cantab

When you've only got OX-STATs that's a lot.

I'm pretty sure this is a Kopernicus bug. If you start the game, load the save, and go straight to the R&D building then the mod planets appear in the science archives. But once you go to any other screen first, such as the VAB or Tracking Station, then go to R&D afterwards you just see the stock system.

I had such a giggle when I checked out the original sigint dish. So huge I actually want to try co-opting it as a dome umbrella over a base, but supporting it could be a bit tricky.

You can either right click the file in the file manager, or use the chmod command at the command line.

@Puggonaut Lovely Skylab, I've long been a fan of that station. IMHO it'd be great to see the SLS launch a "Skylab 2" @DChurchill That's kind of deliberate, or like a rocket out of comics and cartoons from the same period. I thought it was a plausible design to try, highly-swept wings and tail so it'd land on the tips, and it's turned out to be very nice aerodynamically too. Those designs in turn I think derive from the grand-daddy of modern space rockets, the V-2.

We will all adapt. The very fact that we have an internet connection, a device, and the free time to be on this forum and presumably to play Kerbal Space Program too, means that we are plenty rich enough to handle whatever the climate does. It's the other 90 percent of the world's population that will suffer.

Nova's idea: I've not seen exactly that. Asclepius comes close, but doesn't have the equatorial-only focus. Big crater world: It's gotta have been done. Mountains into vacuum: There was one in the original Planet Factory mod. I don't know of any up-to-date planet pack with it. Plateaus and chasms: Leouch in New Horizons. Now I'm not saying you can't put your own spin on these. The planet mods I run give me umpteen gas giants and yet they're all different. But I would say try and produce cool results and don't worry too much if they're not "original".

Well if you can indefinitely maintain life support in space, doesn't that somewhat defeat the point? I'd say TAC Life Support can be simple if you want. Just put on enough of the all-purpose containers and job done. At that level it's simply a time limit on your mission. TAC-LS can then "grow" to be more complex if you want with various recyclers as well as ways to get water and oxygen from the environment. TAC is good at alerting you when life support is about to run out. USI Life Support is in some ways more complex. As well as the consumable "Supplies" which works much like TAC's resources folded into one, it has the habitation mechanic where parts offer a certain number of Kerbal-months and other parts can multiply that amount. However you can disable the habitation mechanic if you like and then you're free to stuff Kerbals in lander cans for years. It too has things to recycle resources, but USI-LS alone doesn't have any way to make more supplies, that's left to UKS or other mods. (But like I said, it's never very sensible to make stuff from empty space anyway). USI-LS is not so good at telling you life support will run out, but it does have a generous "grace period". Incidentally, USI-LS developer Roverdude mentioned that "Supplies" are actually mostly water, with the food and oxygen relatively minor components. I don't know if TAC's mass balance is the same way or not. Snacks! is very simple, but sounds like not what you want.

Yeah. The RAPIER has a strong "ram effect". If you get going fast enough the thrust starts climbing sharply and you can really pile on the speed. But if you climb too high too slow, or just have too heavy a plane for the number of engines on it, you can end up unable to get into that zone without descending. Same goes for the Whiplash, though I've less experience flying it.

I don't understand. That would require using something capable of smoothly moving across the ground without causing catastrophic damage to the spaceplane, and no such parts exist in KSP 1.1.2. The only way to safely leave or touch ground is straight up and down. (Post-flight to a 100 km LKO and back, no payload to speak of just a couple empty fuel tanks in the bay that I'd been using to check CoM and stuff. Also, not using stock errordynamics.)

I do think that bundling water, oxygen, and food into the single "Supplies" makes some things a bit problematic. For example if you want a part or set of parts to get usable drinking water and nothing else from the environment, it can't actually do so because that would have to be folded into supplies and you'd be implicitly making food from nowhere. So instead a drinking water source can work as a "recycler", which seems a bit more obfuscated and less obvious. And the recycler can only stretch out the supplies you have, you can't leave with more drinking water than you arrived with. For example suppose I want to launch interplanetary ships from Kerbin with plenty of food and oxygen, but short on water to save weight, and I want a simple mining operation on the Mun or Minmus to make drinking water and send it out to meet the interplanetary ships. Can I do that when using USI-LS? And I don't see the advantage of "supplies" other than shortening the resource lists. Which I acknowledge may have been a major factor considering how often TAC-LS got criticised for "too many resources".

I've used them to ... actually do science. And I don't mean clicking the run experiment button in the game. I mean taking a probe through the atmosphere of an unfamiliar world, recording temperature and pressure at various altitudes, and plotting the results to get an atmospheric curve for the body. And then using that information to work out how many parachutes a larger lander will require for a safe touchdown.

