Anquietas314

Did you just not read what I said at all? You say it is in front, when it should be behind, I was explaining why that's wrong. Consider, if the +/- buttons were behind other UI elements, you would have difficulty clicking on them when you want to. I've certainly never found a single instance where they were in the way of something else, but I am open to the possibility. EDIT: As an obvious example, I tried adding about 20 stack decouplers with default staging, which makes the stage list appear over the "Exit" button in the VAB. You can scroll that list with the mousewheel though, which means it's not an issue. If you were being pedantic I suppose you could say the VAB's top bar and its buttons should be above the staging list, but since you can scroll it it doesn't matter. EDIT2: This also does not appear to be a problem for mod GUIs: The windows do suffer from click-through, but that's a separate problem.

This doesn't currently exist in game, but there's nothing to stop you from just grabbing the files from your save folder (KSP/saves/<savename>/Ships/(VAB or SPH)/) and storing them somewhere safe. It would be nice to have something like that in the game, but it's not really necessary.

By being very, very careful. Also, you can use markers like straight lines on the textures to help

As someone who's never fully understood the lon/lat system, just looking at those numbers does not tell me much at all Also the navball can tell you what direction it is; activate navigation on the target and you get a nice little marker on the navball that you can follow. If you don't know what direction it is, you can check the map for a rough estimate, seeing as the navball tells you what direction you're currently facing. It would be nice to have something like this for EVA though.

It would help if you provided a screenshot showing your staging layout and ship, but have you checked if you have stage lock on (MOD(Alt)+L by default - it turns the stage light blue), or if you're on docking mode? Also don't worry about sounding stupid, this is a game about rocket science Everybody does something incredibly stupid at least once Oh and welcome to the forums (and KSP)

Really we wouldn't need a proper light source. You can see the tier 2 spaceplane hanger from orbit if you look close - it's a big white dot at night. That would be perfectly adequate for runway lights.

I take it you were unaware the game models the fact the exhaust plasma can push things?

You could just stick the landing gear on strut pieces, which would give you more room. Hopefully the bigger landing gears that are coming will make that sort of hack unnecessary though

Err, I was talking specifically about the Vx(x)2/R term... which we spent pretty much 10 pages arguing over in the other thread. As for experience, neither model uses a realistic flight plan (there's almost always hills in the way), so frankly in my opinion it doesn't matter very much.

Hold MOD(Alt on windows) while placing the cargo. That'll force it to only connect via the node, which is what you want. Given the length of your cargo, it might flex and clip through the bay anyway, in which case just secure it with struts Obviously that complicates things when you're returning something of a similar size, but an old expression regarding crossing bridges comes to mind

That's how I play Works great for me, although I added the StageRecovery mod to alleviate some of the tedium. Plus technically it's really just fixing a long-standing "bug"/feature.

You misunderstood: I meant that arkies only aims to be able to accurately estimate the efficiency of a burn to orbit, while yours also aims to cover up to escape velocity (perhaps after fixing the vertical acceleration issue assuming it really is a problem). Oh come now, it wasn't that hard , just some pretty basic algebra

Well, no, that's not correct. It will cost you more delta-V to complete the same maneuver (particularly if it's a high-deltaV one) with an ion engine (if it's all done in one burn - probably even if you break it up) in KSP than it will to use a mainsail. Of course with the mainsail it'll cost way more fuel due to ISP difference, but there you are.

Could you be more specific about what's confusing you about contracts? As for mining, there is the Karbonite mod which is sort of competing with kethane . I haven't used it personally but it does look pretty decent

Well, strictly speaking, the purpose of arkie's model is just to get to orbit right? Yours goes a little further and aims for escape velocity. Based on the model itself though, if your angle is calculated to cancel vertical acceleration, then when you're above orbital speed you'll start thrusting downwards instead of upwards; in equation (2) this is because g < Vx(t)2 / R0 for Vx(t) > orbital velocity.

Remember you don't need to send the Kerbals, just the base

Maybe, but the game does specifically warn you against using it with big rockets. If you proceed anyway you do so at your own risk I suppose you could try Kerbal Joint Reinforcement or similar, but I'm not sure if it would help.

Sounds like an interesting idea. The only option in stock is the tracking station, and I haven't seen any mods that use or simulate a more realistic approach :/

Protip: do not crash an asteroid into the ocean. EVER. I tried that with the asteroid I smashed into Kerbin back in 0.23.5 They just go boom. Of course, if you can get one into the water after landing it on land, it'll probably float.

Well, if you would provide a formula that could calculate t_star, we could see, otherwise I simply don't care enough to bother doing that myself

Ah, great. That'll do nicely thanks (btw, you slightly botched the URL; there's two http://'s)

Why not? You can use the new Mk3 parts to lift things on this scale. Granted it's a lot of work, but in terms of (money spent - money recovered) it will probably be cheaper than a giant rocket like that.

Ahem... the definition of economical: adjective giving good value or return in relation to the money, time, or effort expended. synonyms: cheap, inexpensive, low-cost, low-price, low-budget, [...] antonyms: expensive (of a person or lifestyle) careful not to waste money or resources. That's why. Economics is about allocating resources efficiently; if you're wasting resources, you're obviously not being efficient with them. Your analogy doesn't work though if you don't actually have a use for the scanning and fax capabilities of your multifunction printer; if you pay for features you don't need or at least foresee a need for, that's not being economical. This is of course assuming those features come with extra cost, which these days isn't really true any more - you can get a decent multifunction printer for under £20, and a single-purpose inkjet printer for about the same price - actually some are more expensive. SSTO spaceplanes that take off from the runway are much cheaper than shuttles, and considerably easier to make

The prefixes G M and K mean Giga, Mega and Kilo respectively. Basically, 1 Mm = 1,000,000m, 1Gm = 1,000,000,000m, and you of course already know Kilo. The Mm dishes are what you should use for transmitting to Mun and Minmus (and back), while you're going to need to use Gm ones for reaching the other planets and such. Be very careful not to use a dish with too much range though, because those have a very narrow focus; even right next to the sun the longest range antennae doesn't really have a wide enough focus to stay locked on to long-range satellites beyond Mun's orbit if you just set it to target Kerbin (makes life easy because you don't need to constantly switch between your long-range satellites as they get near to going behind Kerbin/Mun/...). Ahem, see previous answer You should probably use the shortest range antennae that can still reach KSC from the satellite's orbit. Since you should be pointing one dish specifically at mission control it doesn't really matter, but the short-range ones don't have much mass which keeps launch costs down It sounds like you should bump up the difficulty settings , but rep is basically what unlocks the better contracts - high rep = good contracts. But yes, convert science points to something useful - if you keep losing Kerbals you may want to convert to rep, but usually money's the better choice.

Yeah, the problem here is just that you should never use 4x timewarp with the 3.75m parts - especially not with the engine running.