LN400

Not sure if I understand the question but if you want coverage everywhere all the time, couldn't you just launch 2 long range comm satelites both with antennas for base and any planet you want to cover? Have them something like 120* apart in an orbit around Kerbol and at an altitude so that Moho never gets in the shadow, alternatively 3 sats 120* apart to make sure Moho always gets coverage? Of course, you will stil need local networks for each planet but to link them all, you would only need 3 long range ones around Kerbol. Any planet getting in between them would have local networks to relay the signal anyway. If I'm way off target, feel free to disregard.

A quick way to get rid of space junk is to go to the tracking station, select the scrap you want to throw away and click the discard button. Click yes to confirm and the junk is gone. For that tank/engine that got you into orbit, there is a more stylish way to get rid of it. Use those small solid fuel sepatrons and the like. Attach them pointing towards the ship, on the tank/engine you want to drop and stage them together with the separator. The kick they provide is all you need to deorbit that piece of space junk. Remember though that the heavier the junk is, the more sepatrons are needed and they do add some mass for the initial stages but it's a nice way of getting those spent rockets out of the way.

I just eyeball it really. Hit tab to zoom in on the body I will have the encounter with. Setting up a node somewhere along the trajectory, ab-ing to zoom in on the body, and fiddle with the node until my Mk I eyeball is happy. If you target the body beforehand, you will get the AN and DN to show up on your orbital trajectory. Sometimes that's where you want to do the burn, other times not. When is to me a lot of fiddling with the node until the AN/DN reads about 0 for the least amount of dv. Lots of eyeballing in other words.

This. With RT and KER you can also, combined with the above mentioned method, do shorter and less powerful burns than stock game allows. With the engine capped at 0.5%, set the burn slider in the RT remote control panel to minimum, set the timer to 0.001s and hit the burn button. Doing that, and tweaking the exact settings, I can easily get the orbital periods of all the sats in question to match down to and including 1/1000th of a second which gives you a stable configuration for years in game time.

While I have little problem getting around and returning, one issue keeps bugging me and that is, where I land is very much a lottery, especially when returning from other bodies. Since I first started playing KSP some years ago, I only managed to land on KSC itself less than a handful of times. I tried to standardise the final orbit before reentry, I tried to standardise the geocoodinates for the final burn, same for the initial periapsis after the burn. So far I have not been able to get consistent results on where I land. One problem is that from an orbit at say 71,000 m, 1 meter + or - and 0.1m/s variance can mean several tens of km off target for touchdown/splashdown if not more than a hundred km. For those of you who do precision landings, any hints and tips on how to get more consistent results? I would think each design would require its own details on how to de-orbit but I would like to hear from you how you go about it.

The maneuver node can be a bit of a bite to chew off at first. At least it was for me but it turns out it wasn't that mysterious. To familiarize yourself with them, start with a ship in a steady orbit (no burns for the time being, just looking at the node and see how it works), Make it a due east orbit for now. The node also relates to the nav ball so keep an eye on this one as well. First step is with no node. Have a look at the nav ball. Notice the prograde and retrograde markers there and make a good note on how they look and how they differ. The prograde marker shows the direction you are currently traveling. In a steady orbit it should be at or very near the horizon line on the nav ball. The retrograde marker shows the exact opposite direction of which you are traveling. Again, make a good note on how these two markers look. Turn the ship to point towards the planet you are orbiting. There you will see a blue marker. Turn the ship around again pointing directly away from the planet and you will see another blue marker. Again make ery good notes on how they look and how they differ, Finally, turn the nose of the ship due north and then due south to see 2 pink/red markers on the nav ball. Again make a note on how they look and how they differ. Now picture this: The orbit is in a plane. Imagine a circle or ellipse on a sheet of paper. At any point your ship is at, the yellow markers are on a tangent line to that orbit. At any point your ship is at, the blue markers are on a line going from the center of the planet through your ship and out into space. It's a radial line. At any point your ship is at, the pink markers are on a line going through the paper at a right angle. Now place a node anywhere on the orbit line in map view. If it's small and orange, click on it to blow up the size and bring up 6 icons attached to it. Note how those 6 symbols match the 6 markers on your nav ball. What they do is let you decide along which of the 3 axis I described above you will make the burn. Each axis goes in 2 directions, but think of that as say, positive and negative burns. By left clicking and dragging the symbols you can add delta v to the burn along any of the 3 axis and any combination of them. If you want to increase the orbital altitude, click and drag the prograde marker. If you want to go lower, click and drag the retrograde marker. If you want to change the eccentricity of the orbit, or the focal points of the ellipse, click and drag the blue markers. If you want to change the inclination, click and drag the pink markers. All the delta v you add to the burn along all axis are "added up" to a total delta v to burn for. Best tip after all this is to set up a node and just toy around with those 6 markers and watch how the projected orbit/trajectory changes. Learn by doing. After that, try a polar orbit and see how the markers on the nav ball are oriented now and how the markers on the node are oriented. Notice the blue marker that appears when a node is set up. That is the direction you need to point the nose for the burn. Also notice that the markers on the ball tells you which direction the node markers "act" when you drag them around. Finally, when the node is enlarged, you can right click on it to get 3 more symbols A red x for deleting the node + and - for setting up the burn at a later pass, that is not neccessarily the upcoming pass. This trick is particularely useful when you plan a rendevouz with a ship or another body. Hope this is of some help.

