Pecan

[quote name='Warzouz']That's sad Duna ... even it's biomes and surface features are very poor.[/QUOTE] Dres resort - we're ready to meet your needs. All you need to bring is your wallet. ([I]nailed it again[/I])

[quote name='Person012345']Yup, looks like I'm going the wrong way, thanks. [/QUOTE] You're not alone. Nearly all the other people who started threads saying orbits won't match also ignored the direction.

Drag it out of an old download, rename it and paste it in to your current install?

MJ is my co-pilot. No, change that, MJ's flying - I'm off looking around IVA. Nice find.

So far I have not had a problem with re-entry. Bringing the drogues to the front of the tech tree would just encourage bad design (which might be fair enough, since they're essentially 'bad chutes' ^^). Consider :- Without drogues your sub-orbital needs to become wider and shallower ... leading naturally to a proper gravity turn and getting to orbit. With drogues you'll just go straight up and straight back down again ... leading nowhere. Without drogues your de-orbit periapsis needs to be relatively high so you slow as much as possible high up ... leading naturally to aerobraking on return from lunar/interplanetary journeys. With drogues you just go straight down ... leading nowhere. Obviously I exaggerate, but I hope you see the point. So - design considerations: * 3 stacks create more drag than one, slowing you down more. Instead of a single needle try a wider design (tall good, fat bad only applies to one-way trips!). * 3 stacks with a top bias may flip on the way up, whereas with a bottom bias it may flip on the way down (assuming retrograde re-entry). Try one that lands upside down. * SSTO spaceplanes, let alone sub-orbital ones, are available as soon as you get wheels - try not even using parachutes at all! * At tech-3, before wheels, use aircraft wing/control surfaces to fly near the runway (or at least KSC) while braking, then pop the chutes just to settle onto the ground. * Try anything else you can think of - it's a design challenge and that's part of the fun of KSP! * Do more science early and concentrate on getting the parts you need quickly, you don't need to take every contract, or only do contract flights.

:-) "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful." [URL="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box"]George EP Box[/URL] (The longer version of this quote can also be applied to KSP as, "Since all models are wrong the scientist cannot obtain a "correct" one by excessive elaboration. On the contrary following William of Occam he should seek an economical description of natural phenomena. Just as the ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the great scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark of mediocrity.", = it might not be right for your particular playstyle, but it's a damn good approximation appealing to a wide range of audiences)

In addition to considering cost, etc. along with these stats there is also the issue of [I]purpose[/I]. Your figures include only vacuum Isp but for a launch engine that might not be a consideration, especially if it's intended only/mainly to be used as an first stage. There are therefore at least two categories into which engines should be classified; launch/low atmosphere and space/high atmosphere. Obviously there are a few specialist engines still; Ion, nuke and aerospike, with the latter being distinct in having a good Isp across a wider pressure-range than most.

Landing anywhere close to KSC will get you 90% or more of your costs back. The main drawback to planes such as KerikBalm's is, obviously, the huge initial investment and the single-point of failure (as Slashy said). A SSTO rocket for any payload will cost considerably less than a comparable spaceplane, so you have to ask yourself how many times you're likely to use a particular model. I've found that a typical spaceplane (if there is such a thing) pays for itself after 3 - 5 flights. For that reasons most of us only use spaceplanes, if at all, for fuel and crew to orbit, as you suggest if interested in economics. Note, however, that with ISRU (ore mining) in particular it is quite possible to make a Single Stage vehicle to anywhere and there are a number of people who specialise in such things.

[quote name='numerobis']I'm not a real engineer, but that seems ridiculous. However, having radiators pull heat from the exposed skin and radiate it out on the top side of the re-entry vehicle makes plenty of sense.[/QUOTE] [quote name='NathanKell']The plasma shockwave is only towards the bow, and even there it's at [I]very low density[/I][/QUOTE] I refer to [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/139564-Are-radiators-effective-inside-of-closed-cargo-bays?p=2297749&viewfull=1#post2297749"]Kuzzter's post above[/URL], amongst others. In that pic you can see two radiators beneath the cockpit which I would have thought would be the worst possible place. Since they're in the hottest air there they'd be heating up most, unless by conducting heat straight into the cockpit itself. Presumably this is the exact opposite of what was intended.

Confirmed for the pyramids (I was testing a 'plane) so presumably all anomalies as well as the other stuff.

