MarvinKitFox

You can define 10 action groups. If you are incapable of remembering just ten action groups that were set up BY YOURSELF, then you are also incapable of remembering the 4097 other factoids relevant to your spaceship and its mission. You should then not be playing KSP, but rather tic-tac-toe.

Level 4: .... you really want the ring no closer than 500,000,000,000 meters ? You DO realize that this is some 5 times further out than even Eeloo ever gets? And that the relative speed of passage through the target will be in single-digit meters per second, making this the EASIEST of the challenges?

Vector: under 10G, it has TWR of 2.38 your 4 tons of engine can lift itself and only 5.5 tons of fuel, which it burns out in a very few seconds. The mammoth is a bit better, your 15 tons can lift 40 tons, so thats engine + 25 tons of fuel. thats good for about 13 seconds!

The gravity itself is a bit of a bother, but the abysmal TWR of the basic engines is the real problem. Even the mighty Mammoth can only lift about its own mass in fuel off the ground.. That makes fro a very, very short burn. Most of the solid rockets cannot lift themselves off the ground, even when almost empty of fuel!

A small hint. The video has text in 35-point font that screams "in kerbal space program v0.23.5" Possibly this hints to the version of the game used????

The L4 and L5 points are trivial to locate: They are coplanar with the intended orbit, and equidistant from both of the other objects. Thus, for a perfectly equatorial circular orbit like Mun, simply place your satellite at the exact same orbit as the Mun, and exactly 60 degrees ahead(L4) or behind(L5) While you are at it, you might as well also plonk in a satellite at L3, which is exactly 180 degrees from Mun . As for how to get there... Put your sat in a *very* slightly lower orbit, let it catch up to the position you want. When you are half-an-orbit from aligning with the perfect position, apply the needed prograde burn to raise apogee to the exact needed level. When at apogee, burn prograde again to perfectly circularize your orbit. (Mun make it easy, as it has a perfectly circular AND equatorial orbit. cheating, really!)

Are you thinking of something like this?

Ok, its likely me being very stupid, but... How do I convince KSP 1.2 to: * remember VAB setting for snap to angle? * remember navball display on/off when entering Map mode (i often toggle in-out of map when landing or launching, and having to *click* on display navball is killing me) Ok, settings "auto hide navball". Gurd knows what idiot thought setting it to autohide as the default setting made sense, but at least it is selectable. * convince science reports to display at some location *other* than directly in the middle of the screen, obscuring the very instrument or kerbal that created it? None of these were issues in the 1.0.* versions, so obviously its a setting that had changed or something trivial like that. How do I fix?

Question, why do you say " is to simulate something like the Nazis V-1 or V-2. " and then immediately follow with "To build an uncontrolled ballistic missile " That's like saying "Paint this wall red, but it must be green" I can assure you that the V1 and even more so the V2 did have guidance systems, with the V2 having a guidance 'computer' the size of a steamer trunk and with control via tail-vane rudders and gimbal-equivalent thrust redirection and ground-based guide beams.

In the good old days, Bill put this together: The laws of fizzics have changed since then, so sadly this is just a reminiscence of the Old Glory Days.

Orbital kill is easy, if you don't care too much about mucking up space for a bit. Simply launch a few dozen rockets into suitable polar orbits, each dispenses a few hundred microsats. Each microsat contains a hundred grams or so of ballbearings, on a spring load. And a teensy gyro for pointing, and a remote guidance and trigger. you can basically *flood* an area of LEO several square kilometers with 1 gram ballbearings, evenly spread and with a relative velocity of about 18 km/s No need for exacting timing, or aim. just dump enough mass in the path. Each bearing will have the impact energy of TEN .50cal BMG rounds, enough to shred an armored truck, much less an icbm.

You want efficiency, in sustained 0.8 mach flight? rocket < ramjet < propeller < turboprop(ducted) < turbojet

If you are going to complain about the seperator, then you will want to ban the use of fairings too, eh? After all, they cannot be re-used, the fairing bits fall off.

These two rules have absolutely nothing to do with SSTO, or the role of fueltank-cargo-delivery that is being tested. What if I want to design a paracute-landing vehicle? What if I want to use vernier engines, or Ant motors, or whatever for my fine control? Putting in rules like this is like saying I should design a good F1 racing car, any type I want, but it must be red and have a ferrari badge on it.

