karolus10

Major rendevous tip: Don't make rendezvous transfer right into your target, aim into ~8-10 kilometers lower orbit and slide it back a bit from best closest approach, so encounter distance will be between 50 kilometers (low kerbin orbit example). This way you will had plenty of time to complete transfer to slightly lower orbit and then you plan much smaller burn (less than 10m/s ÃŽâ€V) for "0.0km" encounter ,this way you will gently (and much more precisely) close to rendezvous target without risk of overshooting.

I slipped in the open shower over half year ago and it felt like the bullet time was ON. Fortunately I grabbed a locker in last moment and nearly displaced my arm (no damage)... happy ending but it was close .

I hope this may be an answer are you looking for ! + this video

My rule of thumb for starting gravity turns is to lean towards 60* angle just before pro-grade vector (in orbital speed mode) will reach it. If you didn't complete this initial turn just before reaching 10 kilometers mark I would say that You are climbing too slow.

Water is the most valuable resource for space exploration you can get from asteroid belts... it could allow to produce propellant in space and supply it to propellant depot's on earth orbit and Lagrangian points, It could be a game changer for any future missions.

Soyuz - the best manned rocket on the market.

My most scary moment in my life was when I fell into air pocket under ice and fell into Baltic sea - I couldn't drown really as I was holding to ice ,but I couldn't go out for a while either. I managed to pull myself out before I frozen to death (also it was -22*C outside and I had to run ~800m to home nearby, not fun). If I would be in the water for few minutes more and probably I would not be here and seriously thought that I'm a dead man before gathered all strength and made last try to get out. After all of this I noticed that I had hidden my gloves inside my jacket (I had to take them off as I don't had a grip on the ice) in middle of this, dunno when I found time to do this and why.

Exactly, there is no possible way to make everyone happy as people will find new reasons to complain.

If someone is interested in literature about orbital mechanics and space maneuvers basics may consider looking at this book: Google preview Amazon link (*Spoiler* pictures may be disturbing for some people.)

Actually Redstone rockets (used for first mercury suborbital flights) used mixture of alcohol and liquid oxygen .

It sounds nearly like FOMO for me. You may try to check forums only once a day (same for Facebook and other webpages) or less... this should help a bit. During 2 years of playing KSP I catch myself couple of times on trying to use time-warp keys in other games or when computer was slowing down... of course it didn't worked .

Actually there is reputation system in place... if you like someone post You can click on black "sheriff star" icon at the bottom of the post.

Employees of Kerlington strut corporation are now seriously worried about their jobs...

I would say both... it depends how you approach the game - KSP can provide challenge for advanced players as well as let you fooling around with random creations... both ways are legitimate ways of having fun. KSP don't had to be easy game as long as you can start playing the game as long as a newbie is able to start playing with very simple designs and had fun ... later he will learn by trail and error, KSP is one of few games that aren't frustrating if you fail miserably multiple times before success .

I'm glad to welcome all users of KSP forums, Some of people may consider my entry bit odd as I was lurking this forums since it born and I'm part of KSP forum moderation crew since summer of 2012. Unfortunately I did not visited this forums from quite long time from IRL reasons and I decided to leave my mark in this section as well as I did not done that before - 2.5y too late ? nah... details. So... welcome everyone and have a wonderful day ! (Also if you are new here, You may consider reading sticky threads in this section)

I guess that monopropellant can be considered as equivalent of IRL hypergolic fuels used in RCS, as long as Fuel total density and ISP will be similar to real numbers (I didn't say that fuel densities are truly balanced now) as it's simplified because of lack of different fuel types and game simplification. Same it could go for for liquid fuel/oxidizer, more fuel types aren't necessary if it's density/efficiency is somewhere between Lox/Kerosene and Lox/LH2. Also please remember that this is topic about LV-1 (AKA "ant") engine ;-).

I like the idea of simulation mode, this could had pretty nice potential and running simulations would be less costly than blowing rockets. I see that simulation mode would had few major differences from "real life". * Simulation's are not persistent, all crafts and debris disappear when simulation ends. * Minimalistic graphics of sky-box and bodies surface (for example one color sky and surface texture with grid on it) * You would had only one, flat planet but it's parameters like radius, gravity and atmosphere profile could be tweakable (+ presets of existing planets in kerbin system) * parts during simulation are 100% rigid and indestructible (they still can not work and wobble/break "in real life" if design aren't structurally sound) * You can choose starting position in any place on surface or plotted orbit Personally, I'm looking forward into improved editor (especially action groups tab) and flight planner.

This is the first thing I thought after reading this thread. I like gyro-copter idea, I think this could work if you align rotor part right, otherwise it would cause terrible vibrations.

RCS in ATV is hypergolic bipropellant as well, I always treated KSP mono-propellant as some imaginary variant of hypergolic fuel... unless they use cannned air. (haha) Anyway, I would like to see couple hypergolic engines sharing same fuel like RCS, small ones like LV-1 and bit bigger half meter class engine (bigger than Rockomax 48-7S) that could be used for service modules or orbital thursters in space-planes like in shuttle OMS, it would be very convenient for smaller crafts. Also I agree that linear RCS port could look more like... thruster.

I'm generally against any "magic" ways of launching ready crafts into orbit but I would be glad to see orbital construction with use couple variants of robotic arms like canadarm. In this case orbital assembly would be made on space station with robotic arms and docking ports for storing delivered modules... then you can assemble ship without trying to fly and dock with each part so you don't need any propulsion on modules or using RCS tugs.

I think that we could had larger (yet not-movable) asteroids in asteroid belt(assuming that asteroids will came out at some point) and other lone dwarf bodies all around kerbal system... largest ones could probably be like gilly. Also it would be nice to see small captured asteroids orbiting around gas giants... small rocks everywhere. Anyway, there is no sense in adding gravity to most asteroids (especially ones that can be moved by rockets) as their gravitational pull is between none and unnoticeable.

I see the other solution... make LV-1 use mono-propellant (same trust and ISP), it would make more sense to use couple of this for service module or additional engines for correction burns if you want to use one large RCS tank... also it had visual effects nearly same like RCS ports so it's only matter of changing their fuel. IRL example:

I believe that we can had both complexity and fun, more complexity added into game doesn't make it mandatory for new players and try it the "jeb's way" . Later on new players are learning about the game (in sandbox game players are progressing, not the game itself), they would seek new challenges and slowly swap launching rocket blind and aim for more precision. Best thing about KSP (and this is main difference from hardcore simulations) is that You don't had to know how to send complex rocket at carefully calculated trajectory... you just snap few random parts together, start playing the game and learn rocketry the fun way : If only we would had better explosions and replays... it would be sweet.

Actually oculus rift motion tracking (both rotation and translation) could work pretty neatly with TPP camera as well but it would also mean that UI would need to be reworked (2d windows and menus in 3d space a`la dead space) to work well with oculus and increase importance of IVA and kerbal first person view (better visibility during IVA, with monitors+cameras replacing front windows or windows adjusted to kerbal anatomy). As much as I would love to see oculus rift support (including VR friendly UI) and improved cockpits and IVA's I'm not shure if ability of experiencing space travel "first hand" it's worth the effort (probably not).

Actually I found this part quite useful as rendezvous thrusters for small and medium orbiters, but I believe that this engine should be using mono-propellant (better specific impulse than linear RCS), probe's using small bipropellant tanks (oscar) is bit ridiculous and some compact engines that could share fuel with RCS would be great for probes and light spacecraft service modules or space-plane OMS.