Tiron

They got the trucks from Dudski Kerman's junkyard and truck co. Which only gets the castoffs from Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. and Bill Kerman's Junkyard and Building Repair Co. (Bob Kerman's Junkyard and Christmas Tree Depot has their own supply sources.)

Space Station Versus the FIRST Moon Landing is a big slip up. It's possible they got the mission designation wrong, rather than the description of it. The Skylab missions were flown with Apollo hardware. Edit: Nope, they got the description wrong. Hornet Picked up Apollo 11 and 12, the first two Moon Landings. Versus a mere space station...that is rather offensive...shame on them.

A bit blunt but true. We can barely begin to guess what the problem is without being able to see the setup. Screenshots or .craft files will do.

Actually, the 'show aerobrake node' option causes it to set up a maneuver node for the aerobrake, which is slightly silly, but has uses in planning a post-aerobraking maneuver to go off automatically. What you ACTUALLY want is to hit 'Show Landing Prediction', which activates the re-entry prediction algorithm. Which will calculate your landing site after re-entry...or your orbit after aerobraking if your predicted apoapsis will be out of the atmosphere. If it says 'Re-Entry Simulation Timed out', you're re-entering, but on a particularly shallow trajectory that nearly-but-not-quite climbs back out of the atmosphere.

I actually Circumnavigated the Mun once...back in...hell if I recall. 0.17 maybe? Pre-docking anyway. Granted, I was using a Bigtrak rover that could pull 80 m/s on the Mun (Record was 90, but usually it did more like 80.) It was completely invulnerable to impact damage, so the resulting occasional super high speed tumble was not at all a problem.

Tell me the secrets of your rovers that work! Because uh, mine mostly work...until I hit one of those bad terrain segments and end up rolling down a hill as a result. Which is why I'm not playing KSP right now. Not being able to make a rover that doesn't randomly go partially out of control because of terrain bugs has killed my gameplay.

I wouldn't say 'standard'. My first attempts had WAY more than enough fuel to get back. I so overbuilt the rocket it wasn't even funny. That's how I got some of the ones I tipped over back: even though it broke engines and tanks off, it was possible to jettison to the final stage and take off with that, even with it laying on its side, and still have plenty of fuel to get back. Not that it mattered. Every rocket had Jeb, Bill, and Bob, which was good, because rescue missions were impossible.

My First time actually succeeding in landing... I looked at the bottom of my craft, looking at the teeny, tiny space between the engines and the ground that had been left, and marveling that the AV-R8s actually DID work as landing legs. There were a few prior attempts where I failed at landing, either because I came in too hard and blew up, or because I tipped it over on the surface (though I did get a couple of those home anyway). Other than that...well, it was pretty much a case of 'This place sucks, I'm going home'. The 0.13.3 demo didn't have EVAs, let alone wheels, and plugins didn't work in it, so once I was landed there was literally nothing else to do but go back. And nowhere else to go either; it didn't even have Minmus, let alone any of the other planets. So I bought the game, decided that having landed on the mun with no landing legs and completely stock was plenty of justification for being lazy and letting mechjeb do the flying from then on (at least until my first trip to duna, as it didn't have interplanetary yet, so I used the protractor mod instead. Badly. Lucky I had a ton of excess fuel or I'd've never gotten there).

Eve has 170% of Kerbin's gravity, but the Atmosphere... It's FIVE TIMES thicker. Despite the higher gravity, parachutes actually work BETTER than on Kerbin, because the atmosphere's so absurdly thick. The exact Opposite of Duna, in other words. Just watch the opening shock. Drogue might be a good idea.

If you don't care where you land, it's easier to just aerocapture, especially on thick-atmo Eve. I landed an SSTO on Duna that way. It didn't have enough fuel to actually pull into a Duna orbit, but more than enough to change it to the point where the first pass aerobraking lowers the AP enough that it never gets out of the atmosphere. Especially if you do it when you first enter the SOI, where it takes almost no Delta-V.

Guys, he's talking about sliding the camera focus off the VAB's centerline, like you can do in the SPH with the help of some buttons (shift and right mouse I believe). It doesn't seem to work in the VAB

Apparently quotes, even if they're not actually quotes of a post in the thread, don't count for 10char.

