Spricigo

For some reason that remind me of Sean Connery playing English Spy, Russian Submarine Captain, Spanish Immortal, ...

As a frequent dweller of Gameplay Question & Tutorial subforum, I can only say that is not my standard response. Actually I had similar experience with Scott's videos: stumble upon it when learning the ropes, appreciated it, but was not really working for me. Seems I just didn't fit in the core of his audience, which is not a problem for me and even less for him, I just moved on. Nonetheless he pretty much set the parameter used to compare others KSP Let's Play series, and he will stay as the easy response while "Just started, some advice?" still get asked on a daily basis. The problem is: I find the start of stock career boring enough when I'm playing it, there is little chance I will take the time to watch someone else doing it. But present me that in a interesting way and I will take a look, maybe even point out next time someone ask me for basic and general advice. Convince me that its worth my time. Or, if I'm not in the target audience, convince them to take a look. Putting it bluntly: not my concern. I'm just a random guy that get in contact with your video and is not interested in YetAnotherKSPCarrerSeries. You may just ignore me (actually I can think of a few good reasons to do so) or you can present me good content. That is up to you, your decision and your goal. From my perspective: I look at the video so I can offer the advice you asked for; 4min into the video, and don't even want to play it, let alone watching someone else playing it. skip to ~15min. A odd looking rocket deployed at the launchpad. I thought it was the first orbit attempt and discovered is just going out of the atmosphere. I'm considerable disappointed by now skip to ~20min. I don't take more than a split seconds of consideration for what contract I will take next, not interested on your. Finally the first orbit, still nothing interesting I know that is harsh. Unfortunately is also true. If you want my attention (or at least people with similar expectations) there is lots to be done. To start, I suggest do some planning before recording, someone looking for guidance will quickly move away from someone looking as unsure as themselves. It don't ever matter if you reached the proposed goal, but people want confidence. No, there is nothing wrong, and no one said otherwise. But the idea there seems to be produce something people want to watch and unfortunately people don't watch something just because there is nothing wrong with it.

Considering the very true statements above. @Geek0saurus, why would the audience watch your video? Assume everyone found no reason to even click your link. And then change their mind.

Please, ask him to comment if he uses RCS to dock.

Now I'm wondering about designing a vessel shaped like a Mobius Strip...

Why you don’t just radially attach the others tanks directly in the central one and launch it in one piece? Vaguely related question: How it'll be supplied?

Exactly. Notice that the numbers in the map are approximations, because its hard to predict how much will be lost to gravity, drag and piloting. (Let alone the variation in engine performance for planets with atmosphere.) Also, in some circumstances the mods the provide deltaV readout will get confused (a notorious case is when your craft has drop tanks)

According to the map you linked: Form the surface to 14km orbit: 580m/s From 14km orbit to scape velocity: 310m/s subtotal thus far 890m/s. Now, your obit around Kerbin will depend on the ejection angle. You may be either in collision course of Kerbin or headed to interplanetary space depending where you did the burn. If you are in collision course just a small burn to adjust the periapsis is required (assuming your vessel can resist the reentry), otherwise...who knows?!

this webpage

Well, stair are only needed for Eve, the Jetpack is enough for the others bodies. Personally I try to have a open hatch near the bottom of the vessel where I can board and transfer the crew to the proper 'habitation space' before ditching that hatch. Sometimes just a docking port where I can dock a rover intended to stay at the celestial body. (except that I don't plan for extended manned operations at Eve, I'm not masochist)

@Cpt Kerbalkrunch offered good advice about how to practice (rendezvous/)docking. I offer a craft that I think can fulfil the requirements for the task with just a few modifications. (the craft was originally offered for a emergency refuelling mission). Sorry to not do the modifications myself, I'm unable to log at KSP at the moment. Remove the liquid fuel from the last Stage Replace the Advanced Grabing Unit with a Clamp-O Tron Jr Put two Place-Anywhere 7 Linear RCS Port, near the Clamp-O Tron, in radial symmetry facing up. Make sure all RCS ports have the actuation toggles for Pitch, Yaw and Roll off (need Advanced Tweakables turned enabled on settings) Remove stage 2 Alternatively, put the Clamp-O Tron- inside a fairing and launch the vessel normally (instructions in the page, launch procedure so easy that my cat can do it) and a second one. They will end similar orbits but not equal, from there you can practice rendezvous and docking (have multiple and frequent saves)

basically you download the compressed file and extract to your /Gamedata folder and that is it. Some mods have other mods as dependencies which are more often bundled together. There is this thread for mods updated to KSP 1.3 sorted by category or you may look at SpaceDock . Just be careful, its easy to dive too deep into mods and be overwhelmed by all the extra options.

It's just a ModuleManeger patch away. Source

Problem 1: whatever is used for the rooot part will cause drag and increase mass. That is the mild one. Problem 2: lack of structural coherence given the fact vessels have a tree arrangement. That one is the problematic one.

