Kegereneku

Let's see... Magnetic launch ramp You would need part to set a center of thrust, those part would be "magnetized" and pump energy. They would give some thrust as long are you are on the launch ramp. Limitation : energy requirement grow squared Sea Launch The ability to launch from any latitude I want. Limitation : limited rocket mass Air Launch I know, spaceplane already allow that. But not only it's hard to design, but you can't actually recover the "second stage" and the parent/child based structure make it hard to change the design and the center of gravity. Limitation : very limited spaceplane mass Orbital Launch As said, gain the ability to build spaceship in orbit as long as you bring the parts to the station. Limitation : the dimension of the rocket

Maybe he is accelerating too much ? I'm used to keep a reasonable TWR ratio (Thrust to Weight), but how much fuel could one be loosing if that person was burning red from 15 to 30 km ? This is the only reason I see for loosing more fuel during a gravity turn than with a straight-up launch. Beerkeg, don't forget that even if you don't reach the Apoapsis as fast as before doing a gravity turn, you'll still use less fuel to circularize your orbit. Typically you need around 4600m/s of Dv minimum to reach orbit. Meaning that in Mechjeb every stages used to put the ship into orbit, need a summed-up Dv above 4400m/s. After that you need 900 to reach the Mun, 200 to circularize, 8-600 to land.

Why not just auto-save the design when you click "new" ? The "Undo" solution would also load this one. It should solve the problem without the constant frustration of another confirmation box.

I can understand those who want a change for the hatch. Things is : You can change the position of parachute and RCS without changing the attitude of reference and ladder don't disturb the RCS, while a non-90° orientation make it harder if you need to orient solar panel. On the other hand, once you know how to deal with angle-increment and use another part as the reference, things get easier. Myself I would vote for a change or a new command pod, though I don't see how it could be different from the original.

Here is 2 websites which might help you. One give you the phase angle and Dv budget for Hohmann transfer. The other give you the Dv Budget for all other launch windows, you can in theory use it for slingshot maneuver. http://ksp.olex.biz/ http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/

It's not possible. Having the same angular speed relative to Earth center than the Mun would mean being on the very same orbit (at equal distance) from Kerbin than the Mun. Which would place you inside the Mun. You could put yourself on the same orbit than the Mun, but since it won't be a perfect orbit, WARP will over time make your orbiter crash on the Mun. The closest of what you seek would be to orbit a Lagrange point, but KSP's "Patched Conic" doesn't allow them. (Don't even think about suggesting them to the dev, it's NO)

Ah yes ! That's exactly what I would need for one of my probes-bus and the landing-stage of a big rover. What would it be called ? "Radial separators" ?

0.21.1 didn't changed orbital mechanic in any way Don't be afraid of modifying temporarily your orbit to reach another ship. If you want to "slow down", raise up your apoapsis (yes even if it sound counter intuitive). Remember that "targeting" the ship you want to dock with will also show an interceptions marker which will tell you where the target will be at the next closest approach.

Edit your first message.

Maybe the problem isn't as much in the description, than in the way parts are classified ? For example : Xenon-based and Liquidfuel-based thruster/tank are now in different category although they should both be in Propulsions. Jet engine are in Propulsion.... but need Air Intake from Aerodynamic anyway. If the User Interface changed you could put one description for a family of parts. I would also be a way to put together linked parts. example : # Liquid fuel tank : <explain what the part do> [ << All liquid fuel Tank >> ] (each have Raw data and it's own funny description) # Liquid fuel engine : <explain what the part do> [ << All liquid fuel engine >> ] # RCS : <explain what the part do> [ << Everything needed for RCS >> ]

To make it clear, I was just joking. We just had one big update already (the psystem, the SAS rework, the craters), maybe we could let the dev breath a little... ...so they can work on the resources system ? We will still want an insanely detailed spaceport with fully animated refueling/cargo area and an actual traffic control later.

