Pecan

Navyfish's docking alignment mod will give you an exact roll figure, as will RPM's docking mode (I believe). Alternatively you can always let MJ do it for you.

Oooh, yeah, so it does. Doesn't have one of those padlocky thingys though, does it? One of the part-welding mods might help you a lot. They work by taking similar parts such as fuel tanks and making them into a single, larger, part. When you're talking of small ships with, already, several hundred parts they can make quite a difference. They can't cope with parts of completely different types - say a lab and an engine - because they can't work out what type to make the result but within their limitations they're worth a look.

Rest assured there's nothing wrong with finding these manoeuvres hard. Like a lot of things, once you get it you'll wonder why it took so long, but they ARE the hardest things in real-life as well as KSP. And we don't have a team of mathematicians and physicists with banks of computers planning every step for months before the mission is even approved. There's also nothing wrong with letting MJ do it for you until you're ready for some more practice. Just promise yourself not to rely on it ^^.

This is rather the point, as Jouni (I think) said with: If you're only doing career because "after a while it pretty much became sandbox" then what is the point? Squad are still working on it, as they've said, but at the moment the 'end game' of career mode is simply to become sandbox - it just doesn't add anything, unless you're already experienced and want to see how quickly/efficiently you can meet otherwise pointless contract 'challenges'.

You needed saving

The major, over-riding thing about spaceplanes vs rockets is that with the 'planes you're going to be spending much more time in atmosphere than with rockets. If you like flying in atmosphere - and you've bothered to install NEAR so I assume you do - then you're just going to have to learn to live with the limitations of aircraft in KSP. If you like flying in space then, even with spaceplanes, the amount of time you spend in atmosphere is too trivial to worry about - certainly too trivial to spend all the time on them that they take.

No. If I wanted to play with ancient Earth machines made by someone else I'd be messing-around with Orbiter. I want to build my machines the way I want to using KSP rules, so I play KSP. I don't do missions Apollo-style because they don't make sense in KSP. I particularly don't do US Shuttle replicas because they don't make sense.

I can't tell if this is a real question or not - it's that time of night/morning when I'm thinking-impared again. Just on the off-chance that someone doesn't know what we're talking about: Look at where the nosecone meets the body of the rocket. Look down the picture from there to the crater below the rocket. Towards the bottom edge of that crater is A FRIGGIN HUGE MUN-ARCH! (Trust me, when you get there you'll find out just how big it is)

To be fair the recent devnotes says they are working on it: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/88741-Devnote-Tuesdays-The-Administrative-Edition To be completely unfair - in the same thread when I asked if they had an interim form of words or would accept those I offered (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/88741-Devnote-Tuesdays-The-Administrative-Edition?p=1317398&viewfull=1#post1317398) I got exactly no response whatsoever. Since Squad have chosen not to respond in any way at this time we must, by international convention, consider the EULA and subsequent statements (such as quoted above) to be the whole of our agreement. IANAL, rules within your jurisdiction* may vary, and all that, but I damn well am someone who's paid copyright lawyers enough to tell me these things over the years. Nevertheless - have a look at the PDF version of the tutorial in my signature; it has enough blurb on page 1 that whatever Squad come up with later I can show I was attempting to comply with unclear requirements. If you think it might rain, carry an umbrella. (Just what is the ruling jurisdiction here anyway? I assume Mexico, but I've never seen anything from Squad that says so).

Finally finished checking and amending the PDF for 0.24.2. From now the PDF version should be considered definitive; text in this thread will be updated as a final step. For the moment that'll still proceed slowly until I've got a reliable set of macros for reformatting from LibreOffice to BBCode.

Nice first post - welcome to the forums :-) I think you're talking about the way spokes are arranged on a classic lightweight wire bicycle wheel, and for much the same reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoke#mediaviewer/File:Bicycle_wheel.jpg

LEGAL NOTICE! The oversight committee is determined to terminate the employment of any pilot using the escape system to reach designated targets instead of landing correctly. Legal proceedings for wilful damage will also be brought against such pilots, seeking recompense in full. KSC cannot continue to lose this number of aircraft and this practice must stop immediately! ...Oh sorry, that's my roleplay, not yours...

