4 IN 1

EVE have a gravity of 1.7g, if you are not careful about your tiny green man, they will fall to their death.

I usually spend hours to design and test each stage to make sure they work, but failure is still business as usual. Test flights is a must for me, usually the target is the mun, but the test objects variant as per target mission change.

I'd say if there is anything that can made orbit after landing on EVE, the aerospike is still the most capable engine that stock have offered.

Yes, that in fact remind me about the habitable moon in movie Avatar

@khyron24 I assume you mean a Methane ocean?

You are not going to get back to kerbin, but atless you should be able to get back to orbit for a return ship to come and pick up the crew.

It seems that this is a sort of bug as I am also having the same problem even when building the rocket from scratch. Too early to tell, need more testing.

Both Duna and EVE can be land using parachute, that already saves you a lot of fuel, use of aerobreaking also saves lot of interplanetary stage fuel, put all those fuel on departure stage, with careful piloting, you might just be able to hit orbit.

On the book, you need aerospikes(best TWR and IMPs) for EVE departure stage, and a lots of fuel, also since the fuel budget is so low, you might want to keep your interplanetary stage till the point where you enter atmosphere of EVE.

I use it when I cannot be bother to save fuel.

I miss the days in 0.7.x or 0.8 where you have to use radial decouper and good old SRB to built a giant rocket that can reach escape velocity. Boy do they HARD to fly.

If you also keep an open eye on the background ,you might find something interesting as well.

I have to say, I really like your SRB approach there.Its very kerbal.

Its called Mech Jeb for a reason: When it work it work, when it goes to hell, crap start hitting the fan.

RIP Neil , what you have achieved will never be forgotten. No sir its Buzz who did the job

It is a mod, use it if you like, HTFU if you don't.

No, I said you cannot make a fair comparison between the two, as they are just different thing to begin with in general.

No wonder why I have a feeling that the landing has a kerbal touch in it.

Sorry, but you cannot compare handdraw stuff with 3DCG.

For those who like to place RCS tanks and/or ASAS under the Command pod but find that the gap impossible to pass, can try to place the retractable ladder upside down carefully to cross the gap, and kerbalnauts can move easily between the pod and the ladder.

I really wish there is a parking break toggle.

Well, math won't do any good if you do not explain to the person you trying to teach what the different parameters are, just saying...

Well we already have some really nice tools in our hands to do the calculation without knowing the actual maths behind it, but without understand the maths it will still be painfully hard to do more complex things, so I'd say we better start rewrite all the tutorial in ksp wiki instead(and if possible, make some video about it as well.

So people clearly cannot count on Republicans to send someone to mars or even moon, nor people trust Democratic to be any better..... That clearly means that US space program are screwed anyways ain\'t it? >

The mod is built from ground up with 'Open world sand box style' gameplay in mind, if you only want linear gameplay or just don\'t like open world sand box you can just stop playing it, no point in telling Rocket what to do or how to do it. The problem with DayZ is more due to the nature that this is still a mod for ARMA 2 which means it is still limited to the Arma 2 core mechanics unless it go stand alone so Rocket have better control. With that said, it is unfair to comments on the engine itself unless you actually working on/ worked on it. The truth that CE3 so far failed to deliver their VBS2 counterpart shows that there is still a long way for other engine to do what RV already doing.