Why would you want to quit the KSC ? Seriously, It's because the new design became so great that we start become unreasonable. I'll bet your... - If we do get road, players will ask for AI-driven vehicles. - If we get the tarmac, players will ask for taxiing system and a way to refuel Spaceplane. - If we get cargo-hold, players will ask for loading crane/area. - If we get residential building, players will ask for bus. - If we get landing pad, players will ask for VTOL-efficient part (I mean more than now). - If we get animations, players will ask for an animated rocket-tower. And lastly, once we have all this, we will ask for another launch facility. (in the mountain, in the desert, on the sea, underground... etc)

There's not really an optimal altitude and your logic is wrong. I'll address both point : First, the closer you do the insertion burn, the more your profited from Oberth Effect .... to save dV (meaning that it's best to burn as close as possible) Being closer from the Mun don't make you "faster", quite the opposite, the linear speed is lesser than for high orbit. Second, what truly define the optimal altitude is those three point : - How high is the relief (you can hardly stay in orbit under 20km ) - How fast you can accelerate. (because the theoretical best descent is one deorbit and one last minute landing burn (nicknamed "suicide burn")) - How efficient is the thruster. In short : The sweet spot must be calculated based on your lander design. One can land from a 20km orbit, other might need a 150km orbit

In simple term landing mean Reaching your destination and then Stop here. What you have to do everywhere : - Burn so that your trajectory pass anywhere closer to the target. - Wait to get closer and burn retrograde to reduce speed. "Repeat Ad Infinitum" If you have a low acceleration : Do it more often. (but check if your engine actually allow you to land (TWR > 1)) I know it sound ridiculously simplistic, but you'll learn the subtlety (like hitting mountain and aerobraking) while doing exactly that.

I can give you a few tips : first : - Don't be afraid of modifying temporarily your orbit, because identical orbit mean no change. second : - If the target is ahead of you : burn retrograde to lower your orbit... and go faster (yes, even if it sound counter-intuitive) - If the target is behind you : burn prograde to raise your orbit... and go slower last : - Search the "Relative Velocity marker", it will be useful - Don't burn toward your target, unless you've first killed relative velocity less than 2km away.

I've got to admit that even if it's way too complicated or too soon to implement this, I look forward something like this. But more seriously, that's more career feature than Sandbox for now, because : ...you have infinite budget anyway. ...so you don't actually re-use component unless you can refuel them. ...you don't even have a (ingame) reason to go look if it landed correctly. ...and as of now the recovering process is still manual, if you only jettison one or two stages it's ok, but if you have 10 boosters to recover manually it will rapidly become annoying. On the other hand I bet everybody saw the Shuttle's Booster and SpaceX reusable plan and wish to mimic it NASA-style.

Now that the Mun is way more rugged, I think Minmus is now different enough. I don't mean it shouldn't evolve of course, but it should be quite different from the mun. I wonder if the Dev team is going to put geyser or some new hazard on planet. (hellish relief being the first step)

Paul Kingtiger basically described a Card game like Magic : The Gathering. Edit : you can color-code the text to make it easier to read.

I was talking in a theoretical way. On the paper the most efficient landing is the Shortest and most powerful burn possible, regardless of the Specific Impulse. The fact that our spaceship aren't capable of infinite G of acceleration is something different, just like that you need a positive TWR to land on a planet.

You'll need to cheat a little, provided there's a perfectly plane landing zone with no obstacle, the idea would be to lower your periapsis with extreme (mechjeb) precision so that your landing gear nearly touch it... and then you'll need a way to break down your speed drastically just before hitting the runway or you'll destroy the landing gear. In any case the most efficient landing is in fact exactly that, a periapsis as low as possible, and a (suicide) burn as short and powerful as possible.

As said the most efficient method is ONE BURN that bring you as close and as low as possible to where you want to land. What it mean is that your engines will be burning at 100% until you are 500m away from your landing point, and if you overshot : you'll Lithobrake. Such burn is called a Suicide Burn, let you guess why.

For information once decompressed the correct format for a ship file is ****.craft

That's... a very Kerbal technical solution.

Unfortunately it's not possible as of today. Warping kill any angular velocity, and you need some to keep pointing in a direction relative to your orbit.

Well, one alternative is to use a carrier-vehicle capable of several orbital maneuver, circularizing for one satellite, lowering your orbit precisely, then circularizing and dropping another satellite. Basically it only ask for more fuel and time. The carrier-ship could use ionic engine but it certainly won't accelerate fast. Oh and use junior docking for separation if you don't want debris in orbit or to push away the satellite.