Spricigo

Sometimes during eva construction the kerbal is pushed by the part they are picking but in my experience those are noticeable but gentle push. What you describe seems way more dramatic. In regard to loss of control, if memory serve me well, you need to exit construction mode to move your kerbal.

Are you playing in a console? If so you can find the control schemes for KSP in console Here for xbox and Here fo PS4 If you are playing in a PC go to main menu > Settings > Input to see and adjust your controls Notice you may be unable to throttle because lack of craft control or some technical issue with your controller.

well..it's actually a function of both. Vt=√(2mg/dACd)m n g and d depends on the atmosphere* while m, A and Cd depends on the craft. Which indeed means that such chart wouldn't make sense if only the atmosphere is referenced. There is a table that give the terminal velocity for a imaginary body in diferent elestial bodies there https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Atmosphere Using the formula above, I suppose. I guess an spreadsheet would help. Seems a bit impractical for me. mm,mmno, there is no chart like that. Look for yourself. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Kerbin The chart there with density and pressure for altitude may be used to construct the chart you talking about but as pointed above you also need the values for the craft. At the time KSP was at beta and had a very different and unrealistic drag model. Anything from that time regarding drag have no use for today KSP. *technically g depends on the celestial body and height. However so is d ...technically

is an old bug, I have experienced it myself several times. Still..just not what is happening in the videos above. I get that you were not in doubt but for future reference the easiest way to confirm that bug is looking at the orbital period when no thrust is applied. However, no idea how to actually reproduce the bug. (maybe it need be two bugs that love each other )

Well, the craft in the training scenario "Basic Flight" is a flea with 98 units of solid fuel. I assume your is full (140 units).

AFAIK once you dock everything together it become only one craft with only one root part. I suppose the savefile will have some hints about it.

I'd argue not quite that bad. We can extract a lot of information from what is show there . If you pay close attention you will notice that ctbram does indeed cut the thrust when the relative velocity is 0.0m/s. At this point we may observe the relative velocity is not constant. Exactly what he want to show us. But what catches our attention is something else: A moment later the engine is reactivated when we are not expecting . That is because ctbram is relying on SAS to point the ship retrograde and he can't do it with speed below 1m/s. "inefficient"? Maybe, but it is not the "mysterious" acceleration ctbram is referring to. It distract us for a moment but as soon we notice what is happening it becomes irrelevant. Let's get back to the situation where Barlin Kerman is chasing the Target and he just cut the thrust. Ctbram's question to us: why, at this moment, the relative velocity is not constant? Considering: K position of Kerbin B position of Barlin T position of Target ab acceleration of Barlin in the direction BK due gravity at acceleration of Target in the direction TK due gravity. db distance between Barlin and Kerbin dt distance between Target and Kerbin Given the angle BKT, make sense to reescribe at as: atcos(BKT)r + atsen(BKT)s where r is the direction BK and s the perpendicular direction to BK within the orbital plane. (For the sake of simplicity let's assume relative inclination is zero.) considering some numerical values for at and BKT: at BKT atsen(BKT) 9.8m/s2 1º 171.033mm/s2 9.8m/s2 0,1º 17.104mm/s2 9.8m/s2 0,01º 1.710mm/s2 9.8m/s2 0,001º 0.171mm/s2 as we can see the acceleration component in the direction s approaches zero as the angle BKT approaches zero. In fact at for BKT = 0 (B, K and T are collinear) we have: atcos(0)r + atsen(0)s == atr But wait. This is acceleration due gravity: g=GM/d2 where GM is constant and d is the distance between the central body (Kerbin) and the orbiting ship. we want to find the situation were ab - at = 0 GM/db2 - GM/dt2 = 0 1/db2 = 1/dt2 db =dt Conclusion: to have exactly the same acceleration due gravity (amount and direction) Barlin and Target need to be in exactly the same position relative to Kerbin. The acceleration you observe is the acceleration of the non-inertial frame of reference due Kerbin's gravity. PS: the special case were both craft are in the same perfectly circular orbit is left as an exercise to the reader

No idea, If I needed to guess I'd say root part or CoM. Mind If I ask why it is important?

Oh, I guess you got some valid points there. No need for apologizes. In any case, precision is limited both on your maneuvers and the displayed information. E.g. 0.0m/s may be 0.0000041592653589793... (or maybe as much as 0.0499). So, while there is way to reduce that imprecision (matching orbits instead of only reduce relative speed, using less powerful engines, doing the rendezvous at higher orbit, etc...), keep in mind that there will still be some drifting happening just under your nose.

Yes, without an external force those crafts would be moving with constant velocity in a straight line. Are they? Given the game's limitations (it is a game after all) the physics is quite accurate, what you experienced is what is supposed to happen. You just got confused because the non-inertial referential, gravity is acting upon the crafts the whole time.

3.4km/s with twr~1.5 is a convenient rule of thumbs. However keep in mind: those are "rookie numbers". I'd say an experienced player can consistently archive orbit with less than 3.2km/s and do it with less than 3km/s if really trying. Ironically, with enough experience we stop to follow our own advice.

I was about to say almost the same, just 20km instead of 10km You mean Spricigo's Technique*? Just that turning after launch still require a bit of skill/practice to be consistent, turn it before leaving the VAB and hold it with launch clamps. How much you turn varies with the rocket (More TWR, shallower angle) If you are precise enough with the design/setup you don't even need SAS or launch clamps e. g. Still, is a tradeoff, you get consistent turns at the cost of more time spent at the design phase. *Certainly others came up with the same idea independently. Still, I'm using it for almost every single rocket except launch since 2016 and sharing crafts designed to do it since 2017, I guess my case is pretty good.

