KerbMav

You mean when you returned to the station it did not start wobbling again?

Which you cant, because you will always start on a parable, the rotation of the planet adds to your flight vector at launch. And even if you could go straight up, you would either shoot past/through your station real fast - or if you slowed down you would instantly start to drop back to the planet as you are not on an orbit but simply "throwing" your rocket in the sky. Would be an interesting stunt (mechjob?? ^^) though: rising up, slowing to zero speed and docking just on your apoapsis/turning point. Although I think this is still not correct. But flying at a certain - accelaration dependent - angle you really would have a somewhat easier intercept i think.

"Is this the least fuel intensive way to travel around?" I first wanted to write, because it seemed so overly complicated. Then I googled and found this: http://www.racetomars.ca/mars/ed-module/human_mission/images/flight_path.jpg So I will just be quiet and accept that I havent done much in this game yet to argue.

This first part of the station was shot into orbit as it is here. (Habitat and two over-thrusted escape pods) After I decouple the final stage of the lifter everything seems fine. I then unfold the solar panels and orient the station so they are facing the sun most optimally. I am not quite sure, but I think the wobble only sets in when I do something elsewhere and then return to the station. But then it stays wobbly. Time warp stops it for as long as time warp warps time. My first thought were the two SAS modules at the beams that hold the solar panels - I removed them and shot it up again: wobble. Also the only docking ports are the three facing outwards, everything is connecting by decouplers or Rockomax brand adapters. What I did not yet have the nerve to try: 0. Switch out probe core. -> No effect, station started wobbling again - but reinstalled SAS system to cross check. 1. Do not have ASAS on the last stage of the lifter - built, not launched yet -> Same test as in 0 - no effect for that matter. 2. Orient the command (escape ) pods in the same direction and align the probe module (computer core ) with the pods - does torque have a "direction"? 3. Replace the beams with something else 4. Place the solar panels not directly opposite each other Will try all changes at once and backtrack - if it works.

Is there an ingame or mod way to manipulate action groups outside the VAB?

What also comes in handy is if you want to built boosters around the main engine(s tank e.g.) it is easier to balcance things out by first building one booster from decoupler outwards, then to ALT-LeftClick the decoupler to make a copy of it, set it beside the rocket (semi-transparent in midair), remove and delete the original, pick up your copy again and then place it with the symmetry function back onto the rocket. Trying to set four more big tanks on the already placed decouplers, then adding boosters, fins etc. --- can lead to asymmetrical designs, clipping ... problems.

Just a blib in my head but - did anyone ever check if the motors that rotate solar panels were in any way responsible for the wobble of destruction? Even with no SAS on board my station starts to shudder and whirl ...

Removed the SAS at the 200 I-Beams that are holding the solar panels and placed an NCS adapter on the battery to then connect the 200 I-Beams - still after switching back to KSC and then back up to the station it starts wobbling and spinning ...

As it was past midnight and timezones wont always fit the thread title anyway: Tried to further built my space station only to realize that my docking ports on the first part in orbit are the wrong way ... Tried to refuel my orbital mover in what also was my first attempt of a orbital rendezvous and ran out of fuel while aligning orbits ... Put up a new better nicer station core in orbit which finally gave me my first construction in space shaking and wobbling by itself ... Called it a night.

