Cirocco

don't sweat it, I think we all derped in such a fashion at some point. I personally have been on of the many, MANY people who have on several occasions referred to our Moon as Mun, and Mars as Duna. I remember once looking at a picture of Mars and going "hey, where's the large polar caps?" before feeling very silly. I may have also at one point briefly looked for Minmus in the sky, but I may be remembering that incorrectly.

roughly 600m/s in vacuum if memory serves me correctly

my two cents on the whole "search for life" thing: the fact that there's liquid water 100km under the crust of ganymede doesn't necessarily mean that there is (or could be) life on Ganymede. We have no idea of the conditions down there. What is does tell us that as we start to find more and more places in our solar system where liquid water exists, the higher the odds are becoming that one of those spots has conditions suitable to life. Plus of course, water is pretty much a necessity for colonization attempts, so if there's water, colonization becomes more plausible. Again, that doesn't mean we can/should go to Ganymede in particular, but it does mean that if water is more abundant than previously believed, then more places than previously believed may also be alligible for colonization .

Oh I'm hardly surpised at that. The XL engines that come with the SAS-like parts are really, REALLY good.

Usually mythological stuff for my stations and rockets, and suiting adjectives or nouns for spaceplanes. For example: Munar rockets are often called Luna + a number. Munar station was Sentinel station Eve lander was Orpheus (because it was designed to go to hell and back) A sun-diving probe which I never got around to making was/is going to be called Daedalus with an attached sacrificial probe to be sent into the sun called Icarus (reference should be self-explanatory) A mothership that I also never got around to finishing would have been called the Argo after the ship used by Jason and the Argonauts. Spaceplanes: First ever high-capacity kerbal ferry to LKO was called the Charon after the ferryman who ferries the dead across the river Styx. This is a bit of an exception to the rule because it's a spaceplane with a mythological name, but it's also quite an old design which is no longer feasible (it used the outdated MkIII parts) and was built before the current naming convention. First long-range spaceplane that could do runway-minmus-runway without refuel was the KSS (Kerbin Space Ship) Dauntless Second generation long-range spaceplane and the first one to go interplanetary without refuel was the KSS Intrepid. Kerbin-orbiting space station (probably in kerbin-centric orbit) will be called Home One. Colonization stations orbiting other celestial bodies will probably follow the Home X naming convention. Sattelites follow yet another convention: they're called (celestial body that they're orbiting)-(first name of the purpose they're designed for, S for Science, C for communications, M for mapping)-(greek letter of the alphabet to indicate if it was teh first, second, thrid, etc... put into orbit). So for example: Jool-S-Beta is the second science sattelite to be put in orbit around Jool. I like naming things.

self-imposed rules... Oh God where to start... Almost all my self-imposed rules are linked to ship and station design. I very often loosen up these rules because often it is simply impossible to keep them 100% enforced with the stock parts and design options. 1) Kerbals should have some extra space. If at all possible, additional seats should include the hitchiker container because the IVA for that one shows actual supply cabinets and enough room to move around and do tasks other than sit in your seat. The MkII and MkIII kerbal carrying parts seem like aircraft parts to me, which means they're dedicated almost solely to carrying people around. So no supplies and no room to move around, which is unacceptable on long-duration missions. 2) all kerbal-carrying components must be linked with parts through which a Kerbal could feasibly move. This is basically any enclosed part that is at least 1,25m diameter and NOT a fuel tank. And there's less of those than you might think. Structural tubes see a lot of use in my space stations. The fact that it shouldn't be a fuel tank also comes from the next point, though I've been considering using empty tanks to substitute for structural parts. 3) Main fuel storage should, if at all possible, never be adjacent to living space. This to avoid destruction and decompression of living space in the event of catastrophic failure. I run stock so this is just for roleplay purposes, but hey, we're doing a damn space agency here and I care for the lives of those entrusted to me dammit! Even if the Kerbals themselves might be reckless enough not to care (I'm looking at you Jeb). 4) Part count allowing, Kerbals should have some way of evacuating the ship/space station. This is usually done by either a) escape pods (which incidentally also function as science-return vehicles on Kerbin space stations) or having the living quarters be an autonomous section of the ship/ station with its own power, engines and piloting abilities so that in the event of catastrophe, it can separate and make its way to the nearest celestial body. Either for landing (on habitable atmospheric bodies like Kerbin or Laythe) or for a parking orbit to wait for rescue. 5) in case of space stations or large motherships: at least one Cupola-like command pod is required somewhere on the ship, perferrably not as the primary command module. I like to give my kerbals an observation deck with a nice view. 6) designs must be both efficient and aesthetically pleasing. Just slapping stuff together in an ugly way doesn't cut it. The colour and design differences between all the different fuel tanks (especially those of different sizes) actually makes this pretty difficult. that's about all I can think of right now. Those rules already make my design really bloody difficult at times, I don't know if I want any more self-imposed rules

I can't believe no-one has mentioned this one yet: "Kerbal is awesome!" -Elon Musk

as stated before, highly variable. Kerbal helmets are made of miraculum (or something similarly named. Possibly bulls***ium): a substance that somehow allows them to survive impacts that would easily kill them otherwise. I've seen kerbals hit the ground at several dozen m/s and survive by landing on their helmets. Without helmet I'm not entirely sure. Depends on what you speed perpendicular to the landing surface is as well: you can have a kerbal survive if he lands on a flat surface with high horizontal but low vertical velocity. He'll just slide a long time. I haven't thoroughly tested it, but I'd wager something like 5-8 m/s velocity perpendicular to the landing surface? just a guess.

