Nibb31

MechJeb doesn\'t use fuel.

Even with this, docking is not possible yet. This is just like docking with lander legs: the meshes of the ships get entangled, which screws up the physics engine and throws both ships out of control.

En fait, la plupart des mods sont relativement équilibrés, donc ils ne rendent pas les choses plus faciles. Par contre, ça donne plus de diversité dans les missions et de réalisme dans l\'aspect des véhicules. Par exemple: trouver un moyen de poser un rover, ou rajouter des coiffes ou des panneaux solaires ne rendent pas les choses plus faciles, au contraire, mais ça rajoute du réalisme et un challenge supplémentaire.

Regarding the VA, are you aware of the Excalibur Almaz? This is a company that has bought leftover soviet hardware, including 4 VAs and 2 Almaz station cores. They want to refurb the hardware and sell flights for ISS resupply, crew rotation, and tourism. IMO, they are a bit of a pipe dream and only into powerpoint rockets, but the idea is fun. http://www.excaliburalmaz.com/0202_LEO.html

It\'s not matter of simply removing the slashes. What\'s important is the value that comes after them.

It was just to give you an idea of the color of the modules I suspect that they start out pure white, but then turn to that brownish-rusty white color because of the heat and radiation.

There are fairing panels and fairing decouplers. The fairing decouplers have a little tab on them and connect to the fairing base. The fairing panels fit on top of the fairing decouplers.

Sounds you have plans to keep you busy until your next birthday Maybe you could go for a more white-cream color than the current green, or just lighten it a bit.

Happy Birthday mate I modded some of your 1m parts to use l00\'s ZO2 system for my everyday spacecraft. You can easily adapt your solar panels to use the PowerTech plugin, which also provides power to the ZO2 system.

No, thrusters are not for stage separation. They are for manoeuvering your craft. There are small retro rockets in some of the addon packs. There aren\'t any in the stock parts.

Well, docking will be pretty much a game changer. A 'Mars direct' type of design makes absolutely no sense, especially as we don\'t even know what the gravity well of this future planet will be like. You will need a 'mothership & lander' type of design, which is pretty much impossible at the moment.

La procédure est la même que pour la Mun. Tu commences à brûler au moment où Minmus se lève sur l\'horizon jusqu\'à ce que ton Ap atteigne les 46000km. Ensuite, tu dois ajuster l\'inclinaison: place ton vaisseau dans une position Nord ou Sud (Normal + ou -) et tu ajuste ton orbite vers le haut ou le bas pour intersecter l\'orbite de Minus qui est incliné. A partir de là , tu dois avoir le 'patched conics' qui s\'affiche autour de Minmus et de là , tu peux ajuster facilement.

Neither is Mars. And by the time we get extra planets, we will have docking and a lot of rebalancing of parts, so designing a Mars-capable spacecraft now doesn\'t make much sense.

Press M for the orbital map.

ASAS are the modules that you have under your capsule. The ASAS is a control computer. You only need one of them, the others are dead weight.

You have to be in time warp x1 or x2.

Several ways: - Put the decouplers in the same stage as the next stage engine. When you press space, this should decouple the old stage and start the new stage in one go, which should cause a correct separation. - Add retro rockets to your spent stage and fire them on the same stage as the decoupler. There are some in various mod packs, such as NovaSilisko\'s SE or NovaPunch. - Edit the .cfg files of your decouplers to modify the EjectionForce value. Set it to something like 500.

No offense, but I personally hope KSP will look better than those drawings

1) This is alpha software. Lots of stuff isn\'t set in stone yet, which breaks 3rd party addons. 2) Why would you still use v0.14 ?

There are two elements required: - a control computer (ASAS) and - some sort of physical system to control the rocket\'s attitude: either RCS, SAS, or winglets. ASAS on its own is just a computer. If you don\'t attach an RCS, SAS, or winglets, it won\'t do anything. In the absence of an ASAS, the RCS, SAS, and winglets also react to manual controls. SAS works like a gyroscope. This is how you can control a spacecraft without RCS, even large ones. The ISS uses multiple gyros to maintain its orientation, not RCS thrusters. SAS does not control anything by itself. They really should have called it a gyro, so as to reduce confusion, because that is how it works.

That one was completely crazy. It actually had the return module inside the crew cabin...

Your first mistake is that you are going straight up to get to orbit. Orbit is all about horizontal velocity, not altitude. The only reason you need to go up at the beginning is to get out of the gooey atmosphere that\'s causing drag. Once you\'re out of the goo, the horizon is where you want to go. The trick is to progressively start tilting eastward somewhere between 10-15000m so that you reach a 45° angle somewhere around 30000m. By the time you reach 60000m, you should be pretty horizontal and the atmosphere will be pretty much gone. Watch your Apoapsis and stop burning when it reaches your target altitude, regardless of your current altitude. Then, you just coast to your Apoapsis (all engines off), and then as you approach it, do a second burn, aiming towards your prograde marker (the yellow marker on the navball that you call 'direction of travel'), to circularize your orbit. It also looks like your second stage is slighty underpowered.

The LK lander only had room for one person, the other cosmonaut would have stayed in the modified Soyuz (the LOK). It was designed to only stay on the surface for a few hours and couldn\'t have stayed several days like the LEM. The LK was also much more basic. For example, the LK didn\'t have any proper docking hardware: the cosmonaut would have transferred between the LK and the LOK by EVA. The whole docking process was precarious and involved sticking a hook on the LOK into one of the 100 holes in a special plate on the top of the LK. The difference in engine design comes from the fact that the LOK had a different mission profile. - The Apollo CSM used its SPS engine for LOI, and then the LM descent engine performed the deorbit burn, the braking, and the final descent burns. Therefore the descent stage was quite large, which made it beneficial to shed its mass and the empty tankage for the ascent. - The LOK/LK used a single Blok D stage for LOI, deorbit, and braking. The Blok D was designed as a crasher stage and was only jettisoned before the final descent burn. The LK\'s Blok E only had to do that final touchdown burn, so its tanks were pretty much full when it touched the ground. In fact, in both cases, the number of burns is identical and 3 engines were involved in the lunar stack. - Apollo: SPS (LOI, TEI), LM-Descent (Deorbit, Braking, Descent), LM-Ascent (Ascent) - LOK/LK: Blok-D (LOI, Deorbit, Braking), Blok-E (Descent-Ascent), and LOK (TEI) There are advantages and drawbacks to both approaches. The Russian way results in a smaller lander, but a system that drops a crasher stage isn\'t a very good idea if you plan to build a moon base or if you want to preserve the area that you are exploring. On the other hand, the US astronauts had more room to move about and had more margins, which allowed them a longer stay and more equipment like the lunar rover on the SIM bay experiments in the later missions. The Soviet cosmonauts would have had to remain seated in the LOK descent module for the entire mission, with only a short stay on the lunar surface for one cosmonaut.

This is going to be epic! Keep up the good work