Wait- Was That Important?

Tricoupled docking isn't really that hard. Just dock, aligning like normal, and get roughly aligned- chances are only one will attach, but that's fine. With liberal usage of short bursts of timewarp to kill movement, get the ships close as possible, back straight away, and then boost back- you'll dock up all three without issue.

20 tons cargo? You're probably looking at least 60 tons of fuel for that. Dres doesn't have an atmosphere to support aerobraking, which is why I hate it. Two orange tanks and 5 NERVA's worth of fuel should get you there in a reasonable time with a sizeable safety margin.

I always think to myself, "I'm coming in over Africa" when reentering. It's an odd coincidence. It's neat that the terrain is generated randomly- what that means for the future is pretty cool.

Oh my god, this is the most fantastic thing. Thank you so much! That's going as my desktop background! You're a wizard, Rareden.

This is hilarious, thanks! It definitely earned a +1 from me!

"Dammit man, who put LSD into the environmental system on the EVA suits?!"

I nominate Commander Danhat Kerman, with his Vice President selected as Navigator Newly Kerman. 1.) They've spent 16 years together with a third, classified Kerbal in a small box. As a result, they hate each others guts and get in the way all the time with one another- thus ensuring that Kerbal Space Program will continue as it is without radical changes from either party, despite them both wanting the same thing. 2.) Having blown up nearly 16 million credits worth of expensive rockets and ships only to escape at the last second, each of them have solid financial plans. Their financial plans are, "Make money less explosive" for Danhat and "Keep explosive money away from me" for Newly.

Here's mine. It's a research/ servicing station with the idea of serving as a Kethane scanner when I finally get around to downloading that mod, and a staging base for refueling or capturing Command Modules of interplanetary missions. It has 5 docking ports on the bottom section, 3 of which can be used at any time by a Moho- class Command Module, shown here. Here's the core in the VAB before final fairing attachment: The relatively lightweight (27 ton) core launching on my Heavy-1 LV After making orbit, the remaining fuel was used to boost the core up to a 250x245km orbit and the meager onboard solar panels deployed until it can receive its first power module: The power modules are relatively heavy, coming in at 37 tons, requiring the use of the Heavy-3 LV with three strap-on liquid fuel boosters of 2.5m size. The first one docked with solar panels deployed, bringing the mass up to 64 tons and adding a docking port for temporary modules (satellite service package, fuel and RCS package, Kethane scanning package, communications package, etc.) aside from the one on the central axis of the Core module intended for the Crew and Docking adapter. The second of two power modules docks safely to the station after boosting away from the final stage of its Heavy-3 LV, increasing the mass to 101 tons. The final core structural module, the Crew and Docking adapter, is docked to the station, launched on the Heavy-1 LV thanks to its small mass of only 25 tons. Total mass: 126 tons Total space for Kerbals: 36 Total crew onboard: 0/36 (awaiting launch of two Moho Command Modules after launch of Kethane Scan Module and Fuel/ RCS Module) Total Length: This is a tricky one, but I've estimated its long axis (from the tip of the Core Module's Solar Panel/ Comms tower to the final docking port on the Crew/ Docking Adapter) to be roughly 65m or so? I wish it was easier to do. I know it doesn't quite reach all the criteria, but I hope that it will inspire others to post theirs, and coerce me into finishing mine

How are you planning on getting it into orbit? It doesn't seem to be that heavy. If you arrange stacks of two orange tanks around the sides with asparagus staging, you should be able to get your ship to orbit without much trouble- just remember, use the LV-N Nuclear Engines on the ship itself, otherwise you'll be disappointed with its lackluster range. Good luck!

I guess I must agree with you. I've heard the phrase "NO NEW LAUNCH VEHICLES" repeated a few times by now. The Russians have had Soyuz for many years now, but the US has always futzed around with making a dedicated Launch Vehicle and sticking to it and the Command Module. Even with the overruns, I guess I hoped that the Ares-1 would become the new US Standard, although looking at the estimates, $1.5 billion a launch is hellish. The Soyuz, by comparison, only costs about $153 million a launch.

I would argue your point. If the newcomer isn't using MechJeb, then Aerospikes are just the same as any other engine for them- they have gimbals and work the same. A newcomer could use them if they flew manually which, presumably, most newcomers will at first

I just can't seem to work it out- it is late here, and a Monday at that. I'll take your advice for now and then watch some videos about it, do some experimenting in the game later. Thanks for the help guys.

I'm curious as to whether flying in a straight line away from Kerbin is most efficient or rather is making orbit and burning at the Periapse most efficient? I'm launching Ion driven probes and have been wondering, since they don't need any servicing in Kerbin Orbit, if I should change how I've done it in the past. I really don't have the physics background to do the equations for this myself, despite playing KSP. Common sense would dictate that since Escape Speed is independent of direction, flying straight away would let you put the most energy into escaping Kerbin, rather than putting the horizontal energy, perpendicular to where you want to go, into making an orbit. Assume that you're not using a Munar/ Minmus assist, as that just complicates things further.

