Tw1

I recognise that signature! 4.56/10. (I hate when I can't be precise.)

I'm already dreaming up the massively thick structure I may need to make ringbreaking work. I'm going to need lots of wing boards and structural panels. I'll keep you guys posted, should anything ever come of this.

I would not recommend the LV-N as landing gear. You'll need legs, definitely. .LV-Ns have a tendency to come of, even with a lot of struts.(I was trying to land with my transfer stage.) Fine for a one way trip though, if there's nothing to worry about leaving radioactive debris

If I stay studying Landscape architecture, and set up a firm, I probably will some day! Haha.

They'd pose a pretty big obstacle, with any orbit that didn't sit under or above being destroyed. Blowing up as soon as you touch it seems a little unrealistic to me. (And I really want to try "ringbreaking" now ) 2 million sounds a little big for Kerbal, doesn't it? P.S. welcome to the forums!

Good luck with the rescue! You'll learn a lot when designing rescue rockets. With a little practice, that ship should land fine, assuming you have enough fuel. That's a lot of RCS you've got there. Sure you need that much on a landing stage?

Actually, pre forum crash, I suggested on some thread, that they could make real life replicas of the stock parts, but have magnets where attachment nodes go, or on the sides that attach radically. Decouplers could use springs. To be really fancy, engines could have flashing lights. ...wait why am I telling you guys this? I should be grabbing my drafting tools and looking for a manufacturer! $ $

I chose the location of my Mun base because it was halfway between one of those, a kethane deposit, and Kerbin was in the centre of the sky. I haven't actually been to it yet. I don't count the time the scout-o-pod crashed into it and I quickloaded. That was a simulation. Actually, I moved the base by crane, and left the guys in the scout-o-pod behind. I should go fix that. Or, drive to the arch with the ground shuttle.... Also, Tokay Gris, why not make the base on the arch!

The time I need to be at the bus stop is now a launch window.. Public transport options are now trajectories. But changing buses or to a train, was always known as doing a transfer. Also, when I see a sign on a motorway ramp saying "exit speed" I think, that's a bit slow for an escape trajectory.

That's also a good point. That would make ring breaking even more favourable, if done right, it could only ever slow you down to orbital speed. If it doesn't put lots of big holes in your spaceship.

Could we have you define what you mean by warfare in this question? Just to keep this discussion clear. Some games could have war based scenarios. For example, a railway simulator which has a level that makes you carry arms to a dock to be loaded on to a supply ship, to support a war. A pacifist would hate this level. Even more so if you could not progress if you didn't complete it. Also, I have a dictionary definition of moralising as: v.intr. To think about or express moral judgments or reflections. v.tr. 1. To interpret or explain the moral meaning of. 2. To improve the morals of; reform. Being condescending is not necessary a part of it.

That's a very good point. But our command modules seem pretty durable, hopefully it won't be death in KSP. In real life, it would depend on the density and size of the particulates in that region of the ring. Perhaps, if they go with the visual + atmosphere like idea, they could have different regions of density, some which damage (sandblast?) Your ship, and some less dense regions that don't. This gives me a whole new idea. Ring breaking! Like aerobraking, but scratchier.

Having it work like a band of atmosphere is a good idea. A nice compromise between visual only, and rendering all those little rocks. A few objects wouldn't be too much trouble, especially once they add the only-load-planet-like things-you-actually-see optimization. Not sure you'll have any reentry heat though. We're dealing with solid particles, rather than gas. Talking about new planets, I hope planetoids get added in unusual orbits. That would add some extra variety, once you've mastered the holman transfer. For example, comets on highly elliptical orbits, things orbiting where L points should be, maybe even -for those who are crazy- something in a retrograde orbit.

Pretty sure lots of people use joysticks, so assuming yours is nothing weird, don't see why it shouldn't work. Plug it in, and give it a go! Experiment! That's the Kerbal way!