And solar activity doesn't correlate with climate data over timescales longer than the 11/22 year solar cycle. Carbon dioxide levels do. We have a good idea how much fossil fuel humanity has burned, and we have a good record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and about half of the carbon dioxide we've emitted is still in the atmosphere. Some of the rest has gone into the oceans making them more acidic, and we have records of that, and some more has been taken up by plants. CO2 has a longer atmospheric lifetime than water vapour, so it's much more easily perturbed by adding a new source of it. Anthropogenic global warming is a well-established theory. It's also not at all new - it was predicted by Arrhenius in 1896, and later in 1908 he wrote that he thought it was a good thing (for similar reasons that have been mentioned in this thread already).

Completed a test flight of my "tailsitter" spaceplane/shuttle. The goal is for this to take itself and a 5 ton payload to Serran (another moon of that blue gas giant Sonnah, with an oxy atmosphere too) with the aid of an external tank and boosters, then fly back to Kerbin as a spaceplane, and land just like you see here.

Sometimes it just looks better. It can be paired with a 4-way block to make a 5-way thruster, which is useful if you can only place RCS in twofold symmetry. You can use them for primary propulsion, although you'll have to use RCS translation controls instead of standard throttle.

Check the KSP program has the "execute" permission. In Linux only files with that permission can be run as programs.

I think I'd find it rather antisocial. It's annoying enough when family speak to me when I have headphones on and I have to ask them to repeat it. It's also still rather outside my budget.

sal_vager's advice seems good, but some other ideas: Boot any online PC off a Linux live USB stick, install Steam, install KSP, copy the KSP files onto another USB stick. Connect your Macbook or XP laptop to the internet by wireless and to your desktop by ethernet, and use internet connection sharing.

2/3rds seems a bit optimistic. nVidia were bandying about a 1080 "reference" price of $599, which turns out to be what they expect cheaper third-party cards to do, while their own "Founders Edition" reference card is $699. I'm not even sure I expect the $599 to be available right away.

And the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was also a time of mass extinctions, ocean basins devoid of oxygen, increased erosion on land, shifts in ocean currents and consequently local and regional climate, and sea level rise and consequent flooding of coastal areas. The end result is of less concern than the transition. And just because "life" might do well, doesn't mean it's the life we care about - humans, crops, livestock, and other species of economic importance. And the rate of CO2 rise during the PETM was far slower than it is today.

Agreed with this. The ejection burn for an "express" transfer is usually only a little more than a Hohmann - in fact I've gone to Mun and Minmus on such express transfers without even meaning to! But the capture burn is what bites more. And since KSP 1.0 aerocapture became a lot more difficult. It's virtually suicide to even touch Eve or Jool's atmosphere at interplanetary speeds, but using Duna or Laythe may be viable.

My two cents is it feels more sensible for the hab ring to be a multiplier than a fixed hab value - I'd see access to artificial gravity as a major quality of life benefit much like access to a good view of space through a cupola, more than it simply being "more living space". But game balance comes into it too and other people know more about that than me. For anybody who does want to change configs, I strongly recommend making your own Module Manager patches rather than editing the original config files. Module Manager isn't that hard, and put your patches in your own folder under GameData and they won't get clobbered when you update mods.

Old question but never got answered. Transfer Window Planner can only handle transfers between two satellites of the same body. Kerbin is a moon of Sonnah in New Horizons, so TWP will only give you transfers to the other moons of Sonnah. If you set your origin body as Sonnah, which is a planet orbiting the Sun, and your altitude to match Kerbin's orbital radius which you can read out from the map view, then TWP will give you transfers to the other planets. The transfer windows will be basically right, but it won't give the correct delta-V for a departure directly from LKO. You will need a more advanced tool to fully plan interplanetary journeys in New Horizons. Consider it part of the challenge of that planetary system.

But what's your Vernor doing? Using fuel to produce off-line thrust! What's your tailfin doing? Using aerodynamics to produce off-line drag! In fact Vernor will almost always use a lot more fuel to produce a given torque than an engine gimbal. Suppose I want 10 kN of sideways force and 1000 kN of upwards force, then using a gimballed engine I need sqrt(102+10002) = 1000.05 kN of total thrust. But using a fixed engine and a Vernor I need 10+1000 = 1010 kN of total thrust. The Vernor is using two hundred times as much fuel on turning as the gimballing engine is. Two. Hundred. Times. And that's if the Vernors were as efficient as the main engines, which they aren't, and have the same distance from the CoM, which might not be the case but the Vernors sure aren't going to be 200 times further from the CoM than the main engines unless you painstakingly contrive that. I don't see any advantage to using Vernors when a gimbal-capable main engine is running. They're useful if you need control when the main engines are off though.

All those control options add mass. Most engines already come with gimbals, why not use them? When you get into large ships, engine gimbal can offer seriously powerful control. For instance a single Rhino might offer 700 kNm of torque by gimballing, equivalent to a stack of twenty three of the 2.5 m reaction wheels. And that reaction wheel stack would weigh 4.6 tonnes, half of the Rhino's own weight. Maybe there are cases you don't want gimbal, but to discard that kind of power out of hand seems premature.