EdFred

Seems like just another KSP release. Not really ready, but Squad went with it anyway.

IPS doesn't place a lot of emphasis on anything that vBulletin did. And that's not a good thing.

Looks like there is a large need to fix things. Looks like all the image tags are broken, quote tags are broken, etc... Really? The enter gives me double spaced text? Come on guys.

I had struts, and there was a command pod and landing craft inside the fairing. It wasn't just empty space in there. It just barely enclosed the two. Funny thing is, take the fairing off (and increase the drag), and it works just fine.

[quote name='ExtremeSquared']Hmm... I was having aerodynamic problems that seemed to be caused by the contents of the fairing rather than the fairing. The rover was getting yanked around inside the fairing by aero forces from what I could tell.[/QUOTE] I had that happen as well. I rolled back to 1.0.4 until they fix it.

[quote name='Rocket Farmer']Please enlighten me how fairings don't work? They seem to work fine in my game. [/QUOTE] [URL]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/139219-Fairing-CoL-Offset-%28also-staged%29[/URL] I experience the same issue: [spoiler="whaat?"] See where that center of lift is. Makes it impossible to launch. Even if you go ridiculously slow. I went back to 1.0.4 because of it. [IMG]http://webpages.charter.net/edfred/kerbal/2015-11-12_00015.jpg[/IMG] [/spoiler]

[quote name='Yasmy'] Yes, yes. Of course. But this question equally applies to short duration burns, like 5 degrees instead of 40 to 90 degrees, where there is a small difference between following prograde and following the maneuver node. One method is theoretically better under some situations. I wouldn't advocate using a method with no practical difference, but I would always advocate learning the difference. Until we have a corpus of tests, or a set of well founded equations, this remains an open question which gets asked again and again here.[/QUOTE] I would assume the multiple burn technique would be the most efficient. Anything not exactly at the node is wasted on orbital. But like was said, I don't think anyone really wants to develop the formula. Probably involves some pretty deep calculus.

I can't believe the thread went this long without the blatantly obvious solution: MOAR BOOSTERS! If my TWR isn't sufficient enough that I am going to end up in the atmosphere, I burn in a higher orbit - minimum required to complete the node in one burn.

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']The new Vector fits this niche pretty well. :)[/QUOTE] Is that in 1.0.5? Because until they fix the lift problem the enclosure fairings, I'm staying at 1.0.4 Hey, where did all your rep go?

Get rid of female Kerbals. Now, let me crawl behind this 3.5m heat shield. Story lines. Where choices have to be made, and depending on the choice you make the story line goes a certain direction. Something where you can actually "lose" the game. An AI: Rather than being the first in space while competing against, oh, no one. There's an AI that you compete against to be the first in orbit/the Mun/wherever. A mode where nodes and parts are unlocked based on what you do, not where you put your science points. Procedural Easter Eggs/rewards. The Armstrong memorial isn't always in the same place. Same with the things on Duna. A parts editor/creator. I don't know how many times I've got a craft that is stuck in between Skippers and Mainsails thrust wise. (Yes I know I can limit the Mainsails, but they aren't as efficient then). I don't see the need for more planets. We have most of the possibilities there are. High G with and without atmo. Low G with and without Atmo. Unless you want to throw one into a 60degree inclination or something. Maybe make more discoverables.

No cheating; Use Hyperedit. lulz

[quote name='magnemoe']Your problem is that your bots will get problems getting deep, as you will have an mile deep layer of bots, this will insulate frying the lower bots even if the planet was cold all the way trough. Technically you could build an bunch of mass drivers trowing away stuff continuing until the planet was gone.[/QUOTE] Self replicating magnetic bots. The first wave of bots consume the atmosphere eliminating all friction from the atmosphere. Then as the planet is consumed, the nanobots pulse rail-gun style, firing off nanobots that have consumed their portion of the planet. No need to build another mass driver. :D

After reading the ways to (and not to) destroy the earth.... [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80hj8qvRplg[/url]

If the nano-bots eat from the outside in, there won't be any pressures to withstand when they get near the core. You'll also want atmosphere consuming nanobots if the planet has one.

I'm fairly convinced that dark matter is just us detecting matter/energy from dimension 5 and up.

0/10 This should be in the games section, not the general KSP discussion section.

I have noticed that KER's suicide burn countdown isn't as accurate at MJ's. Nor is the impact location - especially on bodies with atmosphere.

For the MJ is cheating camp, if I want to go fly manually, I get in my car or truck, drive to my hangar, pull out my plane and go fly it. Oh, but wait.. I have an electric door on the hangar, I don't open it by hand, I guess that's cheating. I have an electric starter, I guess that's cheating since I don't hand prop the plane to start. I have a engine monitoring system so I know whether or not I'm running too rich, or too lean - I guess that's cheating since I'm not taking manual readings by licking my finger and placing it on the exhaust or cylinder to see how long it is before I get a 3rd degree burn. I have a clock in the plane to let me know when I should switch fuel tanks - I'm not calculating where the sun is in relation to where I am, and figuring out I've been flying for an hour. I have a GPS in the plane where I can program in where I'm going, which also tells me ground speed, ETA, ETE, distance remaining, my latitude and longitude, gives me a descent profile, etc... I also have an altimeter in the plane that tells me my altitude. I'm not taking manual readings and attempting to hold an altitude based on a reading I take and calculate every minute. Looks like a nice day out. I think I will drive out to the airport and go do some REAL flying, not like the cheating you do on a computer. Oh, wait driving is cheating, maybe I should walk the 18 miles to the airport. Wait, I'm using a road built by someone else. I guess that's cheating since I'm not using a compass and slashing my way through forest to get there. Not to mention....

What major cities?

I doubt you will have enough time to circularize with the ions. What's the TWR on the ion stage?

[quote name='CliftonM']Why buy a generator if you can leave the food outside?[/QUOTE] My local wildlife would like it if I did that.

[quote name='Meithan']If you optimize for cost efficiency (funds per tonne of payload) and not for lowest-Δv-to-orbit, I've found that 3400-3500 m/s is about right for the typical ascent.[/QUOTE] I never worry about cost! I pretty much play in the sandbox as I have done the career To the point I had enough money I could do whatever mission I wanted , and don't feel like doing it again. Interesting that the delta V map was based on cost and not actual delta V. I would have not thought to have created one with that parameter

College dropout here. Finished high school at 16, had my Associate of Science at 18. Was enrolled at University of Michigan for architecture, and then the job market for architects crashed - and I bailed. Did one semester towards Mechanical Engineering at Grand Valley State and decided that it wasn't for me, and could not figure out what to major in. I had already been working as a draftsman/engineer while getting my A.S., and I kept in that job market until I was 23. Then I completely switched fields, and have been in the sales and distribution business since then - the past 18 years. I've also become a commercially rated instrument pilot with Seaplane and Multi-engine ratings along with my Certified Flight Instructor Certificate, and I flight instruct on the side in addition to my full time job. Can't say the lack of a 4-year degree has hurt as I am a 2%'er.

I've landed (and ascended) on the Mun and Duna with the single man can without issue.

That new dV map is most helpful. I was testing last night however to see what it took for 80km LKO and I was able to get it done for between 3000 and 3100 dV so some of those numbers may be a bit conservative.