AHHans

You forgot: "the difference in efficiency is rather small".

Have a look at the hotfix reported here: Good to hear!

I have the same issue. As far as I can tell it is indeed only the textures that are off, the game otherwise runs normal. I'm running Ubuntu 18.04, also with the Steam version of KSP (with MH and BG). I have KAC as the only mod I'm running. In case it helps: a "Player.log" with me taking a "Bug-E Buggy" for a tour of the KSC can be found here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LPqTHHawv6Wav-RLjEUM0lEsnjEiqRqv and the corresponding KSP.log here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aP4tUA_dPbshVNkRraHt34WlFQ5crAQt

Which OS are you using @kerbalkaan and @dnbattley? Linux? (Please have a look at how to report errors in the Stock Support & Bug Reporting Guide.) Anyway, @JimmyR reported a hotfix in another thread (http:// https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/188955-mouse-wheel-in-reverse/): change "scale = 1" to "scale = -1" in the settings.cfg under "AXIS_MOUSEWHEEL".

A) Yes, I have the same problem. (Linux, Ubuntu 18.04, Steam version of KSP) B) Your patch works also for me. At least in the actual game, it does not effect the scrolling of the lists in the settings menu. It does show up as negative "Mouse Wheel Sensitivity" in the settings menu: P.S. In case it wasn't obvious: don't move that slider in the settings menu (and save the settings), then you'll have to manually change the value again.

Well, the asteroid I'm currently aiming for is in a lower orbit, between Eve and Kerbin. My one asteroid-watch satellite - which is in a similar orbit - tells me that it would need about 4400 m/s. So for 9000 m/s I need a wet/dry mass ration of about pi. That's not too unrealistic for a large asteroid. (SCNR ) Ah, no! I'm already overweight as I am, no need to contribute to that. My plan is to answer questions on the KSP forum instead. Fully fueled with Lf and ore it's more than 9000 m/s. But it will need two (well, 1.5) conversion stops in between. But as you discussed, that shouldn't be a problem.

Ah, yes, I'm aware of that. It's not like I haven't gotten "into orbit" by slowing down just enough to have the Ap inside the SOI, and then accelerating again 20 seconds later. (20 seconds because I first want to check that the contract is indeed fulfilled and then need to re-orient the spacecraft). At least for this contract it makes sense because actually leaving the SOI that is literally the whole universe may take some time. I don't think I'm going to aerobrake on the sun anytime soon. (And for other bodies: if I accelerate e.g. close to Kerbin then I may get onto a trajectory with enough energy to take me out of the Sun's gravitational well, but I'm sure that until I left Kerbin's SOI and am in the Sun's SOI the contract will not be fulfilled.

Thanks! Even though in English they use the unit "feet" I didn't think of using shoes as length unit. With your explanation this saying makes sense now. (And either Google translate has gotten a lot better then when I last used it, or your edits helped a lot. ) Don't worry, Google translated it right and I got that from your first earlier message. Bast (not best!) is the English (and German, the two languages have many words in common) word for this kind of material. I mostly know it as some kind of compostable strings that we used in garden work when I was a kid.

The only way that I can think of is to use a KAL-1000 controller. You can set two different (or not!) values at the start and the end of the (shortened) sequence and then put: "Play Sequence", "Set Loop Mode to Once", and "Set Play Direction to Forward [Reverse]" on an action group to select the setting at the end [or start] of the sequence.

Meh! I had the problem with my first spaceplane designs that they flew fine at first, but when I switched to rocket propulsion and pitched up (ca. 10 deg, so significant but not excessive) then they flipped out of control. Took me a while to figure out the problem. Well, I'd say that "best practice" is what @bewing said: try it out. Shifting around fuel to adjust aircraft trim is definitely not a crime but good practice. (Even in RL.) That's about it. Maybe together with "just because it's stable low & slow, doesn't mean it has to be stable high & fast". (Which - as I said - took me a while to figure out.) I don't really know. I guess it is essentially in the geometrical center, but there are some parts around with a surprisingly high drag, so that can be off.