"Are KSP Physics good?" Do you mean to ask, "Do KSP physics accurately model the real world"?.. if so, the answer is No, not really. Do you mean to ask, "Do KSP physics approximate real life well enough for a sim-space-game"?.. You betcha! KSP fizzics rocks!

Take a good look at that contract. The vast majority of them ask you to check the temp "above XXX meters" or "below YYY meters". This means in flight/orbit Simply set up a polar orbit, at about the same surface altitude as the above/below line for your contract. Be patient and wait until your orbit will pass close enough to the observation point, and half an orbit before you get there, gently nudge pro/retro-grade to adjust your altitude at target as needed. One observing satellite can do several hundred such observations over time, at no additional expense. Now for those pesky landed spots... That is a bit harder and need to be attended to by either a small disposable probe, or by a big expensive manned mission. If your mission is to spots on Kerbin, then get the low altitude and surface spots with an airplane, and *still* get the "higher than XXX meters" missions with a polar orbital sat. The multiple-target temp/air/observation/etc.. missions have the very best reward in terms of cash spent vs. cash return. You can easily get a 10X or even a 50X return on investment. What they do take a lot of is time. You time in planning and executing the missions.

The cost of a fast-track transfer is not in the getting there, as a very few m/s of burn at Kerbin makes a huge difference, but in the stopping once you get there. Cutting Kerbin-Minmus transit time in half needs only about 35m/s more to get there, but about 200m/s more to stop. Eve, Duna and Jool provide an alternative though. Burn your fast-track transit, and then use aerobraking to assist in the slowdown.

Wonder if I still have that sepratron-only Mun mission saved anywhere..... It had 230++ stages in it. . . Hmm. cant find mine, but here is the sort of thing that inspired it in the first place.(not mine!)

There was a very very similar challenge a short whiles ago.

Dres? Once. I'd heard a report of a planet between Duna and the Jool system. Went to the reported location. Fell asleep. Must have been nothing there worth seeing. Never planning on returning

Cap: MK1 capsule, Stayputnik Fuel: T100, T200, duct, round mono Engine:t-30 (non-gimbal), SRB-hammer, SRB-flea C&C: rcs, small reaction wheel. Structure: Strut, short girder, tr18a decoupler, t38 decoupler, launch clamp. .aero: nosecone/salad bowl, av-t1 basic fin util: medium legs, mk16 para, 1x6 solar (non-retractable), ladder rungs, square battery science: antenna, goo, science jr. No mods, of course. not even Kerbal Engineer! But also not extra part or mass limit, just nature's wobblyness when using teensy tanks NB! NO gimbal engines NO steerable aero fins NO heatshield!!!!!

In the version 1.x Demo, can you fly to the Mun, soft-land, and return home? Yes, yes you can. The Launcher: Landing on Mun: Landing back home. HeY!! That's not home! <Hands a map to the silly Kerbal> And Home: I had planned to land neatly back at KSC, but... NO HEATSHIELDS!!! That makes a reentry from Minmus a bit of a hairy thing Whole album below: way too many pics to show here http://imgur.com/a/7CXN2

400 LF, no other limits? Please explain why my ion-drive glider would not win the prize? (around the world on 3 cans of xenon) . Or, if more patient, how about the solar-powered amphibious rover? More detail needed in the rulez, i think.

Hmm, lets see..... Some kind of Shuttle, Check! Jet engines, check! 2 * SRB, check! Flameproof suit: check. (and boy, i'm gonna need it!) The Launch

Ok, sure it is possible to build a Gozilla-class rover, like this And yes, it requires a *beast* to launch it. But that just means you are compensating for something, i think. . . A more sensible rover looks kinda like this dunebuggy-tractor hybrid with self-righting, unbreakable 999m/s impact fenders, and spacestation-towing attachment points. These only mass a few hundred kg each, and come with their own builtin attachment point, which later doubles as a towing hitch. speaking of Gozilla-class rovers.. What would THIS monster's class be called? A'Tuin class, maybe? (picture shows section 1 and 2, of an 8-section worm, used in the jet-electric powered train challenge. the whole thing masses less than 500 tons ) It has wheels, and it does move, so it it a rover, right?