Sounds like it went better than my first attempt then. Look up confusion in a dictionary and you see a picture of me getting all the controls wrong Congrats. Just a tip: If you orbit say one body and have the trajectory set up for an encounter, hitting the tab key in map view, or select focus view in the pop up menu there, let you see up close how the trajectory will be (at least it will be close but it may change a little bit during the trip over). You can then have a close up view of what fiddling with the maneuver node will do. It is particularly useful if you need a particular orbit once there.

One thing I found was a heat shield out of ablators offers less drag than the Mk I pod. I don't know if it's one of the mods I use or if it's stock behaviour but I usually stage the HS so that when it runs out (or if), I drop it for a higher acceleration down to safe parachute deployment speed. Also the weight loss helps.

If only I could. Independent on design (assuming symmetric mass distribution) the rocket WILL invariably lean westwards right after liftoff with north/south thrown in more randomly. Without gimbals or controllable fins, the tiny reaction wheel in the pod can not save the rocket from going the wrong way. Under no circumstances have I been able to send a symmetric rocket on a due east ascent unless I have gimbals or fins too make the early corrections. Once the eastwards course is established gravity is enough but I still have the issue with the rockets random falling over either north or south of due east.

First, I assume that 9.18 was a typo and that you meant 9.81. Second, for some reason was it (I don't know if that has been corrected) 9.82 that would give a better result. Try 9.82 and see if that gives you better results. Third: If you talk about going through the atmosphere then yes, delta v increases with altitude. If you look at the engine data in the VAB you will see 2 numbers for thrust, one in vaccuum, the other at sea level (on Kerbin that is). Same for Isp. Calculating accurately for delta v through the atmosphere and against gravity takes a deep dive into a lot of nasty maths, but with experience can you tell how much each stage of the rocket needs. Example: I know that with around 2000 dv, will the first stage take me to between 20,000 and 30,000 meters, up beyond 40,000 if the thrust is just right and the gravity turn hasnt been fubar-ed totally. I use 20,000 as a rule of thumb that I break and set to 25,000 to give me the ballpark number I need. However, the speed will not be anywhere near 2000 at that altitude, more like 700-800 m/s. As I get higher, the burn will be increasingly horizontal meaning more and more of the thrust goes to give me orbital velocity and less goes to climbing, and the dv on paper gets closer to what I actually spend.

On a space station: Have an arm to maneuver new modules into place without having to use any monopropellant or any other fuel. Electric power is free. On the ground: Have a crane in a low gravity environment to move/join together modules for the same reason as above On the ground 2: Have a module based drilling operation with a crane/coupler connecting the power unit, solar panel units, drilling unit, convertion unit, storage unit etc. Makes it easier to build up a very large mining operation with small, easy to bring over, units. Just a few ideas.

I can not argue directly against that, as it is sound. However, personally I found the best use for stock SRB to add them when the start TWR of the mains were just not enough for a good acceleration, or below 1. Fire the SRB with the main, with the main at reduced power perhaps so that by the time the SRBs go out, the TWR for the mains have increased sufficiently. This allows for steering (I'm just too much of a cheapscate for the controllable fins, they are horribly expensive) while enjoying the raw power of the SRB. With mod SRBs things are different, with them having vector steering. Stock, I prefer to fire them all.

Have you both landed yet, safe and sound or are you still in orbit?

Well, it certainly isn't going strong any longer but still, those projected 3 months were well and truly exceeded in any case. That was really all I meant by it.

I must admit I was unaware that China has had a rover on the moon, going strong way past its expiration date. 31 months when the schedule was 3. Quite the feat! Rest well, rabbit. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-36972205

Maniac Manson: A game about a loony's journey to life in prison. Gunhip 2000: Have fun playing the doctor who gives his patients unusual implants. Batch Head: You must produce enough moonshine to lit a major city before the coppers come. Assassin's Cred: You must convince the local assassins you are more than a butterfingered clown with a knife.

The Secret Of Money Island: A game where you run a business based on the Cayman Islands Operation Flashpint: A game about drinking binges and drinking games.

