cantab

Microsoft have been known to disable accounts because they objected to the files being stored on their SkyDrive (now OneDrive) service, even though those files were not shared with others in any way. With any online storage service, the provider has the right to take down your files for any or no reason, whether or not you're a paying customer. Keep that in mind.

For a radially-symmetric unmanned rocket it is somewhat arbitrary, but in KSP at least the probe cores still have a well-defined orientation to take up, down, port, and starboard from. And for my light colours I copied Cygnus. Red for port, green for starboard, white for the top and yellow for the bottom. (On the Cygnus they flash, like on aeroplanes, but I'd need mod lights for that.)

Well this is his latest project: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/51828-What-s-the-highest-mass-you-ve-ever-put-into-Kerbin-orbit-with-a-single-ship?p=1224648&viewfull=1#post1224648 When it's full (if it's not already), that's just over 5000 tons of LFO. And I believe the project is to combine several of those sections and land the tower somewhere.

They can still be used as navigation lights though, for example:

IMHO it's still worth trying to balance things well. SAS can be pretty wasteful of monopropellant when it's handling really imbalanced things. Normally what I do is balance for half-full fuel and monoprop tanks, though if I expect to do most docking with a full or empty fuel load I'll balance for that instead. I don't have RCS build aid so I'm just eyeballing the distances. I'm also mindful of how much CoM shift there is as fuel is burnt off. If a ship can have just the one fuel tank per stack then by balancing the components above and below it you can reduce shift from LFO depletion to next-to-nothing, and monoprop tanks can be placed at or balanced around the CoM like RCS thrusters themselves.

You can figure out what your orbital speed will be at some point on your projected course by placing a manoeuvre node there, dragging the retrograde handle until it starts to switch with the prograde, then reading off the delta-V for the manoeuvre which will be the same as your orbital speed. You may also be able to figure out the altitude as it will be the apoapsis of the post-manoeuvre trajectory, otherwise just guesstimate it. You should probably refine things once you're in the target's SOI anyway mind, but this may be a useful general trick.

Yup, as Claw says, one "notch" on the setting isn't noticeable. Two or three should be evident. Also, remember it's the Flight UI, it won't change the Vehicle Assembly Building at all, or the settings screen you're making the change in. And it doesn't change quite everything in flight: navball and altimeter will be enlarged, resources panel will not.

The only thing I really tend to forget is REMOVING Kerbals from flights that are meant to be unmanned tests.

Sounds like you got things sussed! But some tips: You can make a radial and/or normal burn just after entering the SOI of your destination to refine or correct your periapsis. It typically won't take much to put things right if you've suffered some orbit shift on the SOI transition. You can dock on main engines, though it's not easy and having done it once it's not something I'd choose to do again. For landing on Duna, parachutes alone generally aren't sufficient. The safe way is to use rocket thrust for the final touchdown. Riskier alternatives include lithobraking on cubic octagonal struts or similar, or using the Kerbin Cup footballs as airbags.

Off the top of my head, about 1 1/2 14400 tanks of LFO and 2 and a bit big tanks of monoprop left on my station, plus a jumbo tank of kethane and two Near Future octo-girder tanks of xenon (130,000 units) on a ship docked to it. Normal station capacities are 1 14400 tank (but I have a broken transfer stage providing extra fuel storage atm) and 4 big monoprop tanks. I've also got this that I chucked into LKO for the sheer hell of it Yes, that's one and three quarter million units of xenon.

I dunno if 3d printed stuff would be suitable for a baby though.

So we vote on merit of the submissions and not popularity of the teammembers.

Checked out the new parts in the Vertical Propulsion Emporium, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74625-0-23-5-Vertical-Propulsion-Emporium-v0-18a-%2821st-Jun-2014%29 Flew the Near Future Propulsion "Integrated Lander" stock craft, just a short hop to the VAB roof: https://flic.kr/p/o4dwzz I ran out of fuel while hovering down and hit the ground at around 25 m/s, but the legs soaked it up and the ship wasn't scratched. Then did some more studies into Kerbin's water.

A ship that can land on the Mun can almost certainly land on Gilly if you efficiently encounter it, and might have a chance at landing on Ike.

Well that figures. As I understand it if you ever want to sue a lawyer, it's damn hard to find another lawyer to take the case.

Indeed, that's a major confounding factor. My latest results, as I reported previously, may be getting me somewhere. Here's the basic "oil rig" design: I made versions with various loads on the top and threw them into the water, then took screenshots and measured the percentage of the length of the FL-T800's that was submerged. Graphing my results, I get the following: A linear relationship with an offset gives a good fit. I experimented with things like power laws, but was not able to improve on the simple, and physically expected, straight line. From this, and my previous results, I'm prepared to make some hypotheses: * An object with negligible weight will float with half its volume submerged, with possible small offsets from that due to terrain detail. This is physically incorrect. * An object will displace additional volume in proportion to the weight on it. This is physically correct. The other key observation made is that the float depths do not depend on whether the fuel is in the tank on top or the float tanks themselves. The weight gets counted where-ever it is, as is physically correct. Full "data": https://www.flickr.com/photos/52548818@N05/sets/72157644731171337/ The next factor to investigate is whether, with our hypothesis that massless = float half-submerged, the buoyancy force depends simply on the extra volume of water displaced or whether there are part-specific factors.

As pxi says, that seems about average for computing books. I don't feel it's overpriced, considering that writing a good one requires the author to be both good at the software in question and good at writing, and the books will require a fair bit of fact checking and proofing. As you've found yourself, there are some cheaper titles around, and plenty of free online resources. What you describe from the law faculty, though, is blatant corruption. Unfortunately it's common in many parts of the world. Studying at Cambridge, there were very few required books. The bulk of the material on the exams was covered in the lectures and practicals, and nearly all lecturers gave out handouts. I think I only bought one course-related text, DHZ's "An introduction to the rock forming minerals" which was pretty much a requirement for petrology.

I may be mistaken, but I believe you need to own a Mac to develop for iOS. Nice little money-spinner for Apple there if I'm right, and for a hobbyist developer that may not be an insignificant barrier to entry.

A recording would really help. As mentioned, it could be the Duna slow scan tv signal being played in error.

Some cracking entries. Forum, entry 2 is gorgeous, and 4 is a nice bit of modding (it looks custom). 3 is neat but looks more like a monument than a trophy to me. My vote, though, goes for entry 1, because while the others look like trophies it looks like a rocket ship trophy. From reddit there's some cracking artistry, but I'm going to go with the lateral thinking of the orbit arrangement one.

A classic Kerbal landing by cantab314, on Flickr I don't recall if I had any crashes before, but this was my first successful landing. Successful by the "down is down" criterion at least. And I did actually manage to take off and return, I think the shape of the lander (thanks to the jury-rigged landing legs) helped.

Liking the new station parts, and not spotted any bugs with the texture sharing so far. Would it not be more versatile to make the wide end on the station domes fit flush with other 2.5 m parts though? Also, you've got the description in the manufacturer field for the station dome (the lighting one).

Presumably there also has to be a "no signatures" rule on the contest entries. Otherwise flags, arranged lights, etc could give it away.

Yes, if you have something too close behind the engines you'll get no thrust. It's the same whatever the "something" is, so you can do your testing on the launchpad, make a plate out of structural panels.

That works if you're seeking to use a gravity assist from the moon to get captured into orbit round the planet, but not if you're trying to go direct to the moon.