way around, but this post might motivate me to try some more unwieldy payloads in the near future.

The trick is definitely to increase your altitude as your speed increases. If you're burning up at a given speed/altitude then you should be at a higher altitude when at that speed. Eventually you get to the point where your jet engines can only maintain your current speed (i find for me its around 30km and 1700-1800 m/s) and that is when you fire the rockets to kick your AP up the last bit. Personally I've had more difficulty with re-entry using DRE and FAR. There I try to bleed of as much speed as I can at higher altitudes and I'm usually happy if the only parts that explode are my RCS trusters (usually its more but I quick save before entering). Regardless, it is very difficult to slowly bleed off speed without exploding wings and control sufaces and still be in the vicinity of KSC for a landing.

I was horrible at avoiding accidentally hitting the spacebar since I also use Sketchup quite a bit which uses spacebar to cancel the active tool, so I found myself instinctively hitting spacebar every time I wanted to cancel an action or close anything. So I changed the staging key to the tab key and life has been much better for my kerbals ever since.

The procedural fairing mod has parts that allow multi engine stages (the thrust plate adapter combined with the inter-stage fairing base)

Its not an ideal solution, but you could always take the piece you have with the small fuel tank, reaction wheels, hubs and docking ports and clip an identical item into the large fuel tank. If it bothers you to part clip, empty the fuel tank and disable torque on the reaction wheels. Either that, or you might be able to find a combination of structural items that equal the exact same length of the tank/reaction wheels that could be clipped into the tank.

I've experienced this as well, but with stock wings.... All but the first wing section I place was forced to radial symmetry. I just built the one wing with no symmetry and then duplicated it on the other side placing the whole wing with mirror symmetry. Are you using the editor extensions mod as I am?

Why don't you just stick a claw into the cargo bay to hold the probe?

If I had to guess, I would guess the first click determines how the program rebuilds the part tree.

No... It is not a stable orbit in both RL and in KSP. When you do a figure 8 type slingshot, you will lose energy, so often you would be put on a trajectory that likely would re-enter Kerbin atmosphere. To have a continuous loop, each time around you would have to do one burn to keep your trajectory out of the atmosphere, and another burn to rotate you major axis enough for another Mun intercept.

I have an ASUS ROG as well that I bought this summer... Paid about $1300 with a pretty killer graphics card in it. Can handle KSP with quite a few mods and graphics turned all the way up with no problems. It weighs a ton though, so if you're used to some ultra-lightweight web-browser type computer, it might take some getting used to.

I've never given much consideration to debris, other than that I try to get funds for any liquid fuel launch stages by putting parachutes on them and decoupling them prior to circularizing (those engine costs add up). Most of my persistent debris is ejected procedural fairings, even though I usually eject fairings as soon as I'm out of the atmosphere on a suborbital trajectory (because I don't want to use extra fuel to push the weight of the fairing), I use interstage fairings for rocket cargo bays often enough to clutter up the sky quite a bit. Has anyone ever thought of making a mod that would simulate debris collisions for non-active vessels? That would make me think twice about littering LKO with abandon.

I've yet to save a launcher into a sub-assembly. Typically the way I design a launcher is top down similar to moogoob. I generally try to go small and light with the final stage depending on the payload, it has big paybacks if the upper stages are built efficiently (I don't really care if I litter space with loads of debris). I use KER for delta-v calcs and NEAR. My rockets will usually be 2-4 stages depending on the payload size and destination but i customize each rocket for its intended use. For each stage I will choose a reasonable engine and then choose a fuel tank size that will cause me to hit the twr that I'm shooting for. I'll recover the 2nd to last stage for funds (assuming I decouple on a sub-orbital trajectory) and I cap it off with a launching stage of srb's.

LOL It wasn't the first kerbal I lost on EVA, but it was the first time I couldn't "revert flight" to fix my error. I lost him on an escape trajectory and I think he floated around the sun for a couple years until I unlocked the claw which I used to grab him and and bring him back to safety... I even positioned a retractable ladder that he could reach from the grasp of the claw. He didn't seem the same old Jeb after that ordeal.

It doesn't zoom in on the navball, but there is a mod called NavHud which projects your navball on the sky, and it allows for much more precision than the standard navball. It's set up to toggle on and off with the "Y" key. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81543-0-90-NavHud-a-NavBall-inspired-Heads-Up-Display-1-1-4

I did the same thing when I first started playing, only that I instead assumed that jet packs needed to be unlocked in the tech tree. So I would only EVA hanging onto a ladder after I lost Jeb to deep space since he didn't know he even had a jet pack.

I feel like the various planets and moons could be located so a new player experiences increasing difficulty as they progress. Start with Kerbin with a slight tilt (10-15 degrees). Put Mün in an orbit directly on Kerbin's equatorial plane. Then put minmus in an inclined orbit as it currently is. Note that nothing within Kerbin's SOI is at all different with respect to Kerbin's axis, so nothing changes for the early game other than the sun tracking a different line through the sky (fewer eclipses). In order to make the first interplanetary trips to Duna and Eve a bit easier, the first launch windows for those planets, when new players would typically be trying their first trip outside Kerbin's SOI, could be preset to occur at Kerbin's equinox. This would allow players to make the transfer from an equatorial orbit (or any other inclination for that matter) and still get an encounter.

2 things that might help: 1. For each mod you install, you will typically add one subfolder within the gamedata folder. You typically shouldn't copy any files to any other folders other than gamedata (not sure if some mods are an exception to this, but none that I've used). 2. Make sure you're using the 32-bit version as many mods either don't work at all or cause crashes with the 64-bit version.

I would have taken a slightly different strategy than most here, but I'm interested in what everyone thinks: 1. Launch on a trajectory that crosses the target orbit at its PE, but is rotated maybe 10 degrees relative to kerbin's axis. So I would wait for KSC to be 10 degrees past the orbit before launching and then shoot for a heading around 73 degrees from east (say to the northeast for the sake of my example). I would tweak the trajectory in map view during the launch so that my AN would line up with the target PE and circularize. 2. At the point where I cross the target orbit (AN), I would burn prograde until my orbit crosses the target orbit near its AP. 3. Now I should have an orbit that has its AN close to the target PE, and its DN near the target AP, but with an inclination difference of 10 degrees or so. At DN, my speed is very low, probably under 50 m/s or less, so I can make the 10 degree inclination change for very little DV. 4. Make a couple final tweaks radially and pro/retro to match the orbit more closely and voila! This would only make sense only for highly eccentric or high altitude orbits. Point is that a 1 degree inclination change in a circular LKO takes more fuel than a 10 degree inclination change at the AP of a highly eccentric orbit, but it's easier to match the AN to the target PE with a slight inclination difference at launch. Any thoughts?