Brotoro

I got the Tech Tree up to "Transporters," so now I can just beam down from orbit and no longer need to cheat with parachutes.

This is not true. 5thHorseman above is correct.

You should be able to copy and paste them from your old save file to your new one. But always make a backup copy of your .sfs files before editing them, kiddies!

"Cheating." You people keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

He still has 5 units of EVA propellant to eat.

Memory management problems. Claw causes world crashes.

I have landed with zero fuel left (just falling the last few meters). Happily, this was a base module, so it didn't need to lift off again later.

I like it. What is the diameter of that fairing?

I wouldn't â€Âput KSP aside†because of coming changes. I built a new, improved Eve lander/ascent vehicle, and I'll have to use it before version 1.0...because it uses a lot of 48-7s engines. So I better use it before it no longer works. And this week I was building payloads stacks of a certain maximum diameter in preparation for fitting them inside fairings...in anticipation of the new aerodynamics model. I've also been doing some testing of Duna airplanes...so I'd like to get some use out of those before the world changes and I have to design something else. Has anyone said what the new aero model is going to do to Duna vehicles? If the new aero model is going to "dilute the soup", is Duna's thin atmosphere going to become even more ineffective on wings and parachutes?

The nuke shouldn't have a significant "spool-up" time, but it should have a significant "spool-down" time. The reason being because when you slam in the control rods (well...rotate the control drums in a Nerva design) you need to continue to run propellant through the reactor core as it cools down. This wouldn't be a terrible burden, since you just need to watch the delta-V remaining on your maneuver node and cut off the engine early. But it would make it impractical to use the nuke as a lander engine. Somebody should make a mod so I can play with the extra challenge. And liquid hydrogen tanks so I can feed the nuke with a proper propellant.

That would certainly make them more interesting to use.

I don't mind the LV-N...it is already nerfed quite a bit compared to a realistic nuclear engine. But I don't use it on landers and planes because of self-imposed rules -- such an engine would be spewing deadly amounts of gamma and neutron emissions when operating (and for a while afterwards) unless you keep it at a sufficient distance and behind some shielding.

OK. That looks similar to my most recent Tylo lander, except that I used two crew cabins and landed all the science equipment separately with a surface habitat. Good to see that it's doable with a 20% nerf. But I'll need something different when the 48-7s gets pounded.

This is good to know. Thank you. Do you have pictures of your Tylo lander that you could post?

How long is the 1.25m can?

I'm not sure how useful it would be to refine fuel from asteroids. What fraction of an asteroid's mass is going to be convertable to fuel? It would take a lot of fuel just to move the asteroid to location where you could use it. Maybe you rendezvous a refinery ship with lots of empty tanks with a passing asteroid...then quickly refine all the fuel out of it that you can, and then separate the refinery with full tanks and take it where you need it. That way you only have to shift the fuel, and not the useless rock mass. Possibly this could be economical. But I think refining fuel from the celestial bodies you are exploring (or nearby low-gravity moons) would be more economical because then the fuel is closer to where you need it.

Ah. It may mean having to do more careful planning of aerocaptures, such as coming it at the target as close to perfectly tangentially as possible since that decreases the relative velocity. And doing aerocaptures that barely result in your ship being captured...followed by smaller aerobrakings. Or you may have to bring more fuel to augment the aerocapture with engine braking. Out at Jool, it may mean becoming good at gravitational-assist captures instead of using aerocaptures.

For me, it was probably the first time I did a mission that depended on docking. Out in deep space...just explored some celestial body...boosted back into space...but if I'm unable to pull off this rendezvous and docking, this kerbal isn't going to make it home. I was so amazed that I could get those tiny ships together in the vast cosmos.

If your ship's orientation changes its drag, then calculating an aerobraking altitude is going to depend on your orientation. How do people using FAR handle aerobraking?

Oh... If the resource system involves alchemy, it will make my game play more embarrassing.

With Tylo, it's not launching that's the hard part...it's the landing of a ship that has enough delta-V to get back to orbit that is the killer.

Depends on how they work. Since they haven't told us that yet, I can't say hiw it will affect my game.

They should get the contractor who figured out how to fit their high gain antenna into such a tiny package to design the inflatable heat shields. Then we could have a 1.25-meter part that expands out to 8 meters!

KSP 1.0: Trust Us

People are saying that the new aerodynamics is going to require an overall engine nerfing, because it will be easier to get to Kerbin orbit. But that will make all the rest of the game (once you get outside the atmosphere) harder. I don't think it's a good idea if the new aerodynamics makes everything else harder (or makes the system "feel larger", as you say). I was hoping that improved aerodynamics would just improve the aerodynamics...NOT result in messing up everything else. So the rebalancers should be sure to put a Tylo landing and return mission to their test suite to see how their engine changes are going to affect things.