cantab

Question: how feasible would it be for items in KIS containers to affect life-support values? I'm thinking that it would be fun for the small EVA items like the guitar and so on to offer a small boost to hab.

There've been quite a few KSP suggested sets before, but none got anyway. To be honest I think last "round" of these things, none of the "finalist" sets got put into production. One aspect of this set I really like are the Kerbal microfigs, they work really well. Otherwise Lego do have spaceflight in general covered already, whether it's realistic stuff like the Lego City Space range or sci-fi stuff like the Star Wars licensing. Now a NASA VAB in their fancy buildings range, that's something I can see Lego doing. (EDIT: Especially as there is already a NASA VAB model at Legoland Florida!)

The Wiki covers it well now https://github.com/BobPalmer/USI-LS/wiki

Therein lies the problem. KSP 1.1.x is stable for some, crash-happy for others, and won't even start for others, and nobody knows why. Though multithreading-related race conditions are always a suspect for that kind of bug, and on Linux there's probably a compatibility issue with some driver or system library. /offtopic

The densities of liquid fuel and oxidizer, based on comparing the physical size of a fuel tank with the mass of fuel it contains, are both about equal to water. The in-game units are not litres, that is a misconception.

Hasn't KSP had memory leaks for ages? That was why on 32-bit versions it would crash after making a bunch of scene changes as the memory usage steadily rose until it hit the 4ish GB limit.

OBS Multiplatform, AKA OBS Studio. It's basically OBS 2. When I used it it was pretty basic compared to the original Windows-only OBS, but it did the job for simple no-frills streaming and recording. I think by now development of OBS Studio has significantly advanced as well.

Yes. The mod is called Principia but it's somewhat experimental and not available for general release. Fun stuff happens in the Joolian system - Vall very quickly gets its orbit perturbed, nearly crashes into Tylo, and is later ejected from the Joolian system altogether. I think Bop and/or Pol also get the boot. The latest Principia modifies the Joolian system starting orbits to stop this happening. But as for deliberately pushing the celestials around - even then, I'd say it's not plausible. I also don't know if Principia actually considers either the gravitational effect or any thrust effect from spacecraft on celestials.

Seems similar to the old But since that IS an old old challenge, nothing wrong in doing a new one. The winning entries there were rockets using downthrust to stay in orbit, but a spaceplane did it in 30 minutes. That was back in the old intake-spam-friendly but soup-drag aerodynamics though.

I've certainly seen individual mods hammer fps before, and it can even change with a new mod update.

*Bristles spines* @spacebrick3

Saw it a while ago. It looked pretty cool. Then I realised it was "free to play", and I refuse to support games that adopt that business model. It sounds like my concerns were warranted in this particular case.

Isn't that just the Tracking Station? And

My approach is to maintain a high angle of attack, something like 30-50 degrees, and control my vertical speed. Initially I'll be flying "straight" but once my vertical speed gets to what I want I start making S-turns, banking hard while maintaining the AoA. On my current design a 50 m/s descent seems about right and it's handled some pretty aggressive re-entries like 600x30 (albeit only just). Other designs may differ. EDIT: To clarify, I use FAR. I didn't realise things would be significantly different in stock.

Not sure. Maybe patiently working on a gravity assist, looking for a good encounter and slingshot, and then pulling it off and getting from here to there with a miniscule use of delta-V. Anyone can pack a bunch of fuel and do a Hohman transfer and powered capture, I like to do better.

1.1.2, modded, on Linux, and Works For Me. I guess I'm lucky. Bit crashy, compared to 1.0.5 which was rock-solid.

Is late @cubinator

Meanwhile in old New Horizons, I noticed the Mun orbit bug had kicked my abandoned station out and left it orbiting Sonnah slightly further than the Mun, with 230 m/s left in the tanks. So I did what I do best: snagged a Mun assist onto a Kerbin assist to get a Serran encounter, and now the station is in a hopefully bug-free orbit round Serran (Scruffy high polar orbit, but it's a safe place to park the station until I refuel it).

If it's Jeb, he's probably tasting the liquid fuel and the monopropellant and trying to decide which would make better booster soup.

