DerekL1963

Try loading a different planetary body then reload the "glitched" one and if there's still a problem.

My oldest screenshots, waaay back in 2013, my first trip to the Mun, and one of my first forum posts... (And man am I embarrassed by the design of the spacecraft...)

Came back a couple of weeks back after a couple of years break... Chatting with a friend who also plays KSP and realized I hadn't been back to the Mun. Also realized that over the years (in KSP) I've done about every possible permutation of Munar mission except a classic Kerbpollo. So, after a couple of days of work and testing, it's ready to fly.

Look into Nertea's Stockalike Station Part Redux And also their Near Future Construction

You can get rid of a ton of joints (and parts) by using a Hitchhiker or an empty fuel tank as the structural spine for your docking hub. That should be a lot more stable than being out on the ends of those skinny arms.

Testing an Apollo style Munar mission... While approaching to dock, accidentally separated my CM, which shot across the gap and docked as pretty as you please. I think this is the universe's way of telling me it's time to get off the computer and go to bed... Not that I'm going to.

Turns out after a bit of googling, there is an "XYZ feature of MechJeb" - down at the bottom of the Ascent Guidance window, "select target for timed launch". You'll have to launch twice, one for MJ to learn the vehicle then the second time for reals. Got it close enough that the Rendezvous Autopilot could take over from there. I suspect that so long as you don't change or rename your vehicle, it'll work on the first time for every subsequent launch.

There's still die-hards running Windows 7... That being said, there's going to be a steep drop off in the first 12-18 months (say, 75-80%) and a long tail from there... So, effectively dead within two, max three years.

You shouldn't ever have to make more than a few orbits unless your orbital altitudes are pretty close... Even then, unless you've fiddled with the settings the rendezvous auto-pilot won't make more than (IIRC) 5 phasing orbits. The answer isn't launch timing, it's relative altitude. (Relative speeds.) My initial orbit is 100km, and I put my target above 250 if I can. (250 is where KSP switches to a lower-res engine for rendering the planet, reduces lag around space stations.) If my target needs to stay low (initial orbit) for whatever reason, I launch into my initial orbit and then boost up to 200km and start the rendezvous autopilot from there. Even if you manually plot and fly the rendezvous intercept, the same principles apply. You want a significant difference between orbital periods if you want to minimize loiter/phasing time. And yeah, time warp is a thing your friend.

Not true at all. The Indian ASAT test (300km) sent debris up to 2,200km. The Chinese ASAT test (865km) scattered debris from 125km to 3850km. That's why ASAT's are so worrisome - they can create the equivalent of the fallout cloud from a nuclear weapon, their effects spreading far beyond the local. (Actually far worse, because a fallout cloud cannot cause further fallout clouds.) By extension, that's also why a Kessler cascade must be prevented. It's a chain reaction with no plausible way of shutting it down.

Does anyone know how to turn off the version check? MFT appears to work fine in 1.10.1, but something is pronouncing it incompatible and partially deleting it.

Version: Dev #1008 Bug: In the Maneuver Planner, "Tolerance" can (accidentally or intentionally) be set to be blank. This leads to all kinds of problems as it means that burns never terminate and must be terminated manually. (Among other things, this screws up the Rendezvous Autopilot.) Suggest: If "Tolerance" is set to blank, the default 0.1m/s should be restored. I *think* this is present in the current release build as well, ISTR upgrading to a Dev build to cure the "problem".

It doesn't matter how many there are at launch, what matters is how many there are when you're trying to circularize. How many are there are circularization, and are you certain you have enough power? (Open the resources tab and double check.)

Try adding more reaction wheels then.

You may not have enough reaction wheels, or enough electrical power to keep 'em spinning.

You could always try an airship...

You mention career mode, and sandbox mode... But those aren't the only modes. Your experience is why I play Science mode. I still have the challenge of climbing the tech tree and the cleverness that can require - but I never, ever have to grind for cash. I can do what I want, when I want, bound only by the current state of the tech tree and interplanetary launch windows.

Yes, it will use reaction wheels.

He said "installer", not "in the install folder". Different words meaning entirely different things. I downloaded the Making History installer from the KSP store - and it's a .exe file. There is a world beyond Steam.

If you propulsively brake into low Eve orbit, it's astonishingly easy to land on. Sure, sure, it's got killer gravity - but it's also got a very thick (read: draggy) atmosphere. You don't even really need to land, you can get quite a bit of science from the upper and lower atmosphere. Ike is an easy destination for high/low orbit science. Once you brake into low Duna orbit, it doesn't take much to transfer to Ike orbit. Even with only stock instruments and standard settings, there's enough science out there that you don't need to sweat returning to complete the tech tree.

Do you mean the MK1 fuselage? That holds Liquid Fuel, a Xenon engine needs a Xenon tank. And a battery isn't going to provide near enough power, the Xenon engine will suck it dry in relatively short order. You'll need solar panels and/or a PB-NUK. Also, a Xenon engine isn't strong enough to launch from anywhere except maybe Pol or Bop - you'll need to put it into orbit first.

There's two potential causes: 1) Your lander has poor center of gravity and requires a redesign. 2) Your lander has poor aerodynamics and either requires a redesign or a different flight path. When I did I Jool-5, I found that the best way to maintain aerodynamic control was to fly an extremely lofted trajectory - basically straight up and then performing my gravity turn in the upper atmosphere. Pictures would help diagnose any problems.

Well, no. In the beginning, it was the same trajectory that Ranger and Surveyor (and many non-lunar missions used) used - right from the pad to the moon. The name (which comes from orbital mechanics) persisted even as technology/capabilities increased to the point where a parking orbit was feasible to plan for. (You need restartable engines, more battery capacity, ullage engines and attitude control, a guidance system that will be stable enough long enough, etc... etc..)

Direct Ascent means going directly from one body to another without an interim stop in parking orbit. Nothing more, nothing less.

If it stops in orbit, it's not Direct Ascent...