I would argue that something only becomes a weapon if that's its intended purpose. If someone is using a rock to hurt someone, then it's a weapon. If the rock is sitting on the ground looking cool, then it's a decoration. When an SRB is firing on the side of a rocket, it's a device for propelling. When it drops of, used up, it's debris. If it's fired of a plane with the purpose of striking and harming a Target, then it's a weapon. But, if you're intending to stick letters to the side if the rockets you're firing from the plane, that's just a very Kerbal delivery system... I wouldn't describe a game like GTA as morally reprehensible. Dubious maybe.

That's a genuinely good idea...Not really. If there was a nebula within the Kerbol system, well, it would be the Kerbol system. Nebulae are big. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula I tried to see if I could lay the groundwork for a space elevator today. Turns out the launch stabilisers don't stay with you if you use hyperedit to lift your thing up 100 kilometers. There goes that plan.

Just little tips? Or should we be adding things like big bits of design theory we've come up with?

Answered own question and posted reply to self, within thirty minutes! Nice work sir/madam/Idon'tknow.

Looks like you've got a few good examples already, so I'll give some rover design theory for you. Use these principles, and you should be able to make anything, big or small. For stability, you want the centre of mass as low as practical. A wide spread of wheels helps also. These two tricks reduce the chance it will tip over during a turn. Positioning wheels evenly around the centre of mass keeps the load on each equal, and this reduces the amount a vehicle wobbles when accelerating or decelerating. This reduces the chance of it tipping over when doing these as well. The length between the front wheels and the rear wheels will effect the amount the rover swings when turning. Locking the steering on the back wheels can reduce sliding when driving at speed, a fair amount of the time. The trick to making a complex rover is noting the parts you need, their weights, and how to position them to keep things balanced. Length of a part is important to. In the vehicle below, I put the lander can behind the crew tank, as it's shorter, and moves the centre of mass more, even though they both have the same mass. Also, watch that the bottom of the vehicle is high enough to clear bumps when you go over them, especially if you intend to tackle undulating terrain head on. More wheels= more grip and power, and lets you tackle rougher terrain. In this one, the poodle engine goes some way to balancing the command pod's weight. For rovers that are assembled vertically, rather than horizontally, the trick is still keep mass down the bottom, even with a wide base. It is helpful sometimes that the model 3 wheels are reasonably heavy, they help balance a design. I use dummy weight parts to help balance smaller things, like on this unmanned debris clearer. I recommend using ASAS for rovers intended to go long distances without massive slopes, or frequent turns. SAS if you just need it to stay on its wheels, and will be changing direction a lot. (These pics are all reposts, sorry about that. My Imagr is full.)

I've wanted controls like this inside the stock capsules for ages! It looks spacy, but realistic, not like the plane type joystick you often see in sci-fi designs. Joysticks would be fine in the plane cockpits though.

Yeah, separatrons are just too small to do any damage. Try SRBs Separatrons will add extra speed when they hit, but something that hits with more momentum will have enough force to break the parts. I like the image of the ships chasing the little separatrons. That would've been quite a mission!

D'oh! I can almost sense the frustration on the Mun from here! Perhaps you could try the KAS mod, it's got fuel lines kerbals can carry, and plug into things with the right connector. That's my plan for a possible kethane refinery and fuel dump. Or, you know, just adjust the ports abit. #captinobvious. What is your plan for that ship? The thing's huge!

No idea about the passing through walls issue, but well done on your successful rescue! I too once had a rescue rocket that needed a rescue. Except that one was a manned flight. And it was a lander-falling-over sort of problem, not a ran-out-of-fuel type problem. I also forgot to go back and rescue the first crew for quite a while. If you've not mastered planes, maybe you should either drive, or pick him up in a rocket of some sort. Be careful, don't want to ruin all the effort you've gone to. Have you got some images to show of your walls problem? Others may be able to advise.

Are you using stock engines? I had a problem where that data would not appear for engines from the pack on spaceport.

I've used Hubbazoot's zoom camera to line up things in the past. It uses its own plug in, but doesn't have any crosshair for accuracy. http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/telescoping-hull-camera-2/