Crown

Would you consider to post you collection here in the forum (maybe this thread) or in the Wiki to let others participate in your knowledge I think it's for both. To get from Kerbin to Duna just follow the lines from Kerbin to Duna and sum all the numbers between the black dots. If you follow red arrows on your way, there's a possibility to save some delta-v due to aero-braking. I think from Duna to Kerbin it's the same amount of delta-v.

In the persistent file there is a section for the vessel which says "orbit". There you can find a line named "SMA". I think this is the spot where to edit. But here's a problem: At 80km altitude, pinned to Launch Enhancers, you would go roughly 197.8 m/sec. But orbital speed at this height is about 2'200m/sec. Which means after decoupling the space craft it will fall back to the planet. Reaching orbital speed with this conditions looks quite difficult to me.

Dynamite was invented 1866. Coincidence?

Once I was hit by my own ship. I had a space craft in an inclined orbit with the same orbit parameters as my space station. But I forgot that I had it in orbit. While doing some stuff on the space station the game suddenly became laggy and then I had a space station in pieces. Good thing I quicksaved. The other time a real piece of debris came close to me less than 2.2km during a rocket launch. Was kinda scarry.

Here's the maths. At least what they spitted out: From Kerbin 100km orbit to SOI edge: 917.14m/sec without gravity assist. From orbit around sun at Kerbin altitude to Jool altitude: 2'719.21m/sec Total of ~3'636m/sec. Without an Jool orbit insertion. So 3'900m/sec sounds legit. And as an estimation they could work.

To leave Kerbin's SOI a ship has to go from 2'300m/sec to ~3'000m/sec (as far as I remember). Without any gravity assist. Using the moon to catapult a vessel off Kerbin's SOI much can be saved. I think about 640m/sec delta-v is needed to get to the moon. After passing the moon the ship should be in inter-planetary space. I prefer using a nuclear engine (they are more efficient) and radial mounted fuel tanks which I drop after they are empty. As usual, can we see some pictures of your vessel so make out some design problems?

What Kimberly said about Newton's third law is correct. A thing to keep in mind is the tiny red arrow (or triangle) on the decoupler. The part attached to the triangle's base is the one the decoupler keeps attached to after separation. Which means you have one rocket stage with the decoupler and one without it. Stage separators detach on both sides, leaving two parts and the separator left. Resulting in one more piece of debris. Generally anything can be welded together. So a huge decoupler would also attach to a tiny satellite. But as already mentioned, a huge decoupler could catapult a tiny satellite quite far away. Might be used for advantage.

I hope they placed them somewhere else. This isn't the final 0.21, I think. Until the official release the gravel runway might come back. Or even the easteregg pods.

While we are at times: Something I never got is what is 0am / 0pm and 12am / 12pm in 24h format? Is all of this midnight? Or what of these is noon?

This is what I would call a hard landing.

Possibility no 2: Build whatever your rocket should look like. Launch. EVA a Kerbal on the launch pad. End the Kerbal's flight. Repeat. I would not consider this as cheating. It's like telling kids to stop playing in that big thing because the adults need to work with it.

The game engine works only on one Processor, afaik.

I would assume that the game saves the current control settings such as throttle, stage lock and such. When you load a vessel (aka switching to it), first the model is loaded then the physics come in. When the throttle is up it might be possible that the engines want to fire before the physics are loaded. But the physics are needed to calculate what speed, alt, AP, PE, etc. the vessel has while throttle is up. So this might a safety setting to be sure that the vessel and it's parameters don't change while loading it. I don't know how the unloading work. But I think it's about the same but backwards. Unload physics, save orbit parameters, unload vessel. Acceleration, during re-entry it's called deceleration (it's the same but negative) changes the orbit parameters the same way as a throttled-up engine does. And because "while in atmosphere" adds friction and deceleration to a plane it makes - in this case - totally sense. Maybe the state "about to crash" needs much calculation to decide which parts will survive and which parts do explode. Interruption them might be problematic to the persistent-file. Or the game doesn't want the player to miss the most important aspect of the game

Very useful in this case are Wikipedia's articles about Kepler's laws of planetary motion and Orbital period. In case you want to do some maths. The rest is all about geometry. ;-)

The Neil Armstrong monument is in the crater west of the crater with the arch. The monument is on the crater's south. We are explorers. Why don't we explore this spot of land? ;-)

Doesn't make that copyright problems? that would be so cool. Landing on moving targets.

