cantab

Can we please not have antifeatures in KSP mods? You can say what you like about (insert other mod) and (insert other modder) but unless there are actually confirmed compatibility issues I feel it's just petty go out of of your way to block things working together.

Alt+F4 works too. I think it was confirmed that provided you don't do it while the game is saving, there's no problem with using it.

What matters really is how your command pod is oriented.

In the stock game the only generic way is to inspect the savefile. Orbiting Kerbin or Jool you can use the Mun, Laythe, or Vall as a reference because they are in perfect equatorial orbits. (Note that Ike and Tylo are not, they have slight inclinations). With mods, KER will read out your inclination directly.

I assume the signature relates to *forum* reputation. Anyway, the most obvious cause of reputation drop is spamming that "decline contract" button in Mission Control Available Contracts in the hopes of being given something better. I see so many people do this and to me it's felt like abusing the mechanic since day one, it's like re-rolling and re-rolling a dice until you get the number you want. If you really don't want to do any of the Available Contracts and don't want the reputation drop then you can timewarp for a bit to get them replaced, incurring the small but non-zero drawbacks to doing that.

Is it also still the case that if something is parked on the KSC2 launchpad, the game demands you recover it before you can launch something from the regular launchpad?

A great second landing of the Britannia on Serran, after giving it some minor wing tweaks, and delivery of my forklift. Now I can play at warehouses on another world!

But I think Goddard's rocket was cool. It was literally cool too - the first flight of a liquid fuelled rocket took place in a snow-covered field.

It's a cool trick, but to the extent that anything in KSP is "cheating", this is cheating.

Idea: Ensure that whatever you launch completes the contract, *then* claw it to the asteroid.

Personally I find judging a challenge by forum "likes" off-putting. I don't know if it's outright banned here, but it's the kind of thing a lot of forums *would* ban.

With a large and well-funded development team that would be the case. But that's something KSP has never had. When it started of course it *couldn't* have it, an off-the-shelf engine was the only way. And based on the claims by ex-developers last month, management never really moved out of that small team cheap mindset even once KSP started making the megabucks. And there's probably too much "put into" Unity now for a custom engine to look attractive. It's widely thought that technically speaking, the crashes may be caused by Unity's code, but I still hold Squad responsible for their choice of engine. They might not be able to directly fix the Unity code, but Squad are Unity's customer and can act accordingly - push Unity to get things fixed, choose the appropriate version of Unity (and it looks like Squad made an error in that respect for KSP 1.1), or if need be find a workaround. I feel that a KSP 2 would do a lot better with a custom engine. Unfortunately I fear Squad could end up with KSP 1 much like Microsoft did with WIndows XP - they've got so much work to do fixing the current release that they can't put effort into the sequel (which after all Squad haven't even publicly mooted yet). Also space is very "in" in gaming at the moment, and KSP was quite early on that wave, so I think there's a strong chance that KSP 2 could end up missing it.

Go check the winners from the various contests in the Challenges forum.

I'll leave that wish for the next person to grant, from their point of view. .egaugnal tfel-ot-thgir a saw hsilgnE hsiw I

Not granted due to violation of rule 1. I wish I had a nice standard-sized choc-ice.

*Any* sort of ISRU pilot mission is something I could get behind. Space agencies around the world have been doing and are still doing great pure science, but I think it's time to move to the next step. Prove we can get water on Luna or make rocket fuel on Mars, and pave the way towards not just visiting but living there.

Significantly less performance per core than recent Intel desktop CPUs.

Random suggestion: try not using 90? Instead make it like 85 to 89. An exact 90 degree orbit is "special" in a sense (it's not defined whether it's prograde or retrograde). Another possibility, unlikely but maybe worth trying? is that it's taking inclination in radians.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/23017-ksp-unofficial-official-computer-buildingbuying-megathread-all-questions-acceptable/ But anyway. Your CPU is far from the best for KSP, but it's passable. I used to run a Phenom II X3 710 until last autumn. As I understand it it will work in newer AM3+ motherboards, but do check the specific board lists the CPU as compatible before you buy. You should be able to get a motherboard for about $50-60. Try and get one that can overclock a locked Athlon / Phenom II, because most of that CPU line are good overclockers on a suitable board - but don't spend silly money just for that.

Agreed, I think (effective) exhaust speed would be preferable. For rocket engines it's pretty intuitive - exhaust speed, minus a correction for any fuel that doesn't go out the nozzle - and it gets rid of that standard gravity factor. But as mentioned, specific impulse became popular because it's seconds whatever unit system you work in.

Build a car loaded with science experiments and drive to a building at KSC and run the experiments. Quick injection of science, virtually free money-wise, I use it when I just need a bit more to get a tech node I want. If you don't have rover wheels yet, use aeroplane wheels and a small jet or rocket engine for propulsion. If you don't have aeroplane wheels either build a cylinder and roll it around with command pod / reaction wheel torque.

I need to know the exact CPU model to give you an informed opinion. A bald clock speed means nothing.

I think the only way is to put a decoupler on your rocket, a girder on the decoupler, and the clamp on the end of the girder.

Because the solar wind would blow it away.