blizzy78

Uhh, please post a picture. It says more than a thousand words. That would depend simply on thrust to weight ratio, if not for the parachutes. Also depends on the TWR. If they can fire the tank away on Kerbin, they definitely can on Duna. You can also attach them in an angled way, so there wouldn't be any need to drive out just in time.

*cough* that's what tutorials are for *cough*

I'd say try the stock tutorials. Then, try to go into orbit yourself. Go to the Mun and orbit it. Try to land. Try landing on Minmus (includes inclination change.) Build a space station (includes docking.) You will need to launch multiple vessels to do all that

You can change that in the little settings window in the Space Center scene.

Well, Procedural Fairings has a way to know the size of all the parts that a fairing will encase, so it must work somehow. But anyway, I don't see the relevance of procedural nosecones here in this thread. Maybe make a new thread in the addon requests forum?

(source: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/lazor-docking-cam/)

New version is out, now fuel infinite fuel.

Hmm, the online engine stack layout calculator I've created says it's not possible, not even with part clipping allowed, a central stack size of 5 m, up to 8 boosters allowed (in asparagus staging), and up to 8 outer engines around a central one on each of the central and booster stacks. Perhaps you should go for one of the part packs to have more engines available - I'd suggest NovaPunch. That said, 5 m is the maximum central stack size it allows, and it only allows the boosters to be up to 2.5 m in size. Of course in reality you are not limited to that.

I'd say file a bug report, with screenshot attached.

hey, are you stalking me? just kidding

That was Scott's entry to a reddit challenge: http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/1ezqjs/weekly_challenge_staging_mishap/

FWIW, I've made an online engine stack layout calculator than might come in handy when trying to design a lifter that can lift some arbitrary mass. Please see signature.

Not quite. Engine thrust does not depend on mass being moved. It's rather the TWR will go up with less mass, helping the rocket to lift off because of the lower inertia.

Now where have I seen that already...

That actually leaves a bit to be desired when using multiple engines on the same tank, for example when using my online engine configuration calculator. They way you would use it is that you create a tank, attach the suggested engines, then resize the tank to get the delta-v you need. With the bug still in, this would only work for the central engine (attached to the vertical stack node), but not with the outer engines (surface-attached). Of course one can work around that by putting a small pancake tank between the resized tank and the engines, then later attaching the engines to the big tank again, deleting the pancake. But that's quite tedious after a while.

I'll change it so that fuel is infinite. I didn't think anyone would run into this

Whoops, I must have fallen asleep. You are right, of course.

Thread title does not match post. Do you want to leave the Kerbol system or just orbit around Kerbol?

I believe this belongs to the Docking Tutorial rather than the Rendezvous Tutorial? Anyway, please upload a copy of your output_log.txt, thanks. Also, please try without any other mods to minimize impact when trying to reproduce the error.

This also happens when the tank is not the root part. Radially attached parts do not change their positions when the tank is resized. Only parts attached to the vertical stack nodes do. Workaround: Add a second tank resized to "pancake" size, attach your engines there. Then add another tank to resize on top of it.

Added 46 more engines to my engine stack configuration calculator. (see signature)

So I did. The calculator now has 46 more engines available.

ISA Mapsat Ideal and Non-Ideal Altitudes

Based on Temstar's post back on page 1, I've created an online engine stack layout calculator that does exactly that. Please note that of course it isn't perfect. For example, it does not take radially-attached engines into account at all. On the other hand, it finds a better solution for Temstar's example Over time, I will expand the calculator with more engines from popular packs.

Created an online engine stack layout calculator than can be used to configure central and booster stack layouts. Okay I didn't do that in KSP, but it's KSP-related, right?