maltesh

I think this might be the highest point on Kerbin. Admittedly, I\'m not even sure if it\'s the highest point in the mountain range where the highest point in my collected ISA RAM Satmap Data is. Before I started throwing in mappers for a low-altitude loock, the highest point I knew of was almost 200m lower.

I suspect that this is it. This is the mountain: And this is the range. Methodology: I used the ISA RAM Mapper to survey Kerbin, found the coordinates of the highest point in the datafile, and MechJebbed in a rover to that point, spotted a point that looked higher, and drove over there. Given that the point my datafile found was nearly two hundred meters lower and 20 km away, it\'s entirely possible that there are higher peaks hidden between my datapoints, possibly in other mountain ranges.

Casu marzu.

The scanning beam actually does record ocean floor detail, it\'s just that the provided mapping tool renders them at sea level. The lowest Kerbin altitude I\'ve got is about -900 meters.

I\'d disagree. I\'d say that catching up with an object in an escape trajectory is /easier/ than catching up with an object in an elliptical orbit (assuming you\'ve got the fuel for it) , primarily because an object in an escape trajectory is spending much of its time moving in a path that approximates a straight line. And when you\'re in the stages of trying to match courses with it... so are you. As a result, you often can burn straight towards it, once you\'re nearby, and the values of 'Nearby' are a lot larger than they\'ve been for my elliptical rendezvouses. My Disasteroid challenge was about intercepting an asteroid in a hyperbolic orbit, in the twenty-four hours before it hit Kerbin. I\'ve done it several times now, and it\'s mostly about Hohmann transferring out to about where the asteroid is going to be when you swing out there, killing your forward velocity, and then adjusting to overtake or to let it catch up.

I\'m a keyboard player, and tend to rely heavily on RCS for killing lateral velocity on the vertical stage of final descent. My manual landers invariably have an ASAS module, but I find that sufficient to cancel the rotation imparted by a single ring of RCS jets (either three or four of them, depending on whim or design), placed high on the lander. Basically, I usually put my landers + last pre-lander stage into an orbit around the Mun with an altitude of about 10 km. I then make sure that the speed indicator on the navball is showing Surface Velocity rather than orbital Velocity(and click it if necessary to switch it over. The difference at the Munar equator is over 9 m/s of horizontal velocity, enough to tip many lander designs if you\'re reading the wrong value) I then use the fuel remaining in the last-pre-lander stage to get as close to zero surface velocity as I can on the remaining engine. I then flip vertical and begin the vertical descent. At about 5 km, I\'ll detatch the last-pre-lander stage and ignite the lander engine.From there, I try to keep a descent speed of about 1% of my altitude in meters, while using RCS to shove the velocity vertical. I watch the last pre-lander stage smack into the Mun below me, and that gives an idea of what the surface altitude of the landing zone is. Crunch time occurs at about 1000-500 meters above the expected surface. From there on down, I try to find a setting on the throttle that will have my spacecraft descend at landing speed, < 9 m/s. RCS becomes very important there, both for shoving my velocity vector vertical, and fine-tuning descent speed. I usually don\'t touch the throttle until surface contact happens. Since I\'m usually pushing the craft downward with RCS at that point thanks to the craft lightening from fuel expenditure, touchdown is typically very gentle. That\'s what works for me, anyway.

Indeed. If you don\'t leave Kerbin\'s SOI, and the Mun doesn\'t interfere, the maximum delta-V needed to deorbit from an elliptical orbit is about 450 m/s. The second time I attempted to leave Kerbin\'s sphere of influence, orbit Kerbol at least once, and return to Kerbin, it took over 2200 days for me to guide the spacecraft back into Kerbin\'s SOI. By about a factor of three, that was the longest mission I\'ve ever flown that successfully returned to Kerbin. My bi-elliptic sundives typically are about 1200-day trips, which is much, much longer than the direct route, but far less expensive in fuel.

Also, it would be nice if the hinges were asymmetrical, either in shape or in color. When making my six-legged walker (which relied on each pair of three legs moving in unison), I had to push it to the launchpad and test it to realize that I\'d installed some of the hinges upside-down. If the hinges were asymmetrical, I could be certain that grouped hinges were orienting the way I wanted them to in the VAB.

It is definitely more efficient to kill lateral velocity higher up, simply because you\'re moving slower at that point. And as you descend, you\'ll be moving faster (and thus your lateral velocity will increase), and orbital mechanics will bend your hyperbolic path (also increasing your lateral velocity.) If you absolutely know what you\'re doing, it really is most efficient to stabilize for a vertical descent as far out as you can, then do a last-second max thrust burn to a stop just at ground level. If you are learning to land on the Mun for the very first time, it is a very unforgiving landing route.

The Surface that your speed is relative to is the nearest point on surface of a sphere, rotating about the same axis as Kerbin, with same six-hour period as Kerbin, but with a radius equivalent to your current distance from Kerbin\'s center. It\'s that point on that hypothetical surface that you\'d have to match velocities with to remain motionless above a particular point above Kerbin. (It should also be noted that KSC isn\'t /precisely/ on the equator of Kerbin, but that difference is a much smaller effect than the previous one.)

