Warzouz

Ah, ok. I was blinded by my own way of doing things. I prefer using SSTO landers from light bodies (even for other ones, except Eve). The I refuel them on the space station.

I also used the thud in early career, but I was sticking 2 of the in the middle of a rocket to help making it more stable. That way I was able to send multiple MK1 pods into space for retrieving kerbals and tourists. I used this strange rocket many times.

Oh yes, I was wondering how a big lander could have a so small fuel tank. but I got it : it was a one way trip ... Those MK1-2 landing can are really too heavy. Anyway : nicely done. I always felt that Moho texture wasn't too nice. There are a lot of texture repetition that feel unnatural. Other than that, it's quite fun to get there. Did you have any ISRU capacity ?

I tried only adding drogue chutes but I wasn't able to open them without burning. I crashed. I think 2 airbrakes + 2 drogues would do the trick (or 4 airbrakes).

From memory, that may be a 150m/s gain, not bad.

I agree. He had dump developing MC much before selling Mojang. He wasn't directly involved for a long time. But now MC is more about merchandising... Mojang in general became more and more sclerosed and lacks good ideas for years. But maybe that inevitable in game development, I don't know, I hope not! The community had hoped that recruiting mod developers would improve things, but nothing came from that. On the other hand, on KSP, the community sees the benefit of having mod developers aboard. Many of them integrate part of their work into KSP in a simplified version (that's logical) As for 1.1, there is a huge new feature : 64bit support which will end the memory limitations and maybe push the devs to be a little bit more bold on features (more planets, more planet features, proper sound design, better graphics, some missing parts).

No confetti fairing ? I've been lied

You misunderstood me : I didn't say that only some parts would have this feature (for example only pods or cores) but only selected parts by the player. For example I could choose the ISRU and a fuel tank as alternative cameras because they far reaching parts and I use them a lot on my space station. That said at rockaet design in the VAB, I could switch from COM, ISRU and the specific tank by pressing Tab key (or any dedicated one). Non need to have context menu features.

3200m/s is a successful launch. If you burnt 3500, even you have a very big and unstreamlined payload or you messed you your ascent profile. But, on the other hand, trying to reduce dV by design is not efficient. Once you have a design, you can optimized it by choosing a nice ascent profile, thus reducing the fuel you need and save a little. But if you do the other way around, you'lle end with a low dV but very expensive and low payload ratio. Let me give you an example : I tested a high TWR rocket for fun. I built a quick rocket with TWR=5 (that quite absurd). By launching the rocket inclined, I achieve orbit with 2850m/s (if I remember correctly). Was it useful ? To have fun maybe, but no practical value as the rocket had 0 payload. I build rocket with 3400m/s but I need to deorbit them and recover them. My usually disposable rocket has only 3200m/s. When you get a working rocket, I recommend you to test various ascent flight plan. A good indicator is the altitude where your prograde vector crosses cross 45°. Each time check your remaining fuel while circularized around 75 or 80km. THEN you can tweak your fuel mass to get less dV

Context menu are already overcrowded. If you have a big space station, you already have to get to the part to get its context menu. Having specific "camera" parts at design (allowed on any part) and navigate trough them using "tab" or any other key seems much more easy and user friendly. Usually the need of another camera is to easily get to the context menu. So having this option into a menu makes not much sense.

True. The same feature could be applied to maneuver nodes (auto slowdown but up to 1x). But calculated burn time should be fixed before

Yes it it was mass imbalance it would flip right at take-off.

A very goo idea indeed. But this would reduce the readability of context menus, so this function could be limited to some parts, or set at design, so we could cycle through "camera" parts with only one key press.

But more important is that 1.1 will be a more solid base to improve KSP content on (especially for memory usage, I hope)

When I go to Minmus I use Mun orbit as a reference to Kerbin equatorial plane. I eyeball where Minmus and Mun orbit intersect and take-off when KSC is on top. This matches with AN od DN node. If I can, I let Minmus be on the east or west of me so I can use then "target" as an aim for the correct inclination. If not, I have to eyeball the 6° on the navball. Sometimes, I mess and go the other way, so I've now 12° of plane change to fix

I forgot that in my last career game, I had a space station into Mun polar orbit. The station was quite simple, tanks, lab, pods, no clip, few parts, no engines. A classic "first space station" to the Mun. When I set it into orbit, I noticed the stations would start a very slow rotation, even after time warping. Cutting all reaction wheels would reduce the rotation, but not suppress it. As if the Kraken would tenderly play wit its tentacles... to anoy me. Then on rare occasion while arriving with a lander around the station, it would start a heavy wobble and destroy itseft as if the Kraken was chewing it... I finally decided to deorbit the station and bring a new one...

