palioxis1248

So I was thinking about intake air, and I realised that the main problem with airhogging really isn't the fact that there are ridiculous numbers of intakes per se, but rather the fact that it's blindingly obvious none of those intakes could possibly feed air into the jet, considering how they're usually hanging out everywhere or nested into each other and things like that. And the problem is, so long as the air intake system allows any intake at any location to feed air to any jet, realistic intakes aren't going to happen. Instead, why not have an intake air crossfeed system, very much like how we currently have a fuel crossfeed system to keep those Mainsails going? It's worked for the rockets so far, so I don't see any problems adapting this to jets and intake air. Except, of course, no "air-lines". That'd be ridiculous. The system would basically make use of a "fuel-tank" like intake-air storage device, in the form of the existing Engine Nacelles, or tweakable settings that convert certain parts (jet fuselages, structural fuselages, NOT struts) into air-storage canisters but remove their initial functions (i.e. Jet fuselages no longer store fuel if used to store air). The storage capacity would probably be quite low, on the level of 0.1 intake air, to prevent ppl from spamming large canisters of air to power their jets. Only intakes attached directly or via air-crossfeed-capable structures (i.e. converted fuel tanks/various multicouplers, no struts or plates) would be able to feed air into air-tanks, and only engines attached to air tanks via air-crossfeed-capable structures would be able to draw air from the air-tanks. Intake and jet placement would actually begin to make sense.

They're not that hard to build, almost every ICBM in the world uses them, and a race that can build mini-SABREs shouldn't really have problems attaching a hinge to the nozzle of an upside down firecracker and some hydraulics. So...where are they?

I've been using the same super heavy launch vehicle for everything from tiny ion probes to bases.

Proton decay rockets, if they're at all possible. Closest thing to a mass-converter we'll ever have.

Teach them about the ISS and how they can look for it.

Well the thing is, you are not travelling at the right angle, at the right speed and at the right place when you enter the Moon's SOI. With Keplerian orbital mechanics, if you are travelling at escape velocity when you enter an object's SOI (which you pretty much have to be), you will be at escape velocity for every point in your orbit. So there has to be some change in your current velocity in order for you to get capture. This change in velocity can happen when you fire your engines, or you only needed a few m/s to enter orbit, and the system glitched to change your ship's velocity by those few m/s. Hope this clears things up.

Not a very important suggestion, but it would be nice if IVA mode in freefall showed various loose objects floating around, like sandwiches, loose nuts, pens and things like that. It would add a very nice, and Kerbal, touch to the game.

It would be nice if reaction wheels could have gyro saturation, as well as only being able to provide torque in one plane. Seeing a reaction wheel that is obviously flat and in line with the hull pitch a spacecraft upwards for minutes on end is very disconcerting.

Did my reentry burn too early, and was going to come down over water. But Hanald hates swimming, and I'd hate to see him drown. He did crash upon landing in the end though. Thank providence for the Mk 1's 45m/s impact tolerance.

Make a space shuttle! You really only appreciate it for what it is after you've bashed your head over a hundred times trying to make it work!

There are some important differences here. The planets formed around the Sun. They weren't speeding into the solar system above solar escape velocity like your lander was zipping towards the Mun at above Munar escape velocity. Furthermore, even for captured moons such as those surrounding various gas giants and Mars, those either received some sort of gravitational nudge while in the parent body's SOI by another body that caused them to lose momentum and enter orbit, or were slowed down by tidal interactions with the planet. Since KSP doesn't model tidal forces and there are no other massive bodies in the Mun's SOI, it can only be that some glitch in the physics calculations (not uncommon, especially if your trajectory was already almost a capture) caused you to settle into an orbit. So yes, your fuel-free capture orbit was not that extraordinary, but not for the reasons you listed.

Happened to me too. Jeb was perched on the rails of the stairs outside Mission Control to view a spaceship from afar. I switched away and back, and Jeb had apparently somehow climbed 7 flights of stairs back to the ground in a span of what must have been half a second. Presumably this would have killed him if he relocated into stairs.

Damn it Bob. That's Bob isn't it? Ah heck.

I found Danny. The rest is history.

, although it uses airhogging, which I find a little cheatsy. I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say it takes about something like 7 kps, if you use aerobraking and all that.EDIT: Didn't see that^. Please ignore the delta-v figure.

Isn't there a pause on unpack option in the Alt-F12 menu?

It wouldn't be too bad. The chances that any space probe flying through the belt would slam into an asteroid are pretty slim. Only so much of the belt is asteroid.

They're still up there. And up there they will remain.

When you curse Rosetta for taking forever to get to 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

The Flaming Reverse Immelmann of Doom! <iframe class="imgur-album" width="100%" height="550" frameborder="0" src="http://imgur.com/a/QqwPx/embed"></iframe>

Read from Stephen Baxter's Ark that someone came up with the idea that the warp bubble needn't be very big. About the size of a neutrino would do. If that's the case then if such a bubble destabilised it would probably at most release Tsar-Bomba levels of energy.

It would also evaporate in a flash of exotic radiation.

What's wrong with Orion??

Turn off SAS when the docking ports snag each other and allow them to bounce and move around. Timewarp as needed.

Protip: For reasonably-sized spaceplanes, you generally shouldn't need more than 160 units of jet fuel. Of course if you're aspiring to be the Whackjob of spaceplanes, all bets are off.