Vanamonde

RCS isn't very strong, but a long burn can make a significant change in your velocity, especially if you apply it at the right time. The right time in this instance is at apoapsis of your Kerbin-descent trajectory, because any change you make there is magnified by the length of the descent. You can easily change the altitude of your periapsis by whole kilometers, and remember that if you get it below about 40,000m, it will only take a few aerobraking passes to de-orbit the ship. If you can get the periapsis down to about 20,000m, you probably won't come out of atmo again. Note that that last part will no longer work when later updates take G forces and re-entry heating into account! Well, it will still work, but it won't be survivable.

Most ships that can land on Mun can also land on Minmus, because the amount of fuel required ends up being about the same. So you might not need to change your rocket at all. Aiming for Minmus is also like aiming for Mun, except that it fluctuates above and below the usual plane. Burn for the usual orbital intercept at Minmus' orbit distance, then look to see if you're going to pass above or below it. If so, turn 90 degrees up (if you're going too low) or down (if you're going too high), and burn until you get the intersect symbols. Then actually landing on Minmus is much easier than Mun because of the lower gravity. For video tutorials, there are some stickied at the top of the how-to forum section. That's weird. When I submitted this there was no post above mine, but Boex's reply is time-stamped 2 hours ahead of mine. Some weird kind of retroactive-ninja-ing.

The decimal on the keypad will also call up the navball on map view.

It's extremely easy to set up. There isn't even an install wizard or calibration thingy. Just plug it in to a USB port, go to Windows/control panel/hardware/devices, right click on its icon, choose settings, properties, then calibrate it. Okay, that doesn't SOUND easy, but it actually is. Has 10 buttons, trigger, and throttle slider. For a cheapie, it actually feels pretty solid.

Not to rain on your parade and all, but I'm afraid it won't work. Extensive cratering like the Moon and Mun have took place before and up to 600MYA. If Mun had an atmosphere then, most of those impactors would have burned up before hitting the surface and making craters, and the craters the others formed would have been eroded away by wind and water (which is why earth has so few craters). Also, there is no Easter Bunny.

In the VAB, the keyboard plus and minus keys zoom in and out. You don't need to "save" a flight, because it just keeps going as long as you don't crash or "end flight" it. When you want to leave a flight for a while without ending it, hit escape, then choose "space center" or "tracking station," and you will transition there while the flight keeps going. You can go back to it later from the tracking station, or double-clicking on it on the map view.

Logitech Attack 3 has a nice feel to it and goes for about $20. But the one in your example doesn't look like a cheapie to me, so I'm not sure if that's what you're shopping for.

It's in kind of a dicey neighborhood, too.

Somebody should calculate the proportion of KSP missions that land successfully but not on the world they were aiming for. It's got to be around 10%.

I don't want to mess around and debug something, only to lose access to it in the next upgrade anyway, so I only use a couple of mods that fill important gaps in the game as it is in its incomplete state: Tosh's cars for rovers, floodlights, and just 'cause they're pretty, running lights.

Are you using Tosh's carts for your rovers? If so, make sure to get the latest version, and the problem will almost entirely vanish. At least it did for me, anyway.

Guys, Mr. ProbeIke seems to have mistakenly created redundant threads, and this one is duplicating his http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/20437-Creating-large-stable-non-laggy-rockets-for-three-person-lunar-landing. It would be nice if a mod could merge these so the helpful info isn't scattered around.

The sloppiest in sophistication but easiest in practice method is to do the transfer burn as if Minmus is on the usual plane, then look to see if you're going to pass above or below it, and if so, then burn perpendicular to the plane in the opposite direction until you get an intercept. I believe that's the easiest method for newbies (and even some of us experienced players ).

Mun's north pole is definitely That pyramid-looking hill is the georgraphic pole, by the way.

On the 3-mans, are you using the hide-the-chute-under-the-decoupler trick? Or do you just let them plummet to their deaths?

The thing you are using for a lander is big enough to be the middle-stage of a lander-delivering rocket. You'll discover that while it takes a huge rocket to get to Mun, a lander can usually get all the way back by itself because it's not fighting Kerbin's atmosphere and gravity on the way out, and the atmo is actually helping (to decelerate) on the way back. I suspect most of your other problems arise from the requrement to make the rest of your ship proportional to that mega-lander. But also, you might try replacing the large, circular decouplers with small ones supported by struts, because in the current version of the game, there is a glitch and the large decouplers are much weaker than they're supposed to be. (Just out of curiosity, what are the small landing legs on the capsule for?)

We'd have to see your plane to give any specific advice, but as always, I refer people to perhaps the single most useful thread in KSP history: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/13851-The-woes-of-building-a-space-plane?highlight=woes+spaceplane

Not to rain on anybody's parade, but I'm pretty sure that's just a little terrain glitch.

I think Mun is more popular because 1) you can see it from Kerbin and it has a nice view of Kerbin, and 2) there are arches to play around with.

Take a look here: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/18251-Coordinates-for-all-artifacts?highlight=coordinates

In addition to the incentives listed above, consider also the messages that a purchase sends. To Squad: we adore you for giving us one of those increasingly rare games that isn't just running around shooting/hitting things. To other game companies: such games should not be increasingly rare.

Forgive me if you already know this, but the fuel lines only pump one way, which is the direction of the little gray triangles on the tube. I can't tell from your picture if they're all flowing in the directions you intend, but might that be the problem? Oh, and you might not need that third, lowermost set at all. Those 3 bottom tanks are already connected because they're in contact with each other, but the outer two draw from the center, so the only reason you might to want lines there is to override that and have the middle engine be the last to flame out.

Once you have a ship landed on a world, go to the map view and hover the mouse over it. The name of the ship and its lattitude and longitude will appear.

Hi lidorabrgi. In the assembly building, put a decoupler piece between the parts you want to separate, where the black arrow points. This will show up on the staging display down the right side of the screen as a square with sort of an "equals" sign on it (where the yellow arrow points) to show the order in which the pieces will work. Then when you're flying and hit the space bar, the sections of your ship will separate where the decoupler piece was placed, (This is the same thing the other people here are saying, but with pictures.) I'm not sure what you mean by a "target." In KSP you don't designate targets first. You just fly toward the thing you want to go to. But not STRAIGHT at them, because you would miss as they move and gravity makes your path curve. To figure out how to aim your ship, try this guy's tutorials: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/15652-Orbital-Mechanics-101-A-Kerbal-Space-Program-Tutorial Good luck!

I did a stupid thing. I expected the internet (present site excluded) to function rationally. First of all, I seem to have been the only person who read that commentary thread before posting a reply, and no one who posted after my comment appears to have read mine. I should have remembered that the internet is a place for everyone to shout at once, and no one is listening. But my actual mistake was reading the other comments myself. Those people frightened me. There was a guy who claimed it must have been a hoax because the camera didn't burn up while returning from space, and a number of people jumped on the bandwagon of mocking NASA. Apparently, people will believe anything they see in print, whether it makes sense or not. I am sad now.