Incorrect spelling of Scirocco/Sirocco. I was young and didn't know better Also, the Sirocco is a mediterranean wind that blows from africa across the mediterranean see and into Europe. The name does NOT come from the damn Volkswagen car! (i've heard that too friggin often )

whoops missed that one.Thanks for the link.

For the europeans among us who are not already in the know: friday next week there will be a partial solar eclipse. The eclipse will be at its peak around 9:30 am GMT. I live in Belgium, for me the eclipse will be 81%. People in the netherlands/great Britain/northern France can probably expect much the same, I'm not sure how countries further away will be affected. I believe that the eclipse will be more complete the more noth you go, but I'm not sure. (see my signature ) So yeah, I'm taking a day off of work to watch. I don't care if I've seen several eclipses already in my lifetime, every single one still gives me that magical feeling of being a giddy little kid

Just thought I'd share: http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/march/nasa-s-hubble-observations-suggest-underground-ocean-on-jupiters-largest-moon/index.html#.VQJqWo6G_h4 An underground ocean on Ganymede has been theorized for decades, but now Hubble has shown some of the stongest evidence yet for its existence. Pretty good new for possibility of finding extraterrestrial microbiological life too

I have a general idea zombie plan that can be adapted at certain points depending on the nature of the zombie apocalypse (does it happen sudden, or more gradual? What is the nature of said zombies? etc.) In general tough: Find a backpack or anything similar and fill it with whatever supplies you can find within one minute. Make sure you have some sort of melee weapon. I live in Europ where we have a serious gun restriction, so a reachable firearm or other ranged weapon is highly unlikely to be near, don't waste time looking for one. Speed is key, get your ass to the nearest shops or other supply point, get as much unspoilable foods as possible. Forget anything that will spoil easily or requires a lot of preparation. Roads are a killer. In case of zombie apocalyps, EVERYONE will be trying to GTFO so roads are likle to be completely gridlocked. Get out, but don't use a car unless it can offroad (and even then, getting out of any city is gonna be mureder). Motorcycles are ideal because they can reach high speeds and maneuvre between obstacles/ traffic jams, but if you can't get your hands on one of those, even a bicycle might be preferrable to a car in case of a total traffic gridlock. Guns are often a thing people will actively look for, but that might actually be a terrible idea. Simple reason being that almost every gun out there has an owner which knows where said firearm is being held. And when the apocalyps hits, all those owners will very quickly go for their firearms and be very unwilling to give them up. In fact, they might decide that that's a very nice backpack with supplies you have there, why don't you leave that with me here before someone gets shot? Zombies are (usually) rather slow. Melee weapons should be just fine if you play things smart and safe. Go North (or south if you live in the souther hemisphere). Head to cold climates. Pretty much all zombies have one thing in common: they're dead. That means no body heat, and no defense angainst becoming frozen solid in sub-zero climates. Try to survive out in the colder climates until the whole thing blows over, adapt as situations occur. Always make sure you have water, heat, shelter and camp at a vantage point. EDIT: damn, didn't notice the necro...

okay my two cents: I like Top Gear. I find it quite amusing and funny, but that shouldn't have any impact on judging the behaviour of the hosts outside the show. On the show you play a character, outside the show you're just another human being, like everyone else. Clarkson is known for treading and even crossing the line of acceptable boundaries. I don't know the details of the situation so I'll reserve judgement on the actual measures taken in this particular instance, but if an offense is comitted, then there should be repercussions regardless of who comitted the offense. All are equal in the eyes of the law and all that. If that means I won't get to see the last couple of episodes of a TV show, I'm okay with that.

Terry Pratchett was one of the only if not the only author whose books have brought tears to my eyes, both from laughter and emotion. A literary genius has passed on. First Leonard Nimoy, now Terry Pratchett. These are sad days for the sci-fi and fantasy culture indeed...