Well, without knowing much about your rocket it's hard to say. You could have too little TWR or too much, not enough fuel, too many inefficient engines, inefficient staging arrangement... Some screenshots of the craft would be helpful, and yes, some words about what kind of flight profile you're using.

It long predates the new terrain, and yes it does happen stock as well. I first noticed and reported it back in...0.19 I think (Before then I was using DEMVs).

Earth, from 4 billion miles away. Taken by Voyager 1 not long before the camera was shut down. Approximate size: 0.12 pixels. (The Beams are glare from the sun, due to having to aim so close to the sun's position to get a picture of us). Edit: The Earth again. If I have to tell you where that was taken from, I will throw stale cookies at you. This one's from July 19, 2013.

Short Version: In order for the conversion to work, an engine placed in the same spot as the converter would have to be able to draw fuel from the target tank. Technical Version: The converter is basically a 0-thrust engine that's set to burn negative amounts of fuel. So rather than fuel flowing from the converter into the tank, negative fuel flows from the tank to the converter. This results in the tank filling up because, well, if you subtract a negative...

In a thread discussing it back in 0.20, someone said something about it being the result of 'Imprecision' in the terrain mesh, or something. Basically, the visible terrain doesn't match where the engine thinks the terrain is at. So you hit segments where the suspension jacks either all the way up or all the way down the entire time you're on it, regardless of how you're actually moving (it does settle if you STOP moving entirely, but any movement, no matter how small, will set it off again). I'm presuming they're the same thing in opposite directions: One where the engine thinks the terrain's above the visible terrain, the other where the engine thinks it's below the visible terrain. I'm really not sure which is which. The segments that cause the suspension to compress fully (as if there were major, sustained, Positive Gs) don't cause any problems. The segments that cause the suspension to go to full extension, however, cause SEVERE problems. I think it's related to the infiniglider bug, because what seems to be happening is that the suspension goes to full extension, jams there, and then starts trying to pull the rover off the ground. Gravity keeps it from really succeeding, but you end up in a state where it acts very much like you're barely touching the ground. Wheel thrust goes to almost zero, steering ability goes to almost zero, and the wheels start exhibiting serious directional instability (they bobble around, turning you a bit to either side more or less randomly). If you're on a slope and DO manage to get any steering authority at all it's very likely to turn extremely hard and tip over. If you catch one of the 'Negative G' segments while you're going downhill, it's EXTREMELY likely that you'll end up tumbling down said hill, probably throwing your kerbals and pieces of your rover (starting with the wheels) all over the place, regardless of how strong you build it. The new terrain seems to have this problem much more strongly, with the 'bad' segments being both more common and much larger. It makes trying to drive in any kind of hilly terrain at anything above a crawl pretty much pointless, because you'll inevitably go tumbling down a hill and break the rover.

As Pointed Out, it could've been either you firing your engines (most engines produce electricity while on) or Minmus suddenly failing to block the sunlight to the solar panels.

'Recover' is only active if you're on the surface of Kerbin (and ANYWHERE on the surface of Kerbin at that). If you're in space or on another planet, instead the 'Terminate Flight' button is active. The only principle difference at this time is that any Kerbals on a terminated flight will go onto the 'Missing' roster, whereas they go on the 'Unassigned' roster if they're recovered. By default, 'missing' Kerbals will respawn into the Unassigned roster after a period of time. So unless you've enabled permadeath by manually editing persistent.sfs, the only penalty presently for terminating versus recovering is that you temporarily lose the Kerbals on the flight. In Career mode I assume 'Recover' will also bring back the parts on the craft in question, or something.

Which so far as I know has mostly been what they were used for IRL (which is good because the IRL ones are really piddly, ours are way more powerful). Not for transferring to another planet, but for doing things like countering atmospheric drag on a sat that had to go really, really low to get accurate readings.

Only Jeb, Bill, and Bob get that honor. BadS just makes Kerbals that have it not freak out unless parts of the craft they're on explode.

