AHHans

Hmm... Panic-reloading after something goes wrong? That's fine, I guess we don't have to revoke your noob credentials just yet.

I don't believe it, but that does work! You can put a tourist into an external command seat, and then "eject" them into space. And while it is not necessary to automate this, sequencing the ejection of a couple of useless - errr - paying guests makes for a nice "firework" (or Kerbalwork?). Once they are on EVA they can be controlled in the same way as trained Kerbals.

Yes, the most fuel-efficient method is a "suicide burn": burn full throttle retrograde at the last moment so that you come to rest at the moment you touch the ground. It has the tiny disadvantage that it leaves no margin for error. But knowing that this is the most efficient allows you to improve your method over time. Another suggestion is to not use full throttle ('z' key) on the final tens of meters, but use a lower throttle setting. E.g. use just enough throttle to offset gravity and keep your speed constant.

I hope you are aware that this means that you left one item on your Noob Mistakes bucket list unticked? Well flying aircraft are another kettle of fish! I think I was quite proficient at docking before I got my first plane to fly well. (And I still suck at landing...)

FYI: The autostruts issue should be solved in the latest version (KSP 1.7.3, BG 1.2). When a robotic part is not locked, then the struts stop at the part (and the part can still move), but when the part is locked then the autostruts can traverse the robotic part (like it was a normal, non-robotic part). If it doesn't work for you that way, then you may need to let SQUAD know about that.

No problem. But I can't really help you. It works for me, and I cannot reproduce your problems. Maybe ask in the technical support forum?

Of the four craft I can only load the "Rover Test F", the other ones require some modded parts. And the "Rover Test F" throws quite a few warnings about "missing part module XYZ". But once loaded it behaves fine (sort of, see below): no stuck hinges (if they aren't locked), autostruts stopping at or traversing the hinges depending on locking state, and hinges "falling down" when I remove the motor and unlock them. (You do have the latest version, right? KSP 1.7.3.2954 and BG 1.2.0. IIRC the autostrut issue was only fixed in that version.) What doesn't work well is setting the locks automatically via the controller. I set up a controller scheme as I outlined it in my earlier post. This can unlock and move the hinges just fine, but setting the lock only works sometimes. Even when I try to set the locks manually it usually takes a few tries before the lock is set.

Yes, but that's not really a newbie problem. That can still happen after a few hundred hours playtime... Yes, they all do that from time to time. You really have to watch where you're going out there. Minmus also likes to reach out with a mountain and try to swat your vessels in orbit. Btw. did you already send a contracted satellite into its orbit, the other way around (clockwise vs. counterclockwise)?

Yes. Mostly. AFAIK it doesn't matter who sets up the controller or the transmitter. But all science experiments will generate science faster if they are set up by a scientist, and the power modules (solar panel or RTG) generate more power when set up by an engineer. (See e.g. OX-Stat-PD on the Wiki)

Hmmm... Maybe I'll try it sometime. First I'll need to unlock all that good stuff in my career save. ;-)

Also without reaction wheels?

Can you post a craft file that shows this problem?

Not that I know of. But why not use the excess fuel to decelerate before / during reentry? If you point at the right direction between retrograde and radial-out then you can reduce your speed without lowering your periapsis. P.S. Maybe this fits more into the Gameplay Questions forum...

I assume you mean "very different thing" in the sense: "The source and thus the properties of the relativistic particles is very different than radiation from nuclear reactions." I now understand what you want to say, but sometimes using a few more words to be more specific can be very helpful. (And avoid statements that - as such - are wrong.)

Oh, yes! I would want bonus points for convincing tourists to do an EVA. SCNR!

You do realize, that this is different from claiming that: "You can't get Cherenkov radiation in air." Because that claim would mean that high energy gamma ray astronomy doesn't work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IACT So you are saying, that the "flash of blue light" reported here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core#Second_incident was not Cherenkov radiation?

In addition to what @linuxgurugamer wrote: KSP is very open and mod-friendly. But that also means that if SQUAD would ship the files for the DLC parts with the base game and "lock" them away in some fashion, then it would either be fairly easy to make a mod that unlocks the parts or they have to change the game to be a lot less mod-friendly. I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want the latter.

