Vanamonde

Since the date on this thread indicates that it is about 1.5 years old, the information in it is unlikely to be helpful. Feel free to start a new thread if you would like contemporary advice.

Gentlefolk, please keep in mind that not everyone is familiar with the history of previous discussions, and that other games are off-topic for the KSP forum.

I often take a couple of days off after completing a big project, or when I run out of ideas for new projects. Or when I've utterly failed at something (like SSTO planes) and I'm ticked off with the game. But I can't stay mad for long, and always think of something else to try.

To raise your orbit so that it is not a collision with the moon, you could 1) accelerate straight ahead until your speed will carry you around rather than through it, but then you would need to shed that speed again before attempting to land or orbit. Or, 2) you could turn 90 degrees away from Mun in the plane of your current path and burn to raise your apoapsis without changing your speed as much. But the best method is to 3) change your approach to Mun before you get there, because the farther away you burn to make the adjustment, the less fuel you will use. Experiment with maneuver nodes to plan your route while you are still orbiting Kerbin, and see how the line of your projected path through Mun's sphere of influence changes as you play with the maneuver node. It is quite helpful to get into the game's settings file and change the line CONIC_PATCH_DRAW_MODE = 3 to CONIC_PATCH_DRAW_MODE = 0 This will display the line of your path near Mun more clearly. (vexx32 is giving you the same advice as my option #2, just in different terms. )

Hello Mr. or Ms. Polar-eX. Welcome to the game, and the forum. (I moved your thread to the welcome section, where greetings like this are extended. )

No one is making you use them or read this thread. That doesn't mean these things aren't useful for other players to download, compare, share ideas, and use.

And then you'll also need to select VAB or SPH, just in case that isn't obvious when you get there.

Kerbal Air Program. Your storytelling is almost as impressive as your ship-building in this one. (I've been playing since version .15 and STILL have never found a pine tree.)

prof.paljas, pictures of your ship would help others diagnose question #1. Can you upload some screenshots to a free service like Imgur.com, and then use their BBCode link in your post?

Welcome to the forum. A good way to call attention to your videos would be to post screenshots in the awesome pics thread, and/or threads in the ship sharing sub-forum. Have fun!

"Prograde" can be a confusing term because it is relative to the thing that is being talked about. It means something like, "in the direction it is already going." The most common usage is when a spaceship is already flying, when "prograde" can mean straight ahead. Pointing the nose of the ship at the prograde marker (the direction you are already going) and firing the engine will make you get where you're going faster. In this instance, Sirrobert is talking about pointing the nose straight ahead (with regard to the ship's direction of travel) and burning the engine to raise part of the orbit. But also, as Kerbin rotates, the surface moves to the east, and so a ship sitting on the pad before launch is already moving to the east. Therefore, you will hear people talking about "launching prograde" and heading to the east as you take off, adding to the speed Kerbin's rotation is already giving you. But planets move around the sun, too, and as you're leaving a planet to go somewhere else, prograde will mean burning the engine in the direction the planet is already moving in order to go faster and "higher" away from the sun, or you can burn retrograde (opposite the direction of the planet's motion) to go slower and therefore "lower" toward the sun. There are other ways the word "prograde" can be used, too. I hope this has clarified the matter and not made it worse.

On a ship that big the effect shouldn't be very strong, and can actually be beneficial because it helps to counter-act the slight nose-heaviness recommended for stability.

Yeah, I should have been more specific; my thinking was that the capsule with the Kerbal's mass in it should punch through air resistance slightly faster (same cross-section, different mass), which is why I performed the test in atmo. Of course, it's quite possible that isn't right, either. I've got a persistent headcold that has left me feeling mildly drunk all week.

Leave the ship momentarily and go back to KSC, then resume the flight from the tracking station. If I recall correctly, everything except fuel line nubs will have vanished.

Could you describe what you mean by the "focus jolting back"? There is a cycle in the simulation in which the game's physics have a periodic little hiccup: engine flame animation, acceleration, and sounds may cut out for a fraction of a second and then come suddenly back on. Is that what you're talking about?

Have you tried building small planes to work out the principles? Among other things you'd learn that way is that placing the landing gear all the way at the back like that causes it to act like a fulcrum, with the length of the plane acting as a lever to hold the nose down. That's a problem, because the game's current aerodynamic system is as placeholder, so KSP wing parts generate zero lift at zero angle of attack. Which I suspect is why you're finding that this plane acts like it's glued to the runway. Check out some of the plane-building tutorial threads.

You can actually place the ladders so low that they will extend into the ground without causing any kinds of weirdnesses on the surface. I do it routinely, and it's a handy way to make sure you never get caught short. A descending Kerbal simply stops climbing at ground level. However, if a ladder extends into other ship parts, weirdnesses can occur.

Welcome to the game, and to the forum.

I'm afraid not. Several moons are tidally locked to their planets, but nothing is locked to the sun. Even the polar regions are not a safe bet for round-the-clock exposure, as they have hills and valleys that can cut you off.

We always do. Unless our rocket designs don't work. Then we have fury. Then we calm down and have more fun.

Even if you can't land on the moons yet, low fly-bys of them with pilot reports, EVA reports, and goo pods can earn quite a few points.

Hello and welcome to the forum. Just sing out if you have any questions.

Welcome to the game and forum! In addition to other ways of seeking guidance, be sure to visit the tutorials section of the forum: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/54-Tutorials To help find your way around it, nice Mr. Specialist290 has made a guide organized by type and subject: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/28352-The-Drawing-Board-A-library-of-tutorials-and-other-useful-information

I'm not clear on the part arrangement you're describing, but if you want to see how the engines can be placed below fuselage centerline, take a look at these planes: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/25413-Trainer-and-Example-Aircraft-for-Newbie-Pilots-(updated-for-21-1) I haven't tested their flight characteristics in 22, but you can download them and disassemble them for the purposes of reverse engineering.

I tried a couple of experiments to answer this empirically, but the results were equivocal and inconclusive. Firstly, I threw this odd rocket together. Bill is in the capsule whose lights are on, and the other one is empty. I got the ship rotating quickly, then ejected the segment with the capsules. If there is a Kerbal's mass in one but not the other, the barycenter of the capsule segment should be off of geometrical center, and I hoped that by watching along the axis of the launch stage in chase mode, I could see the capsule segment rotating around a slightly different axis. Unfortunately, the ejection is so violent that the capsule segment started precessing. Sorry that's so dark, but I had to fly it in Kerbin's shadow so the lights on the capsule were evident. If you can't make that out, the capsule segment has flipped around and its former axis is now perpendicular to the launch stage. Maybe somebody else can figure out a way to make this principal work as a test? So then I built this odd rocket. Bob is again in the lit capsule, on the left. After leaving atmo I triggered the chutes and ejected the capules, then watched them fall. If there is a Kerbal's mass in one, it should fall ever so slightly faster than the empty. Confounding my expectations, the empty one first pulled slightly ahead, then filled one caught up to a degree, then when the chutes opened the empty one yanked to the side as if its internal weight was not symmetrical, and then they stayed neck-and-neck to touchdown. Make of this what you will.