Someone [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/139433-Why-aren-t-crash-reports-auto-submitted"]made a thread[/URL] about exactly the same thing just 2 days ago. Oh, it was you. Is it really that important to you that it warrants a second thread as well?

So, erm ... I got away with it. Just flew over to the Island runway and taxied into the hanger nearer to the tower. Rolled slowly out the other side but didn't have enough room to turn around. No reverse on the jets for a three-point turn, so being KSP I got out and pushed, then had to run to get back in. (I think if I'd left it the slope goes up from the runway that side of the island, so I might have been ok anyway).

Absolutely. That, and the Russians were first at just about everything until the USA really got into gear. (Can't remember and can't be bothered to look it up. Was docking in space the first US 'first', the point where they overtook the USSR?)

If your machine isn't capable of running KSP the last thing you want to do is add a parts-mod. It's not the size of the ship matters, it's the part-count and, to a lesser extent, the number of parts that are initially loaded by the game, even if just for display in the VAB. A small ship with 100 parts will run worse than a large one with 5 and an installation with 100 extra modded parts will run worse than one with only stock.

Tips and tricks: [list] [*]Start with small vehicles and proceed in small steps - don't try to go to the moons in your first flight [*]There are three game modes - start in Sandbox if you can cope with all the different parts, science mode otherwise. Only start with career if you like frustration (it has many more compex and difficult considerations) [*]Good first flights are i) Up!, ii) to space, iii) to orbit, iv) fly-by Mun, v) Land (and return from) Minmus - so the mission steps don't have to be [I]that[/I] small! [*]It's easy to get to space, much harder to reach orbit - make sure you read about gravity turns and how to get to orbit [*]Planes and especially spaceplanes are a lot harder than rockets - get used to rocketry first [*]Rovers and bases are pretty useless - avoid them except for the fun of it [*]Space-stations can be fun - mostly useful for refuelling [*]Re-entry from space can cause your vehicles to burn-up in atmosphere - but at least parachuting down is an easy way to land [*]Rendezvousing two vehicles in orbit and then docking them will take a lot of practice - NASA had a hard time learning it too [/list]

Not seen that in normal usage Geschosskopf, but I just tested with a pod, spark and decoupler alone and replicated it. Maybe because it didn't have any fuel? Otherwise, no ideas yet.

So we all know that many things about rocket science are counter-intuitive (to catch-up with something in orbit, go slower, etc.) Is it really the considered opinion of the space engineers here that radiators cool-down a ship by transferring heat to an atmosphere that is at plasma temperatures?

You can edit the .cfg file for the solar panels if you wish. (eg; C:\Program Files\KSP_Stock\GameData\Squad\Parts\Electrical\1x6SolarPanels\1x6SolarPanels.cfg) Just before the end of the file is the line "retractable = false". Guess what you need to change. FWIW this has been discussed a fair bit. The description of the parts used to suggest that the casing on the heavier parts is there to protect the panels during re-entry so I'd still be keen to have both sets retractable but with lower aerodynamic and heat tolerance on the unshielded ones.

Oh right, I think I see what you mean. My only suggestion would be a docking mod, such a Navyfish's or the more-minimalist Navballdockingalignment which is based on it.

One day, when I buy a grown-up computer, I may dare to install a parts-mod.

Hell, if I ran KSP's development I'd have to get used to working full-time again and there's not enough hours in the day to play it properly as it is! (Edit: yes, I used to be a software development manager until I got bored of being rich and went sailing for 10 years instead. Now I just have a part-time hobby job).

Just so everyone knows: Following PM exchange, this is not a matter of the 'chute being destroyed - it's the red warning-background on the chute staging icon. Changelog: "* Parachutes: fixed exception spam in parachute module in the editor, fix where parachutes would cut on decouple. * Parachutes now have a disarm option when armed and not yet deployed * Parachute stack icon background shows red when unsafe and yellow when risky. * Parachutes no longer flutter identically. * Parachutes no longer instantly snap to the velocity vector. * Parachute tooltip in the editor shows safe deployment speed near sea level on Kerbin."

Boarding is normally from the left, meaning that the cockpit, first and business classes - at the front - are usually to the left. Stowage-class turns right and squats in the back, or whatever that pen is called.

I understand some poor people do turn right after boarding, however.

The KAS thread is here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92514-1-0-5-Kerbal-Attachment-System-%28KAS%29-0-5-5 It's a good idea to bookmark the release thread for each of the mods you use, so you can keep up with the news and ask questions of the people who make and use those specific ones.