xmaslightguy

This mod is the only way I can play the game. Thank you so much!

I can just see the PDA after this update about how we hype too much and caused thousands of dollars of property damage to Squad's servers

300 yay!

Been away from playing KSP for 5 months now, and I have finals in a few hours, but screw all that I'm boarding this train!!!

Thank you all of you for your advice so far! I'm going to try and answer each in turn: @Budgie I have a habit of setting myself nearly impossible goals so I can always be moving forward, and that is what the space mention was. I realize if I ever send anything into space it will likely be because I'm working with NASA or some private aerospace company. Also thank you for the advice about model rocketry. @Armchair Rocket Scientist I'm checking out the forum you suggested as I type, and I already can see what you mean by the giant knowledge base that forum represents. With regards to my degree, my only goal is to go into space and help bring more people there. Aerospace engineering is the most direct path to that goal in my opinion, but I've really been enjoying math and mathematicians are also important in space (one of the degrees you can have to be a mission specialist for NASA is a mathematics major). Finally, the suit mate has access to the aluminum and other structural materials for the body of the rocket, but I would need to acquire the chemicals and engine parts in addition. However, I don't just want to launch something into space because it would be cool. I really want to learn and practice all parts of the rocket construction from the ground up, so if I can learn how to manufacture a basic rocket engine and develop a process to synthesis rocket fuel, I would gladly chose that over just buying the parts. @Velocity The electrical components is definitely a part I haven't focused on. I know some students studying for a Computer Science degree, but I don't think my university has an electrical engineering degree. Regardless, what you described with the gyroscopes is thought provoking and helpful, and I will definitely look into a remote-abort system if I can construct a rocket.

I am a freshman at university and I have ambitions to be an aerospace engineer. Sadly the school I chose only has mechanical engineering so I've settled for a mathematics degree. However, this doesn't diminish my desire to build rockets and one day go to space, so I decided I would start early. My roommate is a chemistry major and my suit mate is a mechanical engineer major, so basically we have access to materials, the means to produce a design, and more likely than not a faculty member on the campus who will help us find a spot to launch the rockets. The only problem is we are all freshmen and don't have enough knowledge yet to actually achieve this. So we're all going to teach ourselves what we need to know to get this done, and this is where I turn to the forum community. What do we need to learn so that we can design and launch rockets capable of some extended flight? Long term goal would be to reach space, but we are definitely aware we will start with only a couple hundred feet. Once again, we all know next to nothing so any reference material or concepts we should know about would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for helping this dream come true!

I'm a little confused on how to do this, because the error occured when I landed on the Mun and tried to EVA my kerbal. Am I supposed to just continue landing ships until it happens again? because I really don't have the time to do that. (I was using one mod, so I will probably send the report to the creator of that to see if he can use it)

I just had my game crash and generate a folder with the error report. How do I send this to Squad so they can use it to better improve the game?

My recommendation is to not look at it as a manner of time and detication, but what does she bring to the relationship that you like, and what do you bring that she likes? Have a conversation about, honestly, what you two enjoy about each other, and if you cant come up with enough things then you should really consider ending it. Dating for the sake of not ending a relationship is never a good idea, but neither is throwing away something good because of lack of communication. (PS I would also ask about her saying Love. For me, I use that word very easily, so it sounds ridiculous that you'd be complaining about it after 6 months)

In my experience with this update, I've discovered a few key things. I'm currently playing without quick-loads or reverts. - I'm using probes a whole lot more! Unless its a mission that requires a kerbal, I consistently opt for the probe so I don't risk killing my pilots - Screw real science! I'm totally in love with the contract science rewards and focus on those rather than actual experiments now - One at a time. I'm discovering less stress and more fun only going for one or two closely related contracts in a launch, rather than trying to get 15 and not getting a single one Overall loving this update, and finding the experience not reduced at all by avoiding the revert launches and quickloads

Omg yesh!!!!!

Oh man, I was like "I should check this out..." and I just read 12 entries! Excellent suggestion, and I will be buying his book when it comes out

So does this equation mean that heavier objects technically do fall faster, since the gravitational pull would be greater?

So I've been bitten by the KSP bug and now seriously want to own a telescope to view things in the sky. In the fall I will be going very far north for college, and from visits know that it is easy to get away from all light pollution and get an amazing view of space. Because of this, I'm interested in purchasing a telescope for myself, and was wondering if the KSP community had any recommendations. Criteria: Cost less than $200 Able to withstand below freezing temperatures for short periods of time Tripod so I can easily use (6' 2" is my height) Magnification so that I can at least view the red spot on Jupiter Smaller size it better, but not if it violates the previous criteria Thanks for reading and any advice you can give. I'm also interested in recommendations on what I should view besides the moon and other planets.

I imagine if you want to avoid this sort of comment in the future, just make sure you have a illicit-adult site running in the background behind KSP. That way, when you see her about to walk by, you can just alt+tab to the site and she will be none the wiser. Just stare absentmindedly at the website, pretending to be interested, then when she is assured you aren't playing KSP and walks away, alt+tab right back and continue the mission. DISCLAIMER: This is terrible advice...

