Vanamonde

From now on folks, please add discussions of engine balance to one of the many existing threads on the subject: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74439-The-Grand-0-23-5-Discussion-Thread http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75696-Theory-vs-Practice-The-ARM-parts http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75013-I-m-sorry-I-I-just-don-t-like-ARM-%28 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75683-ARM-Parts-Poll http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75661-The-7-Balance-Points-of-engines-in-a-Full-Career-Mode http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75332-Can-both-Career-Mode-and-Sandbox-Mode-be-balanced-simultaneously http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75094-Would-you-like-reducing-the-thrust-of-the-new-engines http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75738-ARM-SLS-Parts-and-the-Start-of-The-Career-mode-age http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75090-the-ion-engine-is-way-too-OP http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74603-Engine-balancing-issues-in-ARM This helps reduce repetition and keeps the relevant information from getting scattered all over the forum.

By the way, there is a sub-forum for Wiki issues. And this thread has been moved there.

Hello Immabed, and welcome to the forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, we already have at least 10 threads on the relative merits of ARM engines. Rather than starting ever more threads to go over the same discussion and arguments, please add your comments to one of these existing threads. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74439-The-Grand-0-23-5-Discussion-Thread http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75696-Theory-vs-Practice-The-ARM-parts http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75013-I-m-sorry-I-I-just-don-t-like-ARM-%28 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75683-ARM-Parts-Poll http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75661-The-7-Balance-Points-of-engines-in-a-Full-Career-Mode http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75332-Can-both-Career-Mode-and-Sandbox-Mode-be-balanced-simultaneously http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75094-Would-you-like-reducing-the-thrust-of-the-new-engines http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75738-ARM-SLS-Parts-and-the-Start-of-The-Career-mode-age http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75090-the-ion-engine-is-way-too-OP http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74603-Engine-balancing-issues-in-ARM

Nice work. (And moved to mission reports.)

Moved to suggestions, but it's true; you're not obligated to track all of the asteroids which are generated.

Congratulations. (And moved to mission reports.)

Now that we've all expressed our feelings about bumping, does anyone have anything to say about the topic of the thread?

Nope. The motion of planets and moons is along set paths and not derived from physics.

You're cramming an insane amount of thrust into an absurdly small payload while ramming it through the thickest part of Kerbin's atmosphere. Is it surprising that an extreme situation creates an extreme result?

This thread was mistakenly removed, and has now been put back. (Sorry for the confusion.)

Guys, there are already at least 10 threads on ARM engine balance. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74439-The-Grand-0-23-5-Discussion-Thread http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75696-Theory-vs-Practice-The-ARM-parts http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75013-I-m-sorry-I-I-just-don-t-like-ARM-%28 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75683-ARM-Parts-Poll http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75661-The-7-Balance-Points-of-engines-in-a-Full-Career-Mode http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75332-Can-both-Career-Mode-and-Sandbox-Mode-be-balanced-simultaneously http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75094-Would-you-like-reducing-the-thrust-of-the-new-engines http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75738-ARM-SLS-Parts-and-the-Start-of-The-Career-mode-age http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75090-the-ion-engine-is-way-too-OP http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74603-Engine-balancing-issues-in-ARM The same people are having the same arguments over and over again, creating a lot of repetition for other members to have to sift through to find information. Please add your comments to one of the existing discussions rather than keep on starting new threads on the same subject.

The third ship in my first post in this thread can make roundtrips to Kerbin's moons, and uses only parts from tiers 0-3.

This how-to question moved to the how-to sub-forum.

Merged the threads, to keep the info in one spot.

(In response to some removed posts...) Please avoid insulting each other on the forum, and if you find a post which you believe breaks forum rules, please just hit the 'report' button on the post and let the moderators deal with it. Arguing back at the offending post simply forces other people to have to read through the unpleasantness.

Hi Dr. Kriger. I have been playing for almost two years, and I'm not tired of it yet. Welcome to the forum.

Small, un-manned ships with high dV. Send a crew to it after it's placed in orbit.

Do you know what "escape velocity" is? To make an example, let's say you fire a canon ball straight up. It will be moving quickly at first, but earth's gravity will pull it down and slow it until it falls to the ground again. If the cannonball goes faster, it will get higher, but will still fall. But there is a speed, which can be calculated, at which the cannonball will move ever more slowly, but its outward speed will never be reduced all the way to zero. It will keep moving away from earth forever, and escape earth. That calculated speed is the escape velocity. Obviously, the more massive something is the stronger its gravity will be, and the higher its escape velocity will be. A black hole is a mass whose escape velocity is higher than the speed of light, and since nothing we know of can go faster than light, this means nothing can escape from within a black hole*. So extremely massive objects can have an escape velocity higher than the speed of light, but since distance from the center is also a factor, an extraordinarily compressed mass can also be a black whole, even if it is (to use the usual example) only as massive as a medium-sized hill, with a physical size of a pea or smaller. So it's not so much the mass of the thing that makes a black hole, but whether there's a distance from the center at which the escape velocity is higher than the speed of light. Relativity explains why nothing can go faster than light, so black holes exist not in defiance of relativity, but because of it. *I'm leaving out Hawking evaporation because a) I don't really understand it, and I'm trying to write a brief and clear explanation.

Hello Funkocide, and welcome to the forum.

Welcome to the forum, MarethyuGamer, and your English is fine. You will also find quite a few of your countrymen already here.

Congratulations! (Also, moved to Mission Reports.)

Apparently, this is a debug tool that they have decided to leave available to players. It was a last-minute thing, which is why there was no information about it beforehand.

That pic is from v.17 or something like that.

This is a very common problem. In addition to the things mentioned above, you can enlarge the control surfaces at the back of the plane, and/or move them farther back so that they're applying more leverage.