Superfluous J

Why exactly is naming the rovers the two most iconic, game-related names a "cheap joke"?

And kudos to you for spurning me to look up that famous quote and see that I (and Tom Hanks) have had it wrong all these years.

I'm surprised it's even a contest. I'd have voted for anything that included Jeb and any other KSP reference at all.

You've already been given a very simple solution to your problem, and a very good explanation as to why they won't look at bugs in modded versions of the game. Just because the mod doesn't *appear* to affect what is happening does not in any way mean that it is NOT. Things have unintended consequences, otherwise there would never be bugs in software that needed reporting.

I had an orbit set up just over 5km, figuring it was safe. I chose that because it was as close as possible while still being able to accelerate time. I hit a mountain, I know not where.

Probably a stupid question, but are you sure your rocket's on? You may have to hit space again to actually engage that rocket depending on how your staging is set up. If you could post a picture of your craft while it's having the problem, we may be able to help you more.

If I didn't already have a sig...

I don't like to use gameplay mods until I've completely exhausted the gameplay of the base game. MecJeb is a gameplay mod, and KSP has thousands of hours of gameplay still in it for me, so no. No MechJeb for me.

I want all the things. IVA is the least important, though.

That's pretty awesome. Reminds me of a set of Mini Munar Landers I tried to make, using those tiny boosters (that you're supposed to use to get huge rockets to fall away from your next stage) to fire retrograde and kill as much orbital momentum as possible. Sadly, the only time they fire perfectly straight and don't have any roll at all is when you launch from a perfectly still base. AKA the surface of a planet aimed straight up. I gave up on that idea, but it's nice to see someone was able to use the same trick for good

Lots of fuel and lots of near misses at 30 meters per second. And one not-so-near miss. Actually a collision. Then a lot of thinking and looking at the navball, and suddenly understanding how it worked.

I'd go with 0. But really, Kerbals are not Humans. There's really no way to answer this question.

The same way they fit their helmets through the door...

The workings of career mode could easily mold the gameplay as much as the gameplay would mold the career mode. For that to happen, they must be created in tandem. Also, many of us ARE looking forward to having some sort of goals to achieve.

I was going to do something similar (but EXTREMELY inferior) to this. Pity I found it after 0.21 was released. Does this work with 0.21 or will you be coming out with an update soon?

wHEN EVERYTHING YOU TYpe starts out in all caps.

I just flew to Mun with an OKTO probe core, an avionics package stuck to the top (it was the smallest thing I could find with an SAS), and a single inline reaction wheel. It was a little sluggish before I dropped the mainsail and 2 orange tanks (before reaching Kerbin orbit) but after that it handled like a dream. I never used the RCS thrusters for maneuvering. They were used only as fine-tuning jets to circularize my orbit.

Today, I launched, transferred, reached orbit, and finally circularized the orbit of my VLMO, or Very Low Munar Orbiter. Then I learned that there are mountains on Mun that are over 5000 meters tall

I've just started playing but after getting used to the new parts it seems to be working just fine for me. It was laggy near the ground at high speed (like when deorbiting) but turning down the ocean settings as stated in another thread fixed that right up.

Launched a Stayputnik into orbit. Well, suborbit. Okay fine it crashed.

It's part of most any EULA out there, for pretty much everything Moon Goddess says. Especially the part about Harvister not getting hit by a bus. They would be IDIOTS to stop making this game. It could give them an income for a very, very long time. But if something terrible happens they need to know that people are not going to sue them into oblivion.

But I found this problem because my ships that had plenty of battery charge were uncontrollable when the probe core ran out of battery charge. And a semi-unrelated question, how do I mark a post "answered"?

Right, but if the battery has a charge and the probe core isn't getting it, and thereby goes dead, the battery's not exactly doing it's job. This makes a sad sense. I guess that's part of Alpha Knowing it's possibly the core I chose gives me direction to test. Thanks!

Then what are they used for? If you can't use that charge, why would you put a battery on your ship?

I'm assuming I'm doing something wrong, here, but I have no idea what that wrong thing is. If I stick a probe core (Say, an OKTO2) to a battery (say, a Z500) and those are the only 2 parts in my "ship", why does the probe lose its charge? Shouldn't it get power from the battery? If I stick the same probe core to a solar panel, the probe stays charged with no problem. If I stick a solar panel to a probe hooked to a battery, the solar panel will charge both. I'm confused.