Maybe not that much of both cases. Unfortunately the way you put things give space for some confusion, and clearing it may be helpful in the future. Like in next time you ask a question or when someone look at this thread because a possible related doubt. OTOH, maybe Snark is so used to C# that "!=" come more easily than "not equal" to him. (and also he stated it in the sequence exactly after the "!=" was used. Back to the topic: jet engines, after a change along the versions, now flameout at a given point in the atmosphere where the "oxygen concentration" is not high enough. (I put it between quotation marks because I really don't know how exactly the game handle it: pressure, altitude, combination of both?). So at the altitude of your screenshot the engine should be in rocket mode and should require Oxidizer to work. If it worked without oxidizer its clearly a bug. Unfortunately non-reproductible bug are hard to smash.

The more probably is that you are confusing where/when you had seen it, and that is, indeed, something related with a mod you are using. "the mod maker let that glitch slip when editing the tech tree image and didn't bother to fix" is such a plausible and simple explanation that most people you not even think about an alternative. Off course that may not be the case, but we usually have more important matters to consider.

Sure. The keywords in my advice are consistently and never need. If that may be not the case, well... Its called safety margin for a reason. Also good to keep in mind the 80-20 principle: 80% of the result is because 20% of the work. and the two rules of optimization: Don't optimize. (for experts only) Still don't Explanation: Not only optimization is doing the remaining 80% work for the last 20% of the possible result (often a even more screwed work/result ratio) but, specially if you are trying to optimise your own work, you probably will be limited by the same factors that prevented you to get things correct to be begin with. You are probably better engaging in a new task than pursuing a trifle of improvement of one that is already satisfactory. So 'If I change X it will still give enough performance' is nice while 'I need to find a way change Y for it to work better' is bad.

maybe ask alexmoon or olex

I sometimes can't target the docking port if I have the vessel targeted. Clearing/changing the target allows me to get the docking port.

Nitpicking: Astronauts. Because tourists don't provide control. Another possibility its that what you included is actually not a Pod but just a Cabin, a part that can (and is) hold astronauts but don't allow control of craft.

I didn't asked that. My question is: How you build impossibly large and complex machines? No, I don't need to know the why you do, that's obvious. BTW, have you considered that maybe this time you docked was just a strike of good luck? Maybe you shouldn't consider it. >8] ...But actually, you don't need to be capable to dock either, ...or be rigorously in your proof.

Basically what @Cpt Kerbalkrunch say but in this link there is pictures: I also as a rule of thumbs: [velocity(m/s)]=k.[distance(m)]. Start with k=1/20 and increase it as you get more practice/confidence. About RCS, setting it for rotation only and let the reaction wheels deal with rotations make a huge difference. Also limit the thrust of RCS thrusters for more fine control. (Advanced Tweakables required for both tricks). Another way to deal with CoM issues (also provides some other nice features, like RCS deltaV budget):

For the stock beheavior refer to this article In short: -A link is needed to transmit science, control unmanned probes, and setup/edit maneuver nodes without a pilot. -There is two kind of antennas Direct and Relay. The difference its that Relay can act as Communication Nodes in between the vessel you are controlling and KSC, while for this purpose Direct antennas are ignored. -Each vessel or Ground Station have a antenna power. For Vessel that is Vessel Antenna Power = Strongest Antenna Power * ( Sum of Antenna's Powers / Strongest Antenna Power ) ^ ( Average Weighted Combinability Exponent for Vessel ) basically means the main contributor its the strongest antenna while stacking dozens of antennas don't work very well. -How far two vessel (or vessel and GS) can be and still communicate depends on both vessels antenna power Range = SQRT ( Antenna Strength 1 * Antenna Strength 2 ) -Kerbin is covered with Ground Station with very strong Antenna power. Tracking Station Level (Rating) 1 (2G) 2 (50G) 3 (250G) considering all that: A craft a craft can communicate with Kerbin if there is line of Sight and the antenna is strong enough to reach it directly. If not it need at least be able to reach a relay that can redirect the signal toward a Ground Station. A vessel with a single HG-5(weakest relay) can communicate with a vessel with a single communotron 16 (weakest relay antenna) up to 1581km away. Two of those satellites can talk to each other up to 5000km away. With some trigonometry we can figure out that such satellites in a equatorial triangular formation just a bit more than [celestial body radius] above the surface of said celestial body will give a pretty good local coverage ('everything but the poles' almost all the time). At this point there is just some gaps to fill: similar satellite for polar regions (or whatever your blindspot is), satellite with strong antennas for when HG-5 can't talk directly to KSC. To be honest, I just consider that much because I like to remove satellites out off fuel to avoid accepting a position OutOfFuelButYouDontKnowSat in a new orbit contract. CommNet Satellites, marked accordingly, are let alone.

I still need to accept your word since I have no experience whatsoever with the tutorials. And for the same reason I had little chance to get the joke. In any case good joke have some dose of truth. In that case the fact that experienced player, used to do [insert task here], may forget how difficult it was to learn that task, let alone the difference from person to person. Something people that offer help should always keep in mind.