I think time pressure in KSP wouldnt work - some things cant be rushed or are prone to fail if rushed. Aging astronauts/limited resources (for keeping Kerbals or ships alive/usable) wont really work either - 100% recycling of air and water in manned pods and very nutritious (no need to refill) astro-food should be accepted as a game mechanic, tech should not degrade to warrent replacement or repair (outside of missions at least) - at a certain number of stations/bases/ships things can get out of hand and become a bit dull if you have to fly to every single place to deliver new water cans, wipe the lavatory and change light bulbs. Kerbals shouldnt age for the same reason. But maybe they get skill levels some day, so when stationed and trained at certain posts we may want to transfer him to a new missions to make use of his highly trained skills. ("Come home son, your space agency needs you!") The only limited resources in space should be fuel and energy as it is now, of which energy should be used more - for crew pods e.g. I am very curious how much money will be a limiting factor - do we get pocket money regardless of our achievments or can we go bankrupt, unable to do anything and having to start all over again? The mining/resource system could provide the player with rare alloys (enabling to build some special/lighter parts), fuel (to supply far away outposts easier, or maybe cheaper tanks in the VAB), alternative fuel for futuristic engines maybe, tradable resources to build up the budget for new missions, scientific breakthroughs to win favor or new parts ... Very long deadlines would work though, so you would have to dedicate most of your time and resources to a priority project - "high level" missions most likely - and had no time for missions "that pay the rent", preparation being needed before accepting these challenges. Or time in another form: Salvage/rescue missions of failed/stranded privateer experiments or retrieval of scientific experiments before it leaves orbit of/crashes on - so no real time limit but the option to "buy time" by slowing down the inevitable until the real rescue can be done (or a successful one ...) Eco-Kerbals asking for environment friendly transportation using up no more than x amount of fuel, no "nuke-drive", salvaging x % of parts (in mass not counting payload) or the like - a number of next missions accepted/completed to be done under certain conditions A kind of "mission board" comes to mind, with varying difficulty levels/rewards - some needing specific tech to be completed, some requiring a kind of "good standing" with government or corporations - or filthy rich individuals ("Build me a house on Dune, so I can finish my new bestseller!") Some missions might reward the player with unique parts - valuable technology worth to be looked after and returned back to base (parts recycling is announced) after every mission it was used. Or the missions comes with a special part as payload: (no real use, higher level missions might have bigger, heavier, unbalanced payload parts to be delivered) - such as satellites or survey/mapping probes, space factories/mines (producing stuff not used/produced by the player in a resource system to come), prefab houses for runaways ... This mission board could work alongside a Tour of Duty: missions to be completed to open up new missions, gain new tech etc. - the first ones being some kind of tutorial - skippable for experienced/impatient players or restarts, granting everything at once - the next having some kind of storyline and building up on one another. But I would not let go of the sandbox aspect completely - like in the X game series the player should be able to walk away from the story and do other also rewarding things. And maybe I should have put this into a new thread over in the suggestion forum.

Now it has me too ... the wobblediwobble station dance ... I hope anyone has an idea whats wrong in this design?

Economic considerations are seen as ethical values nowadays - what has the world come to??

I think its cool we can see distant stellar objects even outside the render distance - fells right and I gladly sacrifice a few flops for this.

Just recently after toying with the demo for a few days - so it is the current version. And: only shortly before the Steam sale that would have saved me 7 Kerbolions cash.

I think at the moment nothing at all is known about anything regarding career mode - at least I didnt find anything on my search for planned final release features.

RP reason probably - what good is a salvaging mission to pump fuel from decommissioned ships if you first burn your tank empty?

After separation will the fuel line stubs remain on the tank like (as I remember) struts will do?

A litter bug like you might have a fortune on his hands, when career mode comes and everything will start cost money/resources - salvage mission anyone? ;o) That is if the game's final version will accept beta save files.

You didnt send a rescue mission?? *stares unbelievingly* When I finally make a safe landing on Mun - yesterdays two attempts were over "to fast" ... - and maybe on Mimimi ... well, time will tell - at the moment I am rethinking my design for a Mun lander, which probably was to small yesterday, not enough thrust/fuel to decelerate.

Almost a pity, that the only system in the game (as of now) that makes real use of the energy part of the simulation is not really that useful. OK, only yesterday I had to quickload a probemission because I forgot to extend at least one of its solar panels - wondering why I couldnt even switch off SAS ...

This - apart from some other annoyances - made me relaunch my station core - placing the struts (the "starting piece", which will keep the "nubs") on everything I would jettison during launch or connect parts of my payload that would be decoupled for rearranging in orbit and placing the starting nubs on places I would not mind them staying - also they will add mass and part count still, so only when really necessary.

Here I am again, capturing a thread with my own newbie questions! So, command pods/probe modules can rotate a ship on all three axis - SAS stops unwanted rotation only and is not needed for steering - A-SAS controls RCS too. Right? A-SAS - the big and the small - are only controle modules that do not have SAS functionality? Why is there no big SAS to fit big rocket designs (better)? I read elsewhere multiple SAS add there force too? Is there a prefered position for SASs like for command pods/probe modules as written in this thread?

When does autosaving take place? Apart from game close and end flight.

So to summerize - and make sure I am right: A game (ones own star system) only has one save file. It is saved whenever the game is closed, quicksave is used or one returns from a flight to the space center. Using "end flight" deletes all parts flying around in the system. What happens to parts that have been undocked end redocked to other parts - e.g. I fly a component up to my space station, add it to the station, undock my transport from it and end flight - what happens? Does "end flight" reset all progress/movement of all other flights - or planetary movement?

I think they are either naturally cloners of some kind. Or - picking up on the life support thread - plant-like and to further built on this idea: underground the biggest forrest lives mother Heart-Root, and the Kerbals are her seedlings trying to find new places to grow a new heart-root - that is why they try to get up into space! If the developers use this idea, I want free updates and DLCs of anything kerbalistic! So: No gender. But I'd like a bit of variations - maybe even combined with the Kerbalizer!