Kerolyov

Great stuff! With your trainer I landed on runway without crashing for first time

Thanks Alexmun for the quick and helpful reply, great tool by the way . Had only just noticed the tooltip prograde and normal info. Maybe add some text to tell users to mouseover to see the prograde and normal as it isn't so obvious?

Thermometers do not work in high orbit but do work near a planet (both with and without atmosphere) ie low orbit and on surface. Barometers only work in an atmosphere.

Can someone clarify what these angles are and how they are defined? 1) Angle to intercept - is the angle between the where plane change burn occurs and intercept? 2) Ejection inclination - assume this is the angle from prograde in prograde-normal plane for an all in-one ballistic burn? So normal delta-V = sin(this angle) x Ejection delta-v? 3) Plane change angle - Assume this is just how much you change orbit plane by at plane change burn? 4) Insertion inclination -is this just the angle between your ship and target planets trajectories at intercept? If so how are -ve and + ve angles defined? Thanks!

Very good stuff. Main suggestion is to add more detail on the lander designs particularly the all in one designs as hard to see all the stages in your designs. I'd also recommend changing the delta-V map to this one as its much more accurate http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/41652-A-more-accurate-delta-v-map?highlight=delta and for interplanetary to use http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ particularly for planets like Moho which have inclined eccentric orbits as delta-V maps aren't much help in those cases

The links have expired and I'd be interested in trying out your stretchy tanks Apollo if you can post a new link. Thanks!

Badlands is the black area on the biome map http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entries/971-Doing-Science-Celestial-Body-Biomes! To be honest is doesn't currently look much different to grassland but I guess this may change in future updates.

Thanks. Problem is the plains have high mountains each end around the equator so you find yourself at 5km above the plains with only a short distance of maybe 30km on the plains before the next mountain so I think the best that can be done is to descend steeper and maintain a constant descent rate bleeding off horizontal speed as you descend with aim to reach zero altitude at a controlled rate just as horizontal velocity goes to zero. Using Rockomax 48-7S does help but does lose some efficinecy with the TMI and plane change burns as your have to burn longer each side of the burn point.

While this works a treat for low TWR landing on flat terrain I'm wondering how to apply this landing method to low gravity mountainous moons like Minmus especially landing on the plains, as impossible to get in low due to mountains in the way. Also the low gravity means its very likely that a lander will have high TWR unless you have Apollo style separate lander with tiny engines, which seems overkill as in this game separate lander/command modules usually together weigh more than an all in one. So my latest Minmus lander has 3 man command pod and LV909 and has TWR of 6, so is there any benefit to doing anything other than a pure retro landing? If there is a better way than retro how do I assess what point to start landing burn and how do I estimate the angle to retro to start burning at?

Looks great! Can't wait to try out 0.22 when its ready. Thanks to Ted for the link to the PAX recording, had to laugh at the keyboard tech glitch......

Thanks for the recording tips. I'll take a look at FRAPS and MovieMaker, also had a recommendation for VirtualDub and ezvid so I think its a case of playing around with them and seeing what works. Thanks for the offer of video mentoring! Looks like I've done a bit more interplanetary stuff than you, but not by much, I've orbited Eve, and landed on Duna (drogue chutes make this much easier!) and Ike and returned and sent probes to Laythe, Eeloo and Moho. Moho caught me out big time using the delta V maps as they don't account for inclination and eccentricity and my probe came screaming in much faster than I expected taking more fuel to capture and ran out of fuel before I could circularize. Since then I've used Alex Moons planner http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ with more success. Rovers yeah me too, not done much. Watched Scott Manleys tutorial on them recently and given me a few ideas, be great to have something to do other than a quick walk, flag and photo after flying Kerbals half-way across the solar system! Anyway looking forward to more videos from you, if I get time I might try the docking challenge!

