zarakon

You could add an extra twist to a Mun circumnavigation by starting exactly at one of the poles and passing through the other one on the way. The polar terrain on the Mun is extremely rough, unless they've changed it recently

Did you at least use DynamicWarp for this?

Or purely by navball!

Why no spaceplanes? That seems like the most extreme challenge for using no symmetry or snap

four one from earth, then one from mars, then two more from earth

The shadow covers a smaller percentage of the orbit as you get farther out, but the whole orbit is also larger and takes longer. For a circular orbit, the section that's in shadow actually gets slightly shorter in terms of distance, as the arc becomes straighter. However, the slower orbital speed to traverse that section more than makes up for that

Same cupola issue here. Built a station out of two parts in Kerbin orbit, then shipped it off to Minmus. Everything is checked off except for the cupola that's definitely there

I guess it's been just over 3 years for me now. That's crazy

I think he means KSC2, the other space center on the other side of the planet

Eh, I think it's fine. I mostly just didn't want to see people running purely on battery power with hundreds of them

I think GoSlash27 figured out a bit about the differences between control surfaces (even when locked) and wings in the Eve SSTO challenge thread I don't remember exactly, but I think the gist of it was: 1. Control surfaces provide far more lift per mass than wings 2. Control surfaces either don't suffer from drag, or might sometimes have negative drag?

huh, wonder why we abandoned these things..

I agree with this, chairs should basically never count as "manned" for challenges

Everything in the thread I linked is 100% ion, other than maybe some minor infiniglide

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75704-Reach-for-orbit-with-an-ion-glider%21

What about the costs of getting the fuel to the refueling stations?

I never bothered even trying an asteroid capture until just now, and only got around to it because a contract (from Fine Print) told me to (Got it on my first try without looking anything up, though, and it was on a really annoying trajectory) I haven't even tried landing on a number of moons because they just don't interest me I haven't tried doing return missions from anywhere but Gilly, Duna, Mun, and Minmus, also just because meh

Try it on Kerbin. I don't expect you'll get far. If it doesn't at least work on Kerbin, it definitely won't work on Eve.

I thought planes flew much nicer with the old avionics nosecone SAS

I feel like building stations and bases should reward much larger amounts of science, and not much money.

I have an x-input controller that's equivalent to an xbox 360 controller. I love using it for flying planes, but there's one problem. KSP doesn't let me bind the D-pad or analog triggers to functions like landing gear, toggle lights, action groups, etc. The problem is that KSP detects the D-pad and triggers as axes instead of buttons (axis 5 and axis 6 for the d-pad specifically, and the triggers are weird), so it only accepts it for the axis binding functions. It seems like it should be valid to bind each direction of an axis to the normal button functions. For example, axis 5 negative for landing gear, axis 5 positive for lights, axis 6 negative for action group 1, and axis 6 positive for camera mode could be bound like this: LANDING_GEAR { primary = G secondary = joy0.5- group = 0 switchState = Any } HEADLIGHT_TOGGLE { primary = U secondary = joy0.5+ group = 0 switchState = Any } CustomActionGroup1 { primary = Alpha1 secondary = joy0.6- group = 0 switchState = Any } CAMERA_NEXT { primary = V secondary = joy0.6+ group = 0 switchState = Any } Just use a default deadzone of something like 25% or 35% This is how most games allow binding analog axes to binary commands.

I find them awkward to use. A slight RCS imbalance causes me more issues with the inline clamp than a normal one on the nose

+1 for roots

edit: nevermind, I was just loading the wrong save!

A while ago I had a very successful Minmus science mission using a rover. I think I got samples from every biome with it. With landing gear for wheels and sufficient structural armoring, they can be very resistant to breaking. I used rockets for propulsion, which worked extremely well. I used the flats to cover as much distance as possible, which uses practically no fuel since there is no air resistance. Then when I had to visit non-flat areas, I was able to hop around like a normal rocket lander. Minmus is great for rover science because it's small and has large, easy, fuel-efficient flatlands. It's probably the only place where a rover is "worth" using for science, though. The Mun is too large and crater-y, and other planets don't have biomes yet. Any place with an atmosphere, the rockets and landing gear design becomes inefficient, and you have to deal with slow and fragile rover wheels. Still, even if it's not good for science it can be a ton of fun. One of my favorite times in KSP was driving a rover (before they added rover parts) across the extremely rugged terrain to reach the Mun's south pole.