Specialist290

Welcome to the forums! One of the places you might want to check out is my Drawing Board, a list of tutorials and other resources I maintain. In particular, I would highly recommend checking out allmhuran's and EtherDragon's walkthrough for your first two Career Mode missions. You may also want to read through the wiki's tutorial on Basic Rocket Design as well.Hope this helps!

...Yeah, let's not not clutter the forums with self-congratulations over meaningless numbers. Thread locked for lacking substantial content. Everyone have a nice day

A little something I've put together. Ive had the screenshots on my hard drive for a while now (along with a number of others from various missions I've run), but I'm a bit slow on getting things really rolling. It's yet another Curiosity-inspired Duna rover, although the orbiter-lander setup also has shades of Viking as well. Hope y'all like it. I'll probably post a few other mission reports of a similar nature in the near future, some more up-to-date than others.

Seconding this. I'm rather a big fan of regex's PreciseNode plugin, which is especially useful for planning interplanetary trips because it displays the ejection angle of the maneuver node on the orbit.

Moving to Suggestions and Development Discussion, since it does seem to be development discussion.

That must be the new-school space tape. The old-school space tape is, of course, duct tape. Who'da thunk it?

Glad you were able to get that sorted out. Keep us posted on how the landing itself goes

And I just learned something new today. I'll have to try that out in my own game as well.

Under stock aerodynamics, drag is applied to each part regardless of whether it's actually exposed to airflow.

Most impressive Hope you keep documenting your exploits as you go.

It's possible to do with stock, though tedious. You have to get a "feel" for the atmosphere of the planet you're landing on and adjust accordingly, so your first several attempts will probably be off target until you refine your technique a little. I still don't have it quite down myself for a lot of planets other than Kerbin, so don't feel bad since it does take tons of practice to get good at. That said, you might find these charts by alterbaron to be of some use, as well as this tutorial.

Closing this thread, since it's old enough that anything you reply to is probably out-of-date. Also, a gentle reminder from the moderation staff: If you see an older thread that's been bumped with a post that doesn't make a useful contribution to the discussion, don't respond, as that only keeps the topic at the top of the list. Instead, please use the "Report Post" option to discreetly notify us so that we can address the issue quickly and efficiently. Have a nice day, everyone

Ah, the joys of Conics Patch Draw Mode 3. Always gives me a chuckle when it spits out something that looks convoluted like that.

So a funny thing happened in one of my more recent games: I can see it now...

I don't think your first one is possible given the game's mechanics right now.

Locked under Rule 2.2f; discussion of conspiracy theories is not allowed on these forums. Have a nice day

D'oh, y'all are right. Somehow I read it from bottom to top, instead of the other way around. The bit about the flight profile still stands, though.

First off, welcome to the forums! (EDIT: There are days when I just can't read. Meh...) Do you think you could describe your flight plan from Kerbin's surface into orbit? About when do you start to tilt it over to extend your orbit sideways (relative to Kerbin's surface), and how far up are you? Around what altitude do you drop each of your stages, how fast are you going when that happens, and what does your trajectory look like at those points? What are you left with when you do reach orbit? The info we can get from answering these qusetions might help us find ways we can improve your flight plan as well.

I could see a place for a simplified "Public Approval" mechanic that could affect your space program's available resources, but beyond that, I don't think politics meshes well with the way the game is set up. I personally like the fact that I'm free to make my own choices without too much external oversight tangling up my options, and I hope that that same general philosophy carries over to the fully-developed Career Mode.

I believe that whenever you launch a new design, the game automatically fills the crew seats in the order your kerbonauts are listed in the roster. If you launch from the launchpad / runway instead of the VAB / SPH, however, I believe it takes you to a screen that allows you to fill the seats manually every time.

What is it with people necro'ing old threads today? Locking this. Please check the date of a thread before posting in it.

Merging this into the main Race Into Space thread I'm playing the latest version released under the GPL in 2011, which should be available through this site. It works just fine on my 64-bit version of Windows 7.

I've been there, too. When I first got the game, I sank hours a day into it, then eventually hit a wall where I just couldn't stand to play it anymore and dropped out of the community for a few months to do other things. I eventually came back to it, though. My advice: Try to find a happy medium. Rather than sinking all your time and energy into KSP during your obsessive phase, set your own limits and find other hobbies you enjoy to fill the remaining free time. That'll help cushion the blow a little when the "crash" finally hits.

And to put the same idea you two are talking about in another way: Since the rocket equation is logarithmic, to double the delta-v of a craft by adding more fuel, you want to square your initial mass ratio. Likewise, you can figure out how much fuel you'll have left after spending half of your craft's delta-v allowance by finding the square root of your mass ratio and plugging that into the rocket equation. Still another way of looking at it: Each ounce of fuel you spend provides slightly more delta-v than the last one, because as your craft burns fuel, it's getting lighter, and thus your engines can provide more acceleration for the same amount of fuel burned. All that is, essentially, what the "ln" in the rocket equation means in practical terms. Hope this helps

I can understand that itch very well, myself (Small note: 19 in Roman numerals should be "XIX." It follows the same rule as 14 (XIV) and similar numbers do. Yeah, it gets confusing when you have long chains of numbers like "1999" (MCMXCIX), which is part of why we switched to a positional notation system way back then in the first place ).