Ah, no. When you dock then the two vessels are combined into one new vessel, and I AFAIK the root of the new vessel is the root of the older vessel. Yes, that means that "autostrut to root" will change when you dock or undock. P.S. That is also the cause of my comment that it is literally always the wrong part: I have a big refueling station in Kerbin orbit. And when I launch a new interplanetary vessel and refuel it at the station, then any maneuver node I set up while they are docked will remain with the station. And not the vessel that I actually want to move...

The center-of-lift / center-of-drag of a plane actually changes at different airspeed / air pressure combinations. At low airspeed and high pressure, the non-lifting-surface parts of you plane have comparatively little drag. So the point where the combined aero-forces push on your plane is mostly given by the center-of-lift of the actual lifting-surfaces (you wings). This is what is actually shown in the editor. But at high (hypersonic) airspeed all the parts have high drag, while low air pressure means that the lift forces on the lifting-surfaces are low. That means that the aero-forces on your plane are dominated by drag. So if you have a plane with lots of non-lifting-surface parts in the front and fewer, but heavier parts in the back (e.g. engines ) then the center-of-lift / center-of-drag will be further in the front of your plane during re-entry.(*) If your plane is sturdy enough then you can just let it tumble until it becomes sub-sonic. Or, if you have some fuel left, you can pump all fuel as far to the front as possible (and pump it back if the plane becomes too nose-heavy at low speeds). P.S. (*) Or during the later stages of the ascent of your spaceplane. My first spaceplane SSTOs tended to flip out of control at around the time in the ascent when I switched from air-breathing engines to rockets.

I totally agree with @Pecan here: docking is one of the harder things to do in KSP, so if you are really new, then first have some fun doing other things. (Another thing that isn't all that easy is landing on rocket power. That also took me a while to master. (Well, not suck at...)) A possibly more useful suggestion: there are quite a few docking tutorials on youtube you can learn quite a bit from them. And finally, when it comes to actually docking: make sure that you only try to dock docking ports of the same size to each other. The clamp-o-tron junior and the normal sized don't like mating with each other. Trust me, I tried.

What I do is to use SAS in surface mode set to "retrograde" for most of the landing burn, but switch to "radial out" just before touchdown (when I killed all my horizontal velocity). The latter has the advantage that it still works when your surface velocity is smaller than 1 m/s and it will use the reaction wheels to keep the vessel steady (or straighten it up) when the *bleeping* landing legs kick it around.

That's not the way it works for me. (At least in the test I just did.) With "control from here" I can choose which part of the vessel I control after undocking, but the maneuver node was always in the same part that contained the root part of the docked combined vessel (as indicated by "autostrut to root").

You mean blueberries?

Well, in some circumstances it can work. The things that can help you are that autostruts now traverse locked robotic parts (I.e. an autostrut will end at a robotic part if the part is not locked, but will go to the other side of said part if it is locked.) and that hinges etc. are more stable when they are pushed against their stops. Unfortunately locking a hinge while it tries to keep a certain position against an outside force is pretty hard, unless that force pushes it into its stop. I made a Eve planes that can fold their wings to be protected by a heat-shield, but can unfold their wings once the high-speed re-entry is done. In the unfolded state the hinges are at their 180deg stops, with the lift forces pushing them into the stops. That way I can lock the hinges even when there is some load on them. Once the hinges are locked the autostruts keep the wings reasonably stable. I think something like the folding wings like on many carrier-based airplanes (e.g. F/A-18 Hornet) that can unfold and lock their wings while on the ground should be possible with the right use of autostruts. Sweeping wings like on the F-14 Tomcat - that are expected to move their wings while under load - will be a lot harder. Maybe unlocking, moving, and locking again is possible in level flight with the lifting force being perpendicular to the movement direction of the hinges. But I haven't tested that. Well, the way that KSP implements the physics means that the real-life reason for swept wings just doesn't exist in KSP. So everything else being the same, your plane will fly as well at all speeds with straight wings than with swept wings. But I believe that isn't much consolation for you.

In the case of having a vessel docked at a (refueling-) space station, that is indeed the truth. Not just metaphorically, but literally.