konokono

Thanks for the advice. Mapping the wheels control to separate keys helped. Turning off reaction wheels also helps. However, I did notice that initiating forward or reverse driving would *still* pitch the vehicle, even if all reaction wheels are turned off and using keys mapped only to the wheels. The pitching is worst when starting from a stopped position. Once the vehicle is in motion, the driving controls don't pitch the vehicle as much if at all. Raising traction control on the wheels also stops the pitching. So I'm starting to wonder if the unwanted pitching has to do with the physics and is therefore a flaw in my craft's design? Attaching a picture of the vehicle for help

I have a question about Rover controls. Basically, whenever I use WASD to control the Rover, W not only drives the rover forward, but it also pitches it forward. That makes control dificult on low gravity. And if I press S, it not only reverses the wheels, but it also pitches me backwards. I've tried looking up some forum posts. One suggests using IJKL, but none of those keys do anything (I checked and they are indeed mapped to translation controls). Another post suggests switching to Docking Linear Mode. I did that too but then WASD do nothing. So I'm wondering what I'm not understanding about my Rover controls and if I can find any help. If it makes any difference, I built the Rover using the Cupola module as the root part in SPH, then loaded it into VAB and pointed it upwards, then attached rocket parts to the bottom. So it's a rocket whose final stage is a rover, if that makes any sense. Not sure if that is what is affecting the controls.

My advice to you: If you can't see how the math you're learning is used in practical applications, ask your professor to give some examples. He/she should be happy to oblige. After that, you hopefully won't view it as "plugging in numbers" and instead see the equations for what they mean and what the solutions represent, in the "REAL" world.

Isn't it more likely we'll continue to lower the cost of propulsion based methods of reaching space, until it becomes a simple everyday task?

I would change the laws of physics as they locally apply to me, and then go to the costume store.

I see boarding actions as more likely than in current aerial warfare, conditional on cost/risk, but I agree it will be far in the future and we are not close to that state of technology now. Still, it is interesting to speculate about it. To me the question is not whether there might be a reason to board, but would it be cost effective to do so?

Before the topic gets locked, I'd like to disagree with this slightly. I actually learned a LOT about phase angles / optimal flight paths precisely by using MechJeb. Everyone has to learn somewhere and you can either watch a youtube video or you can learn from your autopilot. Either way, when I first started KSP, MechJeb was an invaluable tool for showing me how to plot a somewhat optimal course for various maneuvers, and now I can do them myself. Also, I like how MechJeb is implemented in career mode. It starts off without any autopilot features, so you still have to do stuff yourself. As you unlock more of the tech tree, MechJeb gets more advanced, allowing you to automate certain more routine tasks, i.e. change apoapsis / circularize, while still forcing you to do the more complicated stuff, like ascent, rendezvous and docking.

That seems to be one of the main questions. It seems to me that a couple questions need to be answered in the following order. 1. Is there any incentive to get close? It seems to me the answer is yes. Without teleportation, it would be the only way to board and capture a vessel. Unless a vessel can be completely captured by hacking... but it seems to me that this wouldn't be likely when there are actual crew members aboard the target vessel. 2. Will it be feasible to get close? (Will you be shot down? Is it the risk/cost worth the reward?) I don't know the answer to this. As has been mentioned, it is difficult to hide your approach in space, so the target will have lots of time to prepare. Will you be shot down or can the surrounding orbital space be made so risky (such as with mines) that the reward is not worthwhile? What kinds of countermeasures will an attacking ship be able to take in order to rendezvous successfully? 3. Assuming yes to the above, will close-range encounters involve small craft that engage each other, or will it be more practical for both vessels to simply attack each other with their mounted weapons? Again, I don't know the answer to this. A key question might be whether a mounted weapon on a large vessel can be precise enough to disable a target vessel without destroying it, or whether you would need a fighter to get in close, a-la death-star trench run. Another reason you might have fighters is that they're really there to do surface operations, but can also engage in short-range orbital encounters if needed. I'm pretty much a noob when it comes to thinking carefully about space warfare, so some of this may already be well-discussed and understood by others... if so I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. One final caveat, I am assuming two warring factions on different celestial bodies. Surface-based weapons seem like they would always be more practical when it comes to war between two factions on Earth, regardless of technology level...

