Geonovast

If that doesn't happen to you, you're doing it wrong.

I knew there was a reason I brought my laptop to work today... Very nice! Bahaha! I love these parts. Plans for more pieces? I could do an entire program in this style.

There are like 4 specs that matter. CPU model/speed, memory capacity, GPU, and operating system. Just type them in here. KSP can utilize multiple cores/threads, but it's primarily single threaded. So a 16 core CPU won't really see any improvement over a 2 or 4 core if the single thread performance is about the same.

Sì, dovrai reinstallare il gioco. Ma puoi installare il gioco ovunque desideri, quindi installa il gioco in una cartella diversa dall'installazione 1.4.5. Tuttavia, se il tuo computer ha un sistema operativo x86 (32 bit), non sarai in grado di installare la versione x64 del gioco. Se sei in grado di installare il gioco, dovresti riuscire a copiare la tua cartella di salvataggio nella nuova installazione. Non rimuovere il tuo gioco 1.4.5 finché non sai per certo che è tutto ok nel tuo gioco 1.5.1. (Tradotto con Google translate)

Ugh. I went off on my mom once for that joke. It would be way, way worse to just keep one of them. Falling back screws up my sleep schedule just as much as springing forward. It's an outdated, pointless practice and we need to stop doing it completely. In 12 years the day would be completely inverted...

Which would be the case.... if they're false...

Unless they've fixed it in recent updates. I stopped putting RCS on space stations in 1.3.1, and if it's not meant to dock or leave Kerbin's SOI... it likely won't get it at all.

Well, I think we're confusing SAS with Reaction wheels here. The reaction wheels are internal to the command pods, as well as there being external reaction wheel units. These run on EC only and don't affect orbit when you use them to reorient a craft. RCS is the little jets that move your ship around using monopropellant. SAS is the stability system... it can control both the reaction wheels and RCS. RCS, unless tuned way down, is much, much stronger than the reaction wheels. And since the SAS is very... over-reactionary, space stations tend to tear themselves apart when SAS is turned on to stability hold and RCS is enabled. There are ways around that, of course, but since we're sticking to the basics for now, until docking or interplanetary travel comes into play, there's no reason whatsoever to even include RCS on the ship yet. The reaction wheels built into the pods will be more than enough for the ships the size the OP is using. So yes, it is really SAS being dumb that causes the stations to shake apart. RCS just enables SAS to self destruct more quickly than the reaction wheels, so it's generally not a good idea on stations, especially since re-orientation on a station usually doesn't have to (or shouldn't) happen quickly *some of this was intended also for @Interstellar Yeet as I'm sure you knew most of it. Also, @Interstellar Yeet, sorry if you're feeling a bit like poor Haskell here.

Yes, that's exactly how that works. Is it weird I want to buy a second copy just because it's on sale?

It's more than just that, it's usually a bad idea to use RCS just for orientation changes, as, unless everything is perfectly balanced around your Center Of Mass, your orbit will change. Won't happen with reaction wheels. RCS is good for small, precise orbital changes. Generally when you're going interplanetary. A small puff of monopropellant from half a solar system away can change your trajectory thousands or millions of kilometers, so it's great for setting up planetary encounters. It's also essential for docking. (Technically not required... but a lot easier, especially for beginners). RCS also tends to make space stations resonate themselves apart.

Yes and no. You need to build your lander to suit to Minmus. Minmus is smaller, so has much lower gravity. You need a lot less fuel to land and take off, but because of the low gravity, a tall lander can very easily tip, and if you come down too hard you may bounce. Built your lander short and wide, and make sure it touches down nice and soft, and you should be ok. I think it's also easier to land on flat ground on Minmus, as you can just land on the frozen lake things. (not sure if it's actually supposed to be ice)

Well... no. Minmus flybys will still get you a good amount. Plus, every planet and moon has biomes... you can collect more science from the Mun simply by landing in a different spot. There's also science from high and low orbits. Here's a biome map of the Mun:

So weird that it's on sale on Steam and the KSP store but not GoG. I think this is the first inconsistent sale I've seen.

You could use some SmartParts to trigger the unfolding on staging.

Ohhhh. @Interstellar Yeet, how much does the stranded one have? The one with the kerbal in it? If it has enough to make orbit but not get home, the rescue is going to get easier (from a certain point of view) and we'll get into orbital rendezvous!

1km/s of dV is enough to get you off the surface of the Mun and back home. Mind showing a screeshot of the poor stranded soul with the KER display up?

How much dV does the stranded rocket have?

