TheDarkStar

While in solar orbit, adjust your orbit so that when you end up in Kerbin's SoI, you're on a course where you impact Kerbin. If you are not in a solar orbit, either try to lower your periapsis into the atmosphere by burning perpendicular to prograde or go back into a solar orbit and adjust there if you don't the the fuel to to do it from Kerbin's SoI.

For your first trip, anything that large is overengineered. Use only one LV-N and make a much smaller lander for one Kerbal.

I don't usually use any mods. When I do, it's usually because they completely change the game - I tried Kethane a long time ago, I tried MJ for a short time (I got bored with it quickly), I've used various solar system mods, and I tried KSP Intersteller to see how the warp drive was. I've also used the various multiplayer mods.

NERVAs (No asterisk because they had working tests of engines on the ground, but were cancelled because bureaucracy). Why would I want them? They have higher thrust and Isp than any chemical engines we have today, and are suitable for interplanetary missions.

As long as you can turn a bit and your craft is somewhat stable, try turning with 4x physics warp (use alt + the , or . keys). Also, you're not going to be maneuvering at all the atmosphere of Eve because of how think it is. Without parachutes, you'll easily be going ~80 m/s by the end, and you'll be going straight down, too. Using parachute too early can actually rip your lander apart because of how think the atmosphere is. Don't forget about Eve's rotation; if you're going at 0 m/s relative to Eve in orbit, you won't be when you reach the ground.

Actually, the reason that people say they are 1.25m comes from the dev blogs from a while ago. They used to be actually 1m parts, and then the parts were scaled up when EVAs were added. Also, AFAIK modded parts have to be made following this scale change, with 1.25 meters for 1m parts, but that might have been changed.

Yeah, KSP ruins just about every sci-fi movie. Books can sometimes get away with it if they don't try to detail the wrong kind of thing, though.

It would really help to post a picture. If I'm reading what you said right, then you should probably put fuel lines leading from the outer tanks to the inner ones. Each outer tank should give fuel to only one inner one since looping fuel flow is unpredictable and usually leads to imbalances.

Titan, because of its atmosphere.

I spent a long time on Civilization, Master of Orion I and II, Heroes of Might and Magic, and Master of Magic. They all came before I was born, but they were the games my parents let me play when I was small.

I don't really have good memories of my sixth grade social studies class. The normal schedule for the day was: 1. Walk in. 2. Read the assignment on the board (usually copying vocabulary). 3. Spend the entire hour and probably some home time working on it. 4. Leave with the teacher sometimes never saying a word. It's not that she was mean or anything, but it just wasn't a good way to teach. I can't recall very much that was covered, mainly because of how mindless it was. It also gave me a dislike of any kind of history class that took a long time to get over. It gets worse in other years, though. I lived in Germany in third and fourth grade. While I was there, I did not have a nice class. They basically took every opportunity they could to mistreat me (although I now suspect it was related to their even stranger parents) and liked to exclude me or make fun of me. When I talked to the teacher about it, she ended up saying how the best way to get over it was to "get a big group of friends" - which, of course, I didn't have. After that, I don't think my teacher ever did anything else about it. Nothing ever happened to anyone who mistreated me, and the only reason they stopped was because I moved away. Part it continuing for so long was due to there being little bullying awareness in the German school system, but I think some actual action would have helped a bit.

I saw a random thread on the Minecraft forums a few years ago.

Of course, relativity tells us that you can't actually reach c due to requiring infinite energy.

What are you saying? If you mean that it doesn't matter about the bottom if the top is zero, well, that's what you get for photons and other massless particles that move at the speed of light. If not, please clarify.

Let me point out something: What happens as you approach a value of zero in the denominator? First, the variables: m = rest mass, c = speed of light, v = velocity, and Ek is the energy of the At 0.99c, you get sqrt(1 - (0.992/12) = sqrt(1 - 0.9801) = sqrt(0.0199) Divide the top (which is mc2) by this, subtract the mc2. term to the side, and you get 49.251mc2. Repeat this for 0.999, 0.9999, and 0.99999c. You get 499.25mc2, 4999.25mc2, and 49999.25 respectivelymc2. Thus, as the velocity increases, the energy approaches infinity. What do you not see?

Using maneuver nodes, you don't need to calculate it. Set your target, set the node to just barely hit the target orbit, and then move the node around by dragging it until you get a close encounter. After that, just circularize.

Kerbals bounce if they hit the ground the right way.

Currently? A world-bankrupting amount per gram. In the future? That depends entirely on whether or not we can mass produce it.

I don't really decide between them; it depends on what I want to do. Put a "Both" option in the poll please.

Target: Diving into the Sun Propulsion: Ion Thrusters Goals: Use a bi-elliptic transfer to get an orbit that crashes into the Sun. Other: Highly efficient heatshields would also be used to prolong life at the end of the mission. This would provide some nearby footage of the Sun and be able to get a closer look than we can now. Also, preferably has a companion probe that doesn't dive all the way down to watch the sun-diving probe melt.

See my signature. I've done everything short of an Eve and Tylo ascents (and I'm going to do those soon). I can rendezvous without any maneuver nodes (I actually learned to dock before docking nodes were added). I can get perfect interplanetary intercepts, not counting floating point issues that cause the numbers to move a bit. I can do SSTOs (not in my sig yet), and have tried both large payload rockets and minimal rockets. I've made many "messing around" projects. I've also done a near-perfect suicide burn before (but that was really just luck) and found several easter eggs. I've done two multi-part missions so far. I've done many, many rescue missions. My record is only about 1000 science because getting too much at ones takes the fun away. I quicksave a lot, but I almost never quickload unless I'm trying something new out. Of course, I've been playing for a really long time, so part of it is practice.

That's what they said, but it was implied that there were not sure if they could find a good solution for it imho.

I don't usually have trouble once I finish bug-testing them. Getting to that point is a different story; one that involves excess explosions and midair disassembly.

lodestar: While I believe in a form of ID, I disagree with your logic. Why would a lack of geocentrism mean no ID? I can't see what purpose there would be in putting the Earth in the middle of the universe. If it were like that, there would be lots of things that we can discover that we could not. It would make the universe a less interesting and amazing place, which conflicts with the idea behind ID being that the world is there for us specifically to live and to learn.

That's the problem, though - a relative speed of light is not consistent with observed events. For example, the orbit of Mercury is significantly different than Newton's laws predict, but relativity fits the orbit almost exactly (the deviation is accounted for in the slight pulls from all the other objects in the solar system).