Great to see you back pebble_garden, I learnt the most from your tutorials than any other. Why not do the tutorials in order of difficulty, ie 3) then 1) and finally 2)? Other ideas for tutorials are:- Rovers (building and landing), advanced space station (ie multi-part), stations around other planets and maybe bases. Would love to see a Laythe landing tutorial too. What software do you use for your videos and is there any you'd recommend thats free or low cost to get started with making game youtube vids in windows? I'm thinking of doing a grand tour and making a video for each mission, but haven't any idea how to start!

My second space station component launch took me 2 days, with I don't know how many redesigns and relaunches....... had a lot of odd breakages and in the end had to strut the whole thing till it looked like it had flown thro a spiders web After that like Ben I'd have to say Moho has been a bit of cursed destination for me, only barely successful mission is a probe stuck in highly elliptical orbit with no fuel. In my 0.19 game both missions I attempted there would have been truly Kerbal in that I showed a lot of bravery but a lot of stupidity.... had quite a bit of debris out there on that save...... Since those days I've learnt a lot so tend to be more successful and to always over-engineer

Interesting! Wonder if these will be the only stats in the final game and if they'll have any effect on missions in future? If more Kerbal stats are added what would you like to see?

Sounds a good idea, but for now a way to track devs is with the search feature. 1) Goto advanced search 2) Click Single Content type Tab 3) Set Sort Results by: as Last Posting Date 4) Set Show Results as: Posts 5) Type a devs username in User Name: box e.g. HarvesteR and you can see all their recent posts

Guys calm down, Squad have always been quick with fixes and I'm sure if there is any room for improvement in a few days there will be another patch. If instead its just that the new ASAS needs to be used differently or doesn't work with older designs I'm sure someone on here will figure out and produce a guide to the new SAS. Until then you can either try and understand the problem and file helpful bug reports or tutorials or you can revert to 0.20 and await patch and/or a guide. Small and innovative dev teams like Squad need our support and constructive help to produce a game we all want. I'd much rather have a game like KSP even if we have minor or even major issues at first release of a new version (which are always fixed) than the same old, same old from the big developers, none of which have produced anything like KSP. Post by HarvesteR is here:- http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/41835-Come-back-old-ASAS-all-is-forgiven!?p=540433#post540433 Tells you how to test ASAS. Basically start from clean build with no mods and build stock and test from that config first. Only then start trying old designs and mods. That way you can maybe get some useful info to the devs = faster patching!

After getting ISA SatMap I have several probes mapping various planets and I'm also assembling my first Kerbin space station, not counting flags or abandoned vehicles I have 8 missions in progress

Due to an errr design oversight I had a bit of an accident..... Luckily Jeb seems to have an ability to reincarnate so he was able to shortly after land an improved design on the Mun

tomf I think you're right in my case I'd already done an inclination correction burn at the AN/DN (can't remember which!) the issue was the burn to get into Moho orbit took waaaay more (1000 or so) deltaV than the 2200 the chart on the first page suggested. Using the link you gave suggested optimal dV for trip to Moho from LKO was actually 5000 ms-1 rather than the 3800 the chart suggested. So looks like eccentricity might be the issue, so watch out for eccentric planets kids, you might find they demand more Dv than you assumed.....

Great chart, bit like an earlier poster I got caught out by circularization burn at Moho being way higher than the chart and ran out of fuel, luckily just a probe! Any tips on which planets can need extra delta V (like the Moho example) if you intercept slightly off ideal and how much extra delta V (compared to the charts) would you over-engineer by?

Hohmann transfer, knew very little of this before as had previously only learnt about orbital trajectories of unpowered bodies (asteroids, planets etc)

Downloaded ISA Mapsat and started mapping Kerbin. Onto the Mun next.....

Thanks StarManta, so it's what I thought it was most likely to be, velocity relative to center of mass of the planet in its rotating frame whereas orbital is relative to same center of mass but in a frame that is not rotating with planet

Hi, I've always been a little hazy as to how surface velocity is defined in the game. Is it purely vertical or is the only difference to orbital the rotation of the planets surface (ie orbital velocity - velocity surface is rotating at), or something else altogether? Thanks Jon

I really love this game but none of my friends have it so never played co-op, any Kerbal minded forumites who fancy a go at Portal 2 co-op drop me a PM :-)