PlonioFludrasco

Yes, but found nothing about flyby porkchop plots. EDIT ok, I've search better and probably I stepped into a bug of the tool, that occours when using kerbin time units. I'll try later with Earth units.

On low tech little probes and satellites, liquid fuel engines are too heavy if you want to go small.

Guys I need some help! I'm planning a Jool mission, with a fly-by at Eve, but I'm stuck in the search of a feasible flyby trajectory. What I have exactly to do, to make it work? I've tried to get a departure date from the flyby porkchop plotter, and the various transfer times. Then I've put those data in the multi-flyby sequencer, but I can't have feasible solutions. What's wrong?

Meaning of life is eating pi rad of a big pizza on pi day!! (true story!!)

Hey, are yours those solid rockets throwing flames? krigtamf

It can also be a parabolic orbit seen from an angle, assuming one between the upper or the lower point (depends if you are seeing the orbit from above or from below) is the limit of position(t) when t goes to + or - infinite (is the same), and also at infinite distance. Sorry, too much projective geometry today...

To add moar boosters!

At low altitude, you also have to consider lift from wings. Given the direction of the green arrow, you are starting with very high AoA, meaning lot of lift. Since in this configuration your center of lift is very far from CoM, that lift causes a big momentum you should correct for. Sidenote: you can also add some fins on the side opposite of the orbiter, to offset CoL to a better position. Because this is a replica, I guess you don't want those fins to be visible at all. If you like, you can clip them inside the ET or inside each SRB for a better look.

When my new space station went RUD after adding a cupola, a bug from many versions ago. Another one, a kraken that sent every ship into orbit at warp speed, and exactly in the same point. Focused one of them, and... fireworks! Only flags and a probe lander survived

Great, someone agrees with me!

Go to sleep->learn rocket science Don't go to sleep->play KSP instead->learn rocket science. Same result with less fun=bad stuff :D

If the Space Shuttle was still a thing, it could have been disassembled and took back to Earth with it. Can't see the point, but possible (AFAIK) if STS was still there.

Is there a way to "repurpose" space stations? If I already have a 5 kerbal one and later a contract asks me for a 12 kerbal station, can I just launch some hab modules and, with some repeated docking-undocking, make the game believe the station is new? I got a look at the persistent file, and docked crafts are managed having a main craft, giving the name and launch time to everything, and then docked vessels as "sons" of the main craft. Can those roles be swapped in game?

Must quote absolutely!

Meaning of life is 42.

@TeaBag Se non sbaglio, se metti due motori simmetrici e non allineati al CoM (per esempio usando il bi coupler mk2) questi possono venire ruotati in modo da avere un momento anche attorno all'asse di roll. Comunque, per quanto ne so, la rotazione delle parti tipo motori o superfici di controllo non viene fatta passando direttamente da comando x a rotazione attorno all' asse x di quella parte, ma viene anche considerata la posizione di quella parte prima di calcolare la rotazione. Altrimenti non si spiega come, ad esempio, spostando con offset un alettone che si trovi dietro il COM fino a farlo trovare davanti ad esso, questo ruota in verso opposto rispetto a prima se invio lo stesso comando di pitch. Se così fosse, avresti la rotazione proprio sui due assi che ti servono. Un' altra cosa: se fosse possibile editare un cfg in modo da avere una parte che ruota come una superficie di controllo ma ha il "surface attachment" abilitato in modo da potervi connettere altre parti, si avrebbe una parte mobile come quelle di IR ma che è controllata dai comandi di volo. Secondo voi è veramente possibile?

Perpetual motion devices are impossible. Note that the modern definition of perpetual motion devices refers to systems that produces energy without changing their state, not something that mantains it's speed or rotation indefinetly. Every atom or particle would be such a device, by that definition! Why they are impossible? Because they violates thermodynamics' principles. That would be nice, (free energy for everyone, no more delta v budgets!) but unfortunately Universe is an honest guy that never brakes the law.

IMHO: I define stock only things already into the game as you download it, and their style. About art style: I think of a stock look as a style that is very similar to the one you can find in stock parts, and that also integrates well with parts of a certain stack: you surely have noted that medium-sized parts have a more cartoonish style than Kerbodyne ones. Strictly stock, just that. But there are also things that even if not part of the stock game could fit well in it, so one can say that are "stock like" Kind of parts: parts similar to ones found in the original game, that also are not overpowered in terms of performance and not meant to surclass the parts we already have. I consider stock like ships the ones that are made of stock like parts. (banality!) About planets: anything that is plausible given the scaled down size of the Kerbol system. I haven't wrote about the other stuff because I never tried them modded. Even about gameplay, I never installed heavy mods that changes it completely, both because I like current one (but changes are welcome, I never found a release to be worse than the previous, good job Squad!) and because my PC can't handle much more than a couple of mods.

Was that the Ares rocket?

Per quanto riguarda il gimbal è facilmente modificabile: è definito semplicemente da un valore nel file .cfg dei motori che lo hanno. Quindi basta (credo, non ho mai provato ad editare il gimbal!) aprire questo file col blocco note (Si trova in GameData/Squad/Part/Engines/(motore che ti interessa) ) e modificare questo valore. //---------------------------------------------- MODULE //parte del file originale dell' LV-45 { name = ModuleGimbal gimbalTransformName = thrustTransform gimbalRange = 1 //Rotazione massima } //--------------------------------------------- MODULE //Stessa parte modificata { name = ModuleGimbal gimbalTransformName = thrustTransform gimbalRange = 45 //adesso ruota di 45° ! } //----------------------------------------------- EDIT: Appena ho un po' più di tempo faccio un paio di prove, se mi viene qualcosa di buono magari lo metto su Dropbox!

Never heard of asymmetic rockets except STS and Energia. cool stuff, +rep. Anyway, was that Atlas V supposed to fly with just 1 SRB or someone forgot to switch to symmetry mode? Back on topic, yes, it will be very useful to have such an engine. edit: I mean dedicated engine

Set a maneuvre node somewhere on your orbit, then drag the prograde marker until you have an escape. At that point, drag the node along your current orbit to have the maximum height of Sun apoapsis possible with the delta v you set. To know you are at maximum, move a little bit the node once to one side then to the other. If both of resultant apoapsides are lower then the original, the maneuver node is placed optimally. Now, if the resultant orbit doesn't cross Kerbin's one, just add prograde delta v to the node until it does, and you are ready to go. EDIT ninja'd

Now you need proton torpedoes, for science!

That picture gives a very good idea of how long low-thrust burns can be: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/552784main_trajectory_new-full.jpg

Cool, but they must fix them because much of the artefacts were buried after a terrain reworking some updates ago.