Pecan

U know that you press the key for lights in the vehicles? U might like to try that one on EVA. It changed before 1.8

(Anti-)Normal is relative to the orbit, so should work exactly the same whatever inclination the orbit has. You are rather missing a trick if you're orienting the ship so the docking ports are still pro- or retro-grade. Something (like an incoming docking ship) that is trailing in orbit will still be trailing on the other side of the planet but since the vehicles are not rotating it will have gone from pointing towards the target vehicle to pointing exactly the other way. Similarly, the target docking port would then be facing away from the docking vessel. Instead, the usual plan is to have the docking ports aligned in the normal/anti-normal direction so there is no need to keep rotating vehicles or flying around the target.

This has 1km/s more than it needs. Pitched 10 degrees at 90m/s after launch, waited for prograde to catch up, then fixed SAS prograde until apoapsis set. Big fairing, no fins, SRBs doing the steering.

Yeah, he's a games-journalist "shock jock", camps it up madly and all that but he was an experienced journalist before he went YouTube, really knows what he's talking about and, more to the point for me, actually scripts and edits videos rather than just waffling like so many people do on YT. Nevertheless, he's definitely not for everyone, I mention him more as the sort of person likely to shout about this stuff than as a recommendation to watch him. Long time ago for EA though ^^. I can't speak for Activision-Blizzard as I've never played, nor wanted to play, any of their games. Bethesda's behaviour would be odd since they were genuinely-affectionately known as 'bugesda' but still had a loyal following. Apparently there's some big buyout/finance deal going down though, so they're price-gouging to look good to investors or something. Have to say that Take Two haven't done anything offensive with KSP 1, despite the review-bombing over their new EULA and the DRM/spyware. And I forgot about Ubisoft. I always forget about Ubisoft.

Action groups are very useful, especially for stuff which doesn't really belong in 'staging' - toggling ladders & solar panels, undocking, etc. Look at the buttons at the top-left in the VAB and ask if you have any problems but note that in career mode (aka 'how to make learning hard for no reason mode') you need to upgrade a building or two before you have access to them.

Bethesda again, in fact :-) How could it not be, considering the show that they're putting on? Nah, there's nothing to complain about in KSP 2 yet - there's only an announcement trailer at this point. He's not a fan of "AAA" publishers, T2 or Strauss Zelnick though. My point is only that with the price-hike to USD $60, DLC announced before the game is even demo'd and everything else he's *might* to have something to say once it does release. Unless EA, Activision-Blizzard and Bethesda continue to believe, somewhat oddly, that there's no such thing as bad publicity and hog the limelight for atrocious behaviour. It's hard to imagine how they could behave any worse but they presumably get paid so much for managing to think of new ways to annoy customers.

Action groups for manually activating decouplers regardless of position in the staging stack. (Set in the VAB during construction or can now be set in-flight. Allows number keys plus a few others to activate just about anything that can be activated). For automatics you'd need a mod, probably an autopilot one such as MechJeb (MJ) or KoS. PS: Making a heavier vehicle doesn't mean you need more dV. dV already includes calculation based on mass so as the vehicle gets heavier your dV (and TWR) goes down. What you need is more fuel/better engines to bring your dV back up to whatever the mission requirements are. Eg; it always takes 3,400 m/s to launch to orbit (roughly) but it's easier to achieve that much with a lighter vehicle. As a separate issue note that you can 'tweak' (right-click and adjust in the VAB) SRBs to produce less thrust over a longer period, which may help with stage timing when mixed with LF.

Thank god for Jim Sterling.

KSP, never less than 94% positive user-reviews in its Steam lifetime, was review-bombed like hell when the new spyware and EULA were announced. Yeah, it is no more surprising than it is welcome. Take Two's also the reason I will not be paying USD $60 for KSP 2

Take Two Interactive introduced it to KSP 1 when they bought it. Why would they leave it out of their new cash-cow?

Git gud, noob! (Yes, I'm joking and know I've taken that out of context). But seriously - Have you thought of looking, or posting, in the 'tutorial' sub-forum? There are whole books, days of video and other media there. It can always stand to be rearranged and updated but a 'youtube video' or 'wiki page' is perhaps underestimating the task. As an example, think of how you'll precis 31 pages of 'tips' from: (There are more too, but that'll do for a start))

And yet each console platform will be so similar to the others that they are compatible? It seems more likely the "can't do crossplay with PCs" mindset is just because of the FPS/competitive cheat-mod problem - which doesn't apply to co-operative multiplayer. PS: I've just been promoting your (now) Probe Control Room for KSP 2 as well

So then, if consoles need to be stock in order to crossplay, what is to stop a stock PC install joining in? Just because PCs can be modded it doesn't mean they must be. In any case in modded installs it is trivial to eliminate any vehicles using unsupported parts-mods (as they are in currect KSP 1 with each update) and non-parts mods such as KER, MJ, etc. do not have any unwanted multiplayer implications for co-operative multiplayer.

We at the Dres tourist office would like to assure visitors that our highly trained security professionals follow a firm but polite and non-violent policy while escorting guests off-planet at the termination, in a very definite sense, of their visit. Note that in case of debts space ships - and indeed suits - may be siezed in lieu of payment before guests are evicted via the spaceport airlocks.

