Cirocco

No one. He is a complete and utter fabrication and most certainly does not lurk on the forums attempting to further his nefarious plans. There is no green iron crown. All hail the green iron crown.

hehe, thank you. I have quite a few steam games and I mod several of them, so that pathway sees a loooooot of use. THIS. very much this! When modding games, always copy/paste a clean version of the map you are changing to some other location on your computer. Thank you Ron for mentioning it

that's a pretty big "if". We have no way of knowing that. The estimations for intelligent life differ widely, and like I said, space is mindbogglingly huge. It's hard enough to spot planets the next starsystem over, let alone see what's on them. The hypothesis that there quite a few civilizations out there I can understand, that doesn't seem too farfecthed because of the sheer giant number of possible habitats out there. But while life may be abundant, intelligent life is (while probably still relatively plentiful) probably far less abundant. Adding to that that said intelligent life needs to be sufficiently advanced to communicate reliably on an interstellar basis... Well that makes it a far harder sell to me that you'd just happened to have several of those in "close" proximity. A lot of people seem to take it for granted that any alien civilization we encounter would be more advanced than we are. But that's not neccesarily the case. EDIT: aaaand I got ninja'd by cicatrix on this one It's very hard to estimate this sort of stuff when you only have one example to work with, obviously. But assuming that humans are not too far from the "average" civilization, when I look at the current fields of focus of the human race, I don't think that it's super likely that there's many inter-stellar capable civilizations living within 1-2 star systems of eachother. That being said, what I believe might be more likely is that life either evolves on two different planets in a single system, or spread on two (or more) planetary bodies in the same system through panspermia. It's a lot easier to notice and communicate with your planetary neighbor than it is going intersolar. And if two such civilizations can somehow find a way to co-exist and co-operate, then things can get really interesting. Two-planet civilization without the need for actual travel? Yes please!

why haven't we heard from other civilizations? Because space is huge. Like, mindbogglingly huge. Even if life is abundant, intelligent life will be less abundant. Probably there are/have been/will be a lot of civilizations out there that are capable of interplanetary or intersolar communication, but they will be so mindboggingly far away that it simply is impractical to contact one another if you don't even know where to look, let alone what to look for. We still have trouble spotting smaller planets that are one solar system away with a good degree of certainty, let alone look for signs of intelligent life on them. There is one picture that I once saw on teh intertubez that perfectly summarized it for me. It was a picture of our galaxy (top down view of spiral galaxy) with about 3 blue pixels in one of the arms. The subscript was: "that blue dot has a radius of 60 lightyears. Every single bit of information sent into the universe by humans is inside that dot." Now add to that that electromagnetic signals lose signal strength and coherence the further they travel, and you've got an explanation (note: one, there may be others) for why we haven't heard from other civilizations. space is stupidly, insanely, mind-blowingly huge. Searching for a signal sent by another civilization is like looking for a specific iron atom in a haystack when you only have an optical microscope, no clue what iron looks like and the haystack is constantly being tossed around. Actually, it might be harder than that. note that I am no statistician and that the above comparison is purely based on wild guesses and calculations that I just made up in my head.

I don't run FAR so I'm afraid I'm only of limited help here, but I do have a question: what is the apoapsis height you aim for after aerocapture? I do have some limited experience with FAR, even though I currently run stock and I do know that trying to go for a low apoapsis on the first pass is a bad idea. You should aim for just-barely-captured on your first aerobraking pass and lower the apoapsis with 1 or more consecutive passes into the atmosphere. Trying to get an apoapsis near gilly orbit in the same pass as braking from interplanetary travel is quite likely to result in unplanned disassembly. As for using the nosecone, I think that would work, but again, I am no expert on FAR, better have someone else who actually runs it confirm.

