Gaarst

Nah, he's talking about planets orbiting brown dwarves... fell for that too.

KSP doesn't large large crafts. I don't know the exact limit (or if there is one) but a craft measuring a few hundred meters is likely to contain enough parts to crash the game. A 60km wide station ? No.

Can you please write in black like everyone else and not destroy my eyes ? Thank you. Anyway, 1.2 is not out. No ETA and no official statement on what's in it AFAIK.

Hey

Haumea then ? Though a bit small to have 10g at the poles.

Instead of just complaining and ordering people to help you, may you please read what I and other users wrote above and submit the information we need to help you. Keeping this attitude will just make people ignore you and your issue. You're the one needing help. We are not forced to help you. When someone is nice enough to come and offer his help, the least you can do is give him the ways to help you.

The IAU like vaguely precise definitions (especially for brown dwarves related stuff), but for me it means that a planetary-sized body orbiting a brown dwarf would be considered a planet (as long as it fills the other criterions).

A brown dwarf is neither a planet nor a star. It is a brown dwarf, or a sub-stellar object. A usual definition of a brown dwarf is an object which is massive enough to, at some point, have triggered nuclear fusion inside its core, but is not massive enough to maintain it over significant amounts of time. The IAU doesnt even bother with that: < 13 MJ : Planet > 13 MJ : Brown dwarf

The USA beat the Soviets by going to the Moon first. There's no point in coming second, so everyone moved on. This, and money.

Stop shouting at people You gave no information besides the name of the mods Please read these threads and make a proper report.

Which is why the common suggestions on that list have a link to a thread discussing the issue, so that we don't have to go all over the thing one more time. Fact is, no one reads it.

Click in the search bar, and on the "All Content" thingy on the left. This will deploy a menu, and you'll need to click on "This Topic". Obviously doesn't work if you're not in a topic

You know you can change the key bindings in KSP, right ? Been doing this since 2012 and the game has been pretty playable all this time.

:hailprobe:

I'd say 20km should be fine. I use 25-30km when coming back from Minmus. You're going a bit faster when coming back from interplanetary so a little lower peri should to the job.

KSP doesn't simulate air flow deflection so such a part would be useless. Though a similar part that purposedly has very little amounts of drag and uses linear drag occulsion would work. But it would only reproduce the result of the aerospike and not the mechanism. I know FAR has a much more realistic aerodynamic model, maybe such a device could have a use with this mod.

Reentring head-on does not distribute shock heating at all, and your cockpit takes all the heat, which makes it overheat extremely quickly. To solve this, either make your cockpit out of tungsten, or use an appropriate reentry profile instead of juste heading prograde. To distribute heat correctly along the entire body of the spaceplane you have to keep a non-zero angle of attack. The greater your angle of attack is, the better you'll be, for two reasons: if your angle of attack is greater then less heat is absorbed by the cockpit and more by the rest of the craft an AoA of 10-15° will give you tons of lift and very little drag. You want tons of drag and very little lift when reentring to slow down quickly and not bounce. Since KSP doesn't simulate stall, the best way to achieve this is to keep a very high AoA: you want to have an angle of attack superior to 30°, and to 45° if possible (the space shuttle had a 40° angle of attack when reentring). Some prefer to get a 90° AoA to get the maximum amount of drag but it's the best way to flip if your plane is not perfectly balanced. A plane is not a capsule, since it has not ablative shield you can't just let your thing heading prograde and forget. Spaceplanes are a bit harder to fly than capsule and you can't do anything about it. Space is not easy. KSP is easy enough, so I don't think Squad will make the cockpit magically strong to make your life easier (nor do I want it).

Wheels/landing legs are bugged in 1.1.0-2. I wouldn't even bother searching for an answer and roll with it as long as they do the job (considering that Squad literally went on vacation after releasing 3 bugged versions).

A quick rule of thumb: < 20t, use LV-909 > 20t, use Nukes 20t is approximately the mass of a ship where nuclear engines become better than LV-909 in terms of dV (lots of graphs have already been done on this but I don't want to go and search for them, so you'll have to believe me without any proof).

Even though I couldn't agree more, the WNTS list was lost with the forum migration and replaced by the "list of common suggestions" which (IMHO) is less complete and isn't as good as te WNTS list in telling people "don't suggest it !". Anyway, other solar systems ? No. Other bodies inside the current solar system ? Maybe. More interesting bodies ? Yes.

Added @msasterisk, @Hodari, @nosirrbro, @Robotengineer and @REMD's laws to the OP, hope you'll enjoy them !

Once you gain more experience with docking, the 50 10 or so units of Monoprop in the 1 Kerbal capsule (for example) are more than enough to dock. I have an interplanetary lander for Apollo-style missions that doesn't use any monoprop storage besides the 40 units in the Mk2 Lander Can, saves mass and part count. EDIT: docking a 10t module to a space station just costed me 5 units of monoprop...

Don't remember off the top of my head, try messing with the RCS Build Aid UI in the VAB, it's probably under Translation. EDIT: yes under translation: (image from the RCS Build Aid thread OP)

Of course it is there and you can see it with the appropriate instruments, but it is not obvious at first sight. My point was to show the difference in scales between man and the Earth, showing that such a destructive event for life leaves only small local marks and has no global impact on the Earth whatsoever. Same goes for Yellowstone. Anyway, we're really going off topic there, so we should stop the whole argument about whether geothermal is renewable or not (it is ).

Please no. Make a complete, stable and polished game before thinking of spending that much time on something that close to no-one will ever use.