Dust

Claiming to have disproven Newton's Third Law is just about as extraordinary as claims can possibly get - and I'm sure there is a high degree of agreement on this. The claim that this device you've built - however much effort, sweat, blood and tears you've put into it - exposes a flaw in quite possibly the most fundamental law of motion, is going to require an extraordinarily convincing demonstration, including rigorously and thoroughly isolating the device from all - and there are many - possible sources of momentum transfer. Until I see such a demonstration that proves your hypothesis, all I see is a device utilizing friction to skooch its way down the rails like a kid skooching his chair towards the dinner table.

Yes!!! Where have you been all my Kerbal life!? And yes, several on here have vouched for its 0.23 compatibility.

Very nice! I especially like the advanced Sr docking port and the Sr-sized 6-way core, as well as the selectable size feature of the fuel tanks. Now just need to see if this'll fit on my RAM!

I've never used MechJeb. I just use KER for info.

I don't need to understand all the maths in physics to know that a closed system cannot propel itself anywhere without reacting against something outside that closed system (thereby making it not closed). Basic Newtonian laws hold that it would not be possible. Misconceptions such as this seem to result from taking into account one or two laws or truths of a system while ignoring other truths or consequences thereof - at the same time ignoring overall basic truths like conservation of momentum. The whole perpetual motion phenomenon is rife with examples of this.

Entered Duna's SoI for the first time and landed on Ike. Transmitted some science homeward to complete my tech tree.

That was Greg Bear's novel Eon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eon_%28novel%29), one of the many, many books I read in my dad's sci-fi collection.

With all those docking ports, especially the medium-sized ones just in front of the thrusters, I suspect the craft is wobbling back and forth. In Scott Manley's Interstellar Quest series he addressed this on his Duna ship by putting the thrusters at the front, thereby pulling the ship rather than pushing.

Practice, practice, practice. Build probes or capsules with docking ports on their noses and RCS thrusters and tanks. Take them up into orbit and just try, try, try. After 5-10 tries you'll begin to get what it takes to dock successfully and how to build a dockable craft.

Missing (IMO): KW Rocketry (for rocket scientists) and/or B9 Aerospace (for flight jocks) Kerbal Alarm Clock PartHighlighter Docking Port Alignment Enhanced NavBall

It's because he decouples from the lander tanks. Fuel goes from 49/225 to 45/45.

If your idea of a "basic" Munar landing is to fly straight there, I'd be interested to hear exactly what your "regular" Munar landing entails.

My essential mods are: - Enhanced Navball - Kerbal Engineer Redux - Docking Port Alignment Indicator (or Navball docking alignment would work, too) - Kerbal Alarm Clock (KAC) (turn on auto alarm for all maneuver nodes) If you want increased difficulty and challenge: - Deadly Reentry - RemoteTech 2 - Ferram Aerospace Research (and Kerbal Isp Difficulty Scaler if you want to put the dV required to reach orbit back to stock) - TAC Life Support

Ooooooh! Moded!

The technique I developed (pre-FAR): - Launch - Switch to orbit frame of reference - Watch the threshold efficiency indicator in KER and adjust throttle to not exceed ~115%. (requires Kerbal Engineer Redoux) - Watch the prograde vector climb up from the horizon. When prograde vector approaches 45 degrees begin turning over so that the prograde vector doesn't go above 45. I would differ this a bit depending on the TWR, but generally target within 5-10 deg of 45. 45 is a bit arbitrary, so you can experiment to see if a different angle is more efficient. - Continue until sufficiently out of the thick atmosphere, then point nose straight into prograde vector until desired apoapsis altitude is reached. - Profit But I recently added FAR so I'm back in diapers, so to speak...

