DerekL1963

When I encounter this, I usually shut the AP down the circularize with the Maneuver Manager.

Yes, though the engines can be a bit anemic in the early going, before you have gotten their upgrades.

I don't think it was either... I think that was Deke. (Who was also close friends with Grissom.) He was absolutely determined that one of the Seven would land on the Moon. When Sheppard came off the DL in May of '69, Deke assigned him directly to Apollo 13 - despite his lack of experience and the lack of time for training. HQ objected (both because of Shepard's inexperience and the inexperience of his crew overall), and Deke swapped the crews of 13 and 14 to appease them.

Welcome to KSP! There was recently a forum FUBAR which deleted some threads... It doesn't appear the RO maintainer has set up a new thread yet.

There's still a lot of puzzle pieces even when you look the basics up. I've been playing for a several years now, and I'm still figuring stuff out (especially engineering) wise even though I know the basics physics and operations wise. And if you flop on the puzzle, you just start a new save sadder but wiser.

So, since you failed to grasp that I wasn't asking what capsule you posted a picture above... I'll repeat myself. If you're cherry picking from one mission, you're way off base.

And how is it not a good intention? It keeps the crew in one place, the capsule floats and is watertight, has a rescue beacon, etc... If you're cherry picking from one flight, you're way off base.

They stay with the capsule.

Looks simple and practical, my only concern is how fast and easy is that helmet to don and doff without assistance?

Started a campaign game to test my plans for next real campaign game. Which sounds odd, but it's how I generally play KSP... I spend as much time testing, tinkering, and optimizing as I do playing.

That comes with time and experience. The point of the game is to be whatever *you* want it to be.

Which vehicle? The Shuttle we got was the end of a nearly decade long process of R&D during which every sensible idea (and a whole raftload of insane ideas) was examined at least once. There was never any 'original' design or vehicle, or even 'one' design or vehicle until very near the end of the process.

@SpacedInvader In the future, you can also launch into a standard (0 inclination) orbit, and "match planes with target".

^^ This. You really can't climb the tech tree blindly or just fill it out row-by-row. You need to figure out your short, intermediate, and long term goals and buy nodes with those in mind.

For troubleshooting ship design issues, pictures are pretty much required. If you're in Career or Science mode, a picture of your tech tree will be useful too.

Are you looking at the correct column in the Delta-V stats? The 'TWR' column shows vacuum performance, the 'SLT' column shows current (pad) performance. Or you may have to unload and re-load the vehicle. Or you may have to go out to the pad and revert to the VAB. (MJ has never played entirely well with non-stock engines, sometimes you have to force it to recalculate.)

@Angel-125 Just a quick note - the 'Support' link on Spacedock still points to the old (and now missing) thread.

Absolute only so long as the Prize committee doesn't extend it (again). And none of them have displayed any hardware or given any significant indication that they have actual hardware or are anywhere close NAICT...

They're for cooling the LV-N nuclear engine mostly, though they can also be useful for probes going down inside the orbit of Moho.

@Delay What a lot of people don't realize is that you can use Tail Connector A (which is pretty low in the tech tree) to cluster engines. I use this method almost exclusively for building 2.5 and 3.75 first stages. (Don't forget to use the center node though.) This vehicle (for example) uses a mix of LV-T30's (for performance) and LV-T45's (for control) on the first stage, a Skipper on the second stage, and a Poodle on the CSM.

You also spend too much time talking about game concepts that are complete irrelevancies to the concepts you are trying to explain. You also try and use game mechanics with no real-world analog to explain concepts, resulting in you getting them completely wrong in real world terms. Hence, in the end, it's a game tutorial, not a physics discussion. You've given no evidence you want help. Heck, you've given no evidence that you even grasp that you need help in the first place. Quite the opposite, you've loudly and repeatedly insisted that you don't need help and that anyone trying to give help and advice is a priori wrong, wrong, wrongity, wrong.

You may not have intended it to be a game tutorial, but that's exactly what it is nonetheless. You spend far more time talking about the game and game concepts (and putting out bad information because of things the game gets wrong) than you do about physics. Is it really that hard to understand that you completely failed at your intended goal? How many more people have to tell you that before it will sink in?

Thanks!

o.0 Do you not know that permafrost is ice mixed with dirt and rocks?

Yay! I'm gearing up for a new campaign and NF parts are a must. Can't wait for Spacecraft and Station Parts!