pincushionman

Given that they have no drive motors either, the lack of brakes is not the biggest problem when trying to make a rover.

I’ve never given my cats milk, and I’m not willing to try. They already turn up their noses at any kind of people food they’re offered.

Having a second stage that’s a significant fraction of the total vessel mass naturally causes this without any extra work on the designers’ part, since the mass of the upper stages don’t begin to change until after the first stage is jettisoned. And once that happens, you’re typically outside the bulk of the atmosphere and the location of the CoM is far less important due to the greatly reduced drag.

It is also recommended that, especially if you bought the game through Steam, you copy the entire game folder to a new location on your hard drive and install mods into that copy, keeping the “main” install clean. This will prevent inadvertent automatic upgrades to the game itself from breaking your savegames.

If there’s no probe core, it can’t be controlled at all. If you do have a probe core, then you can switch to it and detonate it manually. If you’re running on PC and aren’t averse to using mods, both MechJeb and KOS allow automation, but for this purpose I’d look at SmartParts. I apologize, but I can’t look up whether they’re updated to the current version until later today.

Oh, if you are given the actual counts of scores, then you already have your rank in each class, or at least a lower bound, if the real results are as granular as in the example. Your rank is literally just a count of how many scores are better than yours, or more pessimistically, how many are better or as good as yours. In this example you are (at worst) 3rd in class 1, 18th in class 2, 4th in 3, and 24th in 4. If the score categories were finer, we could get a better estimate. As to an overall rank, I would take a mean weighted by the credit-hours of each class. If all classes are weighed equally, the estimate would be (3+18+4+24)/4=13th or better. I would hazard a guess that you are on the higher side of the large “B” and “C” sub-populations in classes 2 and 4, simply because of the presence of “A”s in the other two classes. But that’s just based on the assumption that people are consistent; the data can’t really support that. As for predicting the final grades? Well…mmmphmyh. You’d have to look at historical trends there.

You say “total grade spread” but what statistics does the school actually provide you? If they present the median score (ideally; but if they give you the mean instead you might have to assume it’s close enough to the same thing) and the standard deviation (or the variance), you could assume a normal distribution (bell curve) and use that to estimate the rank of your score within the distribution.

I was a week late on my post.

If you can do part of it during your circularization burn that can help too, but that will only work if your initial Ap is at the equator. I haven’t paid much attention to where my launch Ap are before, so I can’t comment to whether that’s easy or efficient.

Some quick google-fu brought up USI Exploration pack as the first redult, which indicates a “data camera” part. Might you also have that mod, or maybe your other USI mods be causing a bug?

Try making it stiffer. Struts, autostruts, KJR mod. Pics would still help, there may still be something apparent to us that is not obvious to you. Also: rockets are easy; planes are hard.

There isn’t any reason why they shouldn’t extend such a feature to include a true pause; though if a slow enough slow-mo is available they’re practically the same thing.

“Next time” being like 2 weeks from now.

Since normal/antinormal doesn’t change throughout an orbit, once the vessel gets done pointing the behavior is exactly the same as SAS hold.

Unless you’ve added a control point that is aligned with your (rotated) thrust vector, your thrust won’t be aligned with “vessel prograde”. You’d need to eyeball an offset from prograde during your burns, which would be kind of awkward.

PC user here, but it’s hard to argue against a Mac for media work. In order to do what? Ideally you can find a system that runs all your applications natively (that is why you’re asking, right?) Dual-booting or virtualization aren’t terrible options, but they certainly are a hassle you shouldn’t choose to deal with unless you have to.

Since you’re not averse to using mods, you might also consider KAS/KIS and send up Kerbals with wrenches to affix it to the cargo bay.

The crew hatch is on one of the ends. Usually this is not helpful (since these are often covered by other parts), but if the only object is the cabin, it works out perfectly!

I’ve destroyed an antenna deploying a (clamshell) fairing in space, and deployed the same without damage after rotating the fairing 90 degrees. I cannot, however, guarantee that this was the only change, since the fairing had to be re-built. There may be a clearance issue.

Well, “when pigs fly” is sort of a challenge here, innit? KSP player #1: There’s no way you can get that to the Mun, y’know. KSP player #2: … KSP player #1: Uh oh. KSP player #2: Hold my beer.

Bring a whole new meaning to “You’d forget your head if it wasn’t attached to your shoulders…”

Send a small satellite with only a powerful-enough relay antenna to reach Kerbin, a probe core, and a sufficient power source. It can then serve the lander, and all your craft already there. You don’t need to fly the whole thing there again.

As Bewing noted, wheel drag is a very common problem. But this statement also caught my eye: …Do you happen to have the rear gear attached to the wings? KSP has a bug where mirror symmetry gives parts slightly unsymmetric stiffness, which can manifest as veering to the side on takeoff or landing, and the way to combat it is by attaching your gear as rigidly as possible to the center fuselage. Some even cheat wing gear by attaching to the fuselage and shifting them outward with the offset tool. Otherwise, avoid wing gear like the plague. Any additional joints between the center and the gear make the problem worse. If this is your problem, you’ll also see behavior like unwanted roll occurring during hard pitch-ups. You may need to find ways to add stiffness to your design.

Version 0.4 is now available! Download it here! Capture by other bodies within the same SOI is now implemented! Do note that I have been unable to match the behavior of the KSP simulation precisely with regards to captures, even for a small system like the Jool sub-system. There may be several factors at play, which I will investigate further before the next release. However, I have also been unable to set a precise orbit repeatably in-game using either HyperEdit or the F12 cheat menu, so it may be that the best that an Excel simulation can accomplish is a "close enough" answer. The next release will focus on adding maneuvers to the user-defined orbit, which will allow the user to iron out any errors in the KOMET simulation, regardless of their sources.

All other things being equal, it is more efficient to correct it right at the get-go. But if you’re far enough away, the difference between the two is pitifully small. But there is also the consideration of being precise - you need to balance being far enough away that it requires a small enough maneuver that you save fuel with being close enough that it requires a large enough maneuver you can actually control it without overshooting, requiring an additional correction that wipes out your fuel savings.