Mast

@Rarity, I wasn't even drunk, where the heck did that post come from... Deleted it for being worthless. Anyway, I'm rather surprised by the spread of opinions about 32/64. I'd have thought there's a general opinion about one being more awesome than the other and it seems to differ between players.

Somebody forgot to tell me the 64-bit problems were Windows-only. I've heard most Linux-only bugs are solved by now, if so I'll just play KSP on that part of my machine from now on (thank God for dual-boot). A stock install 32-bit uses slightly over 1.3 GB on my machine.

Ah, I wasn't aware of memory leaks being present in KSP. Not that it surprises me with such a big game with many parts and many actions to add/move/destroy those, but hey, one can hope. Afar from that it's basically because mods blow up the game easily to over 3.2GB? Although I haven't found a recent list of 64-bit specific bugs, I'm not going to risk unnecessary crashes (that's a totally different hobby which I only practice on a specific machine) to allow one more mod or not having to restart every couple of hours. I can imagine people with very complex structures could benefit a lot from the 64-bit.

In the first training (Construction Basics), you're taught how to build a rocket. When you finish the training, the instructor tells you to use the exit button to leave the VAB. Now, if we all would be smart enough to follow his instructions I wouldn't be typing this. What happens if you hit the launch button instead: Which is very fancy bulls***. Why isn't the launch button greyed out?

We all know the 32-bit version of KSP is the recommended version due to bugs in the 64-bit version. Now what exactly would be a valid 'good reason' to prefer the x64? It's good there's a warning there for people who just want to get started and don't care about versions as long as it's stable. You always need a 'safe' option. But the 64-bit version is available for a reason (I suppose). It's probably better (when in doubt, higher numbers are better). I know 32-bit operating systems can only use 3.2GB memory and I suppose the same is valid for 32-bit applications. But does in matter in practice? 3.2GB per application is quite a lot after all. Are the extra bugs worth the (potential) gain?

That would be a bug, not a feature. Sound is not allowed to travel through vacuum since there's nothing to carry the vibrations.

Yea, except a command module has a cost of 600 and refunds never higher than 588 (98%). Still not sure how that's calculated though, it doesn't get damaged afaik.

I mean getting the Pe low enough so you can actually aerobrake. If it isn't low enough, there's no air to brake in.

As far as I know, celestial bodies will always be more 'unbreakable' than anything (stock) you throw at it. They're on rails, meaning there's nothing that can stop them. Only mods and the like can adjust your solar system. The PlanetBuster probably removes the entire body from game.

I could imagine there's something like a soft cap on the maximum reputation you can gain. The more reputation you have, the harder it is to get more. Why? Well, there's no point in getting to inifinite reputation, is there... It's not a currency. You can't buy anything with it. Max it out as far as necessary to reach all contracts and keep it at that level. No point in getting it higher. If for some reason you manage to drop your reputation to what it was at the start, you'll probably get the maximum again (although I haven't seen anyone testing that yet).

With a orbital speed and Pe this high, it takes a crapload of dV to bring my Pe down enough. Anyway, I've decided to use the release of 0.24 as a perfect excuse to start over and use everything learned from this (almost but obviously not completely succeeded) mission to make sure I know what I'm doing next time I launch. In the past, I launched and decided my trajectory on the fly. That works fine for Mun and Minmus (them being always in orbit around Kerbin), but I guess doing so for Eve and further makes patching up a half failed mission the default. @ Kryxal, that calculator gives me figures which don't agree with my experiences. If there's some trick you're supposed to make an aerobrake with that low dV, I don't know it. All of you, many thanks for the given advice!

Are you running stock or with a load of mods? If the latter, check those first.

64-bit might not be that interesting for stock players currently, but do note KSP is still under development. The memory consumption of stock might gradually go up with more features added. Not having to worry about 32-bit limitations leaves more time to worry about actually getting things done.

After a lot of poking around, finally found a cheap burn for a Pe of under 3000km. However, turns out the orbital speed is way too high... Got it saved at pre-burn, so not all is lost yet. Now I just need to find out how to get it at Kerbin in one piece.

With some fiddling entering Kerbin SOI isn't the problem anymore. However, I still can't get myself close enough to Kerbin to make a reasonable Kerbin PE. It feels like poking around, trying what works to make it more efficient. Is there a way to make the guessing more targeted instead of random trial and error? So far I've managed to get a Kerbin PE of 55000 km for less than 200 dV. However, I can't close a gap that big with the remaining dV. Is there a standard approach to solve these kind of problems? Circular orbits can be solved with a Hohmann transfer, is there something similar (but probably more complex) for non-circular transfers?

