Vostok

I hate to do this, but before you get shouted at, go check section 3 of the forum rules (the third part)... May help you avoid the wrath of the moderators. http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=17066.0 Also, welcome, welcome to the forums! It\'s safer here.

I just completed a mission using totally stock parts to send a 3-man capsule into a higher orbit around kerbol (the sun) and then return them safely. A simple hohmann transfer was used, although I had no target orbit so \'any orbit\' was my target. I returned them to the planet with 4 full large fuel tanks, and half a full giant fuel tank, all of which I had to ditch. If I\'d wanted, I coulf have landed on minmus on the way back with the amount of fuel I had left after re-entering Kerbin\'s SOI, so interplanetary missions are certainly within our scope at the moment. Mission: The transfer orbit: Returning to Kerbin, shortly after jettisoning the solar maneuvring and rendezvous stage, which still had over half a tank of fuel left. Decoupling from the emergency stage, I never really had any plans for this stage, since I didn\'t know how much fuel I would use. I could have used it to land on minmus on the way back, I suppose. Decoupling the flight control stage. The rocket itself made my computer sad, It fires all but one of its engines on take-off, so there\'s a bit of lag. (A bit = A metric ton) The highlighted tank was half full when I re-entered kerbin\'s SOI. I chucked it and the remaining stages away, after burning next to no fuel from them. The worst part was waiting, all the planet rendezvous (kerbin) and things like that were not a problem. However, the mission took several years game time, so my astronauts would have grown at least beards, if not run out of food. Although, two pods will be a must-have. (and therefore, so will crew modules!) I\'d hate to find a way to attach a lander and return stage to this, especially for a large planet. The fuel would simply not fit. As it was, the launch of this thing brought my computer to its knees. Overall, I was pretty happy, since this was my first attempt at a \'proper\' interplanetary mission (instead of accidentally sending them out of kerbin\'s SOI )

So.... The plan is to have the terrain engine be able to support them by 0.17? I thought it needed an overhaul to support gaseous planets. Or will you leave out the gas ones for now? Also, any word on EVA control revisions? (proper rotation and the like) I keep saying about it but I\'ve had no official response yet....

Crew modules will be a must-have though, since I predict many, many rescue missions.... And even routine \'return to kerbin\' missions for craft like deadshot described.

I like the way your rocket lands pointing down. I myself created a whole ship that flies the entire mission facing backwards, it makes navigating with the navball fun, I\'ll tell you that much. You basically have to reverse everything you\'ve learned.

I would probably point my rocket at it and fire the engines until nothing\'s left. And miss, and fail horribly because I didn\'t plan the mission properly. But remember: New parts are being added, there might be super-efficient low thrust engines for use in interplanetary space, or different SRBs and fuel tanks that may mean heavy lifter rockets are a lot easier.

They run on my own pseudo-legal mixture of Potassium Nitrate and sugar. Which is why none of them have flown yet. Although, for no flights, a 30m height record is pretty good, I reckon... (height of Command Module after explosion)

I\'m swithering as to whether or not I like the whole idea of planets at this point, since I always assumed they\'d come later in development. But who am I to complain? It\'ll be awesome! Interesting question to the developers however: The new planned planets, will there be gas giants? I am aware that Mu\'s current terrain engine doesn\'t support gaseous planets, so is the headline \'planets\' subtitled \'terrain engine revision\' or will the planets stay solid, and the gas giants problem be resolved at a later date? (I also do hope that the EVA control system is rectified, though. It\'s been the only thing I\'m not really content with from 0.16)

The bonus should be \'below a certain altitude\' since aircraft are a lot less efficient lower down, as the drag greatly reduces speed.

I think even IRL once an SRB is lit, it\'s a one way trip. Since the fuel contains its own oxidiser, even if you pump the engine full of carbon dioxide/extinguisher substance, it\'ll keep burning. So, essentially, this would be unrealistic. It\'d also remove the fun from the SRBs, the fun being, if something goes wrong, you\'re essentially sitting atop a large firework, with little hope of rectifying the situation.

Personally, I dislike the idea of a flight autopilot that flies the ship for you. Most of the fun for me is getting to do exactly what you want yourself, without the aid of a machine. For example, getting to a metre-perfect circular orbit by hand is far more rewarding than if a machine had done it for you. The same goes for rendezvous and landings. Now, I know many people prefer the more scientific side of KSP (i.e. the Kerbin Geographic Society) and I appreciate the need for simple, fast orbits in order to collect data with the minimum fuss, but when I hear of people performing their first ever moon landing/rendezvous/minmus landing etc, with mechjeb, I wonder \'where\'s the achievement?\' Now, obviously there\'s the rocket design that, since 0.16, has (I think) made it easier to get items into orbit, and that does require skill, thought, and planning. But when it comes to it, I\'d feel that I cheated if I were to use a computer to perform the actual landing. I\'d prefer to be in touch with the ship itself. (I don\'t mind using it for orbital info, but I never really play the game accurately enough to warrant needing orbital information to 2d.p.) Besides, if you perform every landing and rendezvous using mechjeb, you never learn to do it manually. I don\'t know about anybody else, but my first ten landing attempts exploded, but I slowly got better and now, if a ship is capable of landing at all, I can land it 99% of the time using no RCS. The same for rendezvous and rescue landings, although I have only ever performed three rendezvous manoeuvres, I found each one massively easier than the last... But with mechjeb, you just don\'t get the chance to learn... which I find to be an opportunity wasted, so essentially, I reckon that for the true KSP experience, players really ought to steer relatively clear of mechjeb until they\'re confident in manual flights, since it\'s a learning experience that way. I\'ve learnt more about orbital manoeuvring than I could have thought possible since playing KSP. So, any thoughts on the subject. I can tell that there will be two completely different categories of people, and, indeed, \'mediators\' in between, but try to keep it civil. EDIT: This was NOT meant to be me telling everyone that mechjeb is wrong! :S It was giving my current views on the plugin, and asking for others\' views on the same.

