rodion_herrera

Rendering. Will upload when done.

Ok thanks for the advice! I will get in touch with them soon.

Hi guys. My girlfriend wants to create KSP-themed cross stitch (needle-point) images. I am curious, how much would you pay for something like this? It will come framed, marque with glass protection. Thanks! - - - Updated - - - Or this?

Managed to squeeze in some time to actually take snaps now. And oh, sorry, wasn't a Poodle but a Terrier for the descent stage.

Not right now, but I can describe it easily. It's basically just a 2-man lander with an X200-8 Fuel Tank slapped underneath for ascent, and another X200-8 with a Poodle for descent.

I have to agree that the v1.0.3 and v1.0.4 Kerbin atmosphere seems to be more forgiving. This Apollo-style stack I made in v1.x.x originally used up about a third of propellant on the third stage to achieve circularization prior to tMI burn, but today when I loaded it up and tried it, I barely used any at all.

Well I just discovered that all my "Apollo-style" stacks in v1.0.4 (built in v1.x.x) now seem "overbuilt". It used to be that I would require some boost from the third stage (as it was with the real Saturn V) before reaching a good LKO from which to perform a trans-Munar injection burn, but today, after patching to v1.0.4, I still had a nearly full tank for my third stage, when before it used to have burned off about a third for circularization. I now feel that v1.0.3/v1.0.4's Kerbin atmosphere is a much more forgiving one. And I don't know whether to be happy or disappointed

SSTO's almost a non-challenge now with 1.0.3

They are now on Phil's desk, on this week's Saturn feature of Crash Course.

My first KSP was Alpha v0.19 back in April of 2013. Back then I created an Apollo-style craft. Not only did I successfully land on the Mun (free return trajectory orbit nonetheless), I also managed to take off from it and return to Kerbin, using an MOR (Munar Orbit Rendezvous) method. First try. I thank my Orbiter experience (I have used Orbiter since 2001) for achieving this on the very first attempt. I was also part of an Orbiter addon team that developed addons and enhancements for NASSP (which eventually became Project Apollo).

Harvester told me to try it (he posted about it in the Orbiter forum).

But sooner or later, differing standards must gel into something universal yes? I mean, is the debate really over if Gagarin really made one orbit, or is the argument against it still strong, considering he ejected from the spacecraft before he landed (based on that French rule thingy)?

Always happens to me after v1.0.x and instead of actually feeling irritated about it, I realized this actually boosted the essence of "Kerbal" in Kerbal Space Program. I like it.

I would slightly admit that my original question was sort of a loaded one. I mean if there was a competition for "strict" SSTO, then a spaceplane I made, that would utilize drop tanks, might be disqualified. Or is it still up for debate? Or it all depends on the "house rules" of the competition?

Thanks for all the input, nice insights, and I have a clearer picture of things now.

I agree with many of your points. But purely for the sake of just getting a spaceplane up into orbit or another planet/moon, it is still an interesting way to get someplace. I was just curious if the term SSTO is strict enough to disallow ET-equipped craft to be considered as such.

Granted, this is an aircraft. But, if you built a spaceplane that carries external fuel tanks or pods, and you jettison them (much as a fighter plane would) as you perform your ascent to orbit, are you "staging"? So a spaceplane that does this, cannot be considered an SSTO, even though technically, it is still relying on the same engines for ascent and do not rely on other "assist" engines to reach orbit?

The RAPIER is my best friend. It behaves like the SCRAMJET system in Orbiter's DeltaGlider, a spaceplane I'm very fond of.

Did a Tiny-DynaSoar kind of thing. Sorry no pics of lifter. Lifting body kind of design. On approach. In cockpit view. This is what happens when you play with too much rudder after landing and you forgot to pack drogues

After reading some posts here about people having trouble with rockets "tumbling end over end" I realized that most of them have CoG shift issues, due to fuel depletion in first stages, which even reduced gimballing or fins won't help with. The better way to solve such issues is throttling back and climbing to a point where drag and air resistance is less of an issue, then going full throttle.

Spread out since May of 2013. I checked my post Statistics and it says a figure of 1.43 posts a day. Let's say I spend 5 minutes to write a rather long post. That means I only spend roughly between 5-20 minutes a day on the forum, the same time I spend drinking coffee or putting on my clothes to go to work (the reality is, I spend months at a time totally away from this forum or KSP when out doing fieldwork, and my activity in both forum and in-KSP are usually clustered on huge chunks of free time like vacations etc). Meanwhile, going to the Mun (and back) on a fine ship would probably take a good one or two hours of my free time, which is difficult to do (unless I reason out to my boss that I'm playing KSP at work to do "research", which is very valid, because I'm a basic astronomy lecturer for elementary and high school kids). I like your math.

This thread brought back memories of 1982 when I was playing this at the local arcade...

Sometimes I'm amazed at how much time and passion people have in posting and discussing stuff like this, when I even barely have enough free time to play the game itself!

There are those who are making legit complaints and I am not referring to them, because I too believe in good feedback mechanisms. I'm referring to those who are going slightly overboard at their comments and almost even using ad hominem remarks directed at the Squad staff. I don't understand what you mean by "cutting themselves off from mods" when in fact that was the essence of the suggestion--to USE mods to make 0.90.0 or earlier HAVE features that makes it feel like v1.x.x, because after all, a large portion of those who complain in this manner, also are fond of saying "This mod is better" or "that mod actually implements this better than Squad does." - - - Updated - - - To give an example, those who make legit complaints or offer suggestions to problem issues, do it in the PROPER Forum area, and NOT in the General KSP Discussion, and I believe they do it, because they know that the General area tends to get more readers, and they hope to gather momentum for their complaint (perhaps to make it seem "a pressing issue") by making sure that most people get to see it and not tucked in some suggestions corner. The immediate type of response you gave to my post, itself, is a typical example of why this is an issue. You mean to tell me you do not even see a shred of positivity in my post, when I am actually offering a solution (and it is a solution that WILL work if only to preserve fun and enjoyment in PLAYING KSP, rather than the fun and enjoying of "HAH, see? Squad realized I was right, so they are finally listening to my rant and seeing WHY my suggestion is right!" kind of pleasure) to solve certain woes?

I direct this query to those who loved alpha and/or beta KSP and say that v1.x.x doesn't feel "right". But before I ask the question, let me state this: Some obviously enjoyed their time in the Alpha or Beta versions of KSP, which is why when v1.x.x came out, they felt shortchanged somehow by all the changes and new stuff found in update, esp. in aerodynamics, heating etc. So my question is, what do you actually LIKE about v1.x.x, that you feel should ONLY be in v1.x.x (and not include the stuff you don't like about it)? The reason I ask this is: a) If you don't like a MAJORITY of the new stuff in v1.x.x, what's preventing you from reverting back to v0.90.0 or earlier? If you don't want to revert because you DO like some of the new features found in v1.x.x, then would it be possible to find mods for v0.90.00 or earlier, that would mimic the new stuff you like in v1.x.x? If this is possible, you don't see any POSITIVE thing at all to this move? You do not see it as a solution to your problem? I think by either going the A or B route, the people who are complaining that v1.x.x is a "bad" update have no reason to really complain at all, unless otherwise, all they really want is to "make some noise" to somehow force the majority to think that "Hey, the way WE play KSP is what EVERYONE else should be playing, because it is the RIGHT WAY or implementation!" and thus fantasize to force Squad to submit to how they envision v1.x.x of KSP SHOULD be like.