BoilingOil

So you post a review, only to see the mod be invalidated the day after, as the new update on KSP is pushed upon us. Isn't *that* a waste of your effort. Let's just hope the author will be around soon to announce their update.

Thanks for starting this topic, Kergarin! Now I've been warned. I've found sending a probe into solar orbit to be surprisingly easy; most of the time it's sufficient to just pack enough fuel to accelerate out of Kerbin orbit without a target. But if that bypasses the low end missions, I'm going to be careful not to do that too soon in career mode.

Hehehehe, yeah, *that* could indeed happen!

If it works, yeah... Otherwise, use the 5,000 in saved funds to double the number of Thumpers. Have six in stead of three! Suddenly, there's dV to spare

"Aerodynamic improvements" - the thing that sticks in my craw is, that whether or not the changes actually *are* improvements, is a matter for debate. They may be *intended* as improvements, but for now they are merely untested *changes*. But that's just me nagging!

That does indeed look a lot better. I see that some have already suggested you add some SRBs. I would go so far as to suggest that you replace the triple rockets at the bottom with those SRBs - Thumpers, most likely, if they are available to you.

True, there is a limit, but your design had not reached that yet - - - Updated - - - Actually, they said that *after* having mentioned that they replaced the fairing with a larger one. I guess that's the 2.5 mtr version

In the center column, I see a small ring between the FL-T400 (?) tank and the FL-T800. just around where those fuel lines attach the side tanks. What is that? And why *is* that stage connected with fuel that hangs below it? Perhaps, removing those fuel lines and removing (or at least moving) that ring, might do some good to stability. Although, not much, from the looks of it. I'm also quite worried about the change of symmetry. I'd prefer keeping symmetry on my rockets the same from top to bottom. Not two-ways at the bottom and then three-ways at the top, because that spells disaster. But that's just *my* opinion.

That little thing under the fairing in the picture, what is it? If it's a stack separator or similar device, I'd put it *inside* the fairing, at the bottom. That way, when it is activated, they are both separated from the payload. At the same time, it would remove the drag-inciting bottle-neck in the design. That might already be helpful, though perhaps not as much as other suggestions that have been made. In fact, if it's a reaction-wheel, I'd probably *still* hide it inside the fairing.

I know of no other place to access that information either. I thought there might be a way in the R&D centre or in Mission Control, but I couldn't find any.

Wow! That's everything I always wanted to know (at least since starting to play KSP ). I'ma copy this to a text file. Thanks, Snark.

I think that after two or three more attempts, I will give up trying to land that pod (I've figure out that it's actually "Orbiter 1A", not "Kerbal X", which one gets in that tutorial). It seems that after the transfer, there just isn't sufficient dV left to safely land the thing. Maybe a suicide descent (or whatever it was called) would do, but that's extremely tricky if you haven't even made a normal landing yet. And the tip about quickj-saving the game, while probably very valuable in other cases, doesn't help in these tutorial missions: every time I try F5, I get "You cannot quicksave in this mission." Anyway, landing is only optional; the mission is about getting into an orbit around the Mun, and I have. Many times. I should be happy with that and move on Anyway, thanks guys, for trying to help.

For me, those two words went together quite well from the moment I learned about calculus. But I understand how for most people that would be different. Sometimes, these numbers can just make your head spin! - - - Updated - - - Nice edit to include eliptical orbits, Gaarst. Also, I must point out that it took me a bit to actually see what I was looking at. At fist, I was like "Hmm, the speed of the vessel must be sufficient to overcome the gravitational force working on your vessel, which is dictated by the height of your orbit. That's complicated, if this height (R or (Ap+Pe)/2) is what you want to calculate in order to get the required speed (v) that gets you around the planet in a specific time (T)!" But it is not at all complicated, if you ignore v altogether, and simply use the aforementioned time (T) directly, which the above formula does! Thank you again for this most insightful response!

You know, I've said what in my opinion had to be said. I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me. If you don't, then don't. And if you don't even want to consider it, that's not my business. If you want to misinterpret my words, hey, I'm used to that too. Doesn't really matter much. I have agreed that everyone must play the game the way they want. If you want to ignore that and only use against me what you don't agree with, so be it. I find that a poor way to discuss a difference of opinion, but why would you let that stop you? Anyway, since my opinion appears to bother a couple of you, I will refrain from voicing it again.

You are so right about that, Highguard. KSP is awesome! And some of you guys here are awesome as well! I've already discarded a number of highly inefficient rockets that I had created, in favor of some cheaper, lighter ones made with the knowledge that I've collected here in only two days!

Well, excuse me, but to me the phrase "I want more hardcore" (literally from the top post) sounds like they want a challenge! The challenge is to try without tools and see what you can learn from it. I know what you are saying QPDO. But really, I'm not going to call anyone stupid or dumb, EVER. But the game isn't just about doing the missions, but also about learning how to do it.There is nothing elitist about saying that they aren't trying that. They spent €40 - or $50 - on a game that can teach them new stuff. And in one month time they have seen all corners of the game but have not challenged themselves. To me that sounds like they wasted their money. Isn't that just a pity? I think it is! If I spend that kind of cash, I want to get some bang for my buck! There are tons of things that I cannot do, but I will never stop trying, because I want to learn. I want to think that maybe someday I will be able to do it myself. But if I never try it on my own, I know that I never will! If you have the tools that tell you what to do, you never need to learn how to think for yourself. The tools tell you what you need, and as long as you comply everything is fine. You'll reach the finish line, but you will not learn anything new from it.