Unless I'm missing something, here's my advice... First, where are the RCS thrusters? Docking without RCS is clinically proven to be 37 times more frustrating than docking with RCS. Also, for best results select "control from here" on the docking port on your craft, then select "set as target" on the docking port on the target craft. Finally, consider adding a mod that assists in docking: [0.23] Docking Port Alignment Indicator - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43901 [0.23] Navball docking alignment indicator v2 - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/54303

On the matter of life in the universe I always think of the Drake equation and the Fermi paradox. My personal view on this is that yes, there's certainly life out there. The probability for any given star system to harbor life is extraordinarily slim, but the sheer amount of stars in the universe ensures that it's happened millions upon millions of times across the observable universe. In fact, there's probably a decent chance that at least one of the systems within a hundred light years contains a habitable planet with life. But then you must consider that not all planets that start out habitable remain habitable forever. For every Earth there are probably hundreds - if not millions - of planets that began harboring life but became uninhabitable for any number of reasons, cutting short the process that got us this far along. Considering the rocky past that Earth has, this is not hard to imagine. Then there's the question of sentient tool using life... For all the planets harboring life for long enough, what are the chances that a sentient tool using species arises? And for how long will they exist. I think our own case study here on earth is showing that it has a very high chance of being ridiculously short. (I am always reminded of the comic I saw somewhere of the Earth sitting in the doctor's office feeling ill, and the doctor says "You just have a case of humans. Don't worry, it'll run its course and be gone soon.") Now define "alone." If you're sitting alone in a small room in a building full of endless rooms, and you can't tell if any of the other rooms are occupied, but you're sure some of them must be occupied, are you alone?

Go through Scott Manley's career tutorial for beginners. He covers everything you need to know. Here's part 1:

and

Actually, I think many of us are more familiar with this one:

There's a big difference between RCS & SAS. RCS is using propellant to push at the point where it is mounted. Imagine taking a big finger and pushing your craft at the point where the RCS is mounted. SAS uses angular momentum. Imagine standing on a lazy susan - or any spinny thing - holding a long metal bar, then turning it.

It's possible, but aiming to land within a 1 meter target is pretty difficult, as opposed to, y'know, landing anywhere on the side of a giant rock. If you think about it, it's pretty much exactly like trying to dock to the top of an accelerating craft - the lower the gravity of the body the lower the acceleration and vector you're constantly having to match. I've done it once: on Minmus to rescue a capsule that'd run out of fuel, but it took a few restores to get a successful operation.

I've had this happen, but with nothing blocking the exhaust. I assumed it was something to do with the brakes, or the wheels getting somewhat stuck to the ground. When throttling up the plane won't move until near max thrust. I made sure the brakes were disengaged, and tapped the B button several times to try to "un-stick" them, but eventually it always gets going at some high amount of thrust. Only happens on the runway.

- That's a great test you did with the nose cones. I've always wondered about the aerodynamic benefits versus the weight... As for the tail fins, they help quite a bit. Put them around the bottom of your rocket for stability. Steerable fins are nearly essential for controlling tall staged rockets in the lower atmosphere without having to use large SAS units. - RCS clusters and fuel tanks usually come out heavier than SAS, so if you're not docking you can typically forgo RCS on smaller craft in favor of just SAS (remember, pods & probes include some SAS). However, the more mass you have away from the center of gravity (larger, longer craft) the more torque you will need, so RCS clusters out at the ends of your larger crafts allow for much greater turning capability. Finally, RCS is a must-have when docking. In addition to the W-S-A-D-Q-E controls for yaw/pitch/roll pivoting around your GOG (used with either SAS or RCS), note that you also have the I-K-J-L-H-N controls to vector straight in all six directions (which can only be used with RCS). Watch any docking tutorial video to see how the RCS vector controls are essential for docking. - Engines with vector control are useful for turning your rocket during ascent. They can also be useful during orbital burns, but don't rely on them in space because they are ONLY useful during burns. Again, with a tall staged rocket design it can really help control your craft, especially in the upper atmosphere when the fins are no longer effective. - Mods - I agree the unmanned probes currently have pretty limited usefulness. For collecting science manned missions are almost always preferable. Unless you've unlocked new science parts and wish to return to somewhere you've already collected crew/EVA reports and surface samples from. Mainly I use them for ferrying things up to orbit and docking stuff without tying up Kerbals and worrying about returning them home safely.