Vanamonde

Really? That's odd. I've never had that problem. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I always remap landing gear to the ` key, because I got sick of hitting G by accident.

That button should deploy the landing gear. If it doesn't, something's wrong.

Here are instructions on how to get to the moons: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/25029-A-moon-rocket-and-moon-trip-walkthrough-for-newbies-(21-1) That includes an example ship you can download if you want, but you can follow most of the instructions with your own ship if you prefer.

There's no secret to it. If we are making interplanetary missions look easy, it's because we've been practicing flying and working on our designs for more than a month. (I made a thread for my 6-month learning process: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/37952-Round-trip-ships) Failing over and over again is part of this game, and that's a big part of why KSP gives one such a sense of accomplishment when you finally succeed. My advice would be to not focus on the goal and have more fun with the process.

A lander, station core, 2 satellites, and 2 rovers arriving at Eeloo. Assembled in orbit from 8 launches.

Controlling your ships is a matter of installing reaction wheel pieces, and/or RCS, and possibly control surfaces, and giving them fuel (for RCS) and electrical power. All crewed capsules have built-in reaction wheel systems and so are enough to stabilize small rockets, though larger ones will need additional inline reaction wheel pieces. The reaction wheel pieces that say they have "SAS" capability are only needed on ships that are using a robotic probe core as the control part instead of a crewed capsule, because crewed capsules also provide the SAS function by themselves. RCS doesn't work very well in atmosphere, and should be used primarily for maneuvering rather than stability, because otherwise it will run out of fuel too quickly. Control surfaces only work in atmopsphere, and so will only help stabilize rockets during takeoff or landing, though aircraft need control surfaces at all times. Aircraft don't work very well with the current reaction wheel system, though, and so just aren't going to be very stable no matter what you do. All of these parts will need electrical power to work. That comes from solar panels, RTG generators, or engines (though there seems to be some glitchiness right now and not all engines do generate electrical power). All crewed capsules and probe cores start with a small electrical charge even without a generator, but it will quickly run out. It may be enough for very short missions, though.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm trying to perform testing at Kerbin that will determine if the lander can take off from Eve. I can already get there, so now I'm trying to figure out if I can get back.

The battery in my calculator died and I can't do ln and ln-1, so before I fly my attempt at an Eve manned return all the way there, somebody please check my thinking. If my ship can go pad to 80km around Kerbin and attain a speed of 9.5km/s while doing so, will it make Eve orbit? That is to say, does ~4700dV for Kerbin orbit (2200m/s) plus 7.3km/s = 11,500dV (with a bit of safety margin)? (I'm coming down with a cold and I'm a little feverish, so please don't laugh if this makes no sense.)

What sort of trouble are you having? Pics of the ship might help a diagnosis.

You will see a performance improvement if you put it at 160km or more, because then Kerbin's terrain is no longer being rendered.

To post pics in the forum, upload your screenshots to a free service like Imgur.com, and then use the link they provide in your post.

For one thing, gravity suddenly asserts itself when physics kicks in, yanking with a strength proportional to the weight of the parts. Attaching launch clamps to more points will transmit the shock to the unbreakable clamps.

Use drogue chutes or open the mains in sets using control groups, so there isn't one big jerk when they all open at once.

Nothing says "kudos" like a rep point. Abstract and meaningless, but still fun to get.

If it's the final stages of docking you need to practice, here's a trainer that brings its own target ship with it in the same launch: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/25425-Help-with-Docking-A-Trainer-Ship-for-Newbies You could separate them and then bring them together again from longer and longer distances.

As I explain in this walkthrough http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/25029-A-moon-rocket-and-moon-trip-walkthrough-for-newbies-(21-1), aim for Mun by beginning a prograde burn when it is 120 degrees counterclockwise of your ship's position around Kerbin. If your orbit is close to circular, there's no advantage to making the burns at the apses.

If you find out, tell me how.

Here's a walkthrough: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/25029-A-moon-rocket-and-moon-trip-walkthrough-for-newbies-(21-1) There's also an example ship you can download, but you can follow most of the directions using your own design, if you prefer.

Well, I ran that removal tool, and it ran, but then reported that it didn't remove anything. Which kinda defeats the purpose.

5m/s is 18km/hr, or 10mph. Imagine trying to drive your car down a slope that steep at that speed. But also, I find that all my rovers have less wheel traction in .22, and they're just not fun to drive right now. Squad fixed this in a previous update, but it seems to be back.

I watched TOS when it originally aired. I was 3 years old when it started so I didn't understand all of it, but I can't remember a world without ST.

It was a cute idea and I played it for a couple of months, but there's no real depth to it and it gets repetitive quickly. It's too bad, because the idea had AMAZING potential.

There is a 100% chance of getting my craft files because I posted them here, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/48610-My-roundtrip-ships-for-download with instructions on how to get them to orbit.

I believe my view is actually the more egalitarian, in that I am pointing out that inferring one or the other human sex upon a cartoonish image of an alien creature is itself an exercise in subjectively imposing pre-conceived gender expectations. What makes you so certain that a half-meter-tall green creature with an indistinct body shape can only be male? Can only males have short hair? Are no females petite-bosomed? Provide me with proof that someone one named Genevin can not be female. You are ASSUMING all Kerbals are male, and then blaming Squad for your unwarranted assumption. Not if the thing you are asking for is to have the human (mainstream hetero) conception of genders imposed upon the Kerbals. It's not a slope if there's one step between the beginning and the end. If you truly want egalitarianism, you'd have to represent ALL human gender identities in the game. Or, just as fairly and vastly less problematic to implement, no genders at all. If you can answer this one question for me, I will concede the whole argument; how does one determine the gender of a Kerbal, and how do you know that half of them are not already female? As for hand-waving away your original post, your main point seemed to be that a lot of people want it, therefore it must be implemented. But I've seen no evidence that 1) enough people want this to 2) warrant the diversion of Squad staff time for 3) something that would affect no gameplay mechanics whatsoever.

Either way you run the struts, the next time you load that ship (either from a save or by switching back to it) after discarding the previous stage, the strut nubs will disappear. (By the way, the receiving end of a fuel line does not disappear, but remains for the life of the ship.)