wibou

Unless I missed something, SSTO for Eve is mathematically impossible (You can meet the TWR requirement OR the Delta-V requirement but not both). Tylo is probably possible but it would be hell of a challenge. Edited: Goddamit, Nefrums actually made it : http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/132211-Eve-SSTO-Limbo Okay, my mistake...

Do you have an Nvidia card? If not, the game probably won't run well (or at all) due to the sorry state of the ATI/AMD drivers in Linux. For Nvidia, as long as you use the propretary driver (the one from Nvidia), it should run just fine... Stay away from "Nouveau" (Open Source driver for Nvidia cards), it is full of bugs, plus the performance sucks.

The default white lights are WAAAAAY too blinding for me. It's hard to distinguish anything in complete dark with those. I use blue or purple lights for descent, so the ground details will show up nicely.

Another hints is to avoid the poles! The mun and minmus (and most celestial bodies?) have very accidented terrains near poles, with sudden edges and high slopes. However it WILL give you the most spectacular views... just make sure to pack enough delta-v to hover during the descent to some nicer ground. And having a good TWR will make it easier to react instantly.

If it is still relevant, I had to do the exact same thing recently : http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108563-Landing-an-asteroid-on-collision-course?p=1707003&viewfull=1#post1707003

Screenshot would definetly help... But if I understand the situation correctly, my advice would be to turn on the engine of the probe PRIOR to decoupling it. Just make sure you throtle enough so that the probe would start going up as soon as it is decoupled BUT not enough so that the whole lander start flying. That way, the probe won't recouple itself as soon as you switch to it. A little dangerous sure, but Jeb would be proud

Did you even checked the images he posted? The probe has 4030 ElectricCharge and 2 gigantor XL solar panel correctly deployed. The problem is NOT about electricity, most likely a bug.

Is it requesting a _space station_ or a _land station_? In any case, it means you need to build your station AROUND an asteroid. So you need to dock your stuff using ships with Klaw (AGU) that would grab onto the asteroid. A class E asteroid is VERY massive. This would be a very challenging contract, especially if you need to land it on the Mun. (But orbit would be challenging as well!). And keep in mind the Klaw is very buggy at the moment... expect ANYTHING. Save often.

I wish we could have ONE thread that doesn't end with a flamewar PRO-MechJeb VS CON-MechJeb... It's a mod for god's sake! You need to MANUALLY install it. If you did install it, I'm assuming you still have fun playing the game that (totally different and probably easier) way, otherwise you wouldn't have installed it, right? New players learning only with MechJeb may find it difficult to do it manually then, but that's quite another debate, isn't it?

True. But even then, I try to keep as far away as possible from the Cubic Octagonal Strut as well, as it is buggy as hell. I had several perfectly good (and stable!) designs ruined by that part randomly causing explosive wobbles... running mission in ships that can randomly explode for no reason at the worst possible time is BEYOND frustrating. Down with that damn Krakennite-steel made strut! (Seriously, try it: stack 3 Octagonal on top of each other, then put 8 long girders radially on each stack... it will wobble-explode within 5 seconds on launchpad. Using less girders does make it somewhat stable but even so the wobble-explode bug will hit at any time without warning...)

The Klaw acts like a docking port, except that it can "dock" (or grab if you prefer) any surface. As such, you COULD use the Klaw to grab a rover and drop it once you reach destination. However, unlike docking port, I don't think it is possible "grab" onto something in VAB, so it will be tricky to get something into orbit that way. You could design some kind of a "ramp" that your rover would use to get at the correct heigh to grab/be grabbed... but that sound like totally overkill. Decoupler/docking ports would do a much better/easier job than Klaw to attach/drop a rover IMHO.

"Kraken Bait" It was a very large probe composed of 4 different parts that would dock using Klaw... I had a contract to get a C class asteroid into Moho orbit, you see. From what I had experimented/read about the Klaw, I had the feeling my design would summon the Kraken a few times. And it did. Numerous time.

That's actually quite an interesting question. Considering that the tallest summit in the solar system is on Mars (Olympus Mons), that Mars has a very thin atmosphere (and that said atmosphere is probably close to 0 on top of Olympus) and that the martian gravity is about 1/3 of Earth's gravity (and probably somewhat less on top of Olympus)... what kind of force would you need to achieve orbit if your starting point is the very summit? I don't have the math required to give an answer but I am very curious about this...

Yes, Vernor engine count as RCS, although they are only going 1 direction (so you would need at least 6 to cover all translation direction). And RCS engines really are LESS efficient than liquid fuel engine. If you look at their specific impulse (or Isp, simply "efficiency of an engine"), you will notice it is way less than most liquid fuel engine and way WAY less than ION engines or LV-N nuclear engine. As such, powering a vehicle, even a small one, with only RCS would be less efficient than powering it using the same amount of liquid fuel or Xenon gas. The wiki might help here: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/RV-105_RCS_Thruster_Block http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Place-Anywhere_7_Linear_RCS_Port http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Vernor_Engine

So I did it! Operation Mammoth Feather was a resounding success! It wasn't easy, toying with asteroid is _VERY_ buggy (hence, dangerous). I experimented all sort of weird bugs, from being accelerated to near lightspeed to becoming perfectly still while the universe keep on moving. I had to restart KSP several times. The notoriously buggy manoeuver nodes around asteroid were also quite a pain. Especially since 90% of the rendezvous it was giving me were AFTER the asteroid would have crashed on Kerbin (geee that's very helpful, thanks). I had to perform SEVERAL "simulation" (AKA "F5-F9") but in the end I made it Here is a photo album of the whole operation. Sorry to wake up an old thread like this... It's not just because I am damn proud of it, I ALSO felt it could help others to do the same Ps: Jeb INSISTED on coming, I couldn't help it.

