Der Kosmos

Members
  • Content Count

    127
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Der Kosmos

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If you are using a life support mod, it might be interesting to have a cycler that was a closed loop habitat to cut down on life support requirements on interplanetary trips.
  2. Is there any way to change the icon view of Kerbals in the Astronaut complex so it represents their replaced texture rather than the default male or female?
  3. I'd separate jet fuel from Cryogenic fuel. Jets use jet fuel, First stage rocket engines use a mix of jet fuel and oxidizer. NTRs use Cryogenic fuel, and vacuum optimized rocket would use a mixture of cryogenic fuel and oxidizer. Cryogenic fuel tanks would also be less dense, and perhaps require electricity or bleed off propellant if they get too hot.
  4. It would be nice if Tourists ever asked to spend set amounts of time in a space station in orbit. Perhaps with contextual contracts they might ask to visit a specific space station.
  5. I started having this problem after my video card updated it's drivers (Radeon R9 200, 15.11). But the problem ONLY happens when I try to launch it from steam. The new driver software puts a streaming overlay onto the game much like the steam overlay, so if it's overlays that cause this, it might be the two conflicting with each other.
  6. [quote name='Sof']I'm pretty sure the joolian system would rip itself apart if the moons exerted any force between them.[/QUOTE] It's been simulated, Val leaves almost immediately, and Bop a few decades latter. After that the entire Kerbol system is more or less stable. As for the argument that getting orbits changed would be annoying. We already have to take that into account when the Mun's SOI sweeps through the area and kicks your satellites into escape trajectories. It's even ruined rescue missions. Really it's just another factor for experienced players, to take into account. It seems like the kind of people who would have trouble with that are the kind of people who rarely leave the Kerban system anyways. Remember a newbie player is one who hasn't gotten to the Mun and back yet without mods, and the vast majority of players don't go any further than Minmus.
  7. Because you aren't in the same conic. It only shows you trajectory changes for the same SOI.
  8. Would it be safe to remove UKS and install KMS lite as a downgrade? I don't have any bases built yet, but I do have radial supply containers on some of my spacecraft.
  9. Argh. I tried installing serious lasses, and I keep getting female heads on the males (which actually look kinda cute with long hair) and default heads on the females. Did I copy the cfg file wrong? EDIT: I found out what was wrong, the names in the list were capitalized incorrectly. The files were named LassKerb_xy but in the cfg the female heads were listed Lasskerb_xy. It was like this when I downloaded it, did anybody else have this problem?
  10. I'd suggest hiding that button, I didn't mean to press it, but very bad things happened when I did, and I ended up nuking that save.
  11. It seems it's possible to release an inflated Ponderosa from it's muncrete slab. There seems to be no way to re-attatch it, and this angers the kracken. The version I'm using seems very buggy anyways, will updating make it worse? If I deflate everything will I get my rocket parts back?
  12. Any chance of a bi-modal nuclear engine that can function as a power generating reactor when not in use?
  13. Would it be possible to show a landing prediction in the flight view instead of just the map? I ask because while the map view can get you to within a few KM, you basicly have to eyeball it for the final approach. If you want to build a base and don't have wheels, you often end up having to waste a lot of fuel hovering and fine tuning. It would be nice if there was some sort of visual indicator showing exactly where you will land.
  14. Well, it seems that even if it does, it weighs almost twice as much as the stock lab. Again, if the rocket parts cost reflects the enhanced utility of the other configurations, then those configurations should be what requires the most parts, just a basic inflatable version of the science lab should be lighter than a stock science lab because it lacks the structural elements, and is balanced by the fact that you need to set it up.