Tex

As long as the craft is going below about 5-10 m/s, the craft should be good on chutes alone. Try to burn to that range if you do have to use the engine.

Please explain. I welcome criticism as long as it is backed up.

There are two ways you could look at it: The Earth could gradually slow over time until it did not revolve anymore (the most likely theory, and a proven one!), or the Earth would put on the emergency brake and stop instantaneously. If we were to visualize the sudden-stop theory, what do you think would most likely occur? I picture every single object would be violently thrown sideways due to their own inertia. Mountains would crumble, and billions of people (not to mention animals) would die without any inkling of impending destruction... What do you think?

Mother of Kerbals.

I had a small... well, HUGE anomaly occur just few minutes ago! Here's the background: I had three Stayputnik-style probes in orbit around both Kerbin and Minmus. One of them was a lander, and It's still alive. The first one I deployed is still alive at 2 million km. But the middle one, the second probe... has utterly vanished. There is no record that it existed at all. The debris from it was cleaned up for the third launch, and the probe itself no longer exists! It started when I took a routine look at the Tracking Station. Everything seemed fine, but it said one of the probes was on a Sub-orbital Trajectory towards Minmus. What? I took control and things went completely out of control. The NavBall was completely black, and the altimeter was going absolutely haywire. No sense at all was made that day. Then, to top it off, you couldn't see the probe itself. THEN I looked at the Map view, and the universe was gone. Then I quit the game, went back in... and even the Space Center was gone! It was only after I restarted the game that everything was back to normal... Minus one space probe. This is my biggest Kracken experience, what's yours?

I absolutely disagree. My probes do come home... ...as fireballs...

Yes, that's what I said in the post. I know that science itself would have no value, but I would enjoy seeing the results of the experiments/soil samples. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Hey gang, I want to have a discussion about science in the Sandbox Mode. Personally, I support the notion that science should be able to be at least gathered so you can see the results! I want to do science in the Sandbox so I can make a more realistic feel for my missions without the headache of filling out the Tech Tree. Discuss!

Thanks guys, I'll be checking some of these out.

--BEGIN LOG-- Mission: CommSat Program Program Goal(s): Set up geostationary array of communication satellites/probes for future missions, possible Kethane detection system. Mission Objective: Prepare CommSat probes for launch Mission Report: The CommSat construction is now underway. The first probe, CommSat1, has been mostly constructed and undergoing stress testing and operation tests, such as solar array function and antenna ability. Launch stages/tug stage still incomplete. --END LOG--- First of a series of perhaps 8 satellites! I'm hoping for at least two in polar orbit, so we'll see where this goes. Fingers crossed!

Hey gang! I've been dinking around with the Kethane mod, and I think it is a great system that sort of incentivizes my missions. I was wondering if there are more mods similar to this, that add new mechanics but not a whole lot of new parts. I've considered ISA MapSat, but is there anything else that I should know about? I'm into more science-related stuff mod-wise. Thanks!

My rebuttal: 1. I never stated that the knowledge itself is monetized, but would merely result in a grant for notable achievements, like a prize for a science competition. I'm sure you're aware of the N-Prize. 2. I believe that the value of the experience gained through not only discovering exactly what methods of spending would steer you into a financial pitfall, but learning what methods would keep you in the green would benefit players not just game-wise, but reality-wise too. I believe that this would increase financial literacy, and maybe (just maybe) one day save a player from a real-world debt scenario. Maybe. I apologize for the confusion, I sometimes struggle with expressing the picture in my head (as my Creative Writing teacher has explained several times ), but this, I hope, can further define my idea. Thanks for the criticism, though! Nobody would get anywhere without it!

I know people have been discussing the Currency system on and off for a while now, so I'd like to cash in now while the career mode is still subject to a lot of change. My idea is to trade science points for currency! This would better represent real world publishing of scientific data for acclaim and possibly (possibly) some research grants. I believe that each science point could net you anywhere from 1000 to 10000 currency units (depending on the already-established part costs, I'm not picky as to the final cost) so you could buy parts with a budget that will only put out as much as you can make it. I also believe that it would be cool to trade extra cash back into science points, as a way of "increasing R&D's budget" so you can generate even more cash. Starting a new career mode game would obviously give you a fairly respectable in-game budget that would allow you to set up basic rockets with the parts available from your current tech tree. The only exception being, of course, sandbox mode, with no tech tree and no budget whatsoever. Well, that's my idea anyway. Any other thoughts?

Duplicate the save file and just go wherever you'd like to go!

