Blexie

The ,/< and ./> keys change warp speed slower/faster respectively.

some more cheating later, I got a Kerbal on Minmus. Here\'s me jetpacking around over a frozen methane lake: HarvesteR @ http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=13530.msg219016#msg219016 Straight from the man himself.

As a pseudo-intellectual, the best way to learn is to keep firing things that look like they might work perhaps maybe if you\'re lucky. Eventually you develop a kind of gut feeling as to whether something will work or not, without using maths, the best replacement is experience and dumb luck.

So things now actually glow when they get hot? TECHNOLOGY!

I\'ll just leave this here. You could cook eggs on this burn.

Possible in 7 if you go pretty much straight up. As Nova said, it depends on your approach.

This pack was merged with Novasilisko\'s old parts into 'NovaPunch'. The parts are hosted in that thread. http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=4180.0

Wow. This pack looks great. Soon, my K/A-18 Not so super hornet. Sooooooon.

On launch with it sitting ontop... I know C7 mentioned this before. The wings at the top sets the whole thing off. What about \'wing covers\' or somesuch. They have the same aerodynamic properties as the wings themself, but in the opposite direction, i.e neutralizing the wings until you eject them. If that\'s even the problem.

What exactly is wrong with it? Is it the lack of ailerons? If so perhaps a control surface on the back of the wings that is possible to place by symmetry, rather than having the wings as one part? If it\'s still nosediving why not make the nose cone a wing of some form? I\'m honestly clueless. Just throwing out ideas.

Everybody loves piggy backs. Anyone that says they don\'t love piggy backs is LYING, or just plain boring. In fact, we love piggy backs so much we even made a rocket that revolves around piggy backing! Making use of new thrust-vectoring technology, previous deathtrap designs are now the latest thing to grace our glorious skies. Remember when you used to hit spacebar and wonder if something would explode? WELL GET THAT FEELING BACK! 100% guaranteed explosions 60% of the time! We even provide a booster to assist first stage separation and provide stability for the short time the second stage lasts before you drop it like it\'s hot.* *It is advised that the end user DOES drop the second stage as soon as possible, unless covering for lack of catherine wheels at a firework display. I was feeling impractical. Fire in the hole staging is suggested. A high failure rate, explosions, an unstable central design, \'tis beautiful. Requires Silisko Edition on .12x3. That -should- be it. Wondering if anyone has similar designs since gimballing was implemented? I know you\'re all busy shooting for the moon, but still. Would like to see them, draw inspiration and all!

I actually didn\'t consider this. All I could remember is that the small 2m engine had a lower connection, and wasn\'t sure on the WHAT CAN I DO WITH ALL THESE THRUSTS engine. (Since looking, it doesn\'t have one.) Since it\'s intended to be the medium size I\'m unsure. I can see why he\'d leave it out though, upon reflection.

If mounted on the vanilla fuel tank it does. But not on the \'lander\' fuel tank, which strikes me as defeating the object of having it anyway.

There\'s no connection node on the bottom of the new 2m engine. Also it\'s impossible (not by much though) to fit the new lander legs inside a fairing if mounted on the small fuel tank. Not sure if intended.

On my first attempt everything looked good. Right up \'til contact. One leg snapped off, I panic-throttled up. Things went from bad but survivable to munar-coffin quite quickly. They came to rest a few kilometers away. Alive. Until the oxygen runs out. I nailed it on the second attempt, but buggered up the return. I would have gotten into Kerbin\'s zone of influence, but my brain was buzzing from the fact that OH MY GOD I JUST LANDED ON THE MUN. Much fuel was wasted. Ahwell. Tomorrow will do, I got halfway there.

This, seems to have a massive roll on one side. Also the control surfaces don\'t affect roll, so it\'s impossible to correct without using RCS. Which isn\'t strong enough. The control surfaces not affecting roll is likely due to how they\'re placed:

..What? I mean.. What? How on earth is knowledge on the use of RCS modules relevant to orbital ability? 2+2=7, right?

I'm surprised that slowing down has a BIGGER effect than just going Jeb style on things. But yeah, that's that cleared up. Thanks for the fast response!

Title says most of it really. What's the best way to de-orbit from 200km+? For lower orbits I'm just burning straight down until I run out of fuel and hoping for the best, and while not exactly elegant, it works. This doesn't work from higher up (I.E, I miss and slingshot around the planet). Is it best to burn at an angle that would reduce speed as well as altitude? Or am I missing something glaringly obvious? TLDR: How do you de-orbit from higher altitudes? Thanks in advance!

Yeah, you do need Wobbly Rockets. Just tried.

These decouplers are AWESOME. I've gotta second the request for larger variations.