Superfluous J

Yikes! Just when you think your mod is rock solid! Thanks for the report, I'll look into it. I'm still new at this whole KSP Modding thing so no promises. I frequently bump up against things I simply can't figure out at all.

Do you really save that much, though, from such a low orbit? It seems sometimes even dropping from Mun isn't worth the effort, and there you get the benefit of Oberth leaving the Mun to drop back to Kerbin. I've considered the idea of setting up 12 fueling stations in a clock pattern around Kerbin. My idea was that they'd be in polar orbits that reach out just past Minmus' orbit, inclined and placed so that they are guaranteed to never encounter Mun or Minmus. They could be refilled from a Minmus mining base and be available at all times for any mission, and with 30 degrees between them, you'd never be more than 15 degrees off of ideal on your ejection burn which should still save quite a bit of fuel. Plus, you'd leave Kerbin with as close to full tanks as you could manage. The only reason I've not tried it is it'd be 1 interesting (though not difficult) challenge followed by 11 boring repetitions. And then I'd have to - after each mission, plan a refueling mission for the station. Not worth the effort. If I'm putting all that work into a video game to set up an infrastructure, I want it to reward me by working automatically.

I don't use the SPH much but this happens to me all the time when adding fins to side boosters in the VAB. I find that one of these always fixes it (in order of easiest to hardest, and also roughly in order of increasing effectiveness) Hitting X to turn off and then back symmetry. Moving the part to the main body of the ship to get "ship symmetry" set and then moving it back to the radially-attached part. Placing the part that's misbehaving (for you here, the RCS port) in non-symmetry mode, then picking up the radially-attached part (for you here, the wing) and placing it back down with symmetry enabled. In very rare instances, with parts that can be placed inline (like boosters. With wings you can't do this) I actually place the booster (that I want to eventually attach radially) into the main stack, add fins and anything else I want, and then remove it and put it where I actually want it to be. But usually that's overkill and #3 above does the trick.

Going from the surface to LKO to other places (From Mun to Eeloo) it's better to be as low as possible for your LKO. If you're refueling in orbit, though, it's actually cheaper to eject from higher, because while you lose some to Oberth, you gain more from being further from the gravity well, so leaving from there with full tanks is better than leaving from LKO with full tanks. I don't remember the exact height but it IS over 100km.

Absolute lowest is 70km. But practically that's not very good as it'd be hard to approach. More practical is 80km or more, and a lot of people like it to remain above 100km. I personally like my stations in the 80-90 range. Note that atmospheres in the game have hard limits. If you're over that limit you are in vacuum and never experience any drag. That's why 70km (the listed height of Kerbin's atmosphere) is the absolute lowest you can go and be stable. Unless you do a trick like getting you station at 30km altitude going orbital velocity, and then deatch from the station and quickly get more than 22km away. But that's not practical and is just abusing shortcuts in the simulation.

I do VERY similar to this, but with double the numbers and looking at my Apoapsis instead of current altitude. So when my Apoapsis is 20km, I'm about at the 40 on the navball. The reason I do this is it's a lot more TWR agnostic. If your TWR is too low, it takes longer to get your Ap up to 20 so you tend to aim up more. If it's high, your Ap rockets up to 20 quickly so you need to crank it down more aggressively. Of course, TWR too low or too high is bad but still. I like it Of course, the stock game doesn't tell you your Ap height without having to switch views and click on stuff (over and over as you switch views back and forth) so I recommend KER to tell you your Apoapsis (and dozens of other things) in flight view.

I loaded it, saw a pokemon, tapped the ball 5 times before I realized you had to swipe it forward, swiped it forward 3 times until it finally hit, and then the game crashed. I reloaded it and saw I still had the pokemon so at least that much worked, but haven't done anything else. I was looking forward to this game, but now that it's out I'm finding I have no real desire to play. Maybe this weekend I'll give it another try when I have more spare time.

Current as of today.

Eve is harsh, though, and (especially below 3-5km) a low COM is a death sentence. It's more like swimming than flying down there. You NEED a sleek craft that is front heavy, at the exact same time it's hard to have a sleek craft that's front heavy. Flipping was the last problem I solved on my Eve ascent vehicle and it was the reason I GAVE UP trying to make for for several weeks. To the OP, you need fins at the back and a sleeker craft. You may even need delta wings to keep things pointed straight. There are some great ideas in this thread:

ISRU is an acronym, but IRSU is not. But I do agree that ISRU should be in the list.

59. Making a poll about... well anything really.

I actually looked into that and cannot find anything related to textures in the config for the part.

9 - Asking a question like "How do you land on Mun?" when what you're having trouble with is your Mun lander flipping out during atmospheric ascent on Kerbin. And it takes 3 pages to get that piece of information out of you.

They tell me it should be fixed now.

I seem to have messed up CKAN for my mod All Y'All and I have no idea how to fix it. I misread the Spacedock "update your mod" page and somehow set the version to "KSP Version." It was like that for all of 10 seconds before I realized the problem. I updated again to the current version and put the correct number (0.4) in there, and then deleted the one with a version number of "KSP Version," but CKAN still erroneously thinks that the most recent version is "KSP Version" which is not available to download. So, people can't automatically update through CKAN. That above paragraph pretty much sums up my total experience with CKAN. I don't use it myself and have no idea how it works. I don't know exactly how it got broken or how to fix it. Is there something I can do, or something someone else can do, to get rid of this incorrect version and fix me all up? EDIT: I see there's a new thread. I'll post this there.

Huh. I have no idea. I'll ask on the CKAN thread and see if someone can fix it.

There is a toggle in the global options screen. It's a checkbox. I don't remember the exact wording but it's there. Far right side of one of the many screens. Whether or not that works, and assuming your save is vanilla (or you can recreate the problem in vanilla) I bet NathanKell would love a copy of your save.

If you want to go absolutely bonkers, hold one with the mouse and use the keys to rotate it 90 degrees at a time.

There's a subforum for just these kinds of posts: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/39-ksp-fan-works/ And welcome to the forum!

It probably would, seeing PN is open any time a node is present. I'd love a simple toolbar button that just adds a maneuver node on your current path. Right click it for options like how far in the future, or for extra buttons like "at Ap" or "at Pe". EDIT: No promises, but if I can figure out how to put code in a toolbar button, I think I have all the knowledge of how to do this. I've thought similar things about modding on several occasions in the past, though, and have always been wrong.

Right now, my wallpaper is the source image for this video's thumbnail: ...but in 45 minutes it'll be something different as it changes every hour.

As usual, Snark has a lot covered but allow me to pipe in really quick: Mun is actually quite an easy target, fuel-wise. Because of that, leaving an orbiter in space while you go down to land and come back up adds a lot of complications for very little gain. It is extremely likely that the ship that you sent down to land and come back up actually has enough fuel in it to get home, so you could pretty easily redesign the entire mission to just leave out the orbiter, which saves a LOT of money and fuel and logistical thinking. Now when it comes to going to Duna or other planets, then yes leaving a return ship in orbit becomes a lot better of an idea. But for Mun and Minmus the savings is just not worth the effort. And frequently the savings is so poor it's not a savings at all.

Sorry for not trimming your post, I'm on mobile and the editor sucks. I don't know much about ckan, but I screwed up posting version 0.4 and had to delete it and post again. Maybe ckan didn't see the 2nd update, or is there a way to refresh the cache?

I don't have a strong opinion either way, so vote to keep 'em the same (or more accurately, vote that Squad change them according to their current plans instead of changing those plans).

Yeah. Or, more aptly, YEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!