I see... So unlike Kerbin, the deletion of vehicle is semi-random... well that's a bummer. And that also mean that thermometer are useless around Gilly (because the threshold for deletion is apparently HIGHER than the thermometer lower bound), so I won't be of any use there... Well, I hope this get fixed in further update.

Hmm nice! I like the scratches and stain, very realistic! But, if I may, it feels a bit.. uh.. too gentle? The MainSail is one of the biggest engine in the game, I'd like to _feel_ that raw power

No sorry, that doesn't make sense, my problem is NOT that my probe get deleted when I change focus... they survive a very long time while I am focused elsewhere THEN crash although they were in stable orbit. I highly doubt this has anything to do with the deletion altitude. Where did you find this information? That might have been my problem since all my probes so far had their PE lower than that. But then, something is buggy since 8km is too high for some science instruments (thermometer) to work. So Gilly would be the ONLY celestial body where you cannot put a probe with a thermometer into a stable orbit.

Yes. A perfect circular orbit of 2 868.75 km would be stationary compared to the ground. But (just like in real life) it is very hard, if not impossible, to achieve _perfect_ geostationary orbit (due to imprecision in the physic engine) and as such you will have to correct the orbit slightly every now and then.

Soooo what you are telling me is that the deletion altitude for Gilly is ABOVE the minimum altitude to maintain a stable orbit? Are you _sure_ about that? If that's so, then it is CLEARLY a bug. But even if what you say is true, that does not explain why a probe can last 100+days around Gilly (Note: I wasn't in control of the probe all the time) and someday just crash suddently.

Soooo I like to keep a probe in orbit around each celestial bodies, so when I get contract to "Science data from ...", it is be free money. However, I can't seem to maintain a probe around Gilly for a very long time... Right now I am down to the FIFTH probe there and they always end up crashing. According to various sources, Gilly maximum elevation is 6400 meters; so I always make sure to be at least 6500 meters high. As example, my last (the fourth one) probe was on a PE - 7200m / AP - 8500m orbit. I was never able to witness the probe crashing, I just realize at some point it is no longer there... It usually takes a while (more than 100 Kerbin days for sure). Each time I had a probe, I waited several orbit just to be sure it was stable and it seemed stable. Yet they all ended up crashing so far. My fifth one is in way higher orbit I'd like (PE - 21000m / AP 25000m) to give it a chance to last (but even then I wonder if it will...). I feel like the problem may be caused by the various physic engine imprecision; a difference of orbital speed of 0.5m/s around Gilly would be enough to down a probe (20.5m/s -> ~6700m orbit VS 20.0m/s -> crash) but I was never able to prove that theory. I also observed that the orbit of the probe is ALWAYS wobbly around Gilly. The very same probe is stable around Eve, Duna or Ike but around Gilly, PE and AP move back and forth (even if the orbit is NOT perfectly circular). So another theory is that each "wobble" cause imprecision that are eating decimals until the probe is not longer in orbit. Am I the first one to experiment that kind of issues? Any tips?

It is rumored that the various asteroids around Kerbin are in fact Krakens dropping. This idea is supported by observation of strange phenomenons that sometime occur when a ship try to grab said asteroids. Such phenomenons include (but are not limited to): Being accelerated to near lightspeed velocity Breaking the space-time continum by being rendered completely still while the Kerbol system keep on going. Creating space-warps breach where gravity influence vessels at any place and time, resulting in ship being lost by falling into.. uh... nothingness Voiding universe warranty just before breaking it so bad that other entities in different universe can be heard crying over the lost of their "persistence" Although numerous kerbal were lost while gathering these data, KSC scientists are very excited with the result. They hope to tame the phenomenon within the decade to create the fabled "Kraken-drive" at last. In a press conference, KSC pilot Jebediah Kerman expressed his enthousiasm with early prototypes of the device, although it is still "quite blowy" in its current state from his own saying.

The easiest way is to decrease the graphic quality in the settings. Try running at 1/8 res of the texture quality with aliasing to "off", Pixel Light Count to 0 and Shadow Cascade to 0... it SHOULD give you a little FPS boost, but for very massive ship don't expect miracle either And yes, it's gonna be ugly

Allright, I will change my ship to use that idea. I didn't had much time to play but I'm definitely going to try that landing this week-end. Thanks guys, I will keep you informed of the success/failure of "Operation Mammoth-Feather"

Whaaaaat? Are you serious? Damn, the stock aerodynamic is really bad... but I will use chute, just for the sake of it.