*Buzzer* In the persistent.sfs file, there is a section that reads thusly, by default: Change it to false to enable permadeath. Default is true, there's presently no UI to change it (I think it's intended as a difficulty option for career mode, since you'd have to hire new crew to replace the dead ones, which isn't really a penalty in sandbox since hiring is free). To manually ressurect a Kerbal (if you're impatient or something), you need to find the ROSTER section of persistent.sfs It contains a number of entries that look like this: The key thing is the state: 0 means they're on the roster but inactive, 1 means they're assigned to a flight, 3 means they're missing. If you change the state from 3 to 0 it'll flag them as being alive again. ToD is Time of Death, which is 0 for a Kerbal that's never been killed, so you might change that too. It's not strictly neccessary, because you can end up with a ToD on a live Kerbal without editing anything if they were killed on a flight that got reverted. For some reason it doesn't reset their ToD when you revert. As for the other stats, Brave and Dumb are Courage and Stupidity respectively (though I'm still pretty sure that Stupidity is backwards, because Bill's is high and Bob's is low, but I guess I could be wrong.) BadS...say it out loud. That's the flag that makes them grinny almost all the time like Jeb (who has it set to 'True'). IDX has something to do with what seat they're assigned on a given craft, though I've not quite figured out the precise logic of that. It at least used to give the same IDX number to people on different flights, and I never could figure out how it kept track of who was on what flight. I'm slightly curious as to if they changed the way this one works a bit in 0.21 to make the new assignment system work, but I really have no clue.

It's basically set up like a side-mounted supercharger. The Intake on the engine (which uses 'kintakeair' instead of 'intakeair') is set up so that the primary factor that increases the input is the engine's throttle, and speed actually DECREASES it. When I played with it, it had a nasty tendency to flameout if you cut the throttle too much, at which point the kintakeair drops to nearly zero and it's extremely difficult to get it restarted. My test plane only had one engine, and I didn't push it high enough to get an altitude flameout, but I suspect that if you flew high enough, you'd get a rapid, sequential flameout of all engines rather than just one. Because when one engine flames out, it basically stops generating intakeair, and the engines obviously weren't self sufficient since one flamed out, so the next one does...etc. Personally, I think if I ever tried to actually use it, I'd probably mod the cfgs on the stock intakes to get them to produce kintakeair as well, because the foibles of that engine's built in intake made it both annoying and somewhat dangerous (Cutting the throttle causes flameout. Going too fast causes flameout. Once flamed out very difficult to restart. Recipe for a forced glide landing.)

Heh. I did one back in like 0.18 and 0.19 that had two customized station cores with two fuel arms inbetween them. The fuel arms had trusses down the centerline and four orange tanks mounted radially, with large RCS or Xenon tanks mounted on both ends of the tanks. There were also two of what I called 'Trucks' docked beneath the station cores, with a 3 man pod, a CoT on the noze, a large RCS tank, an X200-16, and three LV-Ns mounted to a tricoupler. Later versions also had a + shaped structure made out of small cubic trusses (about five per arm) with the RCS thrusters mounted on the end of them placed at the center of mass, to increase the torque the RCS could generate. The Station Cores had a hubmax with docking ports on either end. Two fuel arms were docked in parallel on one side, and connected to the station core on the other side. The two 'trucks' were mounted in line with the station cores on the bottom ports. The top ports had an adapter with a CoT Jr on it, for probe docking. It mostly worked pretty well (although my refueling tankers did NOT). I did spent a lot of time fighting with the multidock on the fuel arms. You don't want to know how many times I disconnected a port on one of the fuel arms, wobbled it back and forth a bit to reset it, then reconnected it, trying to get it to align properly (which it never did). The general idea was that the entire thing would be capable of moving, using the engines on the two 'Trucks' to move the entire station at once. I never actually tried it because I was afraid the not-quite-perfect alignment on the multidock would throw it off enough that it wouldn't work. It had also occurred to me that if needed it was possible to make an even bigger station by using four more fuel arms to connect two stations like that together, but I never tried that either. I eventually abandoned the design because after two partial redesigns, it would STILL drop in and out of yellow physics delta time while just ORBITING.

Yep, the arrows on the pitch/roll/yaw indicators do indeed go blue when it's on. Though so far as I can tell, all it actually does is make it take longer to go to full deflection when you push the button. When I've tried it on spaceplanes, they didn't seem any less maneuverable, it just didn't kick in to full as quickly.