Here are the equtions you want: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Cheat_sheet Look under Math Examples. Basically, you need to calculate effective Isp (as shown on that page) and use that figure in your calculations.

You say you use KER. You can edit the Orbit window to include both Time To Equatorial AN/DN and Angle To Equatorial AN/DN.

Alright. That does simplify things. 2 things to keep in mind. The angle of the wings first. Too great angle and the wings will stall if the stress doesn't break the whole thing, too little and there won't be enough lift. Only experimentation on a given design can give you your optimal angle in KSP, I would think but also bear in mind that typically, the angle really doesn't have to be great at all. 5 degrees perhaps, perhaps 3-4 will do, 10 tops before things start to go south, could be a starting point. RPM. Fast does it. Very fast even. Consider real helis with their perhaps 300-400 rpm, or model helis with their 2000-5000 rpm. Wobbles and total disinteration will threaten but work on making it sturdy yet as light as you can. One more thing. Helis (even DIY ones in KSP) are really demanding when it comes to perfect balance. Put a say, 50 kg part on only one wing as it spins at say 500 rpm and watch the ensuing mayhem. Shouldn't be to much of an issue in KSP with parts copying and symmetry mode but definitely something to keep in mind.

Which parts mods are you using and which special (like rotating) parts are you using? A picture and some words on your contraptions so far would also be of great help. I can say this though: Using Infernal Robotics and Procedural Wings I did manage to build a somewhat controllable twin rotor heli. It has since been scrapped but I do remember it was quite the challenge to make the wings and rotor system strong enough for the neccessary high rpm. No hacks were used. I don't know how much you are into helicopter design so a few words on where you come in that respect from would also be good info. That said: There are in essence 2 different approaches you can take. One is mechanically simpler but can be harder to control. This is the type where the angle of the wings relative to the oncoming air is fixed (fixed pitch) and only rotor rpm can control climb/descent. The other type is much more complex and involves some way of changing the wings' angle of attack (collective pitch) to control climb/descent with a fixed rotor rpm. Which one of these 2 have you been working on?

I can only speak for myself but when I first started playing Falcon 4.0 Allied Force, I spent weeks tearing my hair out, days and nights on end trying to figure that beast out Some just prefer to jump into the deep end and stay where all the bells and whistles are. Anyway, back on topic: On available contracts for cash: One mod I use (not one for science and cash) is RemoteTech. This mod makes it quite challenging to send up unmanned probes early on when cash is low and hard to come by without sending out unmanned ships/parts-test-rigs. Catch-22. It gets even harder by the fact that it takes quite a lot of cash to get past the 30 parts limit at the start of the game making scientific explorations of Mun/Minmus rather inefficient, costs-wise. Another Catch-22. In the current game, I can pick among 2.5m-parts-into-escape-trajectory and low altitude surveys. The parts tests are the most profitable and I have therefor started building the communication hub around Kerbin with cheap short range (2.5Mm) antennas for sending out disposable test rigs with as many of those tests I can fit within the 30 parts limit. The cash should allow me to expand the VAB for a greater parts limit for the exploration of the moons. Guess the point is priorities. The surveys look easier but the reward is much lower and each survey takes one rocket with low cash return. Beside, the more contracts you can pack into one launch, the lower the cost per contract, for a greater profit.

Some good points have been brought up. Not only can methods be mod dependent but also dependent on your personal game difficulty settings. Great to see alternative methods for various game settings!

I have started a new career after a long time off KSP and once again I find myself grinding for hours for bits and scraps of science points as well as cash. Realizing I am far from the only one who find it tedious, it got me thinking: How about a topic where we collect hints and tips and plain directions to get the game going sooner rather than very much later. The idea is that anyone who has found a way to speed up the science/money collection process, and who wouldn't mind sharing, can post their hints, tips and tricks here. Mods are ok, just make it clear if your method is mod dependent and if so, which mod(s). What some consider cheating, others don't so I'll just say if you consider something to be cheating, that's fine, just don't use that method yourself and move on with the career play. This topic will solely be about various methods to get those fast cash and science points. No bickering and argueing about this or that mod or this or that is cheating. Now, to most players, many of these tips will be known but to others, especially new ones, the tips are not known. Don't worry if your tip seems like unworthy to mention. Post it, it might be of help to someone else. NOTE: This topic could very well end up with spoilers for those new players and possibly old players who would rather not know, but find out for themselves. If you don't mind spoilers then go ahead and read on. Ok, I'll start to kick this one off (and hopefully, others will post their tips). Science on Kerbin:

Petty Woman: When Edward Lewis spots a woman in the street, he remembers he must call his attorney to discuss something more important. Pretty Oman: A roadtrip across Oman.