Well, personally, .22 has taught me to be extremely conservative as to my rocket designs. With the very limited parts list of Career mode at the early stages, I've come up with some interesting new ideas about efficiency and plain old design sense that I'm not sure that I would've had before.

It's easy to make goofy-looking parts appear very much in style with your landers/rockets. My advice is to just play around with the arrangement, alternate goo cans and monoprop tanks, e.t.c.

I was watching Danny4246's videos, when he got to a segment on "Stress-Testing Kerbals", where he drops a fuel tank within meters of the Kerbal, and then is disappointed that there are no shock waves as the Kerbal does not react. I had the idea of suggesting shock waves to KSP for a new mechanic/add to realism. I think that this would work similarly to how main engines can push other entities away from said engine, but an explosion would produce this effect in a 360 degree ball and exert a large (depending on the size of the part exploding) force on all nearby parts/Kerbals. This would, of course, make in-flight accidents a bit more disastrous, not to mention having some cool effects if two spacecraft were to collide (per se) So? This is just an idea, remember

During the final descent of my VERY FIRST munar lander, the Armstrong Lander, I started coming in, doing my final burns and whatever. I saw that i was going sideways a bit fast so I turned and burned the opposite direction, then realized I was waaaaaaay overcompensating, so I overcompensated for THAT... then finally got down to ~20m or so above the surface. Still going really fast, so I turned again, my landing legs made contact (promptly breaking off), then bumped me so I was burning sideways towards where I was burning away from. (Confusing, I know... ) Long story short, after my legs broke off, I was constantly bumping and sliding, and I laughed so much as I was just doing little frog-leaps across the surface before finally falling over and sliding sideways to a stop... Not very successful, but I still made it

I actually had this problem a while back as well, and my solution (as suggested by a commentor) is to put one of those small octagonal struts under the Jumbo tank, slap on 6-8 struts to hold it together better, then put a fuel line from the tank to the engine. Problem solved!

Sure, it could be easy to implement, much like the auto-tracking solar panels, but if you have even a few units of RCS fuel, why not just rotate the probe/capsule manually?

I do actaully recall seeing that man's story in Ripley's B.I.O.N., apparently his thumb was severed in a motorcycle accident or some such a thing. Interesting theories, everybody!

Absolutely true.

Alright, just hear me out: I was about to head home from school today when I had this pretty amazing idea. Basically, you could (possibly 50 years in the future) go to a doctor and have implanted somewhere near your heart a USB drive. Of course, unless you had a memory stick implanted as well (in a place other than the heart, I'd hope) you could only do one thing with it: Charge your mobile device of choice! My theory is that it would work due to the fact that the heart is made of self-stimulating muscle that uses very small amounts of electricity to cause a spasm which beats the heart. Pacemakers are pretty much the opposite of my idea; instead of taking power from the heart, pacemakers actually help "shock" the muscle to stimulate it. My other half of the idea: if you had this implant and charge a mobile device, and if your heart couldn't produce the required amount of energy, it would be a simple matter for the heart to produce extra energy to regain the balance. In this sense, charging a device would actually make your heart stronger as it beats faster and makes up the energy lost through charging! Of course, this is just an idea, a theory. I do not pretend to be an expert of human anatomy or bio-engineering or cyber-implants. What do you guys think? is this possible? Carry benefits (or disadvantages)?

Hey there, fellow Kerbonauts. I was wandering around the forums, bored, and I was thinking about different sizes of rockets. Thinking about 2.5m rockets eventually got me thinking about decimals. I always prefer to not only do my calculations using them instead of fractions, but also I try to convert fractions to decimals whenever I can. Personally, I prefer working in decimals for simplicity and ease of operation, but what' y'all's take on it?

My fellow Kerbonauts of the forums, I have two words to say to you. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. -ahem- Recently I posted a thread called 2.5m Rocket Troubles. Though only about five or so people posted, their assistance, their knowledge, and their very wisdom has brought me to this thread right here. It is my great honor to announce that since that thread, I've made FOUR successful dockings, began construction on a SPACE STATION (with two official modules and a crew ship so far), and a 2.5m ROCKET that has triumphed AGAIN AND AGAIN. So I say again, my dear friends from the interwebz: THANK YOU. Without you guys (and a little help from Scott Manley ), what I've done would not have been possible. For a few months, maybe a year, anyway. You guys rock! I'm in the big leagues now! My next step is building an interplanetary tug. -I'll post some pics on my blog once I figure out the uploading system -