Leatherneck

Well that solved my problem I think. I wasn't paying attention, and going nuts wondering why it wasn't working, since I had near identical orbits to what was asked. Going in the right direction helps lol. EDIT: Yes. I just had to flip my orbit around.

^ This. The first Space Station I built, was to force me to learn docking. I told myself no interplanetary missions until I could dock consistently. I found that around 150 km was my "sweet spot", and there's a tutorial video or two that I've seen that also puts it there. Not sure why the OP is opposed to watching one, especially the Scott Manley one, but to each his own.

@Amramand Murph Thanks for the information. Like Nao, I too know how wings work, and for me Bernoulli's Principle has always been the simplest explanation of lift. There's a lot less math involved, and the simple diagram usually is enough to satisfy curiosity.

Okay, where's the source on that? Your description goes directly against Bernoulli's principle, or you are also describing it incorrectly. The air going over the top of the wing (standard shape) has to move faster than the bottom, which causes lower pressure on the top, and the higher pressure air underneath pushes the wing up. It has nothing to do with air being pushed down. This is why you can stall an aircraft from too steep of an angle of attack, because the air flow "breaks" and you get a dead zone which breaks up the effect. Flaps (back of wing) and Slats (front of wing) will affect the shape of the wing to alter for changes in airspeed and the desire for more/less lift, but the principle remains the same.

Of course they're going to ignore your post, it's far easier to ignore it than address it with a valid counterpoint.

I agree, but Deadly Re-Entry should be a toggle off option for newer players at least.

For starters, we're doing Aerospace Engineering, which encompasses both. You can't really have one without the other, and since both are in the game, ignoring the aerodynamics is basically like only exercising one arm, so I would not say it is a relatively small part of the complete picture. It affects the rockets, SSTO Spaceplanes, and standard aircraft. You shouldn't need a mod to have a relatively accurate model in a game that chose to include aerodynamics. We're not talking about DCS or MSFS, but as it is we launch square rockets because round ones are less aerodynamic... It's not about aesthetics either. I've built a lot of stable aircraft to explore the many biomes of Kerbin, and people have made wonderful stock craft that don't need a mod. However, for the beginning player, exploring Kerbin with an aircraft shouldn't be as frustrating as it is. If you have to come to the forums to understand the basics of making a plane with the system currently in place, that should say something. Launching a rocket is far more intuitive, because it's simpler to an extent as it is. I want resources and economy just as much as everyone else, but this is right up there. I like to play stock (although I use Chatterer, Protractor, and Kerbal Alarm Clock, but that doesn't affect the game mechanics) but I shouldn't have to use a mod to enjoy a part of the game just because people want a new feature before fixing the less than ideal one.

Now just needs some scarlet & gold.

I'd have to go with this. My lander can now be shaved of a lot of extra mass, and I don't have to send multiple missions, probes, etc. While I can't speak for anything past Duna yet, I'd assume the efficiency of packing the Science Lab with a light lander is going to save me more weight overall.

Great job! I only just got my first rover onto Duna about an hour ago, which you'd think I'd have accomplished sooner with 176 hours put into KSP. Partly out of procrastination, partly to master the Mun/Minmus and Docking, and partly because I thought it was going to be far more daunting. Fortunately, it was not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. I may have experienced rapid vehicle dis-assembly with the sky crane in the process, but I got the rover on the surface long enough to transmit some science. Too bad I forgot a solar panel... However, I did get a good spot with the rover to land on, so I think a manned mission is the next step. I agree that it is really even more rewarding though when you make a manned round trip.

Lol. You wanna know why Bill and Bob freak out every launch? It is because Jeb is saying "You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?" (The quote is from Armageddon.)

It gets cold when you aren't under your bridge.

I've only done something similar between Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus, but I slingshot around. Catch the SOI on a burn, do a course correction to get a change in orbit, then use the gravity to pull my course in the direction I need. I've found I need a good window to do stuff like that. Best way is how NASA did the Apollo missions to the moon, doing a "Figure-8" without obviously going back and forth. Also, what side of the planet you catch makes a difference in speed. One way will slow you down, good for saving Delta-V if you're planning on surveying that object, and the other will speed you up which is what Scott Manley is probably doing. I'm not sure which video you're referring to though, so I can't say for sure.

EDIT: ^ Best answer.

Lol, I had to show my wife this, she laughed. To the OP, congrats. Just don't try to put more boosters on space mountain if you honeymoon at Disneyland. Security gets mad.