Back to the original topic, which I think of specifically as "orbital dogfighting"... is it really infeasible? Suppose there is a very valuable target in orbit that you want to capture but not destroy... say a construction facility or something. You would want to rendesvouz with the target, and the target will either want to avoid you or engage you. Suppose the target cannot avoid, then it has no choice but to engage. Wouldn't that give rise to the possibility of dogfighting? Perhaps as a method to execute precision strikes or to shoot down boarding shuttles that are hard to hit by the station's main weapons?

Boring as it sounds, I think vanilla KSP could use more parts. Especially fairings, robotics, cargo bays, etc. Then, I'd like to see some kind of incentive for establishing permanent bases in various biomes.

I haven't forgotten parachutes lately, but I did forget my comm unit on my trip to low Gilly orbit. D'oh!

Let "o" be the top of your navball and let "+" be your retrograde marker. Burn at the "x" Navball: o + x That is, burn in a direction such that your retrograde indicator is between the burn and the top of the navball. This will push your retrograde marker towards the top. When your retrograde marker is at the top, you have only vertical velocity

The expected payoff is infinite. But if there is even an infinitessimal opportunity cost of time (for every $1 you can earn $(1+r) in the time it takes to make a flip, r>0), then the expected present value becomes finite.

It is a moot point. Even assuming that "humans" are united under a single governing body (a big assumption), I do not believe the governing body will be politically capable of maintaining any sort of prime directive for a significant length of time. There will inevitably occur some event for which people demand intervention

None at the moment. Bill Kerman was stuck in a high inclination, elliptic orbit over Eve for a while though. Rescued him with a dedicated ship designed for rescue and interplanetary transport operations

That's a cool little web page, thanks! And thanks to all the above posters, I think I understand now, both the gameplay reasons and about the scaling of terrain

Docking is a real pain without mods. If you insist on no mods, then your best bet is to make sure your docking ports line up with your control part and your thrust vector. Then, when the two ships are in range, use the navball to get them to face directly at each other, and then simply thrust forward with one until docked. This is how I did it until I started using the Lazor System, and now MechJeb as I'm lazy

I like your suggestions. There is an Alarm Clock mod that does your first suggestion that I find indispensable. As for keyboard controlling maneuver nodes for fine-tuning, I really like that idea. I would also like to see an advanced maneuver planner that helps you plan advanced maneuvers like gravity assists which require specific orbital alignments. Not sure how it would be implemented

The fact that you get these "YES" moments is what makes career mode fun Hope they expand the tech tree in future releases. I am one of those that wants to see some dabbling in speculative technology

Just a quick question. I've heard a few times that planets in KSP are scaled down in size. What's the reason for this? And is everything scaled down accordingly like thrust and weight? Gravitational constant? What would be the difficulty in scaling to earth?

The fact is, it's a frequent enough mistake that it should be considered a design flaw. And it might not even be the user's mistake. I've noticed that sometimes when I press F5, even if I'm not throttled up, it doesn't save, and I have to press it again. Someone less paranoid than me might hit F5 thinking he saved and not realize that the game didn't register the command.

I'd be somewhat surprised if "Courage" and "Stupidity" are the final implementation of traits

It seems superfluous in a game like this. Piloting a spacecraft is more about doing math and analyzing data than anything else

Reminds me of Master of Orion II where continued research beyond the tech tree results in miniaturization, allowing you to build existing technology at lower cost and weight I like the idea

Fair enough. I haven't outright hated EVERY game with microtransactions. But I am a bit of a traditionalist here -- instead of paying money to unlock things that are already in the game, I prefer to see companies continue to make money off the game by releasing new content in the form of expansions