Slam_Jones

The rest of the numerous issues aside, assuming they were able to put it into a geostationary orbit instead, would that help with atmospheric drag? Or is it still just as susceptible to orbital decay?

Apparently, after a bit of searching, it's this one: Although the ambiguous title doesn't help. As for the topic: why in the heck would I spend $20 for DLC when I can find thousands of perfectly good mods that do the same thing?

I can only imagine hundreds of years ago, when they said things like "the ocean is big! There's plenty of room to dump stuff! What's the worst that could happen?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch I wholeheartedly agree with these statements.

Once I figured out how to rendezvous, I felt like I "got it." Although I had already landed on the Mun before then...

Just don't call Slappy a dummy. (I read a lot of Goosebumps as a kid )

Never really played Science mode, but I certainly use it for my Modded Careers.

There it is! Glad you could figure it out

Oh, I see. Hm, somehow the images in my sig are links... let me see if I can dig up the code that makes em work that way.

Log In (top right corner), then click your name and go to 'Images' (Copy and Paste the BBCode link into your post for it to work!)

I've sent my Kerbals to nearly every planet and moon... yet the only one I've felt motivated to return from is Mun (and Minmus, I suppose) I justify this by imagining all my ships are self-sustaining, and the first Kerbals out there are just the first wave of colonists in preparation for full-scale colonization. TL;DR version - Never brought Kerbals back home from further than Minmus.

Always stoked to see a young writer enjoying their craft! Keep up the good work! One minor comment: IMO, the intro is not exactly gripping. Rather than "Hello, today is _____ and my name is _______," I prefer intros more along the line of "The black infinity stretched before him, devoid of stars. Touching the viewport, his pale fingers created small clouds of condensation against the frozen glass..."

So, they really want to learn another couple hundred (thousand) planet names? Per solar system? Sounds very tedious for very little reward. For example, So in the asteroid belt we've got *(likely) over a million planets now. And those are just the ones over 1km in diameter. Yeah, that makes everything easier, doesn't it? Seems like a whole heck of a lot of inconvenience just for the sake of Pluto being embarrassed about being called a dwarf planet.

I've gotten into the habit (for long burns) of disabling a few fuel tanks and transferring fuel around so that the dV needed for my maneuver is the same as the dV available in the open tanks. For example: say I've have 10,000m/s of dv. I set up a maneuver node that requires 6,000. I shuffle around fuel and disable some tanks so that my available dV reads at 6,000. Then, I crank up physics time warp as much as possible and go outside for a while. It doesn't matter if I come back half an hour after the burn ended - I will still have used the right amount of dV and should be on course

1600+ parts for just the bridge? I think my PC would melt well before it loaded all that in...

The only planet I really 'Colonized' was Duna. With the help of several mods (namely Civilian Populations, Procedural Parts, and Extraplanetary Launchpads), I was able to build the cities on the spot. Majority of the parts shown are from Civilian Populations mod (not sure if still active).

Built a few more mini racing quadcopters today. Turns out, I can go smaller than my last attempt. (Far left: Racing Quad III, which I had thought was as small as I could go. From left to right from there, versions IV, V, and VI) The latest version, VI, weighs about 11kg and can produce more thrust than is sane, so it is limited to 5.something TWR, though it could achieve 12+ if I set the thrust limiters back to full. It is prone to going out of control once in a while, but for the most part it is relatively stable and maneuverable. And the battery lasts much longer than the old version, somehow (Tweakscale oddities, I imagine).

Like many forumites, I use Imgur. Sure, the main page is rather meme-y, but I usually just go direct to my albums and upload and paste from there.

Give or take depending on the mission parameters and payload, yes. That is more or less correct. (Edited to say I think it's usually between 95 - 99%, but you are still in the right ballpark) W̶h̶i̶l̶e̶ ̶I̶'̶v̶e̶ ̶g̶o̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶h̶e̶r̶e̶,̶ ̶I̶ ̶w̶a̶n̶n̶a̶ ̶a̶s̶k̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶i̶t̶l̶e̶.̶ ̶ ̶W̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶s̶p̶e̶c̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶r̶o̶c̶k̶e̶t̶ ̶m̶a̶k̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶"̶b̶e̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶r̶o̶c̶k̶e̶t̶s̶?̶"̶ (Never mind on the last line, he believes it will 'beat all other rockets' because he intends for it to make orbit.)

Incredibly astute observation. The point is that rockets are big, heavy, and packed with highly explosive material. A rocket is a (series of) contained explosion(s), and if any little tiny part fails, then those explosions are no longer contained, and it becomes a bomb instead of a rocket, which will seriously damage anything (person, building, animals, etc) nearby when it goes off. It needs to travel nearly 6 times faster than the fastest commercially-manufactured bullet available to reach orbit. That is a LOT of potential energy, and if it all goes off at once on the pad, then its gonna leave a smoldering crater and launch shrapnel at bullet speeds in every direction. We're not saying you can't do it - we're just saying that you need to educate yourself as much as possible on the subject before you start building. Starting here at the KSP forums is a great place - just please heed the advice of the people who know what they're talking about! I'd hate to hear about an amateur rocket exploding and killing someone in South Carolina any time in the near future Just be safe!

Not reading instructions is fine for, say, an Ikea chair, but not a highly explosive rocket. That's how people lose limbs.

Indeed. Stop now before you lose some fingers... or a hand, or an arm, or your entire house. KSP is not real life, and in real life you can easily kill yourself if you're not careful.

Well there I go again assuming and not reading Jusy watched that promo video that it comes from... Quite amusing! Those flags look dangerous!

Yeah man, it's amazing we haven't disappeared yet, I mean we, as a species, have been practicing medicine and fixing broken limbs for millenia. Surely we would have weakened ourselves to oblivion already! "Within a few generations" would have been a long time ago. Humans invented surgery before anesthetics, and humans have been known to perform surgery on themselves. Show me another animal that can do that. Plus humans are one of the very very few species capable of persistence hunting (the art of pursuing your prey until they literally drop dead from exhaustion.) --- On Topic: Anyways I think Sloths are the strangest creatures. Not in terms of appearance, but more or less their, well, sloth-like tendencies. It takes a very specific environment for them to thrive, especially considering they are easy prey for eagles and such. I guess in that regard, Panda bears are somewhat similar in that they are generally lethargic... except a Panda is much too big to get picked up by an Eagle

With liberal application of TweakScale, I made a (relatively) tiny racing quadcopter. It weighs in at < 50kg, costs < 5,000 credits, and is shorter than a Kerbal. So far, I've yet to find any way to make it even smaller. Regardless, it packs a tidy TWR of 4.3 with the tiny electric propellors, and due to most of the mass being battery, it can stay in the air for longer than I can keep it undamaged (10 minutes+ would put me at maybe half battery). Not terribly useful, but quite fun to fly

Not sure how exactly it is counted but I have 1,894 profile views (signed up in 2014 for reference) Perhaps people look at profiles significantly more frequently that we thought?