I would argue differently. The shuttle was never an inherently safe method of getting to space: 1.) No real Launch Escape System. Essentially, the plan was either to detach the shuttle somehow (which everyone said was next to impossible to do), or literally have the astronauts jump out the side and risk the exhaust plume, not to mention no abort in a Columbia- style failure. 2.) It combined the technical complexities of rockets and spaceplanes- though it was a good craft, it was hideously complex (it took a year to install all the Thermal tiles on the Columbia) and also very heavy- the orbiter alone weighed ~100,000kg, and because it was a combined crew/ cargo vehicle this meant the facilities to make a reuseable orbiter with the SSME's with room for humans greatly reduced its cargo payload. 3.) You said it wasn't a technical challenge, and I would say that you're dead wrong. The challenge in building engines powerful enough to push the shuttle and ET into orbit after SRB separation was huge- the engines were $45 million EACH and ran at pressures 3 times greater than any previous engine. A Space Shuttle Main Engine is incredibly expensive and vulnerable- it's supposed to be reusable, hence the large budget for it, but regardless there was no way that they'd be able to ever turn around a rocket with such extreme engines so quickly. I would agree completely with your other points though. 1.) It was far too political a spacecraft- what was intended to be a useable demonstration of reusable spaceplane technologies and manned space access turned into a program huge in scope and budget. It was an engineering triumph, but politics inflated it far beyond what it should have been. 2.) Politicians became too involved in the spacecraft, especially from the beginning when NASA announced it was going to be cheap to run. When money is the sole reason of "going to space today", chances are you won't "go to space tomorrow". 3.) The Space Shuttle should've been replaced by the Ares-1. I think the Ares-1 was a great idea, far cheaper to launch than a Space Shuttle and yet carrying a capable Command Module with a Launch Escape System. I might not agree with Bush on many things, but his sponsorship of the Constellation program was a good idea. What are we even going to do with a LV as powerful as the SLS? We're not building space stations and a Martian mission is very far off, but had the Ares-1 been continued the Orion program would likely be flourishing now.

It's for the older versions of KSP- I think it's 0.16 and under, though I could be wrong. Essentially, it's gone because not only does it clutter up the UI, but ASAS and SAS modules are no longer shown in the staging bar, so there's really nowhere to put the force bar. It was really just fluff anyways, it didn't tell you anything you couldn't figure out yourself with a quick glance at the steering panel in the lower left corner.

I think he means things like wingtip contrails, and who knows, maybe even wind effects! Also, why are clouds a long way away? I'd even settle for just a simple .jpg layer over the planets when in orbit, just as a proof of concept.

Alt+> lets you override and use physical timewarp in space. It's pretty useful, but beware of falling apart.

My computer choked on seeing this- ah well though, maybe optimization will rescue us from a third art pass. Awesome work! Can't wait to see the finished version!

The name of the mod you're thinking that requires working satellite dishes is called RemoteTech, I presume. And a few questions: 1.) Are those scores on the bottom for the various planets for landing? Because (and I hate to say this as usually someone proves you wrong) I think I can safely say that a rocket using only mainsails CANNOT ascend from Eve after landing. 2.) Why does Minmus provide less of a reward than the Mun? Minmus requires more dV to get to, if anything it should be switched with the Mun's score- or does the score stack as you go outwards (as in, getting to Minmus is the 200 point reward of the Mun plus the 180 point reward for getting to Minmus).

I play KW exclusively- I've actually removed most of the stock rocket parts to improve loading times and responsiveness. People say the engines are overpowered, but there are really only a few. For that matter, people who complain about 3.75m engines seem to forget that they're quite a bit larger than 2.5m engines- of course they'll be very powerful, but it's not OP. I used to play NP, but I really disliked the fairings in it and also found that, especially with the 2.5m engines, you could get ridiculous dV out of rockets. I remember one near Gemini clone I made in NP that wound up having something like 9500 dV- enough to make it to Low Earth Orbit! NP has great escape towers and lander parts, along with a few other miscellaneous items. I use KW for fuel tanks, engines, decouplers, struts, etc. however. It's certainly my favorite mod, I'd definitely encourage it!

I've had success resizing the parts to 0.625, or 62.5cm. I think all probe parts are half the size of the smallest tanks.

I think it was a very cool and inspiring program. HOWEVER, I also believe that it was cancelled for very sound reasons. It never should've become the main method of going to space today for the USA, but wound up becoming so, and now look where we are. I dislike the SLS program. I think the Constellation program was very well thought out and too far along to have been canceled as it was, and now its successor is a misguided and far more expensive program.

One time I failed to Aerobrake at Jool, so I spent 18 years cycling back to Duna with 18/8000 units of liquid fuel left. Here are the pictures of its rescue: This is the Shepard Magnificent, the successor to the Jeb and the Kerbonauts that got stranded at Duna after a botched Joolian voyage. It carries twice as much of everything as the 'Jeb, four colony modules and four fuel tanks, so it arrived at Duna with fuel to spare. Its mission was three part: release the 6 probes at Duna, land the 4 colony modules, and refuel the 'Jeb. And here's the Jeb and the Kerbonauts, sans a set of drop tanks identical to the ones sticking off the middle there. She was practically empty after getting to Duna from an orbit 6x as far out as Eeloo- the last burn to correct the Duna encounter was done on RCS only. She's approaching the 'Shep here. Because I am a derp, neither ship could dock to the other using those central normal size docking ports. I had to use the irregularly spaced probe ports on both ships to dock and transfer fuel. That mission was a success. However, in a later space program, I learned the importance of a Launch Escape Tower, especially on overengineered Munar vehicles:

I think I'm right at the recommended specs- 4gb RAM, Windows 7. My graphics card is terrible though- I get more GPU lag then CPU most of the time, I kid you not. It's just stock Toshiba graphics on this Satellite A660 laptop, so KSP is one of the few games I can play and still (most of the time) get 20 FPS.

Usually in the area of 100-120 days with a Munar assist from LKO, I think. Although one time I overshot Jool and spent 18 years cycling back to Duna- I kid you not.