Indeed :-) I don't want to overstate the cons either. I'm sure Star Theory will do as good a job as possible and KSP 2 really should be a better starting-point for future enhancements than KSP 1. It's only that bug-free code doesn't exist and, so far, the 'AAA' approach has been untested for KSP and is usually a bad sign everywhere else.

How about just not bothering? Although the tutorials are fairly useful and can be fun they can also be frustrating and generally aren't necessary. Get out and have some fun. You've probably learnt how to build and launch vehicles and a bit about orbital maneuvers - blast off! There's loads you can do in Kerbin airspace and orbit plus you can send satellites to all the other planets and moons without landing. Look at YouTube or other tutorials on landing - make sure they're up to date with your version of KSP! Have another practice when you feel like it. The important thing is to start having some fun :-)

Yes, it should be possible. Your post is probably better in the "add-on development" section, as it's not a tutorial. I'll wave to a mod for you and they should move it.

Probe Control Room would be great too, but since it's a whole new scene it's probably too much for Star Theory and will have to continue as a mod :-( (if you don't already use it, see https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/166760-151-probe-control-room-recontrolled/ for what you've been missing).

I have absolutely no faith that Star Theory will be able to release a bug-free game and very little trust in Take Two to invest much in improving it. Like you said, "the marketing is top notch, that trailer wasn't cheap" [my bold] shows the money missed the developers. Hype virtually precludes performance.

It could always be modded, of course. If you can't wait, you can get the free version of 1993's "Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space" from https://www.raceintospace.org/ and marvel at those 26 year-old graphics. Actually, it contains some pretty neat, original (if small) film and audio clips for the launches and major milestones.

Almost, but I would say that 'the problem' we have at the moment is the huge disparity between how much game content indie titles provide and 'AAA' don't, for twice the price. Quite simply, big name publishers used to be an assurance of quality whereas now they are the opposite - you are more likely to get an unfinished, buggy and content-free 'AAA' game for USD $60 than a $30 indie one. That's part of the reason they subtract gameplay and parcel it all into countless DLC for which you will, individually, pay more than the game is actually worth. Industry analysts (and I am a software developer) also point out that 'the cost' of developing an 'AAA' game is mostly in publisher profits, not in programmer/animator/artist/actor fees. That is. it costs a lot to make an 'AAA' game because their bosses are multi-millionaires who want another mansion, not because any more effort goes into making a better product, quite the reverse. (Incidentally:- you can buy a gun and shoot yourself in the foot but you'd have to daft to do it deliberately. Steam lists Rimworld 'DLC' as name in game access £11.39 and soundtrack £5.79. The rimworld site itself just has the full game pack $35 (Canadian?) and Name in Game Pack $50. It doesn't list any 'bonus' content at all. There are loads of mods, free unless you're mad, but where do you get this '$500' cost from?)

Hmmm, Just made a little mock-up 38-tonne payload where the command/habitation module looks like a reasonable copy of yours but the lander/rover's a lot simpler. Then I put the fairing base between the command pod and the hitchhiker so the fairing is much, much smaller and less draggy. It means carrying that base for the rest of the mission but there are (awkward and massy) ways around that if necessary. As a first approximation I put a stack of 2 jumbo-64s and a mainsail under the payload then 2 similar side-stacks with nosecones and 4 basic fins each. This gives just over 3.4km/s dV and a launch TWR of 1.55 but your payload is probably a bit heavier than mine so it might work out about right for you. That's a lot of fuel and engine but it easily SSTOs the payload to a 75km, circularised orbit. I had no steering/control issues at all. To be honest, even a full-length fairing didn't make that much difference, so I'll await your payload details and try again with those.

If you'd like to tell me the mass and height of your payload lander+command module as shown in picture 2 I will attempt to design a launch vehicle for it, just to illustrate how I'd go about it. My first step, however, would be to reduce the fairing so that it only covers the lander and probably the command pod. Specifically, I wouldn't extend the fairing to cover the fuel tanks and engine as you have, it just adds too much ... everything really (drag, mass, cost, difficulty - take your pick).

Too late, I've already bought KSP three times and both expansions twice. (KSP store, then Steam+expansions for me and as a present for one of my friends). I think I'll stop now, until KSP 2 is on sale at a reasonable price.

As paul23 said, a geostationary satellite needs to have 0 degrees inclination. A 'geosynchronous' satellite does not, it just needs a 24-hour orbital period, regardless of inclination. A satellite in a circular geosynchronous distance and say 5 degrees inclination will appear to move up and down in a North-South line between +/- 5 degrees. With 10 degrees inclination, +/- 10 degrees and so on, until you get to 90 degrees where it's in polar orbit and going backwards and forwards between +/- 90 degrees. If the orbit is eccentric rather than properly circular a satellite (including the real moon) will appear to move backwards and forward East-West in a similar way. It will 'fall behind' (whether that's East or West depends on which way around it's orbiting) in its orbit as it climbs and slows from periapsis to apoapsis and will then race ahead as it speeds-up falling back from apoapsis to periapsis. TL;DR To appear stationary a satellite must be in a circular equatorial orbit (and, obviously have the same 24-hour-and-a-little-bit orbital period as the Earth's rotation). Any inclination will make the satellite appear to oscillate North-South, any eccentricity will make it appear to oscillate East-West. Both together will have it apparently going around in little circles/ovals/whatever.