Greetings and welcome to the forums! You'll find we're generally a helpful bunch, and to prove this, allow me to direct you to the folder you are looking for. Since you're running steam, you need to go to the game folder in the steam folder, found in your "program files" folder. The program files folder is found in the C drive. Depending on what windows (I'm assuming you're running windows) you are using, it might be called program files x86 as well. So, the path you want to take is: C > program files (x86) > steam > steamapps > common > kerbal space program > gamedata There you just drop the chatterer folder and presto: mod installed. the pathway I gave you is from memory (I'm at work now, not on my gaming pc) so there may be one or two steps I forgot, but it should be pretty close. In an case, steam>steamapps>common is where you want to be looking. Hope I was clear enough, if not, just ask. may your exhaust always be hot, your TWR above 1 and your Isp high! Cirocco

This. Or put even more simple: dare to get out of your comfort zone. I decided to start doing this quite a few years back, best thing I ever decided to do. Personal way I did/still do it: picture in your head what (realistically) the absolute worst case scenario would be if you did X. Is it acutally not that bad or perfectly bearable? Go do X, because that worst case scenario will not come to pass anyway. And if it does, you were prepared for it. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Literally.

Usually repeated revert-to-VAB tests, though testing rarely goes to orbit. I like to keep it at least semi-believable that I'm "running a simulation" so tests are always relatively short. When I'm testing spaceplanes and I actually want to see if I can make orbit efficiently, I usually do a full flight with landing and pay the costs.

Hello and welcome to the forums! Don't worry about that one. It still happens to the most seasoned of KSP players and even happened to real life rocket scientists at least once

Hello and welcome to the forums! As mentioned before, infatuation/obsession with KSP is a perfectly normal side effect of the game. You should only start worrying if you start gaming at sunrise and after a few hours realise you're watching another sunrise

Hello, welcome to the forums and yes, you can have help I'm a pretty big SSTO spaceplane nut myself. The guides and tutorials that iFlyAllTheTime linked you are very solid and should definitely help you get to orbit. It all depends on what exactly you want out of your SSTO's though. Do you want a cargo hauler or a crew transport? Maybe an exploration vehicle with a lot of science equipment? Do you want to go to LKO (Low Kerbin Orbit) or do you want to go interplanetary? The guides should help you get to orbit. One more tip for your flight profile with SSTO spaceplanes (this assumes you are using the stock aerodynamics): start with a steep (45 to 60°) climb to about 15km. once you are at 15km, level out to a shallow (20° or so) climb, keep climbing and gaining speed to roughly 20-23km. At this point your speed should be above 1000m/s once you start noticing a difference in the way your engine sounds(always use turbojets for airbreathing engines by the way, basic jet engines don't function well at high altitude) or if you notice your plane suddenly starting to bank left or right, immediately cut your airbreathing engines and switch to rocket engines. At this point you are basically flying a rocket. Angle up to 60-80° and burn upwards until you get out of the atmosphere. Circularize on your apoapsis and you have orbit. This is not the most efficient way of getting to orbit with an SSTO, but it's the best way to go about it for the first few tries in order to get a feel for SSTO spaceplane flight.

oooooh, build rod from god satellites! (also known as kinetic bombardment satellites. see the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment ) I believe Scott Manley did that once as well

welcome to the forums and to KSP in general! Prepare to lose huge chunks of your life obsessing over specific impulse, thrust-to-weight ratio and interplanetary transfers in all seriousness: welcome to the forums, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. You'll find this is a very helpful community full of people very willing to lend a friendly hand (Also: groeten van uit België)

I admit it's been a while since I looked up/read one so I don't have one handy. I'm at work now, I'll see if I can find some examples when I get back home. If I recall correctly the last one I read was one who put hours of video game time in youth against length of relationships and net income at 30+ years. Again, that's just from memory though, I'll see if I can dig up some practical examples EDIT: okay this is bloody annoying. Quick google search offers only case examples such as bill gates, mark zuckerberg, elon musk etc. but very little objective wide range studies; And the ones that do exist either don't offer any insight in how they defined "nerdy" or don't use the term at all, referring simply to "geeky" or "social outcasts". Success however is more clearly defined: it is usually measured in income in case of career, or relationship length or active ... life in case of relationships. That being said, general concencus is that a large portion the biggest earners worldwide definitely have "nerdy" backgrounds. Of course it does all depend on how you define "nerdy" and "success", as Red Iron Crown correctly pointed out. However, I do stand by my statement that studious, more secluded people with an interest in science/math very much so can and often do blossom and are very successful past (high) school.

