tuguley

Vaccum dV is usually all you need. If you need 8000m/s, then aim for 8500 m/s in VAB or 9000 m/s if you want to be completely safe.

^Yep After launch you'll notice that your dV actually increases for a while

Your velocity will remain the same, just the energy of the main station would decrease. The 30t chunk that falls off, will store that extra energy. Remember, energy is always conserved, so instead of have 1 big station with a lot of kinetic energy, you will have 2 smaller chunks with the energy split between them.

List so far (add more if i missed any) Moho: -Mohole (the really deep crater) Eve - None really (possibly the lone hill surrounded by plains, but it's doubtful) Gilly - None found Kerbin - 5 monoliths - 2nd KSC - memorial MK1 Pod - temple desert - north pole saucer - old parts in island hanger - smiley face in the ocean (can be seen with the ISA-MAPSAT plugin) Mun -Three monoliths -Three mun Arches -Neil Armstrong Memorial -Crashed Saucer Minimus - 1 monolith Duna - big kerbal face - singing hill - rover camera in the ground Ike - Magic boulder Dres - none really - The deep canyons can be considered "interesting" Jool -none Laythe -none vall - stonehenge tylo - Carl Sagans face in a crater - "caves" Bop -Kraken Pol - none (interesting terrain scatter) Eeloo -none MISC - Bender or some interesting character on the launch clamp texture

Open it with notepad, it's plain text.

I think this feature will be improved when "tweakables" are added to the VAB. Then you can decide how much crew you want, how much fuel you want in the tanks, etc.

You mentioned that you do inclination adjustment in LKO itself. It's more for fuel efficient to do inclination adjustments further away from your gravity source. So burn so that your AP is near minimus orbit and then perform inclination changes on your journey there.

I don't know about everyone else, but the following statement is what helped me out the most: The perfect landing is the perfect liftoff in reverse

WATCH OUT PLAYER!!! Your craft is 0.001degrees off-alignment! Applying FULL POWERRRRR!!!!

It would be great to be able to rename and re-classify empty/abandoned ships. These can be probes which have run out of electricity or ships which have run out of fuel with no hope of returning to Kerbin. The ability to reclassify these to "debris" would help to keep the tracking station clean (taking advantage of the new filtering feature). Here is an example of when this would be useful: Jeb has landed on the Mun but his lander has toppled over and does not have any docking ports or fuel left. So a rescue mission is sent. Jeb is rescued but his ship is still on the Mun and is still classified as a ship in the tracking station. I know it is possible to rename vessels through the save files, but having the ability to rename that empty ship as an ingame feature would be much more convenient and useful.

Instead of clustering them, just mount then on the side with small fuel tanks and connect them with fuel lines.

Here are a few things I keep in mind when building my ships, They mostly sacrifice aesthetics for efficiency, so be weary. Please feel free to add your own tips! 1) On large 3m rockets, don't use the grey ASAS. Instead use the smaller 1m ASAS and stick it on the top of your command pod. 2) Instead of using the 3m decoupler, use the smaller, 1m decoupler and reinforce it with 2-3 struts. If you're feeling particularly adventurous, use the probe decoupler. 3) Instead of using the big SRB, use the longest 1m Fuel Tank and slap on a T-30. 4) Do not use the disk shaped battery (the one with 500 charge). It has the lowest charge/weight ratio of all the battery packs. 5) 4 winglets on the main body of your lifter stage can do wonders for craft stability and maneuverability. Try using fins instead of a bunch of gimballing engines. This is especially prominent with engine clusters when you can use T-30s instead of the heavier T-45. I've notice having 3,6,8 winglets can introduce lots of wobble. 2,4 is the sweet spot for winglets. Put the winglets in-line with 000,090,180,270 headings. 6) Poodle Engines are almost never the answer to your problems. 3-4 LV-909s have a lower weight, identical ISP (in vac) , and almost the same thrust. 7) You never really need as much mono-propellant as you think you need. 100-150 units of monoprop will last a journey to Jool and back while including docking. (For a reasonably sized ship)

What you are looking for is an auto-pilot that docks for you. The docking ports are already magnetic. I think mechjeb can do that, but i'm not sure. Someone who uses it can probably tell you more. Yes they do. How do magnets work? EDIT: So you are looking for something like a tractor beam ? Don't think there's a mod for that. Auto-pilot is the only thing close.

You could use protractor. It gives you a somewhat accurate indication, but it still requires you to do the burns manually and more often than not, perform mid-course corrections.

From experience, a TWR of 1.85-1.95 on the launch pad is in the sweet spot for lift-off. 2 or higher eventually results in a thrust which is too high because weight reduces as fuel is burnt. From then on you can reduce the TWR of each stage and aim for around 1.2-1.4TWR during your gravity turn. No real math backing these numbers. They just work for the hundreds of payloads I've put to orbit.

This is a classic example of spreading rumors due to lack of research. Please read this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content.php/164-Update-on-the-0-20-Update Resources are coming, just not right now.

From experience, all parachutes deploy at pre-set altitude above the surface. Regular chutes at 500m and drogues at 2.5km Don't know about semi-deployed altitudes though

If you're talking about payload fraction (the weight of your payload in comparison to the lifter), anything above 10% to LKO is good. Above 15% payload fraction (to LKO) is amazing and anything above that using only liquid fuel engines is quite the achievement. You can use mods like engineer redux to find the mass of your stages. Payload fraction (percent ?) = ( payload mass / total mass ) x 100%

105) Give us an engine that doesn't burn liquid fuel, but rather just spurts it out the back.

I think steam has a built in backup creator which compresses the files really well. It works for Valve games, not sure about KSP, although I don't see why it shouldn't work.

Are you rotating the docking ports when you are trying to attach them? When holding the docking ports, press WASDQE to rotate the port so that it lines up with the connection points on the multipoint connector.

Well, I was recording an aero capture today and my conics showed an interaction with something interesting. I didnt have enough time to mouse over the conics and see the name of the body though. Possibly the magic boulder orbit? http://youtu.be/1L1dSIvX5E8 I have the quick save and im investigating further. Edit: Was not able to show this interaction again. Judging by the video, it was probably a glitch or something else. The SOI seemed to be much larger than what we all had in mind for the magic boulder. It might even have been Ike, but that does seem quite far out for Ike's SOI.

This is how I prevent FLEXING in my ship, due to ASAS. It adds a little bit of weight, but it distributed the thrust vectoring on the mainsail engines throughout the entire ship. I have never have a ship flex itself apart using this design. Even tested it with asparagus staging with 6 main sails (That's A LOT of thrust vectoring) and an even longer ship. http://imgur.com/a/F7etE

Just keep shift pressed and roll your mouse wheel. It will change your zoom. Just a quick tip which many people don't know about. Now the only problem is the launch tower getting in the way of your massive ship. But there is a mod for everything.

Ah alright thanks. Suspected that to be the answer.