(my underlining)You have a problem with being able to do it better? KSP's universe is different, the parts are different, the distances are different, only the physics is (more or less) the same. Apollo-style is a complicated way to do a Mun landing in KSP and trying to force the available parts to look like something they were never meant to be just makes it even more complicated. If you want an accurate simulation of ancient Earth technology try Orbiter, lots of people here use that as well, or have used it. You can't easily build your own ships but there are models of historical ones. Alternatively, if you want to do this in KSP, there are numerous mods of alternative-universe human rockets, including several Apollo ones.

Rendezvous and docking are different skills that different people learn at different speeds. The only real advice is to be patient and keep practicing, you seem to have got all the basics done. Practice with something small and easy (well, easier!) - Docking Drone, Chapter 5: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/79658-Exploring-The-System-A-design-tutorial-campaign?p=1183116&viewfull=1#post1183116

Most people (I think) prefer to build in-space tractors so that they pull loads instead of pushing them. They're much less wobbly that way. In any case only a very low TWR is needed for in-space operations so pushing shouldn't be too awful IF you use standard or large docking ports. If you have to push hard - at launch - then, like the others said, use struts.

I would not consider igniting the engines on a rocket that had not already had unmanned ground-test, including escape system, manned ground-test and escape system. After each test I revert to the VAB because it's quicker than recovery, space-centre, VAB. I check and test at every stage and there's still likely to be staging separation failures when the thing flies - then the escape system gets used for real. Chances are it's not until its fourth or fifth flight that a vehicle goes from launch to orbit. Most of my designs are likely to have had at least 20 test 'flights' while I'm checking alternatives and optimising mass/cost. So, yeah, by the time they're cleared for operational use I'd fly one from launch. Re-usable, permanently in space vehicles I'd definitely fly on. On the other hand there's no chance I'd be test pilot for any of my planes, space or otherwise. But I'd get hitch a ride with Cupcakes in one of his ^^.

Ninja'd before I even opened the thread :-)

No - 250km is optimal. Check the description details in the VAB/SPH.

Totally agree. My tutorial is a sandbox campaign simply because that's the only way to structure missions, progress and the complexity of the required vehicles in a logical order. Satellites lead, manned orbital doesn't even happen until Chapter 4 (of 8). That's the thing I'm not so sure about though. Contracts of the 'test X part at NN altitude and NN speed' sort are a lot harder than they should be for people who don't even know how to design a rocket; especially as Squad won't even show total mass in the VAB/SPH, let alone give us a stock deltaV calculator.

Check out http://www.kerbalmaps.com/

If you want to try an Apollo-like mission there is a ship you can use in Chapter 6 of my tutorial (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/79658-Exploring-The-System-A-design-tutorial-campaign?p=1197077&viewfull=1#post1197077). It is designed NOT to leave half a lander on the surface - but hey, you can always fly it back down after it's returned the crew to the CM.

If you want to carry wings around you should be staying in the atmosphere to use them. If you want to stay in the atmosphere longer than necessary use jets for efficiency. If you want to use jets build horizontal velocity before altitude.

If you can get to orbit, transfer to Mun and get into orbit around that you're already doing a lot. Well done and thanks for your comments.

LOL - I wish I could directly aerobrake and land from encounter with any sort of precision, but I always circularise first so I can take my time picking my landing site.

WARNING! I am having trouble with LV-10-1 in Chapter 5 (used to launch Cartographer Heavy). For some reason it is failing to reach orbit, never mind being able to de-orbit afterwards. This may be an issue with the mods I'm using, their versions and 0.24.2 - a lot of part details have changed. At the moment I think it's probably that the fairings are heavier than in 0.23.5 (when I originally designed the vehicles). While I'm checking this out you might want to launch Cartographer Heavy with either LV-8-A (*yeah*, it gets used at last!) or LV-25-S (from Chapter 7). Or design your own launch vehicle, of course :-) ETA: And the answer is - LV-10-1 needs an X200-32 fuel tank in place of the X200-16. It's odd, nearly all the other vehicles have been unaffected or improved by the version changes. This is the only one I've found that actually needs a design change.