cantab

ISTR that if they aren't tracked they don't physically exist. So if your ship just happened to be in the path of an asteroid, if you don't track the 'roid you could fly that ship in physics mode right through the time of the collision and you wouldn't even see the asteroid, let alone hit it.

Back up the game you have BEFORE doing anything. Then Store version: Go to the download link you have and you should find the option to download the previous version. Steam version: Right click Kerbal Space Program in your game list and choose Properties. Click Betas, and opt into "Previous Stable Release". The game will "update" itself back to 0.23. (And darnit, I could have had me some .22 if I'd thought to look in Steam before now.)

Kuid."How much money does medicine for the Kraken cost?" "Six kuid."

Or you look up how to undelete files on your operating system.

Once you've got your money you're free to terminate, deorbit, or designate as debris the craft in question.IMHO, what Squad should try and do with contracts is not make them feel auto-generated. Whether they actually are or aren't isn't so important, but I want it to seem like these are new and unique missions, not a string of fetch quests. EDIT: Also, I don't think all contracts should be something you can just throw onto a mission you were doing anyway. Some might be, fair enough, but others should be things that'll encourage you to do something new, maybe that you wouldn't do just for science points.

Tbh a SSTO rocket wasn't that difficult before. If you have a light payload such as just a pod, a sensible engine, and enough fuel that it *barely* lifts off, and you fly a good ascent path, you'll usually make orbit. (EDIT: Unless you lose control or disintegrate, mind you.) If you want to get a decent size-ship up there, though, then having just one rocket stage on your launcher will really balloon its mass.

I will. I've put my .23 install separately and am doing a clean .23.5 install, so no old mods (not that I had many) or config tweaks. Said tweaks may be re-added if I find I need them, but I'd like to see if .23.5 has brought any performance improvements. I think I'll make my new save a "Science Sandbox". Ie start a career save, but hack all the tech tree unlocked. Plays like a sandbox, but still lets me get SCIENCE!

I played .23. Did a quick science mission to Minmus in a cheated career save, just to check out the exact science values. (I don't fully trust the wiki). Used a modified Kerbal X, which I landed on its side, but hey, what works works. And now I'll have to redo it in .23.5 to see if they've changed any of the values...

They shouldn't be called anything nought, that's kind of rude. They should be astroones.

Dang, I loo*ed.

I *now nothing about this...

Manley covered in his video on planes, if you have elevators at the back then in order to pitch the nose up to take off they need to push the tail down. If you have landing gear right at the back they can't do that, so the nose will stay down and you won't lift off. To fix this you can do any of the following: Move the rear landing gear forward so the tail can be pushed down for takeoff. Make the rear gear lower or front gear higher so the plane naturally sits nose-up and thus takes off by itself. Angle the wings a little so they've got a non-zero angle of attack even when the fuselage is horizontal, again letting the plane take off by itself. Add canards at the front that will lift the nose directly for takeoff.

Unity has perfectly good 64 bit support. You just need to use a better operating system than Windows

Certainly sounds to me like, within the possibilities of the game, a skip re-entry or as good as you'll get to one.

I know SAS can have problems with oddly positioned engines and control surfaces. IIRC it can usually handle winglets or RCS forward of the centre of mass, but not engines - it gimbals them the wrong way. Of course the designs here have engines aft of the CoM, albeit not very far aft.

A good point. I've tried some gravity assists, but Duna-Jool say doesn't work out that great because Duna's not very massive so it's hard (if not impossible) to get to Jool from one Duna flyby. Stuff llike Jool-GP2-Kuiper Belt Object I reckon would be more satisfying.Gravity assists in general will also become more important if career mode constrains money and possibly mission time. New Horizons springs to mind here: Had it missed the launch window for the Jupiter gravity assist, it could still have made Pluto directly, but would take a couple of years longer to do it.

Damnit you got me. But joke's on you because it's 2pm where I am

I'm hoping to start using some more mods with ARM, so likewise I'm hoping compatibility doesn't get broken. You'll recover it. Moving big rocks has been done. And NASA's Crawler-Transporters can handle a 5,400 tonne load, which is E-class asteroid level. In short, the "off screen" recovery of an asteroid is not unreasonable.