Depends on what you want the mothership to do. If it's for exploratory purposes (my designs usually are) then here's what I tend to inculde: - kerbal storage capacity: Motherships usually carry relatively high kerbal crews in my case (20 and up) for roleplay reasons as well as colony/base crew rotation reasons. - landers crammed full of science equipment: You want as many landers as you feel comfortable with in the mission plan. Either go with several specialised (possibly one-shot) landers or with only one or two broad purpose, re-usable landers. Both have their advantages: specialised one-shots are very often small, light and easily incorporated into the mothership design. Re-usable ones are, well, re-usable. Also, you'll only need one or two for several different mission targets. That being said, they won't be as efficient as dedicated landers and they will likely also be bigger and more difficult to incorporate into the design. - science lab + science equipment: optional, but if you're going to be using multi-purpose landers, you'll want to be able to recycle the science experiments. It's also nice to have dedicated science equipment on the mothership itself, that way you don't have to always use those of the landers when you're just orbiting, aerobraking, etc. - satellites: on exploratory missions, leaving satellites in orbit is a nice way to be able to fulfil contract later down the line. - (sacrificial) surface probes: if landing isn't planned, undesirable (Eve, I'm looking at you) or impossible (Jool, Kerbol), then sacrificial probes are a great way to get science anyways. Pack a couple and send em off with a wave and a tear to get blown up in the name of science. - Escape pods/science delivery pods: single man pods with limited fuel supply can have a two-fold purpose: either to evacuate Kerbals in case of emergency (for role-play purposes unless you run breakdown mods) or, more practically, as science carriers upon return to Kerbin. Large motherships are often incapable of landing on Kerbin in one piece, and rather than send up another mission to collect science, it can be easier to just cram all science into one pod and send it down. - Supply and utility module: usually includes but is not limited to electricity generation, SAS, batteries, monopropellant for use on both mothership and landers, possibly some xenon tanks if you want to refuel some ion-powered things during the mission Other than that, you obviously want some docking ports and lots of lights. That’s about all I can think of.

Right, had the game for two days now, here's my two cents: the amount of fun I'm having with this game is obscene. Great citybuilder, intuitive and easy to get into, yet offers a lot of more in-depth gameplay with policies and the like. Quite forgiving though, not a game for the hardcore gamers out there who want to be seriously challenged and punished hard for every mistake (at least it isn't at the level/city size I'm playing). Could do with a bit better explanation of the impact of certain building/functions (public transport, I'm looking at you), but overall and absolutely awesome game that has sucked me in completely. Last night I literally did a double take after glancing at the clock and going "holy **** midnight ALREADY?!" Lots of stuff that I didn't see in other citybuilders (and which stopped me from buying them) is present in this game. Looooots of customisation is possible, though a word to the wise: make a couple practice cities that go up to decent population, then start over and PLAN AHEAD! Especially when it comes to your your road network! Don't be afraid to use highways for creative solutions (large roundabouts FTW!). So yeah, absolutely awesome game. Also, because of all the policies and micro-management stuff, I can make GLORIOUS SOCIALIST PARADISE! DA, COMRADE!

Hahaha, that is an amzing quote. I may have to steal that one

you don't even need an account, you can just upload pictures freely to imgur, but I also agree that imgur is one of the easiest options

Hello and welcome to the forums! As the previous posters have pointed out, easiest way is to just get to the desired orbit, and then fine tune the orbit to the desired point. In simple terms: if your ship is ahead of the desired position, burn prograde a little to raise apoaps and wait a few orbits. The higher the periapsis, the more distance relative to the ground the satellite will be moved per orbit. if your ship is behind the desired position, burn a little retrograde and wait a few orbits. As before, the lower the periapsis, the more distance relative to the ground the satellite will be moved per orbit. Use longer burns if you're impatient, but then you'll risk overshooting the desired point. One more addition: always remember that the planet is spinning under you while you are performing a maneuver. While going from a lower orbit to a kerbin-centric orbit, the planet will spin with you. That means that if you use a maneuver node no get you exactly where you want to be, you'll end up behind the position you wanted. Aim ahead of the desired position. The lower your starting orbit, the mor you'll have to compensate. How much exatctly is up to practice. good luck!

Step 1: see something somewhere that gives me a flash of inspiration. step 2: forget about said flash of inspiration step 3: get bored at work step 4: remember flash of inspiration step 5: start drawing crude pen designs in one of my notebooks step 6: get home, fire up KSP, try to build said design, notice several critical design errors/limitations, close out game in frustration step 7: repeat step 3 through 6 until design is no longer crippled step 8: perfect design until it accounts for ridiculous self-imposed limitations and demands step 9: either launch design, take pictures, post up on the forums and feel awesome, or completely forget about design and have it be erased upon next update/game restart. I have 2 works in progress that have just gotten into step 8 (one space station and one interstellar mothership). I wonder if I'll ever finish them before 1.0 comes out

I'm thinking of getting it too, though I tend to avoid any pre-order like the plague. That being said, there's quite a few youtubers out there who have been playing pre-release copies and from what I can tell it looks pretty awesome. I personally have been watching Sean "Day [9]" Plott play it on his friday show. Superficially, it does look like a better version of SimCity, but honestly I never played the latest SimCities because of the bad reviews they got, so I can't be any judge of that.

from personal experience: - the MkIII cargo bay allows for large spacebase parts to be hauled up into space in SSTO spaceplanes - the tanks actually have a pretty good fuel to dry mass ratio, though I will definitely agree that the current wing model makes using the tanks a bit iffy. Far from impossible though - the MkIII passenger cabin carries a crazy high amount of kerbals - and finally and probably the most important reason for me: they look cool

*cue small spectacled imp appearing at the bottom right of your computer screen* It seems like your summoning circle has a few incorrectly placed lines. Would you like some help summoning your fellow forum dweller? I'm gonna go with GreeningGalaxy.

Multiple X-es in what is already an incorrect spelling of the word "hacks"? CHEATER!