Two comments from me: You can check if the game recognizes the part correctly already on that launchpad before lift-off. (If you have the correct Flea, then that box should be ticked.) And - at least in the PC version - you can access the old models in the VAB (or SPH) by selecting "Filter by Cross-Section Profile" from the "advanced mode".

Well, you always want the CoM in front of the Center of Pressure (CoP), if it is not then you'll have to actively fight against the tendency of your craft to flip. (Which can be done with enough control authority.) @bewing already said most of it. One additional issue is that you should keep in mind that the CoP moves when you go through different flight conditions: at low speeds in dense air it is dominated by lift, so close to the CoL. At high (hypersonic) speeds in thin air it is dominated by drag, so it will be close to the center of drag. If you have a craft with lots of high-mass but low(-ish) drag components at the tail - like rocket engines, the nuclear engines in particular - then the center of drag for the fuselage will be quite a bit forward of CoM of the fuselage. So if you design such a craft to be just stable at liftoff, then it will probably become quite unstable during your ascent to orbit. If it keeps controllable will then depend on how much control authority you have and on your ascent profile.

Well, but that's fuel, not delta-v. You do only need as much dV to get back as you needed to get there. But to have that much dV you need exponentially more fuel. I'm planning to use the asteroid for fuel anyhow so the question is not "How much fuel do I bring?", but "Will it be enough to go there? And back again?".

[Off topic:] Well, Google probably gave a good enough translation of the sentence as such. But the cultural background is missing. What have bast shoes to do with accuracy? I would really appreciate it if you could give us some insight into Russian culture here.

Does this also happen when you don't use kRPC?

Yupp. I wouldn't have (thought to) put it in these words, but that's what I meant. Exactly, I was just about to write that with my own words: "Do your normal ascent avoiding gravity, steering, and atmospheric drag losses as well as possible. If you then would need to throttle down or coast (or steer down, I didn't think of that) to get into LKO, then it is more efficient to keep burning until you have your apoapsis at the height of your final orbit."

I know. But I also don't want to loose an asteroid once I captured it. (See my comment about the asteroid belt.) And if I brake back to Kerbin anyhow, then I can also use a crewed vessel. The big question is if burning up all the mineable ore in the asteroid will give me enough dV to get onto an escape trajectory and then back to Kerbin again. For the time being I've sent my big asteroid tug onto an intercept with an ejection candidate. Once I'm there I'll do some math and try to figure out home much dV the ore in it gives me. If that doesn't work out then I'll make further plans. Probably build a robotic asteroid tug, that con go on a one-way trip. Hmmmm. ... maybe I should send a probe out into the deep dark yonder? Just to let the further universe know that the Kerbals exist.

I had a practical demonstration of why I do crew rotation today. In preparation of my asteroid ejection mission I exchanged the crew on my large asteroid tug. To do so I sent a crew spaceplane to LKO, and have the tug meet it there. After the exchange the spaceplane went back to the KSC. Well, I overshot a bit, so after slowing down to mach 3 or so I did a sharp-ish turn and suddenly everyone from the old crew blacked out. Come on! Just because they spent the last couple of months in deep (or not so deep) space is no reason to black out from a measly 22 gees. Why do I pay and put extra crew accommodation with centrifugal gravity on those ships? That you can set them to 0.5 g and enjoy the easy life? Hmpf! Luckily Jeb was piloting the spaceplane, and he is made from sterner stuff. And now those wimps can enjoy their stable 1 g in the astronaut complex. It is sooo hard to pick good minions from space junk these days! Yes, I notice this problem when my batteries don't last for a full night anymore. Everything is running fine, until this young whippersnappers come along, turn the converters up to eleven, and then act surprised when they run out of power while in the shadow. For me, I decided that if those engineers can coax so much more performance out of the equipment, then they can also turn them off when they run out of power and turn them on again when they are back in the sunshine, so I use the old "when I'm not looking you're not using power" trick / cheat.

Well, I decided that Kerbin looks much better if dressed with a nice, tidy asteroid belt. So asteroids that cross into Kerbin's SOI are currently fresh out of stock. But on that topic: does anyone know hoe "new" asteroids are generated? Can I increase the chance of finding an asteroid that comes into Kerbin's SOI by not having sentinels look for asteroids around other planets? (Like Eve, Duna, Jool.)

