Warzouz

But the last parameter isn't the stack node size ? OK, so basically, I juste have to do change to : rescaleFactor = 1.5 (=3.75/2.5) breakingForce = 300 (really usful ? some parts don't have that) breakingTorque = 300 (really usful ? some parts don't have that) bulkheadProfiles = size3, size2 embedded into the correct MM syntaxe. Last question : if I use the "create" from MM feature, do I have to copy all the part ressources (textures, mu...) or do I nee only the MM script ?

I need help on createing a part from another with MM. I don't need the syntaxe, the wiki is sufficient. I want to do a 3.75m to 2.5m variant of this adapter : http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Rockomax_Brand_Adapter_02 I suppose I need to change those data rescaleFactor = 1 node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.1892163, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2 node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.1892163, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1 breakingForce = 200 breakingTorque = 200 bulkheadProfiles = size2, size1 Do I need to change other data ? will it be sufficient ? What data should I set ? Do default drag will match ?

And BTW @CaptRobau, beside 1.1, what are your plans for OPM in the near futur ? EDIT other question : Does OPM handle Kerbal experience ?

True, but I would suggest never go to a retrograde orbit, except for very specific missions (rescue kerbal or place satellites). There is no advantages to this. In Outer planet Mod, I think there are retrograde rotation planets (even a retrograde revolution moon), in that case there is a meaning. Even though, if the rotation speed is low, it doesn't matter much.

@CaptRobau, I created a science checklist for Outer Planets mods. In the ZIP, there is a PDF and the original ODS file. Feel free to use it or improve it. KSP - OPM Science Checklist (150kB zip - pdf + ods) BTW, I noticed that Thatmo lack atmospheric science data.

Well, I could simply add some cosinus loss and thrust outward. Of the pole is long reasonably long, loss should be minimal.

As said, focus on navball go to 90° (east) It's even easier when you land your ship oriented on the 270°. So your navball will be as on Kerbin Launchpad. You'll have to go simply "right". Anyway, after 2 ou 3 landing, you'll get used to it. Practice in sandbox with Kerbal-X on the Mun, it takes only 30 min for a round trip.

If you set engine on top of a part, the real thrust is cancelled and you can even blow up parts. Is there a length limit to this cancellation ? How far so I have to set the engine not to have the thrust cancelled and the bellow part blown ?

Very nice set of mission reports ! Inspiring !

Same as my father (he's retired now). He found ER totally ridiculous. My step sister is in the police. Also, all series are ridiculous (us, french, german, english). Mood is different, but all wrong.

Space stations !!!

1. Asparagus aren't as useful as before 1.0. They give a little bonus, but not much than before. I think it's easier to just design rocket as like those you see IRL (with the addition of fins). 2. It's nice of you but I'm not the "inventor" of recoverable SSTO rockets (even I use this design a lot).

The OP is confusing. What @GoSlash27 calls a "zero decent rate" is usually what most of us call a suicide burn. A light deorbit and a long final burn until few seconds before touch down. It usually focused on efficiency, not target landing precision. And what @Plusk describes as "zero-descent rate / constant altitude burn" is indeed a variation using low TWR engines. In that condition you can't just follow retrograde because your vertical speed will rapidly go out of control. You have to burn partially radial to keep your vertical speed manageable while you slow down your horizontal speed. That costs a lot of fuel, but may be the only way to land with low TWR. This technique is not efficient and not precise because your main objective is focused on controlling you vertical speed, not your landing point. I used this technique to land on Tylo with a 1.00/2.15 TWR 14T SSTO ship (from 30km). I used 6000m/s(3150 to land and 2850 to return) from and to 30km orbit. The OP method is a good in-between which has also the advantage of being quite precise at targeting the landing spot. Most useful.

I hope you had a powerful reaction wheel !

Indeed, that's very true. In fact, this is my main reason to design a lander that only gets ore. The refueling need may be to the science landers (LF+Ox), or return vehicles (LF only) or monoprop. Figuring that from the ground seemed too complex.

