Technical Ben

This. I've not had time to make one yet* but the Mk3 tanks give similar to the same numbers as in 0.90 with mixed fuel tanks. My craft will look different now**, but should perform similarly. * Honestly no time... because I'm still planning on making it bigger and figuring out how to get it structurally sound. Yes... I'm making it too big again! ** They looked different before too!

Well, managed to reconfigure the transport again. I now have 8k DV for an attempted direct transfer or gravity assisted transfer. I may have been tempted to "boot" it into position at one point. "No Bob, that will not help things!" So I dropped a crew cabin, Lars will have to go in the ion craft for hibernation sleep. Left some science pods behind too and a fuel tank that was really just dead weight. Left an engine with it though, so burns will take longer. This configuration did not work well: "Now it's backwards, what is Hudson doing?" But this one worked a lot better:

Yep. Just been very busy, not even played 1.0 much apart from making a SpaceX rocket. Polo is easy to escape from. However, we did decide to dive deep into the stars gravity well to get there. We will need over 5500m/s DV to get to CZF30. But the craft only has around 7.5k left in it's current configuration. The Kerbals decide that for Kerbal kind, they will press on with the mission. They picked up an ion shuttle earlier, so if needed, at least one of them can return home. CZF30 is the best candidate for a replacement to Kerbin, should Kerbol die. The long burn is planned, and a flyby/gravity assist from Don. I'll try the burn tonight, will be a long one so will take some time before I get any pictures up.

"Press Space for launch" in big pink "Noscope" style letters and an automatic 100% throttle when you do seem the most logical and reasonable solution... /troll. (sorry!)

True. While it would have looked funny to some extent it would of also have fitted KSP style more. It would be a tiny rocket for a larger pod, and the kerbals would look kerbal for it, not just "smaller".

It's probably just making a magnetic field and pushing off the walls of the metal structure in the building or the table legs.

So basically the same as real life. Very realistic simulation.

Hotfix mod adds this. Worked fine.

No AFAIK it does not. Magnetospheres are needed.

Well, as long as it's only a 5 min visit. All the radiation and that. There are many orders of magnitude of problems terraforming Mars. It might be mechanically and practically eaiser to move earth to a Martian orbit!

I was just about to wonder what to put in the new service bays... Thanks for the 1.0 update!

I think I got this with some vaneers too. Got massive lift, then on my next attempt, nothing. Was scratching my head, then decided to "wobble" the rocket,that worked.

Mid stage built. Still having trouble on re-entry, but not sure if it's the heat shields playing up, or I just need a better COG/air breaks/RCS to hold it's position (and flip it after). Oh, and I usually tap the engines full throttle and zero throttle for landing, as I have no idea what my "suicide" burn should be.

Why does that not build any confidence for me? (rhetorical question, I know the answer )

Must be a better way to implement this... :/

I'm loving the airbreaks. I have hit a small snag though it seems. Currently I'm using them for control on re-entry. I'm trying a dragon style Space X re-usable craft. With mid stage returning to Kerbin. However, when I "flip" it back up, the control surfaces seem to be working in reverse. They will work one orientation (falling front first), but when I'm flipped for landing, are then configured backwards, and control in the "wrong" direction that I need. If I mount them backwards, they then won't help with re-entry, only for landing. An "invert control" would allow me to flip their control direction when flipping the crafts flight direction. Without this, I'll have to use a ton of SAS to flip, and the breaks for landing instead. [edit] I admit that it may just be me and I've got something on the craft back to front. So feel free to move this to the "help" section. I may just need to play with COG/drag and control setups.

Thanks RevanCorana, It is to hide the solar panels and batteries so far. But for this craft makes no real change in physics or part count. For later craft, interplanetary etc, it will help keep par counts down until deployed. So mainly for show and looks for now. Working on the mid stange with it's own recovery now. Love the copter. Do like me some autorotation.

Old aero/chute meant either massive g = disassembly or cute fell off. I wonder if that would be added back in?

Now with a service bay!

That sounds rather interesting. Make the Nervas radiators themselves, but only when on. This could also cause a massive failure if suddenly turned off (no longer venting heat)?

Airbreaks and other forms of drag can help with re-entry...

There never is a killer solution...

It should be heavier. Cheaper yes, but heavier.

Which is again strange. As Harv said the drag is modelled the same as the mass (and as posters above mention, this is added to the base part and seems working), the drag should be added to the base part (which is directionless if talking about a single part AFAIK). Unless parts now have a direction of drag/resistance and a direction for low drag. In which case, is the heat shield accidentally "flipping" the games understanding of the direction of drag?

It works! Ejecting the fairings is BAD for the craft. Mainly because it's made out of fairings.