It is very possible. In fact you have so little payload (1 kerbal) that it could be done with chemical rockets. Example given: With the dawn you can get even more deltaV or just have the required 10km/s in a much lighter craft. maybe you just need to drop some dead weight or better use the staging. Pst a screenshort of your craft and we can see what can be improved.

Well, that is not difficult in KSP. However if you designed something that can go that fast in water is not unlikely it can fly also (maybe it only can hurl itself a couple meters in the air and crash immediately after, which is bad enough). At this point your option became; 1.design it to fly well and land safely 2.design it to not fly (You may also just suffer, but I will ignore that "option"). Here an example of the later: For a craft of that size the 2 Juno engines are just enough to give TWR about 1, if anything It need just a tiny bit of lift to fly. Indeed, flying straight is not a problem to this "bird", despite being a few degrees away from an uncontrolled spin. But that really don't matter because I made very hard to take off with it: -The Center of lift is far behind the Center of Mass; -There is a pair of Delta-Deluxe winglets at the rear below the centerline; -The Line of Thrust is a hair above the Center of Mass; -4 elevons below the surface further stabilize the craft; -Reaction wheels are disabled and pitch authority is limited to pair of elevons to avoid SAS overcorrection -Center of Mass well between the Wheels/Keels. All of that combined makes for a very stable craft, It can maintain 30m/s with 4x physical warp. (You'll notice it oscillates but it stay in the water) It turn very easily, just roll in the desired direction and it will pivot around that keel. On land it can technically go much faster but flat terrain is required to do safely. All in all, quite a fun craft to play with but unfortunately boats are limited in scope and usefulness. Mind you, for a seaplane you need something very different, the craft must be able to raise from the waves. The CoL will be much closer CoM, same with keels(better yet to not even have it), wings with incidence and enough control surfaces for a decisive pitch up when you get up to takeoff speed.

Since you mention possible drag issue I get that you want to land it somewhere with a atmosphere.(not Duna) We can also see that the landing apparatus is disposable, so you are not planing to take of later. It seems to me the obvious solution is to strap some parachutes in the top of the rover, keep some much smaller engines to steer it to the correct landing spot and decelerate the craft enough so you can open the parachutes. What I'm missing there?

First, sorry for the late replay (I'm not the regular I used to be anymore) Tourism is the most straight-forward and gives reliable reputation even if you don't go further than Kerbin orbit.(reason why I came up with this gambiarra * (and some others) ). However the entire point of this craft is to farm tourist mission before you go to Mun/Minmus since tourist don't ask to go where you never went (and that is also the reason , for me, this craft became obsolete). That did work because I knew I would accept a bunch of contracts, fill the craft, hop into orbit, return , recover and repeat. If you already landed in several other celestial bodies then you need either to sort the tourists or to carry then the entire trip even if they only ask for a part of it. Now, what I don't see working that well is doing just a couple of tourism contracts each trip because most accepted contracts are to do something else far from Kerbin. As I see, the key to make tourist worthwhile is increase tourist capacity while reducing cost and play time to do the mission. At this point that is not there anymore. If I wanted to prioritize reputation growth, I'd rather setup Appreciation Campaign or/and Open Source Tech Program and do whatever missions I'm already doing. *image of the craft:

That is definitively one way to go about it. However, as I see it, what makes that strategy worthwhile is not the kind of contract you take (other kinds of contract could work as well) but the fact those are contracts to where you are going to anyway. Also, I personally don't like to bring tourist that far (too much increased complexity for my liking). Low Kerbin orbit is Ok, fly by Mun/Minmus I'd consider and Mun/Minmus orbit is already pushing it. On the other hand I really enjoy to do rescue and launch satellite mission. I never had the urge to figure out if that gives me more funds/mission or funds/time because that is what gives me more fun/time. (and that's the metric that matters to me.)

Well..there is quite a difference between "the station go boom" and "the station got a mag boom*" The issue there is that if you attach anything to a vessel it loses it's "fully assembled at launch" status and therefore cannot fulfill the requirements to the contract. Personally I think that if the station was assembled at launch time enough to fulfill the contract and it didn't lose any necessary part to do so at any time then it should be still a valid vessel for it and, since the game its not as good as the player to keep track of that, is fair to use AltF12ernative methods to convince the game the game to give that check mark. Anyways, If someone prefer to go for what the game says is also fair since is their game to decide. As for OP's troubles, you can always use a different save to test things and make sure it can work when you try it in your "serious" save. If you consider unlikely to complete the contract and make a profit then let it expire (or go ahead and cancel it if you need that contract slot open immediately), otherwise you are just prolonging the problem. Also, don't rely on bailout grants. Strategies as a whole are not that useful to begin with but this one is quite bad. Instead keep some open space for cash grabbing contracts (don't be afraid to decline other contracts because the penalty, its quite low and you can set it to 0 in the difficult settings, although be careful with declining too many contracts that you may want to do later since over time it will make the game less likely to offer similar contracts). Alternatively setup a science farm (a bunch of labs) on Minmus and trade science for funds instead (patent licensing gives much better rates than research rights sell-out) If you still feel like to trade some reputation for money setup a fundraising campaign instead of bailout grants for better rates. *This thing:

Your commitment is both amazing and amusing. Even the hack to solve the bug was under caveman restrictions. If you want to do it in a less challenging way next time, consider using

Definitely! I have launched some loads that were unlaunchable until I installed fairings. I'm sorry to sy that you are wrong since the question was made in 2014, at the time, without FAR, fairings would, like @ShadowDragon8685 supposed, just add mass and drag. I guess you noticed the aero model got some adjustments since then.