AHHans

Yes, that's what the selection at the top is for. The one where you can click through all the CBs. Well, I would assume that KSP works with a fixed epoch. I don't see any advantage for them to allow for a variable epoch (well, except maybe making some hard-core astronomers happy), but it would make the program more complicated. Hmmm.... I just has a look into a savefile, there an orbit is defined with the following values: ["savefile-name": "What I think it is"] SMA: semi major axis, ECC: eccentricity, INC: inclination, LPE: longitude of aeriapsis (= argument of periapsis), LAN: longitude of ascending node, MNA: mean anomaly, EPH: ??? epoch?, REF: reference == number of celestialbBody [...] O.K. "EPH" seems to be the time (in seconds) when the craft was active (i.e. for which the orbital parameters were calculated). Still no clue what the "OBT" in the cheat menu does. I didn't see how (if at all) it affects the values in the savefile.

To me the screenshot looks like you don't have maneuver nodes and orbital information unlocked (yet?). Do you get patched conics displayed in the map view?

Have a look at Orbital elements on Wikipedia. MNA: Mean anomaly (in radians) LAN: Longitude of Ascending Node (in degrees) Arg PE: Argument of Periapsis (in degrees) OBT: ??? What do we need a 7th parameter for?

Well, landing crew (or anything) on Eve is pretty easy: just make sure to have enough heat-shielding (e.g. the inflatable heat shield in a configuration that doesn't flip around) and parachutes. Getting from Eve back into orbit is another issue. I would suggest to design your own craft for the Eve ascent, it is hard but also fun. Getting that done gave me the one of largest sense of accomplishment I got from KSP. If you don't want to do the design yourself, then you can search on KerbalX for a suitable craft. One possibility would be my Eve Transportation System , but that is somewhat specialized because it was designed as a reusable shuttle system from transfers (of crew) between Eve's surface and low Eve Orbit and back. So I would recommend to use the search function of KerbalX to search for a craft that fits more closely what you want.

Do you have a science lab on the station? Do you have a comnet link to Kerbin? (Not sure if that is needed...) And did you "level up" your crew from the science lab while Jeb was on board the station? (E.g. while in the science lab.) There are several item missing in that entry (not in the least the whole block about the EVA parachute), which version of KSP are you running>

My guess is: no. But I haven't actually tested it. KSP doesn't really simulate airflow, it just applies forces to parts that move through a region of space that has the property "there is air here". One effect is that the lift on one piece of wing is not affected by other wing parts in front of it. I don't know how exactly the ducted-fan shrouds work, but I think that without some code that explicitly implements interaction between them and air intakes there just will be no interaction.

I gave it a try in my high-speed anomaly-search craft, the Rapier LR At 59.471 t it it an entry for the Thunder Division. It managed the circum-navigation in respectable 53 minutes, IMHO not too bad for a craft that wasn't optimized for this. (Also, I didn't use Mechjeb or so, but I did use physics-warp.) Some impressions: The craft in the SPH: Not my best landing ever. But nothing broke, so I call that a win. Once the cockpit has cooled down from "instant death" to "hothothothot", our intrepid crew can leave the plane. The full album can be found here: https://imgur.com/a/gRpFtSp P.S. Of course I forgot to take a screenshot with the <F3> "Flight Results" after landing. Will you take my word that the landing is legit, or do I need to do this again?

It is the same as docking to a ship (or station or whatever), except that you don't need to aim for a docking port, but a flat(-ish) surface. A good tutorial for docking is: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/189763-illustrated-guide-to-docking/

Hi @Hornet22, welcome to the forums! Unfortunately I don't understand what your problem is, so I cannot help you. Do you have one specific problem, or do you need more general advice on how to go to the Mun?

You can take an "asteroid sample" from the asteroid, which is worth a few science points. (By the time I got to capturing asteroids in my games, I usually had already unlocked nearly all the science, so that wasn't all that important.)

If you have the Breaking Ground DLC, then you can use robotics parts to adjust the alignment of your craft to the asteroid. See also the discussion in: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/190359-can-landing-legs-or-robot-parts-be-used-to-help-stabilize-an-asteroid/

Not from mining as such. That allows you to generate unlimited "free" fuel from mining on planets an moons, which already is overpowered enough. (Asteroids have limited ore, so their use is limited.) But the "Advanced Science Tech" include the Gravioli detector, which is the most powerful science experiment in the (stock) game. (And the BG DLC adds the large scanner arm and the ionographer to that tech node.)

Congrats! Well, you could: stick a couple of parachutes on it and land it on Kerbin mine its ore for fuel collect a bunch of them and give Kerbin a fashionable asteroid-belt convert it into an airplane: Flying-Rock-Kit (try to) land it on the VAB (try to) smash the VAB with it (which kind of perverts the "Kerbin is safed" part, but who am I to judge) Or come up with your own crazy (or not so crazy) idea.

