Spheniscine

Actually there is one thing lost here in the discussion of Kerbin days; 6 hours is Kerbin's sidereal day (rotation relative to "fixed space"; in real life, one will use very distant objects like stars to measure this). Kerbin's solar day is slightly (~50.8s) longer; the effect is that sunrise and sunset times would actually vary throughout the Kerbin year. Earth time is based on Earth's solar day; Earth's sidereal day is shorter (~23h56m4s). edit: Oops, responding to old posts...

I've tried it. The punishment for walking to all the ground waypoints is walking to all the ground waypoints x.x

One thing I do with planes is use parachutes for landing; it's easier than landing with gears, and doesn't require a suitable "runway"; you can even land in the ocean in a pinch. I find three radial parachutes sufficient for my minimalist designs.

Add me to the list (im)patiently waiting for the update... low Mun polar orbits take forever for the new contract waypoints to rotate under them, and I find I keep having to switch back to the tracking station...

Oh just thought of another possible feature: have the icon within the point blink when you're close enough for it to count, just like it already does on the navball. (I always worry that I had missed the entry message, and oftentimes the icon on the navball is obscured by the prograde icon and the level indicator...) I think [ and ] are already bound to next/last vessel by default - and I reassign all my keys anyway so I'd prefer for any keystrokes to be configurable (even if via a text file).

Actually I'm not exactly sure how useful it'll be. I notice that while on the ground, apparent distance to a waypoint can be very deceptive due to the terrain layout, such that without the map, I can't be sure I am picking the closest waypoint.

Bug report (I've seen it in 0.25 + FP too, but wasn't sure it was reproducible until now) If you match a satellite orbital waypoint in flight view, and then switch to map view immediately after, it glitches out, and no orbits or vessels are shown. The workaround is to return to the Space Center and then switch back to your vessel.

Oh by the way, any fix for the g-loading estimate? Currently the values just change really fast and is unreliable.

(Tested on 1.4.1, dunno if fixed) It seems that adding those size-0 SAS parts does not actually give a vessel SAS capability? Is it a problem where there is no way to add SAS functionality without it being a command module in and of itself...

It does seem to work correctly once you get Tracking Station 2.

I think maybe it's because SRBs are cost-efficient but not mass-efficient (due to comparatively low ISP), so on heavier craft, the loss of efficiency through multiple stages becomes more important. Also SRBs lack gimbaling, which is also a factor on heavier craft... The staging isn't too much of a problem since the first three are jetissoned before the gravity turn anyway...

Hmm... gotta hand it to you Pecan - you got me to think outside the box a bit. I made one for 8,387 funds (17 part count): Upper stage: FL-T100 + FL-T200 + LV-909 Lifter stages are four stages of stack decoupler + RT-10s. Top two have been thrust-limited to prevent excessive g-loading and drag loss. Has 5.055 km/s, therefore a big enough margin that I'm comfortable using it as a beginner craft. Only downside perhaps may be the number of stages.

Tried it out; upper stage has quite a low TWR (1.174). Did manage to get it to orbit and back, but just barely. Thanks for the effort though.

Yes, indeed I am.

I meant trying to save the fuel tank and engine would make the rocket taller

It's based on a design that Scott Manley used for a tutorial video, and which I have used myself for my first orbit. I don't really have any idea how to simplify it; it has 5,271 m/s of ÃŽâ€v, which is just enough to give some room for error, and all my orbital rockets are basically scaled-up/tweaked versions of this craft. I find the gimballing very helpful; it allows me to save on reaction wheels/winglets, which also requires higher tech. Never had much luck with that; you need to be pretty slow to land on the engine safely. Also it makes the vessel taller and thus more prone to tipping. I dunno; I somewhat prefer doing it by eye because some of my rocket designs would drop a stage during that burn, thus screwing up any burn-time estimate. Secondly, I'm usually not trying to be very precise there.

Thanks for the feedback. Not if you're in chase mode, which is the easiest to use mode for rendezvous maneuvers.

I have written a tutorial series here: http://www.lets-play-sphen.com/?p=218 It currently has four chapters and an appendix. Comments and suggestions welcome.

That is one option. Another option I've used is to use RCS thrusters to provide artificial gravity (downward translation, assign a convenient secondary key to it) when accelerating or braking. Walkers would be a nice additional option though, especially since it would also be good for mountainous terrain. The klaw doesn't work on terrain I think... besides, it doesn't move, unlike a walker.

Part-types that will come in really handy for rovers: 1. A probe core that has a front-facing camera, and a manned pod with a front-facing windshield. When you "control from here" for these parts, you can toggle the navball between topward facing, and frontward facing, to better view your current heading. Currently the only options to get a frontward facing navball are to rotate the core/pod (awkward for some designs, and loses topward facing for lifting off), or to stick a control point, like a docking port, to the front (unbalances the CoM slightly, is in a distant node on the tech tree, and ugly [though I pretend it's a camera]) 2. Clawed walker legs as an alternative to wheels. For balance, these shouldn't be as fast as wheels on flat terrain, but claws with grip force will come in really handy for exploring mountainous terrain, or low-gravity/traction environments like Minmus or Gilly. Also unlike wheels, they work when attached radially.

Does / would Fine Print recognize crawler rovers (exempli gratia)? It would certainly make those particularly hilly areas a bit easier

They only appear once you have unlocked the nodes containing the parts you need.

I'm pretty sure you can? I think it's under some "notes" dropdown... you can even view the waypoint in the Tracking Station even if you haven't accepted the contract.

Depends on what you consider a "base" If it's just a lander with a high (5+?) crew capacity, you can already do that in stock - just stack some lander cans, hitchhiker modules, and a viewing cupola if you wish, on top of some engines and landing legs. Make sure you carry enough fuel for the increased weight. If you get Fine Print, you can even get contracts in career mode that will pay you to build bases with certain requirements. If you use a life-support mod (TAC, Snacks, etc.) and want a planetary base suitable for sustainable habitation, you want USI Kolonization Systems (MKS/OKS). You can also get it without life-support mods if you just like the look of the parts. If you want to actually be able to build and launch vehicles from elsewhere, you want Extraplanetary Launchpads.

Is it possible for strategies to not touch advances? It's a little silly to earn science just by accepting contracts... of course, advances are already broken in that you don't ever go into negative funds when you decline contracts...