Welcome to the forums! Be prepared to spend more time here than you do in the actual game Seriously though, happy to have another member added to the community May your exhaust always be hot, your TWR above 1 and your Isp high!

hmm... well I personally think I'm pretty poorly placed to give dating advice (haven't dated that much and honestly, I'm as blind as a mole when it comes to women showing interest in me) but here goes: - as has been said many times in this forum: be yourself first and foremost. If you're looking for someone who shares interests with you or who likes you for who you are, meeting through a medium which you do not like isn't a great starting point. - practical note: cleanliness and personal hygiene is obviously very important. - biggest advice I can give (from personal experience): don't obsess about it. Being single has a lot of advantages too. Just do what you can to enjoy your life, whether that be with a boyfriend/girlfriend or not. too often it seems that it is commonly accepted that you need to be with someone in order to be happy. Totally false. One can lead to the other, but in no way is the former required for, or guaranteed to provide the latter. EDIT: almost forgot. For all you young geeks/nerds out there, in case you're feeling down about the whole difficulty with dating thing: studies consistently show that nerdy people are the most successful as adults, both in career and relationship aspects. To all young geeks and nerds out there, I promise you: it gets better. I speak from experience. In closing, I have for you a cringe-worthy joke! Why do gamers make for the best lovers? We know how to push all the right buttons.

weeeeeeelll... depends on how you define "working on". I think about designs and doodle stuff on paper almost every day, but I actually rarely fire up the game and build the stuff, mostly because it sucks up time like a black hole* and I'm currently also playing several other games (Dragon age inquisition for one). The doodles/designs I'm currenty doing are for heavy-duty spaceplanes, a large space station and big motherships for multi-planetary and colony-rotation missions. Even though I don't actually have any colonies, nor I have I ever even gone past Duna or Eve in the actual game. For some reason I always have a tendency to design waaaay beyond what I'm currently capable of. *note that I know that black holes don't actually swallow up time but you get my point

Forgive me holy Kraken for I have sinned. Ever since 0.90, I've been much, much more lenient and inclined towards part clipping. Offset gizmo is seeing a loooot of use. Parts are very often slightly clipped inside of eachother for nicer aesthetics, fuel tanks and other parts may be rotated at an angle and clipped inside the attaching part for design or aethetic purposes. Though at least I still try to avoid excess clipping that would feel too "cheaty" to me.

Just saw the gif... There are no words ... That was even closer than I thought! The rocket killed almost all it's horizontal velocity before impact and if it hadn't been angled, it would have been bang on target. Holy Kraken on a bicycle. PleasepleasepleasepPLEASE let this work when they launch DISCOVR in february. It would be AMAZING. Man, I haven't felt like this since I was a kid waiting for my christmas presents. I'm nerding-out so hard right now.

Jeeez, that's insane. I LOVE IT!

A golden oldie: The song "Ironic" by alanis morisette states a ton of situations, none of which are in fact ironic. And that in and of itself is ironic.

I suppose... still makes me a little sad. Is that weird?

this one sounds pretty great, but seeing as we can't do halo orbits in KSP, wouldn't this just mean smashing it into whatever celestial body your ring happens to be orbiting?

whoops, my mistake. That was supposed to say "more realistic guess: NASA with commercial (such as SpaceX) hardware ..."

whelp, that would solve it for me. Out with the old, in with the new. Thanks for the clarification