Serratus

Or You can attach two small parachutes to the sides of command pod, just below the top. Not ON top, but just below it.

I's no different that any other rendezvous. Just bigger, and as @vexx32 wrote - will take a-lot of time. I suggest You Take a look at orbital mechanics 101. There is a tutorial for this stuff. Barfred Kerman is screwed thou.

On the parts being useless subject. I guess it depends on what is Your style of building them. And let's not forget that Mun was there long before any parts that theoretically allowed to land on it, and we managed somehow. If I was a dev, I would make getting to those planets technically impossible part-wise, and just sit back and wait for some ppl to amaze me. I'm sure even if all we had was RCS fuel and blocks, there still would be someone able to make his way to outer planets and back. That said - no, stock parts are many things, but certainly no "useless" or irrelevant for interplanetary travel.

You attach rockets to every big part. It's like building 5-6 rockets at the same time. And then, a-lot of try and error.

Simple, when You're under 2km distance, You can carefully eye-ball it with RCS and patience... Works for me anyway. Once Your at ~20m, You just need to work for a while (orbit, or two) to match semi-perfectly with the other craft speed and trajectory.

Maybe it wasn't about SAS/ASAS conflict, but rather a case of too much control authority? Rocket is like a car with rear-wheel drive, and engine in the back. If You turn the light front end, with too much force You will loose control.

You still wouldn't be able to do that all the time. For example in atmospheric craft, You need access to parts right-click menus. And AFAIK, it only works from outside (I base this on the fact that there were no indicators of specific parts in cockpit view so far)...

I have a question to anyone who might know: is weight of fuel tanks calculated in real-time, or is it just a bool for full/dry weight?

@Blinkin I'd say that it more or less depends of SQUADs server bandwidth, but hopefully this patcher will be able to handle lost packets and lost connections...

Except don't post this in suggestions, as that subject was already talked over

Also, IDK how helpful will that be, but I THINK there is an advanced guide on making KSP run smooth somewhere on this forum... And I did hear a rumour of some plugin/mod/external program that can help too. Try the search option and go a couple of pages down. It's there somewhere... EDIT: One last thing: make sure You have graphic card drivers up-to-date!

The guys are right. Don't try to start with SSTO. It's terribly annoying, and at best You will be on edge with fuel budget. SPLs are much easier. Basically You build rocket, add wings to it, and drop-jet engines.

And so far fans/ram have no effect as well as engines 'body'. They are just place-holders for looks.

There is no "maximum". It's a gradient. When You fly, right-click on the engine and look at efficiency. as long as it's over 0.2, that engine is producing more thrust than it needs to cancel its own weight (that's a presumption I'm working on). Some designs can go as hight as 10Km or even higher. My standard alt. is ~7Km. Optimal flow is about wind speed. Don't concern Yourself with it - I never do once I go over 5Km. Keep an eye on that efficiency.

Well, this isn't RL. Anyway, so far I've managed to get into orbit by having all 5 main lower stage engine burn at the same time, and then decoupling the whole thing. Just keep an eye on Your g's. If You keep them in green zone, it works fine. EDIT: So I just finished a successful mission to the Mun, and I'd say it's a good rocket. The orbital stage is underpowered so I supplemented with landing stage for orbiting and transfer as well as landing. The return stage was OK. So my only problem is staging of lift-off stage, and possibility of maybe exchanging orbital stage engines with something more robust. EDIT2: Modified version. [ATTACH]32431[/ATTACH] Apart from those changes, just keep the g-force in green and You're golden Good luck!

Go to "KSP directory/parts/decoupler1-2/part.cfg" search for "crashTolerance" and change it's value to ~200 EDIT: On second note - If You have more than 2 decouplers along the main body of the rocket, don't be surprised to have control problems...

I make first gravity turn as soon as I clear the tower. It's just a 5-10deg. It's mostly because at some point we will have to worry about where do the jettisoned parts land. That way they always land in the ocean. Then a gravity turn to 45deg at 15Km, and with speed over 300m/s. Then as I go through exosphere, I start the horizontal burn. I use 100Km as parking orbit, because below that is for space planes, and above there are all the satellites...

Wow! Great word, boss... Anyway, I would like to ask Harv about IVA status. I know it's being worked on, but is it leaning toward 'yes' or 'no' for .17? I ask mainly because I can't wait to fly an entire mission from inside!

Guys, like OP wrote, it's not about Earth politics and economy. It's about colonization mechanics in KSP. And we all agree on that! That said, the moment we get docking and IVAs, we can have a real colonies without special feature. And it is a planned feature already. If however OP thinks about terraforming, and agriculture, then I'd say it's a bit too far. You didn't exactly specify what did You mean by colonization...

Suggested before, both as colonization, and as surface construction. By 2020 we probably will have a Moon base and it will be Chinese. You need money to colonize. China haz; USA, EU, Japan, Russia don't haz. At least for now...

I find that landing on Kerbin is far easier. The atmosphere (provided You don't go into it 'straight down') will kill most of Your speed. On Kerbin You don't even need to engage Your engines until ~2Km at which point Your speed is down to ~200m/s just by aero-breaking. That makes it WAY easier. Then again, if You enter the atmosphere the wrong way, nothing's gonna save You due to higher gravity...

The 'wobbliness' issue often creates problems to new players. I found out myself that it's often better to not put a-lot of decouplers in the core structure, and make sure that upper stages are not heavier than the bottom ones. Try re-making Your rocket so that there's no more than one decoupler in the middle of Your rocket. Also - could You provide a screenshot of the rocket in question? It would make it easier for us to give You useful tips, rather than trying to guess every possibility

A set of tools that allow You to cheat (for ex. put a ship in orbit).

Tell us if You want to make an SSTO or normal space plane? I'd say if SSTO then go with only rockets (I prefer aerospikes). If not SSTO, then by all means, use air-breathing engines.

That's the standard SPH "mirror" symmetry. As @trbinsc wrote - SPH and VAB have different symmetry modes.