19, increasing slowly.

Congratulations on rescuing your first Kerbal!

When you are in low Kerbin orbit start to burn when you can see the moon rising at the horizon. This worked in versions without the maneuver system very well. The injection angle is about 90°. So the moon has to be about 90° ahead of you. Just test it out with the maneuver nodes. The game should display a capture of the moon if you have the right settings.

Makes you rolling on the floor in pain.

The fourth is an accelerometer. Enabling it during ascent it is more accurate that the gauge beside the nav ball. This way it is possible to keep a constant acceleration during ascent. When you fire your engines in space it will show the vessel's current acceleration. Using this number it is possible to estimate/calculate the time to reach a specific speed. Using newton's second law this way it is also possible to measure the vessel's mass. And thereby determinate how much fuel is needed for a maneuver. Maths!

It sounds like you are enabling RCS too. A combination of RCS and ASAS enabled works only with a small and very stiff vessel. Basically just the command pod and some engines+fuel for navigation. I usually enable RCS to get the space craft oriented, disable RCS and enable ASAS to hold it's position. With almost any vessel I made RCS+ASAS freaks out and wobbles like crazy. During ascent I only have the ASAS enabled because the Mainsail engine's gimbal is enough to steer and keep the rocket on course. To minimise wobbling during ascent I quite always build a combination of small Hardpoints, octagonal struts, attach it with symmetry tool to the rocket and attach some strut connectors to the rocket to make some triangles. Looks silly but it keeps the rocket more stable. Switching from ASAS to SAS would not solve the problem, I think. SAS has some kind of gyroscope build in to keep the rocket straight. ASAS uses other parts like wings, RCS, etc. And, Yes. The way ASAS reacts to your rocket is normal and an inevitable issue. Solving this problem includes a packet of maths and the ability of the game to change the part files continuously. And perform a ton of equations (besides calculating the game data). You can try using a Structural Fuselages. This way maybe you can get more of these huge solar panel attached. The ion engine doesn't produce much thrust. I use it only an satellites to correct their orbits.

Any car in a hollywood movie explodes as if it is loaded to the top with nitroglycerine. This, I blame, is the reason most people don't dare to rescue an injured person from a car. Because they think it can explode any time. Cars just don't explode. Hollywood made this myth that many people believe in. We have to be careful with those myths that are about to be created.

A realistic movie in space would be boring for the mainstream viewer. Sadly. But I think it is possible to make realistic movies with suspense and transport a message too. Without major errors. It would take more work but wouldn't offend people who know a little bit about that stuff and doesn't take the piss out of so. who get's in contact with that stuff later. By the way: The movie's station is 595.2 km high. The ISS is just 320...430 km high. Speed at 595,2 km is 7'565.3m/sec in circular orbit. If I'm right you have to go 7425m/sec at Ap to have a Pe at 100km (the edge of space). Means 140m/sec difference. The ISS weighs 455 (metric) tons. Taking the Space Shuttle's engine as base with 53.4kN thrust, it would make I love maths a deceleration of 0.12m/sec^2. So it would take about 20 minutes full thrust to de-orbit a station of this size. Even with half the mass it's kinda ... well, you know. I don't think any explosion is able to de-orbit any thing of that. But, we know.. Hollywood.

It actually is possible to land the lander from the scenarios-section. What helped me a lot is to know that Apollo did leave the engine on all the time. Just a little bit. And I do the landing with about three major burns. First I come in quite shallow, looking as if I would overshoot the target. While approaching the ground I do burns to make my descent path more steep. The rest is trial and error and learning by doing. I usually test my rockets if the vessel's inter-planetary apoapsis can reach the target planet's orbit. Usually I overpower the rockets but don't think about a return. I honestly calculate the angles for rendez-vous and interplanetray travel. Direct travel, no sling-shots or anything. This is far over my ability to calculate. There is a website (which's URL I forgot) where you can design some fairings. But you don't need them other than for fancy looking rockets, because the game doesn't care about a satellite open to air or under a shell.