So I\'ve returned from the Mun on liquid-fuel. And I\'ve done it on solid-fuel. Time to do it on no fuel. Decoupler cannons are often harder on the launching platform. Bonus: Three mods that go great together: Chickenplucker\'s BigTrak modification of Tosh\'s Cart, Damned Robotics, and Jelllycubes\' Railguns. Unfortunately (or fortunately) this dish won\'t break.

There are a couple ways to do this. The way with the least editing of the file is to find the vessel that you want to port the crew from in the persistence.sfs file, find the capsule part within that vessel, and note the 'crew =' numbers in that capsule. Then find the vessel you want to port the crew to, find the capsule part within that vessel, and change those 'crew = ' numbers accordingly. As of right now, I don\'t think there are issues with having the same crew in multiple vessels. Could be wrong on that, and that could change in the future.

Free Demo Version: Kerbol is a point of light and gravity, and you can pass through what\'s defined as its surface harmlessly. Passing close to its center can do weird things, like tear pieces off your spacecraft, and throw you outsystem at significant fractions of the speed of light, thanks to . (At least, that was the case in the latest Demo version I\'ve played, v0.13.2) Paid Version (v 0.14+): As others have mentioned, Kerbol has a kill line at about 4,500 km above what\'s defined as its surface. Nothing I\'ve sent closer to Kerbol than that has survived, and the End Flight screen reports those objects as crashing into the Sun.

I can\'t find any mention of a planet named 'Kerben.' In fact, the IAU doesn\'t assign names to extrasolar planets, merely designations, such as ' Gliese 581 e' or '4 Ursae Majoris b'

It\'s just a standard Mk.1 Pod edited to be as rugged as Tosh\'s cart. I tend to use it when testing things I expect to flip and explode, or for Munracing, and I tinted it like that to easily tell it from the standard.

Edit Grid Line Coordinates for Start W180°0\' and S90°0\' End E180°0\' and N90°0\' instead. The provided mapping tool is quite nifty. However, having hunted down Quickgrid based on that post upthread, I\'m going to have to admit, once I\'ve played around with it for awhile, its countour lines especially make for interesting viewing. Been mapping nearly constantly since Thursday, though usually at 5x speed or 10x speed. I was actually pretty surprised to find out that the Munar Prime Meridian doesn\'t separate near and far hemispheres, nor does it sparate leading and trailing hemispheres.

I cannot help but think I should have made the legs longer on this thing. Walking it off the launchpad did not take 24 hours; it only felt like it did. Raise the odd legs. Push them forward. Lower the odd legs. Push them backwards. Still getting the hang of steering. Edit: On the Mun now. Didn\'t bring enough RCS jets, unfortunately.

For me, that was what happened when I turned on the mapping part on the launchpad, prior to launch. Somehow, it registered a negative altitude, which caused the map generator to freak out upon receiving negative numbers. Once I deleted the Kerbin map csv file, it was fine for Mun-Mapping.

He\'s moving at more than three times the escape velocity for his altitude in the 'Coast Phase' image. He doesn\'t have an apoapsis.

I can now answer this question with an unequivocal 'Yes.' Cut it a bit close this time. Less than two hours to impact.

Neil wasn\'t making his first attempts to learn to land an LEM on July 19, 1969. By the time he\'d gotten there, he\'d had plenty of Earthside practice in simulated lunar gravity. I learned to Munland by flying an infinite-fuel craft into Munar orbit and dropping off an infinite fuel lander. Then did the same with a finite-fuel lander. Then did the same with a spacecraft that had finite fuel from Kerbin orbit onward. Then built a craft that could put the finite-fuel ship into orbit. As a result, I didn\'t have to redesign my craft /too/ much at each stage, and knew that, once I learned how to do the part of the mission I was working out, the rest of the mission would be something I already knew how to do.

Can\'t even say that. In the film, it\'s an asteroid smashed out of an incredibly dense version of the asteroid belt by a rogue comet that somehow managed, in a single impact, to both hit it hard enough to send it towards Earth and hit it lightly enough that it didn\'t come apart. From a scientific accuracy standpoint, Armageddon\'s indefensible.

When using the small engine that came with v0.14, (LT-V909, or something like that) the landing legs are long enough to reach the surface without endagering the engine. Unless you\'re landing something big, you don\'t need the standard-size LFE\'s thrust for Munlanding, and the smaller one makes it a lot easier to find the neutral-lift sweet spot.

Given how generally terrible Armageddon is on the science side,I\'m inclined to believe it was every bit as large as it was claimed to be, and that the only reason it wasn\'t larger was because someone got Michael Bay to understand that we don\'t have any asteroids that are larger.

It has neither SOI nor gravity. It is merely a Part of Ridiculous Size. It also only masses 20,000 (tons?) which is ridiculously low, but the collision issues will likely make any direct contact violent and unpredictable.