cantab

-4 (-)

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_cycle[/url] The only real way to know performance of different CPUs is to test them, ie benchmarking. No reason to think an AMD graphics card will work better with an AMD processor.

This is a [I]very[/I] old thread. It's possible the rules have changed since it was made. In any case I can't see how Harvester's post can be discussed now without breaking the current forum rules.

-3 (-)

Oops: [url]https://flic.kr/p/BruyZs[/url] (Tylo) Oops again: [url]https://flic.kr/p/BruyAG[/url] (Kalus) Hey, I *can* land in places :P [url=https://flic.kr/p/AVhKvp][img]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5716/22919172549_fbdf749242_h.jpg[/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/AVhKvp]Landing on Oree is easy at least![/url]

[quote name='Rezolution']However, this does make me ask, where is the line drawn with roleplaying?[/QUOTE]Writing the words or actions of a character or organisation that is not you, and that is interacting with other people's characters - that's what's considered "roleplaying". As mentioned, it's banned on the KSP forums because many years ago some people caused trouble with it. Whether that ban is 'right' or 'wrong' is off-topic for this thread. Mission reports, fanfics, and so on are not roleplaying because they do not involved multiple authors. Most spacecraft exchange stuff, and even arguably many rocket builder threads, are not roleplaying because people are posting essentially as themselves.

Awesome work by Blue Origin. It seems to me the "hard bit" is the actual touchdown, and they nailed it. Though with only one success it could be beginner's luck. Falcon 9 has a slightly more complex flight profile, but really the boostback isn't the complicated bit I think, it's the touchdown that's been a challenge.

Try and avoid extraneous parts in the stack. For example instead of using the 2.5m reaction wheel which is a notorious wobbler, radially attached a nosecone or two and mount smaller reaction wheels that way.

Click hold manoeuvre then stick a TV show on. I have two monitors which is a big help, but otherwise I could always watch something on my phone or an actual TV.

Back to the original question, why not keep the lander in Minmus orbit? You can then have a science and fuelling station to support it. With a lab on the station over time you can get considerable bonus science points. In career mode do try and level up your scientists or the research will be super slow, and you'll want to have unlocked fuel transfer by upgrading R&D I think too. If you'd prefer a simpler approach, consider making a lander that launches "sideways", that lets you get a nice stable lander that fits in a slim fairing for launch. My science station: [url]https://flic.kr/p/yxSxUs[/url] As you can see I needed extra solar power, the lab is an electricity hog. I used a tall lander, seen docked to the far side, but no reason I couldn't have gone for a wider one. The return ship is docked to the near side, and doubles as a backup lander in case I need to rescue a Kerbal (which happened once). A "sideways" lander: [url]https://flic.kr/p/rbNWMd[/url] that's a probe, but no reason it couldn't work for Kerbals too. Just be sure to add a probe core facing up to control from or the navball will be screwy.

-2 (-) Continue

[quote name='Warzouz']When we go to Moho, we usually have a quite big inclination change dV and a very big capture burn. Those don't have to be precise burns, so low TWR is a good option. [OK, reasonably low TWR for capture, Moho SOI is small][/QUOTE]If I remember rightly on my Moho trip I did a "pre-capture" burn a few hours before even entering Moho's SOI, to slow the ship down so I didn't go sailing on through.

-4 (-)

[quote name='softweir']Modern wordprocessors are what-you-see-is-what-you-get; that is, you don't enter weird and sometimes arbitrary codes, you just choose the effect you want and see it instantly. So we won't need BBCode [noparse][b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i][/noparse] and so on, nor html <I>italic</I>, <B>bold</B> and so on. I suggest you google WYSIWYG for lots of pages describing the concept.[/QUOTE]It is of course not necessarily a good thing. I've regularly been driven up the creek using MS Word, and it's usually because it allows someone else to make a document that "looks right" but is structurally awful and thus a nightmare to edit.

sellotape dispenser?

-2 (-)

[quote name='Archgeek']I am going to miss these spoiler tags if the new forum lacks an analogue to them.[/QUOTE]If you want to hide images it's better for readers if you link them anyway, If they're spoilered my web browser will still download them whether or not I open the spoiler; if I'm on my phone that's a waste of mobile data.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the stupid door placement. Ruined. RUINED I TELL YOU SQUAD.

[quote name='KerbMav']- 1,25m pod and/or lander can for two kerbonauts (why is the 2-man can so big??)[/QUOTE]We almost have that now with the crew cabin. No control is a drawback, but it's workable.

[quote name='Stone Blue']Heres one to think about: Say you are in a 4000km Kerbin orbit, doing 876.2m/s, pointed prograde...You then fire a kerbal out of a cannon pointed retrograde, at 876.2m/s.... What orbit/velocity does the kerbal end up at? :D[/QUOTE]Assuming the mass of the Kerbal is negligible (or that the "muzzle velocity" includes compensating for recoil) the Kerbal will be at zero speed and therefore in a degenerate orbit that's a straight line with an apoapsis where he is and a periapsis at the planet's centre. This is known as a radial elliptic trajectory. As for the arrow, yeah, it seems to me that as the bow limbs spring forward they push the middle of the bow, and therefore you where you hold it, backwards.

If I have a low TWR I typically also have lots of delta-V. Therefore I will simply raise my craft into a higher parking orbit with a longer orbital period. Problem solved.

-8 (-)

-6 (-)

-7 (-) [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] Ummm...cancel that. That's what I get for leaving the tab open and forgetting to refresh. [quote name='EuSouONumero345']:mad: -5 (+) happy now?[/QUOTE] -6 (-)

On electric propeller balance, I just don't think it will be much of a problem. On Kerbin and Laythe it's going to be weak and slow, meaning you'd usually prefer jets. The electric prop could however be suited to high-altitude flight - look at NASA's Helios - which would give it a niche. As for circumnavigations, well sure the electric prop makes it "easy", if you [I]want[/I] to fly for hours and hours. On the other atmo bodies, sure, it's "unbalanced" compared to all the alternatives currently, but that's because the current options for flight without oxygen are [I]rubbish[/I]. If an LF+O prop was also added it's likely that would outperform the electric in all respects but range. As far as electric propeller vs rover wheels goes, roving will be better for short journeys and accurate positioning. Indeed there are already the survey contracts that focus on that. And at the end of the day, for all the fun planes and boats are, KSP is a space game. Who gives a monkeys if the electric prop lets you knock up a plane to go round Kerbin a dozen times, that still ain't helping you get to the Mun.