Anquietas314

Hmm, your suggestion just provided the solution: place an octagonal strut somewhere, surface-attach one cubic strut to it, then use the re-root tool to make the cubic strut the root, attach something to it, then make THAT the root, and voila; you have a surface-attached octagonal strut you can then pick up and reattach via the cubic strut (be careful not to separate them though) As a proof of concept:

Having just tried to replicate this, I think I understand what you're doing wrong: You can't attach the octagonal strut to a cubic strut edge-to-edge. Indeed, it seems you can't surface-attach the octagonal strut at all.

Which docking ports are you referring to? Upgrading between sizes is not a good idea for pretty obvious reasons, and adding a shield to the clamo-o-tron isn't really necessary in space.

I'm sorry arkie, but I feel compelled to educate you on basic mathematics: Let's assume a perfect circular orbit, then r is a positive constant, which means r'' is 0. Now, v_theta is a real number (i.e. not a complex one), which means v_theta^2 is positive (or 0 - but this is a very odd case), which means a_r is negative (or 0). The only explanation for this is gravity; the fact constants are not mentioned is irrelevant, because these are absorbed into the v_theta value.

It would be considerably faster to actually use a plane facing west and use a low throttle to drive around Crew reports can be used to tell you when you're in the right place.

Having landed on Tylo back when it was first added, purely stock, I think I can handle a nice easy - if risky - Mun landing However, it isn't quite the same thing as the horizontal approach; there you generally have to start aiming above the horizon to stop yourself from falling. The idea with a suicide burn (intended from mission start) is to go nuts on TWR and come to a stop as fast as possible, which if done right means you don't need to aim above the horizon (of course, you do need to leave enough space underneath you ) because you won't start falling quickly enough for it to matter. It's a subtle difference, but an important one

Technically you don't have to be falling nearly-vertical to do a suicide burn. A tiny burn to bring your periapsis just below the surface (near the landing site) will let you do a suicide burn almost horizontally. The tricky part of course is getting from that orientation into a vertical one before you hit the ground

You can in the VAB/SPH. It's not really clear if the OP meant in flight or not though.

Dispatcher: the StageRecovery mod would probably save you quite a bit of time/effort

Well, I stuck it on top and used 2 batteries (they're only 80 funds, who gives a damn ) instead of 1 and 2 solars, but in terms of probe core / tank / engine choice it's identical

Actually it's pretty much identical to my own satellite design - except I used a liquid fuelled launcher - and I generally find I have almost 1km/s extra delta-V lol. A quick comparison in the VAB shows my design at launch has an extra 200m/s or so compared to that, so delta-V is most certainly not an issue totally not going to steal that design >_> EDIT: damnit, ninja'd lol

Nice Technically if you wanted to be a tiny bit cheaper you could get away with just 2 solar panels (or 1 if you don't mind being a little reckless) and being careful with how the satellite's rotated

No problem

You should read what I said again: I said it (referring to your orbit) should be counter-clockwise when viewed from normal of the target orbit, not yours.

Print Screen doesn't normally save the picture anywhere, at least on windows. It should be in your clipboard - paste it into Paint or Imgur or something else that supports pasting

Check the contract - it might want you to use "run test" in the right click menu for the engine.

Sure; it makes keeping track of where you have and haven't been a lot easier

Well, the real moon doesn't have any volcanic activity at all... seems logical the Mun shouldn't either, and really the reflectivity of the surface material wouldn't make much difference unless it was nearly a perfect reflector. I do think there should be a distinction between temperature during the day and at night though

I've had quite a lot of contracts that require me to do aerial temperature scans on Kerbin... I don't really want to see those go away, though for the time investment they could probably do with higher payouts. Of course, that is a case where having it be biome-specific would make sense - air temperature varies depending on location.

Well, sort of. It should actually be counter-clockwise when viewed from the "normal" direction of the target orbit (which, in the case of a "prograde" orbit, is north or close to it). Prograde really just means "in the same direction as" - in the case of a target orbit, the same direction as the orbit, and in the case of just a "prograde orbit", the same direction as the rotation of the planet/star/... you're orbiting. I should probably have been clearer in my previous post.

EDIT: original title/OP focused on biomes rather than new science. Overall I think this is a good idea, but there are a few problems with it, at least given the way most experiments currently work: when you're in the air (or in the case of an airless body, "in space") many experiments don't care about the biome you're flying over, including crew reports for in space. Obviously you can "fix" that by just having every experiment depend on biomes in those situations, but that has its own issues: you'd have way too many places/situations to do every experiment, which is going to get pretty tedious fast, and it's probably going to screw with the already pretty dodgy science balancing, plus some experiments shouldn't be affected by biome (why would temperature be different in space above the Mun in each biome?).

Level 2 is adequate. It's called "resource transfer", because it covers more than just fuel.

This sounds like a bug and probably should be in one of the support forums, but do you have any mods installed, and what operating system do you use? Also see this thread for the full bug reporting guidelines

You burn normal at a descending node in a prograde orbit, and anti-normal in a retrograde one to zero out the inclination difference.

Actually I've found this is completely backwards; if you select a part adjacent to the one you want to be the new root, then the one you want to be the root, the new root is actually the second one you clicked, not the first. Of course if you click the same part twice that works too, which seems to suggest having to click multiple things is completely redundant. It's certainly possible for the game to rearrange the tree automatically based on selecting a single specific part as the root; the algorithm is a simple matter of applying various tree "rotations" to move the part upwards to the root.