Literally anything else. First Photobucket pulls the hosting ability and holds everyone at an extreme ransom to host. So what, now they're letting you do it for free with that overkill watermark? It's like they think they're the only ones doing it. Imgur is popular. I use Cubeupload, but mainly now because it drives @Gargamel insane from false spyware notifications from Malware Bytes. If you're using Steam, I understand you can link directly from the Steam screenshot system as well.

Good job! There's no stopping you now! I'm about to go on my lunch, so I'll run your rocket through its paces again and do a quick video for ya. That's.... not your only problem! I dunno if you noticed, but your rocket is pointing the wrong way.

I've seen this mentioned once before, and I think it was done at the very edge of Jool's SOI. I think you'd have to extended your physics range big enough to account for the engines on the sats, try to go with as high thrust as possible so they burn out quick.... then, go see a movie, I guess. I know your computer could handle it. Might need to wait for a couple decades before it's efficient, though. What's your endgame here? If you're just hanging out in Kerbin's SOI, just do a mothership with a resonant orbit and release them one by one.

We're setting up a mini fitness center at work, and I brought in my recumbent bike, since I'll probably actually use it here. I also brought in like 2 pounds of chocolate because the weather has been so crappy that I had almost no trick or treaters.

You know, you could just... watch the movies? Possible you're mashing it with 1.21 JIGGAWATTS and imagining he had a "point" in the car's speed?

Well, no. And I think your brain is going the wrong direction, which is understandable. Things work differently in space. This, after all, rocket science. Unfortunately SciFi TV has ruined the reality of space travel. And since you've been able to get something into orbit... you're a few steps ahead of most SciFi TV writers out there. How fast you get to orbit is pretty much meaningless. Everything is about efficiency, which is why you'll so frequently find that less is more. I just launched with the changes I mentioned. It was dicey, I was still accelerating a bit too fast through the lower atmosphere. The antennas got HOT, but didn't explode. Made it to a 108 km x 107km orbit with 4,203 m/s remaining according to KER. Which is more than enough to land and get home. I don't think you needed the bigger tank on the lander, as you can use the transfer stage for almost all of the descent. In fact, I had to ditch the transfer stage early with a good amount of fuel left in it just so I could land. And since going back to the original tank would make the lander lighter... you'd need less fuel to get it there...which would mean a lighter transfer stage... which would mean less fuel to get that into orbit... which would mean a smaller lifter stage... you get the idea. It's about finding the balance for each rocket. Touched down with 1751 m/s left! This will not only get you home, but you could probably do a flyby of Minmus on the way while you were at it. Tomorrow I'll record a quick video of the thing making a round trip if you want, so you can kinda see what I've been doing with it. But I gotta get to bed. Good luck. You've got a lot to learn, but we all did. Given what I've seen, I don't think you'll have a problem figuring this stuff out, and within a week you'll be on your way to Duna.

Well that could just mean you're not turning enough during the launch, not necessarily that it's overpowered. A few things before I even launch this guy: The game hates sudden diameter changes, and it will cause a ton of drag. So those nosecones on the twinboars are not only silly looking, but they're not doing much. You have the same problem with the skipper at the bottom. Imagine the rocket flying through water instead of the air. Large, flat surfaces perpendicular to the direction of travel resist a lot. When you're running your hand underwater sideways, so the side of your index finger is in the front, it's pretty easy, right? What happens when you turn your hand so that your palm is the leading edge? It becomes a lot harder to push. You can pretty much consider the lower atmosphere to be water. So if have the 2.5m nosecone, or the structural 2.5m to 1.25m adapter, you'll want to use it. Well... actually, yes. This is A LOT of engine. You're looking at a TWR of roughly 4.4. That means the rocket is producing over 4 times its weight in thrust, which is pretty high. That's why you get going so fast so quickly. Your first rocket had a TWR of 1.87, which is a pretty nice place to be. So I think this is what I'm going to do before launch. I'm ditching the skipper in favor of getting the swivel back, which had no problem pushing your rocket into orbit. It's also just as fuel efficient as the skipper in space... which translates to more dV as the swivel half the weight. I'm turning the thrust limited on the twinboars down to 50%. This puts the TWR at a little over 2. This will help you not explode in the atmosphere and they'll run twice as long. I'm also enabling the crossfeed so the swivel is left with a full tank when the twinboars depart. I might consider not even lighting the swivel until that happens... as it's not as efficient in atmo as boars. Honestly it's still not the best way to go, but I don't know what other parts you have available to you, so it's what I'm going with. However, KER is only reporting about 250 m/s of dV more than the first version... we'll see what happens. It's got the terrier on the lander. I'm starting to not like these new default textures making everything look too similar. Is it a tank? A decoupler? A shroud? Who knows!?