heng

Awesome! Did you actually plan all those flybys in advance or did you take them as they fell and waited for the right time coming by eventually?

lol. not what i was expecting when i read the title. you are aware, that Scott Manley landed on the Mun ? that should at least give an honorary mentioning here

1. Chatterer 2. KER 3. KAC all three should be stock! thinking about trying Trajectories... [h=2][/h]

O.O wow! i mean... WOW!!! didn't even believe that existed... if you accept this mission, take pictures!!! PS: there is/was a Grand Tour challenge, over at the challenge forum. there should be people able to give some advice. PPS: watch

building a 4 (+3 fuel up) launches Jool mothership in orbit, with landers and mini probes and 3 kerbals, and getting it to Jool. aaand underestimating the fuel requirements... they never came back.

Mountains are not opaque vacuums. Order of staging important is. 1st rule of electrical engineering: It might have worked with a power supply. 2nd rule of electrical engineering: It might not have.

NO. you can and should not transfer Kerbals to fuel tanks! unless you know who Srg. Pinback was...

your 15th pic looks cool - kinda trippy! any hints? how did you get there? how much weight did you need to bring? did you get back to the surface again? can you plant a flag down there? did you get a glimpse of the krakens tentacle down there?

ok, so who is the first one to send a picture from the deepest spot of kerbins ocean? :-D In other news... Scientists discover new sea creatures off Puerto Rico coast

what worked for me several times now: stick a claw on a girder, load girder with heaps of parachuts, pack a lifter under it. dock claw, deorbit burn, undock rest of lifter, land safely. pro: very low mass requirements on rescue ship con: might not survive reentry if coming in to steep

sounds to me, like you might want to read the Navball explanation. warning: the rest of the wiki is still referencing 0.9beta, but the orbital mechanics are still the same for repeated minmus missions: - setup a small satellite with the same orbital inclination as minmus. - now click on Mun - 'Set as target' - setup sat's AP/PE coinciding with AN/DN next time you start a mission, put ship on launchpad, set satellite as target... and now you can easily see when to launch!

when you set a new vessel on the launchpad, it sometimes needs to 'swing in' first... meaning, it sets a little at load. kinda like a spring compressing itself by its own weight a little. when it springs back, the upper parts are still in a downward motion, the lower parts going upwards already. at on point the forces meet and obviously overload one of the parts... my hypothesis would be, that the amount of 'setting' the rocket encounters is somehow different if you load it directly onto the pad vs. launching it from the VAB... could that be it?

it is possible to close them around a docking port (as an example) you just have to find the right pixel to click on... it seems to work if you have at least two sections and you hover the closing click on the port... works most of the times, other times i have to redo the whole fairing a couple of times. don't know how to consistently hit it, but it is possible! PS: have a central stage for transfer, and two small landers attached under a t-beam. like: ##################### # ## # . /\ . ... | | ... ... | | ... --- | | --- the dots are inside two fairings (do not forget the decoupler (---) to get rid of the whole fairings!)

I love the new aero... we need butt implants (nosecones behind the rapier engine) and Pinocchios (tail connectors in front) to get the best aerodynamically designed ships. this is madness. i love it! :-D

*sigh* nose cones behind the engines, tail connectors ("Pinocchios"?) in front. wings to cool nervas, less struts are better, airbrakes as parachutes. what's next? roverwheels to get more lift? antennas as landing struts? scott manley running out of fuel?

awww, *disappointed* i really wanted to see a hypersonic radioactive uni-directional fireball travelling at mach 2+ with Jebediah on a front seat hoping across kerbin :-D a man can dream, though... a man can dream. if i understood everyone correctly, then yes, backfacing nose cones should reduce overall drag... it's not a "nose" cone anymore, though... uh. tail cone... butt implant? rear un-dragger? flow-shadow filler?

wait. what? O.O If you are flying nukes low enough and fast enough that drag becomes an issue... i want to see a video of your ship flying...

not driving anything close to optimal myself, so no protips from me... but you could just grab KER (it's a mod displaying a lot of useful infos) and try to be as close to 100% atmospheric efficiency as possible as soon as you can. that should work for the optimal speed values. since this value is drag dependent it differs from ship to ship. rest sounds fine, but as i said, not a pro here

sooo... you are playing the stock forum. huh? ;-) same weight... that's what bugged me. ahh, ok. didn't know that. thanks! anyway, going to continue trying to hide my struts... will tell if i found something conclusive. sorry for hijacking your thread clipping is kraken bait... :-P

depending on what exactly you want, you might want to try out the subassembly feature. it takes some thinking/trail-n-error before you start, but sometimes it helps. i generally use it for probes or small landers. i make one (starting with an upside down docking port) with the desired radial symmetry and save it as subassembly (root part being the lower, up-facing docking port). while building my main stage i can just add the lander as a part, symmetry preserved. didn't know about the F key, gonna try that next time.

...?!?!?!? Ok, I tried the following: create two rockets - same weight (science jr. with no drag vs. 4x struts with drag) as expected, the science jr. rose more swiftly and higher and better and more beatifully... you get the picture. now i tried hiding the struts ander different more or less aerodynamically shaped parts. the strange things happened with "Small Hard Point" i attached four Small Hard Points to each rocket, so the weight and aerodynamic properties should only differ for the four struts on the one. the struts were going out from under the hard points. SUCCESS! i thought, when the strutted rocket actually launched faster(!!!) than the one with the science jr. ballast. but then - within a few hundred meters - the science jr. caught up and overtook the strutted rocket. ... indeed... anyone any idea??? setup struts under the hard point start, RCS on, full throttle SUCCESS!.... i thought but then it changed. thoroughly clueless and out of time... if anyone has any idea, enlighten us!

Uhhh, do a third one with Levelord's RAPIERSPIKE invention! Seems like that should increase efficiency a bit even more... Nice ship!

Could you shield the strut aerodynamically? i.e. place some more or less aerodynamically formed part right above the starting node? Assuming it is the drag, of course. If it is the weight, than that's a bug. But we should be able to counter the drag... If I test this right now, I will be dragged out of the office by my earlobes... so if someone else...? ;-)

in 5 years, god emperor of earth - Scott M. - will have humanity in his tight grasp. supported by thousands of self-launched orbital laser satellites his regime will have the kerbal theme as national anthem. orbital physics will be started teaching before toilette training and the atmospheric remodelling to match KSP's physics is still underway. but the mandatory carrying of 5 litres of jetpack fuel everytime you leave your home will incite discontent. the Mechjeb resistance will have formed an alliance with Hooligan Labs' subsea base dwellers, and frequent uprisings of non-aeqatorial cities - now outlawed - will dominate the news. ... i need to start reading more positive attitude books...

Grats for saving her! Could you in theory use Ike to do the inclination reversal for even less? i.e. coming in from Duna orbit to encounter Ike just barely (AP just touching into Ike's SOI), would give you a free polar direction for Ike. Doing a tiny change to flip the inclination shouldn't cost much, and then leaving Ike you would basically have reverted your orbit? maybe not a full 180° but at least 120°? Just speculating here... any people who know if that works? can't try right now...