HeadHunter67

Aqua, do not ever mistake a game's forum population as representative of the players. The majority of people who play any game never register on or use a forum. Even in Minecraft, there's only one registered forum user for every six copies of the game sold so far on the PC (that doesn't count the Xbox sales). In other words, if you think Squad's only sold 80,000 copies of KSP because that's who's on the forum, you aren't basing that on any valid data.

It's not just the weight - it's the length, the size... and that doesn't change. Even empty, a Jumbo is not going to be as nimble as a tug or a PAM. And with those, you don't need to worry about all those unnecessary and un-removable strut cleats that do add to your part count. Not saying there's a wrong way, just pointing out the advantages of these methods.

Keep one thing in mind... As soon as you drop a craft file into your VAB folder, it will show up with (Stock) next to the craft title in your VAB list. This doesn't mean it's all stock parts, it just means it was not a custom design by you in the VAB. I'd be willing to bet that's part of the reason behind this tempest in a teapot.

That doesn't sound like it maneuvers too well - I'd rather not risk crashing that much stuff into a station if there's an accident. I wouldn't want an unneeded Jumbo to get too close to my station, even if it wasn't attempting to dock something. A tug works much better for precision construction, but something in between works nearly as well. I prefer a payload assist module, like the OAM from Wayfare's MOMS system. It's similar to what you describe but more compact, so there's less unneeded torque and it can put things right where they belong. But tugs have their advantages - I'd recommend that any modular station keep one on hand. If you need to rearrange the construction of the station (like the Soviets did with MIR several times), it is the ideal choice.

They sleep when you do. You'll have to take my word for it, because there's no real way to disprove it!

Thanks for taking the time to demonstrate mathematically what I was trying to explain. You understand my point very clearly. If a solar panel is "significantly reflective", it won't be a very effective solar panel. After all, a solar panel is designed to absorb solar energy, not reflect it.

The UDKLD strut tabs are nice, but yes, they do cause the part count to add up. Thanks for the link to the stack light - they look really sharp! I'm going to try them out.

Telescope, nothing. You can see the variations of the surface of the Moon with the naked eye. You could identify the Sea of Tranquility without a telescope. You won't see mountains on the Moon because honestly, there really aren't any that qualify in the terms you are choosing to use. Regardless, even a mountain is thousands of times larger than your spacecraft. If you live near a mountain, have a look at it from a distance of several miles, and tell me if you can see a house on it. Feel free to render your ship and Minmus in a scale drawing and you ought to find your answer. You're not satisfied with the in-game reasons, and you don't seem to want real explanations of why far smaller objects are less visible even though they are closer... so what sort of explanation, exactly, are you looking for?

The same reason that you can see the geography of our own Moon a quarter-million miles away, but can't spot a communications satellite that's 10 times closer. Your eyes don't have the resolution to pick out something that's thousands of times smaller than a celestial body. Your ship is certainly less than 100m in diameter, orbiting 280km away. Minmus is 60km across, orbiting 47,000 km away.

It's also significantly smaller than Minmus... by several orders of magnitude.

First of all, use a tug or payload assist module to put new station components in place. If you launch each module with its own RCS thursters and monopropellant storage, the part count climbs fast. Also, minimize use of lights by strategic placement. If you put them in the right place, they can illuminate an area, rather than just one port or an incoming vessel. The best way to keep part counts low is by designing the entire thing first - either in the VAB or in your head. You needn't launch it all as one, but it helps to know how things are going together in order to place parts effectively.

Part Catalog works nicely for me - I actually find it more user-friendly than Simple Part Catalog. The only feature I'd like to see added is the ability to sort/hide parts by size.

Perhaps, but from what I've seen, they tend to be glitch, unbalanced, or otherwise lacking - or we wouldn't have so many of them. People want you to do it because they know it will be good and it will work.

"NASA" got theirs from a guy who wrote the program, too. Regardless of the fact that he may work for NASA, it's not like the pilots wrote their own autopilot. So if I fly and Sarbian wrote my autopilot, what's the difference? I actually saw some mental pygmies criticizing someone for using MechJeb to launch and fly the BURAN. Seriously, why do we allow people that stupid to even speak?

It's how the Minecraft set got made. And if KSP isn't LEGO rockets on the computers, I don't know what is! I'd buy KSP LEGO sets for sure!

I think it looks more "rocket-y" with the ribs, yeah.

Also, if you can, design the station completely in the VAB, then break it into smaller sections for launch. It's not strictly necessary, but it gives you a better idea of what goes where and how, and the way everything will be when it's put together.

Indeed - that would be very nice. One could make a ship carrying all of the world's forests that way!

Also, use the egg fairings instead of the conic ones if you want a "bullet" shape.

Well, Starwaster, that absolutely nailed all the issues I've been having with an Apollo-style payload bay. Set it up as you advised and took up a few test flights. Once I got the setup worked out, everything went smoothly from there. ...well, at least as smoothly as anything does in KSP. First test separated the fairings during the coast to Kerbin apoapsis, leaving the CSM drifting ahead of the rocket on a ballistic arc. For kicks, I decided to try and dock the CSM to the lander before everything fell back to the surface. I did it, so the mission wasn't a complete waste! Once I figured out the proper staging and made orbit, I practiced the LM extraction in Kerbin orbit - whereupon I learned that you cannot do a trans-Münar insertion with the CSM docked to the LM, because the thrust will crush the lander. But now my failures are of the more traditional variety - that is to say, refining the construction of the rocket and the proper way to conduct maneuvers. So now that you have helped me figure out the interstage fairings, I can concentrate on that!

I had the same problem when I assembled my MIR station - it would start to shake itself and was in danger of tearing itself apart. As you did, I found that switching to the Space Center and back via the Tracking Station helped. At that point, I made sure to disable all peripheral sources of torque (only the core retained its powered torque) and turned off SAS for good measure. Also, if you're using MechJeb, make sure SmartA.S.S. is off before leaving the station.

The most useful thing I'd think someone could do if they wanted to do a Let's Play is to do what Direwolf20 does for Minecraft: Make a post with links to the mods you're using, and an annotated video that shows how to install them properly. But honestly, installing a KSP mod is even easier than installing a Minecraft mod - you don't have to modify the executable, and seriously - anyone who can't unzip a folder into GameData probably shouldn't be permitted near electrical appliances in the first place.

From a 200km orbit (as in this tutorial), that much dV gives me a 35.1 Mm orbit. I van get an intercept on a very narrow section of the orbit, takes a bit of finesse to get it down low enough - but a couple shots at a free return trajectory. Is that a fuel-efficient burn? Sounds like that much thrust would waste a lot of fuel. But yes, it does work. Thanks.

So the lander goes directly onto the base (well, on a decoupler that then goes directly onto the base), and the CSM goes on the floating node? Thank you so much - this has been the problem I've been having from the start. I guess I wasn't articulating my issue well enough, but this approach sounds like it will be the solution. I'll go give it a try.

On Kerbin, I deploy my chutes after re-entry heat has dissipated (so usually about 10km). They slow me sufficiently to avoid shock separation when they open. If that's still happening to you, reinforce your ships better so that they don't come apart from the shock, and/or consider using a drogue to slow it down before your main chutes open.