I saw this contract, and immediately accepted it: And now I wonder how to best be about it. I don't want it to take too long in in-game time so I don't want to wait long for gravity assists. My first idea was to send an automated but mining capable probe and aim for a single gravity assist on Jool. The second idea was to just convert as much of the asteroid into radioactive vapor (by passing it through a few LV-N NERV engines) as it takes to boost it out of the solar system in a set of "stupid" prograde burns in solar orbit. (Who cares about efficiency!) My current plan is to use my existing, crewed(!) asteroid tug to do these kind of burns, and then convert even more of the asteroid into radioactive vapor to get back to Kerbin. (Or Jool if I don't make it back to Kerbin.) Any other suggestions? Do you have comments?

*bleeep* Yes, there was something that I wanted to mention, and then forgot to do.

Hmmmm.... [Long winded explanation that I don't know what you like deleted.] I think the fact that you ask here means that you definitely should try out Breaking Ground. Flying solar-powered electric planes on Eve is just awesome! And you can get your asteroids to not only to land on the runway, but also take off again! (Sorry @5thHorseman, but I've been looking at you signature for a few minutes now.) And getting to places is that much more rewarding when you can do something there. But you probably also should keep your old installation around!

At what altitude and what speed does this happen? Did you SAS enabled? In what mode? It could be that you run out of intake air (which is what @Fierce Wolf meant). In that case typically one engine fails first, and then the other engine gobbles up the supply meant for both and keeps running a little longer.

Doing a plane change while already in orbit around the Mun is expensive. The cheapest way to get into a polar orbit around the Mun is to intercept the Mun's SOI not at the equator, but closer to the poles so that you are already in the plane that you want to be. That means if you want to get into a specific polar orbit, then you should time your transfer so that you intercept the Mun's SOI in the correct plane. So if there is not a good reason to launch all three of them together (e.g. because you only want to use one good, high Isp engine) then I would launch (do the TMI burn) the craft that goes into an equatorial orbit and the satellites for polar orbits separately. Otherwise you could do the the TMI into one orbit (well, plane) detatch the others and correct the intercept of the Mun's SOI to get to the other orbit / plane. A) You do more math than I'm willing to do here. B) you set up a pair of test maneuver nodes (e.g. one to get to an equatorial orbit and after that a second node to get from there to a polar orbit) and see how much dV you need for the second node. Fiddle around with both(!) to optimize for your application. (Don't forget to vary the time when you do the second burn. I guess halfway to the Mun will be the most efficient, but I don't know.) No. So they should go into the same plane, but 180 degrees out of phase, and stay on opposite sides of the Mun "forever"? Then I'd suggest to capture them into an elliptical orbit, circularize one of them, and then circularize the other when it is 180 degrees out of phase with the other. If you make sure that the orbital period (e.g. as displayed in the maneuver display since 1.7) for both is as identical as you can make it, then they will stay opposite sides of the Mun even if their orbits are not 100% identical.

Well, in theory a direct burn to a high apoapsis is more fuel efficient, but it depends on the exact trajectory you are using. There are two competing effects: on the one hand you want to do your burns as low as possible to maximize the Oberth effect, and on the other hand you want to burn perpendicular to the gravity to minimize gravity losses. (You always only want to burn in the direction of your orbital prograde vector to minimize steering losses.) So on an airless body you'd want to give you a small kick to get clear of the ground, and then burn parallel to the ground (at 0 degrees elevation) until you get to your desired apoapsis. (Assuming that there is no terrain in the way...) Essentially doing a Hohmann transfer from the surface to the desired orbit. On Kerbin you have that pesky atmosphere, so you have to balance the Oberth effect against atmospheric drag and gravity losses. In addition trying to directly burn to the desired orbit to meet with e.g. a station (my gateway station is at 500 km, not 600 km ) means that you have a lot less time for navigation and being even slightly in the wrong plane can quickly eat up any gains from better use of the Oberth effect. If you are in a low parking orbit, then you can put your transfer burn at one of the nodes to your target orbit and thus minimize the losses for the plane change. So my conclusion is: while a direct burn to high apoapsis might in theory be more efficient, in real life you probably do better to first get into some kind of parking orbit.