Kerbin vonKerbal

I thought file-sharing was frowned upon...

Ah, my apologies. I admit I just skimmed through and assumed you were asking for guidance in landing a rocket.

I would say your best bet is to keep the CoM leaning towards your desired tail-side, add some control/landing surfaces on your tail, and just burn retro. Biggest thing would probably be keeping your CoM at the bottom so your tail stays rear-oriented. I could be full of garbage though, but that would be my approach at the situation.

Yes! Been waiting for the next video. Will watch it later.

Being better than jacksepticeye isn't hard, all he does is slap parts together and scream excessively when it explodes. I can't stand his channel. It's just full of unnecessary noise and yelling. But to follow up on your initial statement, this is the finest game I have ever purchased in regards to hours played. The price is something I don't regret at all. It's alot better than the majority of AAA games pumped out that give you about 30 hours total.

(Insert city name) is close enough right? Hueheheeuueeheheueheheuehe hyuck hyuck hyuck

Any space on that beast for an external command seat?

Thanks KSP team for reviving an old childhood fascination with space, and providing me with the means to educate myself on the topic in various ways that makes for a lot of eye rolling from my wife in social gatherings when I'm asked about space things. Thanks for enduring the people who gripe about a well needed vacation after providing us with a great new update, that while a little bit bugged, is a big stepping stone in the game's future. Thanks KSP team for everything you've done so far and will continue to do.

Find your local KSP folder, wherever you installed it, and drop the mod in the Gamedata sub-folder.

I read this in Scott Manley's voice. 10/10 would be excited about the difference between speed and velocity again

Haha I understood the point you were trying to make, I just didn't quite elaborate on my agreement with you. Oops.

Yep. Sometimes the best way to do it is slap some parts together, hit the space bar, and wing it.

Fine tune and polish what's already in the game before adding more kraken-inducing features. That's my opinion on that.

A quick look at the OP/front page will tell you what version the mod is updated to. EVE doesn't show up on CKAN because it's not updated to the latest version of KSP. Cheers!

I see you have the "Stealth/Invisibility Paint" mod installed.

Also you're fighting time. You want to circularize before you hit Ap and start falling back into the atmosphere. My launches tend to be brute force affairs, trying to circularize fast and fine tuning my parking later on when I'm not worried about falling back down. TL:DR: With a low TWR during initial launch, you have potential to fall back to earth before achieving orbit.

I mentally refer to hitting the brakes in my car as 'burning retro'.

Excellent series. I tried to see if it was mentioned anywhere, but I didn't find an answer in regards to the visual mods you're using. Is that EVE manually installed? I know scatterer based off the water texture, but I want clouds for my RO save and EVE isn't up for grabs on CKAN.

If you start losing motivation, but you don't post about it in the forums, did you really even start losing motivation to begin with?

KSP is the easle and mods are the paint. Some players like stock and very basic orbital/aerodynamic physics, while some people like real fuel with insulated tanks, real scale solar systems, actual concern with delta-V and TWR, real-time replica craft performing real-time replica missions, etc. Mods provide us the opportunity to either enjoy the game as-is, or to customize it however we see fit based on personal preference. The amount of mods and impact they have on performance in-game is 9/10 times based on the computer you're playing on. I can rock RO/RSS with high res textures without OpenGL and run a pretty reliable save file, but then I also have a decently set up computer. Mods are good. If you don't like them, don't use them. I'm a Cheater McCheatyPants because I like the challenge of realistic rocketry after spending 200+ hours playing stock. I still enjoy the simplicity of stock every now and then though.

I'm content with your 1.0.5 play through. I was sad that RP-0 isn't updated yet, it takes a lot away from the flow of the RO progression. I've hit a wall my first go around with science mode in regards to the tech tree. It's hard for me to get anywhere but LEO right now, but maybe that's because I'm not that great at it. But yeah, I vote your 1.0.5 play through continues.

Realism overhaul is a good one for me. I'm also pretty active in the forums even while playing other games to fill my time while waiting on updates and such. Don't play if you're burnt out, it just takes away the fun and makes it unenjoyable.

Good advice, thanks. I'm pretty limited on options when it comes to full time college, since I'm a full time aircraft mechanic and I belong to the government right now, so I'm just trying to see what different ways I can go about getting my foot in that door.

Makes sense, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't read too deeply into it, just read a few of the orbital positions and types of payloads that fit with different orbits and their purposes, and so on. Just thought it would be interesting to those who are into that kinda thing.

In case anybody was wondering, I found an article written by the USAF on orbital mechanics and other detailed discussion. I thought it was a good read, and it explains a lot of different things such as types of orbits, Kepler's laws, orbital decay, etc. Anyway, here you go. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/space/au-18-2009/au-18_chap06.pdf