Ah, yes, in order to refuel you need to run both, the drills and the ISRU unit(s), for some time. One warning about the Convert-O-Tron 125 : it "throws away" 90% of the mass of the ore. While the large ISRU converts 1 t of ore into 1 t of fuel (Lf, Ox, or the combination of both), the small one converts 1 t of ore into 0.1 t of fuel. So it is recommended to empty your ore tanks before taking off when you only have the small ISRU with you.

??? So you do manage to get a rendezvous with the asteroid, but then when you try to match orbits you run out of time and crash into Kerbin? You'll need to set up your rendezvous far enough out from Kerbin, so that you'll have time to perform the maneuvers to match orbits, grab the asteroid, and then change its orbit. That implicitly means that the orbit that your crafts gets into to get to the rendezvous will be a fairly wide one that will take days.

Well, the short answer is: "rendezvous with it before it crashes". To give you an actually helpful answer we (well, I at least) need to know where exactly your problem is. I assume you have seen that the asteroids predicted path is displayed in the map view of your craft when you have the asteroid selected as the target. Do you manage to get your asteroid tug into an orbit in the same plane as the asteroid? (== Can you see either AN or DN (or both) and does it say "0.0"?) Do you manage to do so before the asteroid entered the SOI of Kerbin? You should see two markers on your orbit where you intersect the target's (the asteroid's) orbit, one before it hits Kerbin and one after it hits Kerbin. You may or may not see the markers where the target will be when you are at these intersects. Set up a maneuver node at a place where your orbit is outside the target's orbit (e.g. close to where the target's PE would be it it weren't inside Kerbin) and hit "next orbit" until you see the markers where the target will be at the intersects. That will give you an idea how long you'll have to wait until the asteroid is in Kerbin's SOI. Select a prograde burn at this maneuver node until you get a rendezvous with the asteroid at the intercept before the asteroid hits Kerbin. You may want to do "previous orbit" on the maneuver node to shift that rendezvous further out from Kerbin, you can also move the maneuver node around on your (current) orbit to get a rendezvous further out. Please let us know how far you get in this procedure and at which step you have problems.

[*bleep* Apparently I closed the tab with my first answer without sending the answer. Maybe spending too much time in real-life planes and trains is affecting my brain...] If you think about it, then this is the same problem as boosting into an interplanetary transfer straight from a "gateway orbit" or first lowering your PE and then boosting from there. (Just invert the time-axis, you are allowed to do that in Newtonian physics.) Someone(*) already looked into that, and the result is that it depends on how much speed (or energy) you'll need to shed: if you come from (or go to) far away (like from Jool to Kerbin or vice versa) then burning at a low PE is better, if it is just between Duna and Kerbin, then you'll loose more to adjusting your orbit after capture than you'll gain from burning at low PE. (*) The spreadsheet in here: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/175831-standard-orbits-for-interplanetary-shuttles-fuel-stations/&do=findComment&comment=3400067

[Pet Peeve Warning: Start.] Feel free to up-vote issue #22946 on the bug-tracker. (Requires an account on said tracker.) [Pet Peeve Warning: End.]

No, not really. My best guess is that one of your mods (or a combination of them) interferes with the robotics. Or one or more of your game files got corrupted. Does it move when you change the setting in the PAW by hand and not via the KAL-1000? Well, the PAW (= right click window) doesn't say that it is moving as such, but that it will try to move to that position. Usually that is not an issue in the editor, but out in the field there can be quite a difference between the target angle and the actual angle. (In case you haven't noticed that already.)

[I assume that the sentinels are active, i.e. it says "Mapping Kerbin" in the PAW.] I just loaded a bunch of old saves in my current career, and in most of them I have 7 unknown objects (one with "only" 6). Overall the masses seem to be skewed towards the heavy objects (class C and above), but with at least 1 class A or B among them. I have no clue what's the issue with your save.

The wiki entry says: "Top speed is ~2,100 m/s in Kerbins atmosphere (mach 6.2)"

Errr... Why should that be the case? What keeps you from moving lift further forward or weight further backward? E.g. by adding more lift to the front of the plane or weight to the aft of the plane? In the craft from the picture e.g. you could move the structure with the air intakes/tail-part/control-fins further back.

It looks to me like you have all the parachutes on the upper stage, and the only connection to the lower stage goes only through the parts in the center. So if one single part in the center gets destroyed your craft will fracture into many small-ish pieces, even without destroying any more parts.(*) And all the forces of holding the lower stage in the air are going through this one single piece. I don't know how KSP models this kind of problem, but in one of my Eve crafts (it's always Eve, isn't it) I also had all the parachutes on the top, and all the rest of the craft hanging from one part (a mk1 capsule, the root part). During descend this part tended to spontaneously disintegrate (I think when the chutes went from partly deployed to fully deployed, but I don't really remember anymore). My solution was to spread out the parachutes over more than one part, so that not all the forces go through one single part. You could try with struts between the lower stage and the upper stage parts with the parachutes. (*) See: this report for a somewhat role-played description of a similar event.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one, but I don't understand what your actual question is.

I atomized my Jeb many times, and I can assure you that there is no single atom of Chinesium in him.