You got it, tseitsei, that is exactly the sentiment that I wanted to convey.

No, as I said before: if you have proven that you can do it without the tool, then you need not rely on it: if the tool were unavailable for whatever reason, you would still get where you wanted to go. In that case, there is no harm in using it. In my personal opinion, IF you only use it because you cannot play without it, THEN anything you accomplish using that tool, doesn't count as a real achievement. Because without the tool, you could not have done it. That is cheating. Going out into the wilderness with a fishing rod and staying alive on fish is an accomplishment. But going out into the wilderness with only a piece of string, and STILL staying alive on fish, is another level! Sure, it's more tedious: you'll have to make your own make-shift fishing rod from a branch that you find, or break off a tree. But once you have it, you can use it again and again. But because it's more tedious, it's also more of a challenge, more of an accomplishment. It's a more satisfying experience, too, because you've learned not to rely on a store-bought fishing rod. There is the difference. I can figure out the square root of any number using pencil and paper, to any required number of decimals. I know the technique, and I've done it many times - just for fun, to train myself and to stay sharp. So now if I need the square root of any number, I know that I can get there. It goes quicker with a calculator, but if none are handy I can still make the calculations! I could even get me a log-table, find the log of the number in question, and look up half of that number to find the square root. Or I could use a slide-ruler. I've done all these things repeatedly. When the first pocket calculators came available, people were allowed to use simple ones (non-programmable) at exams. I did not! I just had my log-table and my slide-ruler. I was one of the first to finish the exams, and still had better, more accurate answers than most people with calculators. Everyone can get a square root using a calculator, but I can get a square root, period! And as a result of that, I have great admiration for people of generations before me, who made short work of complicated calculations without any of those tools! Because I know what was involved! I have still not accomplished anything as great as they did!

SalehRam, I don't hate those tools, nor do I object to anyone *using* them. There is nothing inherently *wrong* about any of them. And I have agreed that anyone should play their game the way they like to play, too. The ONLY point I'm trying to make is this: Just assume that you're playing a single player FPS. If the only way for you to complete that game is, to use a cheat or a mod that at the start, immediately gives your character the biggest bad-butt gun there is, did you really win? NO! You only ran through it by the shortest route possible. You've completed the killing spree, but you haven't worked yourself up to a level where you could find and liberate that gun in-game. If that is fun for you, I can understand that. Sometimes I also want to blow off some steam, and just full-on killing the bad guys is all that I need. But I do NOT claim that I've won the game, if cheating in the biggest gun was the only way to do it! If you can only win by cheating in the biggest gun, then it doesn't matter anymore how hard you make the monsters that you have to face, does it? Because you're just going to blast them away with your biggest gun again! And the same applies here: If you can only get there with those tools, but not without, saying that you completed every challenge in the game is essentially a lie. If you then go on to say that you want the game to be a bigger challenge, but refure to even TRY playing without those tools, then you are contradicting yourself! So you get some more mods to make it more challenging. What for? You just use the tools again, or you install new tools to help you. So your game keeps growing top heavy with tools, and you STILL cannot play the game without it! And in the end, the game did not become more challenging either, because the tools made short work of it! There is no end to this cycle, and you'll never be satisfied! THAT makes no sense to me! Sometimes, less is more!

Thanks, Slashy. I will know to use this when the time comes that I want to get this deep into it. For now, I haven't even figured out yet, how to get something into an LKO at a specific hight efficiently from launch, yet. And to make it circular at that orbit is yet another issue. Once I've got my space legs, I'll get there eventually. And then I'll NEED this stuff.

Just as I imagined, yes

I should have learned by now, not to assume so much! Thanks again! - - - Updated - - - Ah, got it! And IRL, the same would mostly be true as well: the mass of any probe or satellite in Earth's orbit is inconsequential in comparison to the shere mass of Earth itself! - - - Updated - - - Precisely. Now that makes sense as well! - - - Updated - - - So many people knowing what I *should* have known... I'm beginning to experience some shame now - - - Updated - - - Ah, so that makes it even simpler to find the right orbit myself! Thanks again, Snark. Most helpful!

I *have* on occasion done just that: just because it was a cheap solution, I added six of the shortest SRBs around a higher up stage, just to get a short but massive boost on a load that the bottom stage had only just managed to lift out of the thickest part of the atmosphere. So I suppose you'd advise me to see what I can replace them with If so, I will indeed! - - - Updated - - - GENIUS!

Ah! That was something I wasn't aware of... Now I'm double glad I asked about it, because I *would* have used g, and then I would have failed! And just to satisfy my curiosity: 6.67 is actually rounded for practical use, right? It should probably have been 6.666... etc?

Ok, that would do it, I suppose. Thanks! I'll check that out as well - - - Updated - - - Good, a nice clean general formula! I like that... Thanks! And by 'G', I assume that you actually meant 'g', the gravitational constant, 9.81m/s/s ?? Also, I notice something... the mass M of the planet is mentioned. But I do not see the mass of the probe represented. Doesn't that factor in at all?