In the past, I've designed a controller which wouldn't allow providing power to the engine if the available power of the battery was below a given point. No battery was not an option. This was not a bug, but a feature. The specification clearly stated that if the system was low on power, taking readings would be possible without draining the system even further (by turning the engine on while it's low on power). Not all systems are designed like this, but think about a laptop for a while. It will not return from hibernate if the battery can't support an active state (at least, it shouldn't). Although laptops are built to either run from battery or directly from the transformer, so those have a workaround. I do however suspect there is a certain buffer (at least a decent capacitor) in this as well (although not comparable to a battery in amount of charge).

Perhaps it's noteworthy that a . in European notation is used as a thousand delimiter (compared to US style, comma and dot are role-reversed). I'm not 46 km but 46000 km away from Duna and my Pe is 9250 km.

A few hours ago I launched a manned rocket towards Duna for a fly-by. All went well, except I'm uncertain I'll ever be able to return to Kerbin. I can't make a parking orbit around Duna (not enough fuel). I can make it into the Kerbin SOI, but probably not into orbit. The situation: I'm flying without mods and the current craft has no docking ports (I was going to unlock those with the science retrieved from the fly-by). The craft does have (probably) enough parachutes to survive landing on Kerbin without fuel. Question: How can I find out what's the best possible short-term scenario? Preferably not just for this case, but also for similar cases. I'm not afraid of math, I just don't know what function to apply here (again, there is no parking orbit established). By default it will return to a orbit around the sun which crosses the Kerbin orbit 2 times (ofcourse, Kerbin is not there when the craft is and vice versa). Retrieving it from there with a second craft would be fairly complex. The long term goal is complete recovery.

Although this is in no way a replacement an undo feature, this will reduce the fallout of lacking one. I'm definitely going to try this.

The feeling when you just finished asparagus staging over 20 engines and one wrong click wastes everything. Undo would save a lot of frustration.

I've had this problem once, I try to equip every ship with at least one docking port ever since. Why? In vacuum, you can pull enormous loads with small vehicles. Got RCS tugs on my stations around Kerbin and the moon (borrowed the idea from Scott Manley, works like a charm). If you don't have tugs in orbit, just launch a new vehicle equipped for the job. If your current stray vehicle has no ports whatsoever, you'll have to grab it between pylons or something. Try to build a rocket with a head which is big enough to hold a part of your rocket. You can either launch with a removable top to avoid surface trouble (use seperators to launch the top away when above atmosphere), or just try with enough boosters and hope it doesn't collapse. I usually try the latter first

Added .craft files. FV 1 dV (vac) 7807 SH 1 dV (vac) 5978 SH 2 dV (vac) 8572 I didn't need this much dV for SH 2, but I guess I wanted to be prepared for my moon station.

Just wanted to share my current space station in 3 parts with you. Ok, they're actually 2 parts and a docked fuel ship, but there is always one fuel ship docked as storage. Also, the screenshots taken aren't completely stock (MechJeb module is present). However, the .craft files are 100% stock. FV 1.craft SH 1.craft SH 2.craft Total storage: Electric charge: 4.9k MonoPropellant: 1.5k Liquid Fuel: 5k Oxidizer: 6.2k Xenon Gas: 1.6k It generates quite an amount of Electric charge with 6 target-able 6x2 and 4 fixed single solar panels. The Xenon containers are hidden between the cone and RCS tank of the secondary part of the station (the one without the command pod). Jeb is taking good care of it Not sure what to put on next though. Probably more fuel, more crewquarters and a science lab.

I'm not a dev and not intending to know what they think. However, there is a wiki which contains a lot of information and you're free to add any (relevant) new information to it. Unfortunately a lot of pages do link to Wikipedia itself (lacking a Kerbal-specific explanation of terms), but feel free to write tutorials and all and post them there. Additionally, there are a lot of tutorials and videos posted on the forums which explain a lot. If, for some reason, you don't want to do it for free, you're not the first one to try soliciting at Squad. Try to e-mail them with your CV instead of putting it on the forum

I do know how to seperate boosters, but they usually are an independent stage. I've never learned how to launch rockets with unresolved stages (next stage starting while previous stage still has an engine running). My current tactic is to build enough boosters to reach orbit, dock with the station, refuel, get to the next planet. I've never returned a craft which has reached it's destination back to Kerbin. Current staging: - 1st Booster stage (liquids + solids) - 2nd Booster stage (usually skippers) - Main stage - Interplanetary + landing stage What I want to accomplish: - 1st Booster stage (liquids + solids) - 2nd Booster stage (solids ran out, decouple, liquids go on) - 3rd Booster stage (skippers) etc.