If you can't muster up the delta-V to switch his station around, just move it and set it to debris (assuming that setting propagates to all players). Then when he asks, say you deorbited it because it was in the way of your (insert craft here). If you have KAS and he has Kerballed ships, go and stick something on the hatch of one of his ships so his kerbals can't get out. Edit: One more. Construct a ship that features the words "April Fools" written on it somehow. (In structural panels, say). Give it a name and put it in an orbit that makes it look like an asteroid. Tell your friend you got the ARM pack early and he should go check out the asteroid you've tracked.

Well I just tried a sideways orange tank, two mainsails underneath, two large SASes on each end, QBE probe core on top. Built in the VAB. Launches were at 50% thrust limiter (because TWR was way too high otherwise) and full throttle all the way. Note that the orange tank makes equal spacing easy with the two silver bands near each end. Hands off, no SAS: Veers consistently to the east and spins into the ground. Hands off, SAS: Initially veers east but swiftly corrected. Climbs vertically under control. Hands off, SAS, no torque: Initial east veer takes slightly longer to correct. Climbs near-vertically, a touch to the east with a little roll but stays under control. Hands off, SAS, no gimballing: Similar. Perhaps a little stronger veering initially. Hands off, SAS, no gimballing, no reaction wheel torque just the probe core: Uncontrollable. Hands on flying: Handles fine on just torque, just gimballing, and both. The tank inclined at launch: Flies straight and true. Shifting one engine inboard by about the width of a cubic octagonal strut or two: Completely uncontrollable spin. Same shift, with the more outboard engine set to a 46.5% rather than 50% thrust limit: Smooth ascent. The more outboard engine on a 46 or 47% thrust limit: Leaving the SAS to its own devices, loss of control sooner or later. I didn't try hands-on flying for these tests. To conclude, your problem is almost certainly asymmetric engine placement. It doesn't take much of a difference to make things spiral out of control. Fixing it by thrust limiters is tricky, fixing the engine placement is better. If the engines you're using don't gimbal, you may also have insufficient control authority, so try adding reaction wheels. CoM shifting as a single tank drains is not the problem, at least not with a Jumbo 64 it isn't. With multiple tanks as you have though it may be, but your infinite fuel tests show that's not your only issue at least.

I doubt it. The 1.0 release will be a big milestone and a splash of publicity, and even without that there are still going to be new purchasers.In any case, even if 1.0 actually doesn't bring in much more revenue, what they've already had has kept the cashflow going.

So in my first Voyager-style mission, the stock manoeuvre node system that previously hadn't been any trouble managed to drive me up the creek. It seems it really doesn't like you to place a node on a fast hyperbolic trajectory, and it's not precise enough for the super-fine corrections needed when slingshotting from planet to planet. Hence, what mod to go for to give better control over manoeuvre nodes? Just go straight for MechJeb and be done with it, or is there something more focussed to the task?

I don't think the asteroids will be challenge breakers. I doubt you'll get science just from flying by them, you'll need to grapple, and that means expending delta-V to match speeds. I might give this a go, I've been playing with Voyager-style missions lately anyway. Though the current prices will create some really weird incentives, for example if Wiki is correct the Rockomax X200-32 is by far the best value fuel tank.

I stopped playing Animal Crossing for a similar reason. It hit me that I was spending time gardening in a video game when I've got a real garden out back that wants attention.Not that I've actually given it any, mind. And now sometimes I do think I'm spending too much time playing with fake space in KSP when I could be looking at real space through my telescope.

Made an ultralight glider that I'm thinking of dropping off somewhere on my next planetary tour. It kind of works, I'd had stable glides out of it, but it's also rather prone to getting into a steep dive and refusing to pitch up. Also just had a "Why the heck didn't I realise that before" moment when watching . I noticed he had tank stacks without engines in his final stage, and it hit me that even without fuel lines the fuel can still be transferred manually. So yeah, why the heck didn't I realise that before.