How did you guess!?

This one is: The Most Interesting Kerbal in the World. It\'s all I could think of for the words underneath...

Something about the unblinking eyes and the shape of the mouth always makes me think of kerbals as reptiles, which I suppose would not fit at all, but nevertheless, they do look distinctly gecko-ish. But I reckon they should stay asexual, to avoid work for the devs adding unecessary things to the game, and, more importantly, an unavoidable influx of, shall we say, dubious, fan-art.

I hate the idea of war in KSP, but this video was damn awesome, nevertheless. (I\'m not against people using mods for war parts, I\'m against war as a vanilla thing) So, awesome work! I\'ve seen your videos before, and they are all very good indeed.

I made an aircraft using one large 2m fuel tank and 2 ramjets, it can fly to ksc 2 on less than 1/3 of a tank I made it for kerbal rescues after re-entry.

I tried the same thing yesterday,but I killed my kerbal on the de-orbit burn, cause I left it too late, and he impacted... :S

Agreed, both points. I particularly like the ladders on the station \'arms\', very nice. I need to make a note and send my own space station of some sort into orbit sometime. Tip: the smaller extendable ladder makes a damn good antenna model.

The boosters look like they\'re held in place with pin-and hoop straws, so that they fall out downwards, and rely on the acceleration of launch to hold them in place, until burnout and they just drop off.

Looking back at it now, I have no idea how I managed this.

There are good tutorials around the place. The basics are - synchronise orbits, get your periapsis/apoapsis on the orbital trajectory of the target you\'re trying to get to, burn to make the opposite apsis also on the same orbit, so your orbits are the same. Then, to catch up, burn slightly retrograde, making your orbit take less time, and thus catch up on the target. To slow down to meet it, burn prograde and you\'ll slow down relative to it. always keep the apoapsis or periapsis on the same orbit as the target though. When you\'re within, say, two KM (it takes some practise) then you can start manoeuvring towards it, remembering that you have to burn engines to slow down, or you\'ll fly past it. A good rule, if you have spare fuel, is burn towards it until you\'re halfway, then burn away from it. That should slow you down in time, although rendezvous without an RCS system is not a nice thing to do, for your first time. Don\'t do what I did, which was pick an elliptic orbit at a funny inclination, and a ship with no RCS for your first rendezvous. Pick a nice circular orbit, with loads of spare fuel. 100km is a good orbit to start with.

In all my Mun missions to date, I never have once used a parking orbit after the Munar transfer. I go straight down (vertically, as you say) after killing my velocity to 0m/s at several Km altitude. Then, I touch down at <1m/s, using no RCS, usually (I fly landings by navball only, with occasional height referances to the game scene), and on the dark side, too. I once managed to land a rocket with no landing legs. This sounds simple, until you hear that the rocket in question consisted of a stack of three large 1m fuel tanks, above a medium engine, with a lander consisting of a pod, asas, fuel tanks, engines etc... on top of THAT. (no rcs :S ) Then, I launch from the mun and fire the engines until the orbit intersects Kerbin (or is less than 6,000 periapsis). No mechjeb, I disapprove of it Some would call it inefficient. I call it \'rocket science\'. Plus I have a NASA T-shirt, that means it\'s legit, right...? So, is this landing the railsmith way?

Now remember, no conspiracy theories around here.

The Kerbal Space Program is low on funding, and it has been decided that, due to Jeb destroying >80% of all physical assets pertaining to Mun landings, the Space Program will fake a landing on the Mun, in order to gain more public attention, and funding. There are several prime desert locations on kerbin, and at night it\'s mostly not cloudy (leading meteorologists are still discussing what a \'cloud\' is, since none of them have ever seen one in the wild), so all that\'s needed is the expertise to pull off such a stunt. This is where you come in. The challenge is, essentially, somehow take a lunar lander and/or rover to a desert or beach somewhere on kerbin, and make a fake lunar landing video using the stuff there. All mods and cfg edits are fine. The more authentic the better, for example, if you have spotlights set up and everything, that would be damn awesome. Essentially, the more like the mun the final video looks (you\'re allowed to take the colour out of it with software, obviously, and slow it down, speed it up or whatever) the better it will be. You have, as they say, free rein. Furthermore, let\'s keep this thread free of arguments about the real moon landings, since if you don\'t believe they happened, what are you doing playing KSP? * Shouldn\'t you be arguing pointlessly on youtube videos? I\'ll post the best ones here, if anybody takes up this challenge. Good luck, and happy hoaxing!

Yeah, there has. XD The runway now being used has made it more noticeable, since 0.15