Moho missions are always fun. I did a Moho mission with a space station for 6 to 10 kerbals. The station is around 70 tons but 355 tons with the transfer stage from LKO. The whole rocket was around 2100 tons on the launchpad (but the 300 tons empty SSTO rocket stage is fully recoverable). The return vehicle and lander are sent on another flight. The station has a mining module which can land and refuel the station. Then the science lander (much lighter) can do multiple trips. It's a 3000m/s lander so it can do hops. (The links are in my signature) Moho station firing at LKO / Moho station in orbit (with Plume mod). This one was too heavy: the lander was part of a separate mission, tugged by the return vehicle

There are still many bugs. Kraken attacks are usually not repeatable. I had some some time ago "Hitting KSC" 30km from it... (-> 1.0.2 iirc) Reloading a save and finding yourself totally elsewhere (but reloading again and get it right) (-> yesterday)

But as the mass on top of the adapter is small, that doesn't matter, I think. The adapter is useless, use weight and make the fairing bigger and heavier. As the fairing is bigger, the fairing bug is stronger.

Yes I think this is it : fairing bug + probably too high TWR. This satellite doesn't need such a big rocket. You did a rocket SSTO which is useful when you want to recover it. Also, the adapter is not needed and use de real decoupler not a stack separator. This will reduce weight of the fairing if you don't want to remove it. A lighter launcher will also cost you less. a nice TWR is from 1.3 to 1.7. Add a engine and fuel under you satellite. Then add a first stage helped with boosters if needed. As for fairings, use the fix or don't use fairing or use it backward (but I don't know how you can fix it).

2 airbrake don't do the trick. Kerbal X lander is heavy. I'm trying drogues but I can't slowdown either. I think we need both.

If you have MechJeb (node editor tool) or Precise Node mod, you can try to get the most precise ejection angle. Get the max burn you can get from your engines, then tweak the node by sliding it. A node editor is best because you can do that very precisely. While you're doing that, check the Kerbin periapsis. At one point it should get to a minimum. Note that you can slide the node using the stock node handle, but that's much much less precise and very frustrating. If you can't lower your Pe in the atmo, then you're stuck. In that situation, the best thing to do is to stay in Mun orbit and do a rescue mission.

Did you do it in 1.0.4 or 1.0.5. In 1.0.4, regular chute could be open at around 500/600m/s and were very efficient to land without engine. In 1.0.5, it's not possible to open chute before 220m/s (even lower than on Kerbin). Further more, Kerbal X is mostly full of fuel and is not design for Duna reentry. The chute only slows down the capsule to 8m/s on Kerbin. It has half the chute of my Duna-lander and weight twice... Sure Kerbal-X is not designed for Duna. I was just wondering if it could be down.

No, the speed doesn't reduce fast enough. If I don't slowdown, I crash before being able to deploy chutes. Drogues may be the only option. I even had an issue : I deployed the chutes when the icon was "Safe" (not even risky). Chutes deployed perfectly, but speed continues to increase and get above safe limit. When the craft reached the defined altitude, the chutes were destroyed while opening. Anyone had experience with a Ike gravity assist on the return trip ?

Waiting for 1.1, I was playing with Kerbal-X. I took it to Mun, to Minmus and tested going to Duna. Obviously, I failed getting back. I had to cheat the return burn from Duna low orbit. As of 1.0.5, Kerbal-X as 6428m/s (6463m/s is removing monoprop). dV map show 6090m/s to land on Duna, not counting aerobraking) and 1940m/s to get back. Total is 8030m/s. Kerbal-X misses 1600m/s Obviously, in my test, I only missed 600m/s (I don't remember precisely). I used aerocapture (by putting the lander radial, the drag increased). But, when I landed, even doing the same, I had to burn to slow down (maybe 300 to 500m/s) for the chute to safely open. What do you think could be done without modifying Kerbal X ? Mun or Ike gravity assist ? How By slightly modifying Kerbal-X what would you do ? I was thinking about 2 drogue chutes or lighten it ? Do you think it's possible to go to Duna with Kerbal-X ?