Anquietas314

Nope, but it's a great idea and certainly possible . It might be a bit tricky to do though

Hmm. Well, I installed the precise nodes mod a couple hours ago and am in the middle of a few simultaneous Mun satellite contracts. I can plot a few dummy maneuver nodes to test each case EDIT: The results for a 8x8km orbit using a direct return to Kerbin from LMO with 32km periapsis at Kerbin: 273.8m/s required in a prograde orbit 279.1m/s required in a retrograde orbit using my method. Those are both the minimum needed, determined by tweaking the node time and prograde vector. Not a lot in it to be honest, but I guess my method's slightly less efficient. Oh well There is also the small caveat of the plotted orbits not being perfectly equatorial, so I guess that might be a factor.

Which is exactly what is illustrated?

From what I hear, you can launch stations in multiple pieces. I don't know about surface bases but I guess it should work. I find it easier to just launch them in one piece though - I just throw them away anyway, so why bother with all those expensive RCS ports/tanks etc for docking?

Okay, now what about the part about returning to Kerbin? The whole point is to leave Mun's SoI as high as possible over Kerbin, with the idea being that it'll save fuel for returning to Kerbin. Obviously you want to do that part in the same burn as your Mun escape though. EDIT: Like this (apologies for crappy paint skills):

Ah. I tend to steer clear of dev builds for obvious reasons. I've probably still got about a week's worth of playtime in my career anyway so fingers crossed it'll be released properly by then bugs, log spam, and more bugs

1) 1600x900 2) windowed 3) default Yeah it's not too much of an issue. It just looks a bit weird is all

No problem I don't suppose you know if it has life support on its own? It doesn't look like TAC's updated yet

Okay, do those domes have a hatch for Kerbals to get in/out with? According to the MKS wiki Habitation modules do not have crew capacity, while Kerbitats do. Going by the description you may need both for it to work. I can't be sure though since I have no experience with the mod (other than noting it looks very cool and it'll definitely be one of the mods I use after I finish my "stock" career ).

I don't use MKS (at least right now); what exactly are those domes? Also, you don't actually need to have kerbals in the base to satisfy the contract; launch it unmanned, it'll save you a lot of hassle dealing with the astronaut limits I think as long as the domes do actually hold crew in a "normal" sense, it should work.

Probably just people being pedantic since indices start from 0 in most programming languages (which occasionally translates to the games themselves...)

Srpadget: do you have a screenshot of that design at all?

They're numbered in the "advanced" tab of the editor. You can filter by "tech level".

Why's that a bad thing? It would be a pretty rare occurrence (once every few Kerbin days for a few minutes). Solar panels are already affected by that anyway. As for eclipse shadows, I do want them but shadows are quite an expensive thing to render, especially if you take the shape of the object into account. I suppose you could just use a big circle for the shadow though and that'd work pretty well

Except if you have lights on the side of your docking port, they may well be exposed while you're in the atmosphere. Of course you should probably not be flying with an exposed docking port with FAR, but I suppose you could use the shielded one. I'm not sure how aerodynamic it is though.

That's what fairings are for . Assuming of course you're not sticking them to the side of your lander or something Proper stock fairings would be good though, but I think those would be necessary with the aerodynamic overhaul that's meant to be coming in 0.91 anyway.

MK3 parts are weak. There's been a few people complaining about that I've seen.

Put a probe body on your rover and control it from there (put it on the front with its "up" vector pointing forwards). That way you have the navball to tell you how fast you're going

You want TWR to be around 1.6-2.0 at launch (much higher means you'll either be fighting drag or have to throttle back). If you have FAR/NAR installed 1.3 is closer to the mark from what I hear. Deviating much in either direction means a lot of deltaV lost to drag or gravity. Apparently with FAR as long as your rocket's aerodynamic there isn't really an upper speed limit though. I'm not sure if it's really the most efficient method, but what I do is launch towards a retrograde (west) orbit and then burn for an escape that drops me outside of Mun's SoI further out than Mun is. That way you don't need as much deltaV to return to Kerbin (still best to do the deorbit burn inside Mun's SoI though!). EDIT: Nope. Definitely not the most efficient. You're better to use a prograde orbit as others have suggested (see this post for data)

Yeah, don't worry too much about it. Most of my (smaller) designs just use the structural ones too. They fly just fine On bigger planes the mass of the intakes is completely negligible. I'm not entirely sure if FAR affects intakes much though. I don't use it.

You might be aware already, but it seems it's a bit derpy if the ETA is more than a day Also, it's so far down on my screen that it really doesn't need to move for the altimeter sliding (and it slightly overlaps the timewarp notification)

This tutorial might be helpful to you. There is also the in-game tutorials which, while not very thorough, should at least let you get to grips with the basics

The structural ones are quite good for packing them into a small area, which is good for some of the smaller planes where you simply don't have anywhere handy to put the node-attached ones. They're not the most efficient, granted, but they do look pretty cool

The problem there has nothing to do with intake air btw. It's more the whole asymmetric thrust = crazy flat spin fun time thing

For a spaceplane, where the center of mass is doesn't actually matter very much. What matters is where it is in relation to your center of lift and to a lesser extent center of thrust - ideally you want CoM just ahead of CoL in most cases, with the CoT aligned with the CoM. In principle you can build reasonable aircraft with only 4 techs, yes. Those techs being basic rocketry, survivability, flight control and aerodynamics. That is, if you want to use jet engines. I'm not sure if those techs are ones that require all their pre-requisites or just one of them though. You can also use the LV-909 instead but it's very inefficient for planes. EDIT: double lightning ninja'd. nice guys