Pecan

Ohhh yeah! First landings on any planet/moon are enough to pop my wheels too. Oh, you mean, so, not a euphemism then ... Easiest fix, if landing on the engine as Snark suggests doesn't work, is to put some legs on there too. Just adjust their height so when you retract them the lander settles onto the wheels.

The biggest problem with surface bases/miners is docking the separate components as slopes and suspension can both wreck the alignment of docking-ports. I'd suggest the KIS/KAS mods so you can connect a pipeline whenever you want to. With this you just need any old rover/lander that can get close enough to the miner.

Transfer windows = planetary alignment = efficient (lower dV) Hohmann transfer. You can go any time or transfer faster but it will always need more dV. That's the whole point. Funny engines might get you 'there' faster or whatever but they'll still need to provide the acceleration somehow. If you don't want to use MJ [insert]you might like to[/insert] try Precise Node.

Both, and VOID. It's surprising how many people say "Not MJ because it's an autopilot". Hint - not if you leave those functions switched off ;-0

Where's Whackjob?

KAC probably, but thinking about it seriously I would still play. It would mean only one mission at a time instead of 'many' (30-something atm) though, so would be very limiting.

Does it also count as a SSTO if you blow half of it up instead of staging? *hehe*

Erm, Mexico makes sense to me - Squad's Mexican.

My name is Pecan and I'm a Windowsholic. Windows 10 came installed on my new computer, so I'm finally convinced to make the break for freedom. (By god Win10 is awful!)

No it shouldn't matter - every country that takes notice of trademarks and copyright (eg; not China, where they'll rip-off anything ^^) recognises registrations in any country. Can you imagine the time and cost of having to get official sanction in every country otherwise!

Interesting that the modder dropped the word 'Kerbin' from 'Space Centre' to use the word 'Kerbal'. AFAIK that's now trade-marked, whereas 'Kerbin' is perfectly legal to use, so Is this making a special effort to get sued? (Not that I think Squad would, but it seems an odd choice).

Thank you. I might have to take a look at that

They work as shock absorbers but there's no need for a heat shield so I've never tried them for that.

Same as for any other rocket launch. Just because it's a single stage doesn't change the gravity turn (much).

What AI pilot is this you speak of?

*sob* My new machine has to go back ... Keeps freezing or rebooting a couple of times an hour :-( Tried everything and out of ideas so; their problem.

There doesn't seem to be a recent 'what are your favourite mods?' thread so here's one about bling. My new computer has arrived and so far hasn't bothered to slow down for launches, with all settings maxed. Maybe unsurprising since my previous machine (sitting in the corner, being ignored) was 10 years old and my only mods are MJ and KAC - so let's tame this beast! How do I make it work for its keep with cosmetic mods? I don't need any parts mods and RPM (and family) and EVE will be in, naturally, but what else?

Becoming and being: Squad always intended to make a "tycoon style" space management game. As a first phase they created all the spacecraft construction and exploration features => there are many here who still remember what an achievement it was just to get to orbit, let alone Mun. If there was a moon. In the second phase they concentrated on spaceplanes because of all the demand from the community. Thirdly they worked on (science then) career mode with all its contracts, strategies and other 'non flight' features. Then aerodynamics and atmosphere expansion, plus re-heating, etc. because of all the demand from the community. And more career mode because it needs it. ... hiatus forced by Unity update. A change of the underlying engine is a major operation but also brings a lot of opportunities. At the moment we have no idea what good and bad (new bugs) will come of it. For 1.2 and forward there's not much more than speculation, so it's a bit early to make any statement. Seen in context of rockets + spaceplanes + career + management it isn't surprising that squad have been working on things away from 'space', even if I don't like them. There's more challenge and interest in stock KSP than in any other game I've played, squad are continuing to build the game they always wanted and reacting better to community demand than any other developer with a business and a plan. Glad I bought it, wish I'd done so earlier.

Every day gets better and better. New computer should be here in a matter of hours (i7, 16G RAM, GTX 970, etc.) and now 1.1 experimentals is announced. Just in time then; if only I didn't have to go to work.

So much has changed and so much is likely to change that I'm not planning on publishing until 1.1 I've just ordered a new computer so I'll be able to see it in all its glory too :-)

The reaction wheels (under the nosecones on each of the asparagus stacks) are important for attitude control as the command pod alone isn't enough and there are neither engine gimbals nor control surfaces. Going up is generally good, but more description of what is destroyed would be helpful, if orientation isn't the problem.

SOO close! Look at the navball ... You're facing the target vehicle fine but your prograde heading - the yellow circle showing which way you're moving, rather than which way you're facing - is over to the left. What you need to do is bring that onto the target too, by pressing the 'L' key (RCS right).

Is this question even mind-bending enough? So far we're only considering transfer from tank to tank (to tank, ...) to engine(s). Should we take into account, in RL at least, the dynamics of the fuel within the tanks themselves? What I'm thinking about here is that fuel lines are not attached directly radially on tanks but are off-centre the fuel would swirl out or into them, with a rotation all its own. How - if at all - would all those vortices around a vehicle affect it? For full mind-twisting consider votices deliberately arranged in co-ordination (all clockwise or anti-clockwise) or alternately (clockwise to anti-clockwise, to clockwise, etc.). I think I need to lie down, I'm getting dizzy just thinking about it.

2016 forums; now with sound effects.

I'm sorry, I intended to include a link to it in my post above: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/68532-staging-methods-overview/ The general idea is that you have a single stack of tanks in several stages, with radial engines on several stages (some may be left slack) and fuel lines such that fuel is consumed from the bottom tank up. The single tank is used-up faster than asparagus's two so can be staged earlier and is more efficient, at least in theory. When a tank is staged any attached radial engines go with it, of course, much like the engines in asparagus stages. The arrangement is called twisted candle because the engines have to be offset so they don't get hit by the exhaust from ones above, eg; N/S in one stage, NW/SE in the next, E/W in the next and so on.