cantab

While I believe there are cases when a ship will dock to itself, it seems that more reliable is to close the ring by making two docking connections simultaneously. Whether that's bringing in a single "keystone" piece or docking two half-rings together is up to you, either should work. It requires precise construction and flying of course. In your case OP there's an obvious misalignment. Check in the VAB first that things can fit together precisely - hopefully you have each module as a subassembly rooted at a docking port to do this. If the design is sound then you have a connection rotated somewhere on the station in orbit, and you will have to partially dismantle and reassemble the station to cure this.

Backspace does that IIRC.

The baying mob that is the forum.

Lag can be edited out of a video by simply speeding it up. I recall one or two vid makers have mentioned having to do this.

Jaws will bite the hose clean in two.

The Police. (The band).

Maybe you build differently but I've had the opposite. A single TR-2L wheel gets punctured - one of ten on one of my rovers mind you - but no other damage immediately occurs. The dragging wheel though leads to severe issues and to further damage if I attempt to drive on.

Get yourself an i7 4790k, and one that overclocks well, and cool it with liquid nitrogen. Aim for a 6-7 GHz overclock if not more. Add a GTX 980 so there's absolutely no risk of the GPU slowing things down. And that PC should be *just* playing KSP, on a barebones Linux distribution for less background resource usage and stable 64-bit support. You'll need a separate computer to handle the video recording, skyping, and so on. Then weep that you've spent insane money and KSP still lags when you build a massive ship. It's the way the game is.

Granted. You get extraordinarily rendited to a CIA facility in somewherestan and interrogated as to how you came to acquire those isotopes. Edit: God darn it. Umm...same thing, except it's about how you came to acquire cookies that actually contain weapons-grade uranium. I wish to cut down a tree safely.

With mods, Infernal Robotics. In stock you can undock, rotate, and redock them, which is hassle and likely to give alignment issues. Or you can use the claw which is top tier kraken bait. Or you could try an arrange it so that the aircraft landing gear lift the rover wheels off the ground. That would probably be the best option actually.

Granted. One electron is removed from each atom in your body, which promptly explodes from the electrostatic repulsion. I wish I wanted to desire seeking illuminating enlightenment.

Granted. Then you crash the pizza delivery scooter and end up in hospital with twenty broken bones. I wish I had some milk.

That's counterintuitive to frankly ridiculous. You think that each individual astronaut has their own dedicated ground crew not shared with their colleagues? And that a three-kerbal ship would have what, a triplicated ground crew that somehow don't get in each other's way but also do no better than a regular crew? A mishmash drawn from normally three different ground crews that magically end up as the average and aren't hurt by never having worked together before?

Granted. Your PC gets replaced by a knackered old Time desktop with a broken CD drive and a malware-infested Windows 2000 install. I wish for all the Apple fanboys to be rounded up and tied to a tree.

Granted. He is the only person to be passed by by the terrible torments of the apocalypse. I wish people would stop making doomsday predictions.

I think personally if it was for a related career I would. If you have a degree in astrophysics or years of experience in engineering or whatever, that's your main credential, KSP is just a bit extra. Shows that you're interested in this stuff beyond just wanting a job in it. If KSP is your only real rocket science credential then the job application is a long shot but you need it there. The only way I can see it being counted against you is if it's the only thing in the general interests/hobbies section. In that case I'd probably leave such a section out altogether, it's frankly not all that important.

Steam will track it, but I've put in loads of play not through Steam. On the other hand, I've also often had the game running but not been actually playing it. So I would guess on the order of a thousand hours. If you just want playtime tracking, steam overlay, etc, then add it in steam as a "non-Steam game". You'll still have to download updated versions from the KSP store though.

The reason I didn't opt with jets for Laythe myself was lack of familiarity and concerns about predictability. Fuel usage on jet-engine craft is more sensitive to ascent profiles, and on an unfamiliar world that brings additional risks. (And I try to minimise quickloading). A simple rocket packing enough delta-V felt more dependable.

Madness. (The band.)

It has a few minor issues, but all round it does things very well. Trick of the camera positioning perhaps? Yeah, they must have been really beaning it. Which means a Mars flyby might not have done much, but every little helps and all that. Assume they did and the film just didn't show it. Circumvented by the higher-dimension stuff. Yeah, this one is something of a plot hole. The best explanation I can come up with is it has super-efficient engines, but they still wanted to get it in LEO with all its fuel and the big inefficient rocket was the lifter they had to do that. Gargantua, the black hole that the planet orbits about as close as it can. This is one of the cooler things in the film, made even more awesome when you know that the appearance isn't an artist's idea but a physical simulation - that truly is, to the best of our knowledge, what a rotating black hole with an accretion disc would look like from the right camera angle. (And is revolutionary CGI work, demanding the coding of a general relativistic raytracer). I'm not sure if the movie hasn't exaggerated the amount of time dilation, but considering the wider effort put in in this area I suspect it's actually correct.

Lhathron's is already solved, and was posted out-of-turn anyway. So zekes, it's your turn.

Followers of DasValdez may know he spent this evening streaming about the demo, which gave me the idea to try and make a plane in it. I then thought it would make a good challenge for people to try. Objective: Using only the parts and features in the current KSP demo (0.18.3) build a plane that meets the "Wright standard" of powered, sustained, controlled flight. Safe landings are optional. Rules: If you're using the demo, it's simple enough, just build a plane. I will allow entries done in the full game, for convenience and game performance issues. However, you must ensure you do not use features absent from the demo as well as limiting yourself to the demo parts. In particular this means no mods full stop, no tweakables, and you must build in the VAB and launch from the pad. I'll grudgingly tolerate full game SAS usage; keep in mind it is very different to the SAS in the demo. Not sure if they're even in the demo, but no gravhack or fuelhack obviously. Glitch powered aircraft are allowed only if done in the actual demo because glitches change with versions. Minimum entry requirement is a screenshot of the plane in flight. No formal scoring, just meet the requirements. But you get extra bragging rights for doing cool stuff. Demonstration of possibility Here's mine that I knocked up: https://flic.kr/p/p4gZDu Built in the actual demo. Launched atop an SRB. Once free it flies OK, using about 1/3rd-2/3rd throttle and controlling it on fine controls and pitch trim, no SAS. It's not a great plane: it tends to drift left or right, doesn't like going much above a couple of km, and has trouble pulling out of dives if it gets in one. Landing without using the chute was not successful. Post-flight stats showing distance covered and flight time https://flic.kr/p/pHF5N7

Derp. I fail at reading.

Bear in mind that when you hold W to drive forward, that's also trying to pitch down using any reaction wheels, including any probe cores, on board. On low-gravity worlds this matters. You can avoid this by remapping the rover controls, failing that driving in docking mode, failing that disabling the torque.

Figures for a Laythe ascent do seem to vary widely. I can only put it down to Laythe ascents not getting anything like the attention to optimising that Kerbin ascents do.