I think you meant asymmetric, not asyncrone I would add : Orient your target ship to normal to find docking ports more easily Don't hesitate to hop to the target ship to move it/rotate it. Orienting a docking port strait at the incoming vessel will help this vessel a LOT. Then hop back and go strait to the target port. It's easier to align first, then translate. Hit CAPS Lock to switch to "fine control". It seems easier to handle uneven ships that way. Don't forget to add a "spot" (round) light near you docking ring to have a better view on the target ship. Add a "large" (square) light on the target ring to be able to see it more easily from a distance. Don't hesitate to use colours. Go gentle on RCS on translation and cut it when you want to rotate using reactions wheels instead. You save a lot of RCS that way. I usually dock a 5T ship with 2 or 3 units of RCS. Don't add additional RCS tanks if you want to dock once or twice. It's a waste of mass. All RCS tanks are much to big for a regular usage, even the small round one, which you usually have to carry by pairs... Either way, you can always refill your reserve after docking. If your ship goes too slow, don't burn RCS to go faster, use time warp instead !

If you're in orbit of Vall, I think it's better to refuel on Vall because Bop or Pol are "far". Landing on Pol is cheap, but getting there is quite expensive (and long). If you still want to refuel from Vall, I think you need to be strict on what you bring along. Only a fuel tank and little engines, not more. That may be worth it. But again, it's more manoeuvres. I prefer making refuelling simple and quick so I can focus in my mission.

Docking is the only thing I do with a joystick. I find it VERY relaxing. Doing slow approach to a ship which is falling at the same high speed as my still amazes me. I think I would stop playing KSP if it wouldn't.

Well, I use a similar system (see the like below). I land a 40T heavy lander with 3200 unit of liquid fuel. It drill for 3000 ores and get back to the orbiting station where it. On Vall, the system is able to refill 43% of an orange tank. The station assembly is compatible with every bodies, thus is some situations the refill is not the orbited body (Ike for Duna, Gilly for Eve with orbit constraint, Pol for Tylo). I've only issue with Laythe. the heavy landed is rated with 4000m/s, but it's worst effective range is 1300m/s both ways (including ore load on return trip) Miner landing on Eeloo / Miner landed on Bop on a 27° slope. Here are my stats. As for @Blaarkies, It's solution seems to be more efficient (yet it has to prove it with a final fuel ratio), but the procedure is much more complex. It requires precise landing and landed docking, which is supposed to be very hard. On the other hand a totally lifting system is so versatile, you can even move it to other bodies into Jool system. My spacestation can fly on it's own to other places. It even don't need any interplanetary stage, if you are cool with low TWR burns, for Kerbin SOI, Duna and Eve, and maybe even Jool if you do gravity assists (not tested).

Yes, I know that the rover was very small compared to the shield. But even with a much bigger vehicle, you may have more issues to get rid of it. On the other hand, I was testing rover reentry skycranes / heatshield. Even a regular 3.75m heatshild is not that easy to shake it loose.

It seems this part is ultra draggy and even chutes can't shake you loose. I'm wondering if it's usage for a vertical Eve reentry (as it's so efficient and robust)

I did one mission to Dres. I sent my first new space station concept prototype. Let's say I miscalculated But in the end, I sent refuel, did several landing and stripped Dres for science. Then there was crew rotation (2 more flights, I think). In 1.1, I'll make use of those asteroids.

The Doggy rover, which this Elcano Rover was based on, is only 2WD and has the reaction wheel at the front. I did some extensive tests on Eve (500km), Duna (200km), Mun (100km) or Minmus (few km) with no real problem (after a lot of tweaking). Braking was quite efficient. To create this rover, I added 2 seats, removed most of the scientific equipment, add 2 more RTG and moved the reaction wheel at the back. It feels that braking was less efficient.I had some issues braking on slopes I didn't had on my rover probes.

Is there an 1.1 video of the inflatable shield ?

I think it can be done for less than 7000m/s