KSP's engines all took an Isp nerf in 1.0 I think, when the aerodynamics got updated and drag took a dramatic drop. But actually KSP's engines now aren't far out of line for real-world hypergolic fuelled engines.

@sal_vager want to move 64-bit support, search feature, unity 5, and maybe multithreaded physics to an Implemented! section?

Kerbol Plus Remade is supported by New Horizons, and seems to play well alongside OPM though I haven't thoroughly checked for SOI clashes. Kerbal Origins (formerly Kerbol Plus) is not. Asclepius supports New Horizons too, the config for that being distributed with Asclepius and putting that world opposite Laythe.

If you're flying it like a rocket then I think that would work. You'd be relying on the significant fuel drain to shift the CoM from up top during launch to down low for re-entry, and you wouldn't be using aerodynamic lift much for approach and landing. It'd be a lot like landing a Falcon 9 style first stage, which I've seen several KSP streamers do. The approach I discussed above was rather to fly it like a spaceplane. My own preliminary studies indicated it would be rather hard to make something that can fly aerodynamically forwards and backwards, hence the need to enter the reverse hover for landing. On chutes, I tried them to yank the nose around and get in the hover, and it works great! I just decided I didn't like using them.

I'm working on this very concept recently! Here's my first successful "tailsitter" spaceplane, the Shuttle Gallifrey. Some of the things I've learned: The design is actually nice aerodynamically, at least in FAR. The weight does need to be far back, I get the CoM in the aftmost of the three cargo bay sections, and then the swept wings put the CoL in the right place and the elevators are far back to have good control authority. With the aid of the cross-struts at the I-beam "legs" the wings take the weight no problem, on 0.5 strength in FAR at least. Heck, I'm now working on a full Shuttle version with big Kerbodyne tanks and it still sits fine on its wingtips before takeoff. Takeoff and ascent is mostly a doddle, loads of power. The Panther with its afterburner is your friend as a VTOL engine. Do watch for having enough air intake though. My biggest difficulty has been not overheating the nose, because the pointy nosecone has a lower heat tolerance. I put an antenna on the nose and a little fuel in the 1.25-2.5m tank and that helped draw the heat away but I still need to watch the thermals and be ready to throttle back. Re-entry isn't too hard. Maintain a good angle of attack, control your vertical speed, use S-turns if required, and don't forget the option of pumping fuel fore and aft for balance. The tricky bit is, of course, landing. My approach is to glide in low and slow but not too slow, then pitch up hard to vertical. I gradually increase the power to make sure the nose doesn't drop away, and Vernors and plenty of SAS help yank it up. Once it's pointing at the sky I hit hold radial out on the SAS. If I do it well I'll gain about a kilometre in this manoeuvre, if I do it badly I'll gain several. Once in the hover I can't descend too quickly, the plane is after all unstable flying backwards. 30-40 m/s is about the maximum. For this reason I feel jet engines are basically mandatory for the landing, rockets will just guzzle too much fuel. Controlling the descent speed requires practice, a delicate touch on the throttle, and careful attention to the TWR reported in KER. You need to ensure there's enough air for the jets. I put scoop intakes facing backwards for this, and ramp intakes face forwards. With such an arrangement be aware that least airflow tends to be in the -10 to 10 m/s speed range. You really don't want one of your lift engines flaming out on you. Beware of having too little TWR as well. The design above has two RAPIERs and two Panthers, and that's enough with no payload, but trying to land with a 5 ton payload put the TWR barely above 1. And thrust is less the higher you are. That meant cases where I would accelerate in my descent and either flip over or hit the ground hard. The successor design has switched to one RAPIER and four Panthers, to give ample thrust for landing without much of an increase in weight actually. The final touchdown needs to be gentle, a few m/s. The wings give some "spring" and mean it likes to bounce, and it's very easy to tip over. The Vernors up front are meant to help keep it steady of course. If you're playing without quickloads and reverts, don't be afraid to just hit Z and abort the landing if it looks about to tip.

Surely you mean, whatever building Whackjob decides to make.