jayther

I made a space shuttle (vertical launch, horizontal landing mission in this video: ) before they added the big orange tanks and the launching struts. So the "big orange tank" was just a tall stack of fuel tanks and used structural (empty) fuselages to make it stand straight up for launch and broke off at launch.

They're smart, just no regard to the safety of others or themselves. That said, they're adorable.

Clearly, these two will never agree because the points they're making are on different sides of the fence. The main argument here is not playing KSP with a 3-part ship, but with a ship of considerable size and amount of parts. In this particular scenario, _Aramcheck_ is arguing that any computer that meets the recommended specs will show some frame rate problems because of the amount of parts. Meanwhile, SecondGuessing is arguing that a similar computer should not have frame rate problems. Boiling it down to the bases, the points are essentially defining what "normal circumstances" are. _Aramcheck_ believes that a simpler ship is of normal circumstance, while SecondGuessing believes that normal circumstances include large and/or complicated ships. Will SecondGuessing return to argue the original topic or will he continue with personal attacks? Will _Aramcheck_ do the same? Stay tuned!

Here are some names that I used that actually sound nice: MunStalker (orbit Mun) MunWalker (land on Mun) Kerby (plane) Space Penguin (space shuttle)

I saw a live stream of someone making it to the moon and back without instruments, let alone a map. So yes, it's definitely possible.

The key sentence in that email is, 'So if you haven\'t ordered KSP already, these are the final weeks to get the game for 15.00 USD!' If you already have KSP or have ordered it recently, then don\'t worry.

That was just a general comment in fuel efficiency (because when to start tilting determines how much of the thrust is going to the horizontal direction versus how much is going to break through the atmosphere and gravity). It has nothing to do with why your ship is tilting when you\'re going full power. I was just thinking that if you\'re having trouble with smaller designs, having a good approach to get to an orbit is important and one of the key things for some minimalist designs you may have seen. Also, smaller designs have less drag, so that\'s another thing to think about when you\'re make ginormous rockets. Anyway, I did huge rockets before as well when I started. Moar boosters, right? But after achieving orbit for the first time, I tried looking for ways to make the design smaller because there is no way in hell am I going to make it to the moon when I\'m having trouble getting into an orbit with behemoths. I\'ve encountered tilting problems as well with big designs, but sometimes it\'s just the smallest thing (and maybe even some weird random hitch with alignment), so I make the rocket again from scratch and usually it turns out to be stable (and not tilting at launch).

Yeah, that\'s a lot of fuel tanks. You would probably do a lot better with less fuel tanks on that second (middle) stage if you don\'t want to cut out the entire bottom stage and adding control fins aren\'t working for you. Keep in mind that the bottom stage has to carry the fuel tanks in the top stages where the engines are not being used. Less fuel tanks an early stage has to carry, the better (for both fuel efficiency and control). You don\'t need that many SASs. 9 SASs is overkill. You can get rid of the SAS at the bottom and the SAS in the middle below the ASAS. Gotta trim the fat. Also, your approach of how you exit the atmosphere and achieve orbit is important to fuel efficiency.

Are you able to land that space shuttle in the last pic?

They\'re just hanging out on top of the VAB. After an early launch fail and the ship started to go down very early, I aborted and spammed the space bar. I ended up landing on top of the VAB. I accidentally the kerbonauts. Without destroying anything (including the capsule). I was trying to go to the moon, and on the long trip there, I got impatient and timewarped. I didn\'t slow down quick enough, and after about 10 seconds of freezing (I assume going through the moon), the game started going again with the Kermans dead, but with the capsule still intact. I ended the flight, and the log says that NONE of the parts are destroyed, even though they\'ve been stripped off and only the capsule was to be seen.

Ugh, slugs. But I don\'t mind imperial measurements being an option. I don\'t mind it not being added either. I agree with Endeavour that, as an American, pounds as force/weight (and miles as distance, mph for speed, etc.) is more intuitive for me because I grew up with such units. In other words, I know exactly how much 500 pounds of force does, how far a mile is, and how fast 200 MPH is, because I have a sense for those units. Not so much for metric. If I had grew up with a metric system, the metric system would obviously be more intuitive for me and see how stupid imperial units are. x] I\'ve already grown to how far a meter is and how fast m/s in KSP is because I\'ve played it so much, but I still can\'t apply that to real life. Despite 4 years of physics, I still prefer imperial units, and approximate one meter to one yard and one kilogram to 2.2 pounds to get a sense of how far or how heavy stuff are (yes, kilogram is mass, pound is weight, but that\'s how my mind gets a sense of how much mass there are). In either case, I don\'t mind the imperial system option NOT to be added because having two scales will really throw off people, especially when people are teaching others (tutorials or otherwise). I don\'t think I\'d like two kinds of videos about KSP: one in metric, one in imperial. x]

There are crew members named Luke and James in the default crew list, but no Adam.

Hehe thanks! -]

Immediately after launch, I rolled the shuttle so the shuttle\'s back is facing the direction I want to go to, and pitched up slowly (with the SAS (avionics package and normal SAS) and RCS on). The shuttle has the tendency to pitch down, which is why the shuttle\'s back is facing towards the ground (like how real space shuttles actually launch). Even then, I still had to hold the pitch up key to counteract the shuttle\'s tendency to pitch down. If you mean keeping it balanced roll-wise, it\'s really just minor adjustments during takeoff and keeping an eye on the navball. The avionics package helps a lot in keeping it at a steady direction and roll angle while still be influenced by manual control.

That would be nice, to activate certain systems and deactivate others for launching, and vice versa for reentry and landing. You should check out the conversation Ted and I had in my thread: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=14468.0 In short, the usual cause of spinning uncontrollably is reentering at a steep angle. We\'ve found that reentering at a very slight angle helps maintain control of the space plane. Of course this makes aiming for the space center a hundred times harder, but at least you won\'t spin out of control (or in my case sometimes, fly backwards). Also, tapping the SAS key helps stabilize the plane, but only if you\'re not at a steep angle. But yeah, I\'ll have to try that Advanced SAS for landing, hehe.