I have long been in support of this type of direction. Currently, we go to school to get a job, work that job to make money, and use that money so we can retire and not work. I think offering this program as a type of retirement could be very attractive, where you pay for the real food and water your body needs, all the while you enjoy the fantasies of a lifetime, living in whatever physical condition you want. So maybe as an end-goal retirement, but not for use in daily life like video games.

I think my favorite thing about KSP is the fact that it is definitely an unfinished game, but still more fun and addicting than any other game I've played. I recently spent 16 hours landing a permanent Mun base. It crashed and became REALLY permanent, so I launched a rescue craft. He crashed 100 meters from the first ship, so I launched another one. This one crashed and killed the pilot (RIP Leonard Kerman), so I finally launched my last and best rescue craft. It landed on a hill, got the two stranded kerbals, and made a return orbit to Kerbin with 5 Liquid fuel left. The point of that story isn't that I'm a bad pilot (which I am), but the fact that I spent 16 hours failing over and over again, and still enjoyed every second of it. Point out another game were success is only barely more enjoyable than failing.

In my mind, an Alcubierre drive is based on condensing space-time in front of the craft, and releasing it behind to create a wave the ship can ride. I'd say the result of this bubble hitting earth would be people in the path of the ship would see it entering the atmosphere in slow-motion, go to regular speed as they enter its sphere of influence, and then go superspeed on impact as the back of the bubble reaches ground level. To anyone outside of this bubble, they would just observe the spaceship going through the atmosphere at whatever speeds it was traveling (relative to Earth) when it started using the Alcubierre drive.

So I was thinking today about the two biggest gas giants of our solar system, Jupiter and Saturn, and how cool their rings and moons are. I know each have large collections of both kinds, and I started wonder just how big these collections are. If all mass currently in orbit around Jupiter and Saturn condensed into a single moon around each, how big would the moons be? Which one would have more mass? How do they scale up to the inner planets?

You also have to realize a true AI would only learn what you taught it. If the first package you uploaded was ideology.socialism, then the robot would want to have the humans working along side them, getting paid the same amount they do

Wait a second, if as the mass of the fuel increases so does the exhaust and intake, couldn't you travel faster than light if you had even the slightest amount of fuel left? The way I see it, lets say there is a 5000 kg ship, which is accelerating at 10 m/s. Given a year, that ship will be traveling faster than light, except mass increases so it can't. At start, the F=ma formula would be 50000N=5000kg*10m/s/s (or 10m/s/s=50000N/5000kg). As mass increases, you need more force, unless what you say is true and the exhaust also increases paportionally. At some point the formula could look like 10m/s/s=(2.5*10^10N)/(2.5*10^9kg). This would keep going until velocity has reached 3*10^8 m/s, at which point the equation still works! ($ means infinity) 1m/s/s=$N/$kg, and the following second the ship would be traveling 300,000,001 m/s and thus faster than lights. Also even if the ship used some of its mass as fuel, it would only make it accelerate faster, and so long as there is the smallest fraction of fuel left when velocity equals c, it would equal infinity and the vessel would accelerate. What am I missing? Unless this is actually the way to travel faster than light.

Wow, that explains it really well! I recently gave an informative speech on time dilation, so I understand what you're saying. EDIT: Hold on a sec, got a new question below...

To start, this is not based on any level of real life possibility. This is simply an exercise in "what if?" And "how so?" So I was thinking the other day about a issue with traveling the speed of light, and that was how the mass of matter increases the closer you get to the speed of light, with it becoming infinite at c. Now I don't know the formula for this, nor how to understand it, so you'll have to find it. What I'm interested in, is would it be possible to have a perfectly designed engine that never used fuel? Ground Rules: - The engine can accelerate itself, the ship, and its fuel at any acceleration below c - The engine has to use some amount of fuel - The engine is fueled by mass, so as mass increases, so does its fuel supply - The ship starts with 100kg of fuel, and must always have between 95 and 105 kg - The engine can run as long as you need it to What would acceleration of such an engine have to be? What is its rate of fuel consumtion?

I recently made my first mun landing. It was the first time I landed anything on any other celestial body, but what made it so great was I did it Apollo style. Had my CSM in orbit as the LM descended. Landed, did stuff, then took off by leaving the landing stage. Reconnected perfectly just as my fuel ran out, and made it back home within visible distance of KSP. All done without any quick saves and on my first try

Mission 2: Integrity Test The recent success of the RT-12 rocket has been over-shadowed as the SRO launched their own kerbalnaut to an altitude of 34,000 meters. However, the pilot, Kernikov, died on impact after a capsule failure. We can surely do better! Conditions of Success: 1) Get a manned capsule above 34,000 meters 2) Have the rocket land in the ocean 3) The Kerbal survives Available Tech: 1) Solid Rocket Boosters 2) One-Kerbal capsule 3) All parachute packs 4) Struts Unavailable Tech: 1) Stage decoupler/separators: Explosive charges might damage the capsule 2) Reaction Wheels: With a 74% chance of catching fire, they are too risky at this point. The one in the capsule is fine however 3) Landing legs: They are not strong enough at this point Reward: $K25,000: Also 50% of rocket cost if successful on the first try Optional Reward: If the kerbalnaut can make it above the predetermined atmospheric line of 50,000 meters then you unlock radial decouplers