mpk10

Has anyone tried using a claw in combination with "upward" facing landing legs for extra leverage in maneuvering an asteroid? If the lander legs are close enough when the claw is grabbed on that they would be under compression with the claw attached, it seems like it might add some stability as well as a dampening effect. Thanks. Matt

Guys, what about my original idea/question??

Apologies if this has been suggested before. A basic search for the issue didn't yield anything too close... My Issue: When you make a maneuver node, the new Apoapsis and Periapsis as well as the new Ascending and Descending Nodes appear as new parameters along the dotted line of your new orbit. However, while your current (pre-maneuver) Ap and Pe also continue to be displayed, your current (pre-maneuver) Ascending and Descending node markers disappear and instead your are left with only your post maneuver locations and amounts of inclination. I assume this is intentional, but I'm not sure why. I would love to continue to see the current (pre-maneuver) Ascending and Descending nodes as WELL as the resulting (post-maneuver) ones even after I have created a maneuver node. I could go into detail as to why this would be useful to me, but I don't think it is super necessary. If anyone is curious, let me know and I can elaborate. Does anyone know why this is? May I respectfully suggest changing it? Thanks! Matt

Indeed. Even something as derivative as "Kapollo" or "Kelios" would be a bit more fun, no?

Boo! Where is your esprit de nonsense?

Well. Perhaps that is a better theme for a suggestion thread. - What would you name the star instead of "Sun" and "Kerbol"?

Fair enough. Although that is why I posted this in Suggestions rather than Questions.

In the Tracking Station, as well as when you cycle through the "Focus View" options, Kerbol seems to be referred to as "Sun". What is this "Sun" you speak of? Neither Jeb nor Gene have ever heard of it.

Is there something wrong with my graphics settings? There is this pixelated black stuff that is on the floor of the VAB as you can see in the pictures linked below. In game, it's not still: the black dots all sort of vibrate and move around. I don't seem to have any other rendering/graphics issues. This definitely wasn't happening in 1.0.5 I'm running osX. The only mod i have is Kerbal Engineer. If you guys think it's a bug, i will try to report it, though i don't really know how to describe it. http://imgur.com/8CYKLRB http://imgur.com/ePpf5at <blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="8CYKLRB"><a href="//imgur.com/8CYKLRB">View post on imgur.com</a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

huh. i guess i just assumed a capsule with a kerbal in it was heavier than one without.

Female Kerbals: What if they all weighed slightly less?? Fidelity meets pragmatic delta-v obsessives!

This! Depending on your direction of travel relative to a body's orbit, the "bend" that happens to your course as you pass through that body's sphere of influence can act as the equivalent of some combination of prograde/retrograde and radial/anti-radial. (Or even normal/anti-normal if you want it, though I have rarely wanted that affect.) It's taken me a long time to learn how to use planets or moons for gravity assists. I now pretty much exclusively use EVE (for getting to Moho), TYLO (for arriving anywhere in the Jool system, and JOOL (for getting to Eeloo). One piece of advice I would add is that you should increase the "conic patch limit" in the game settings if you want to learn/use gravity assists. I won't go into how to do it, it's easy enough to look up. But it will allow you to see further into the future, through more S.O.I.s. -mpk

Interesting! I think if you take inclination into account, then it's probably a function of the Volume of the non-overlapping "wedges", rather than the Area of the non-overlapping "crescents". A good visual representation of why plane changes are so dV expensive. It's not super useful but I find it helpful to think of things visually like that so I understand a little better how to be efficient when matching up orbits at other planets/moons. Thanks for all the thoughts!

Thanks. I understand that there's a minimum, i guess i was just wondering that if all the math for calculating that minimum works out to be relatively proportional to the area of the non-overlapping areas of the two orbits (in sq. kms or whatever)?

Hey nerds, This is my first time posting in this area of the forums, but I'm hopeful that some of the more math-inclined of you guys can help me with an idea I just had. I've been playing KSP for years and every time I start a new career mode, my designs and methods get more efficient. Specifically, I was just docking in LKO to pick up some fuel for a mission to the Jool system and as I was matching orbits with my fuel depot, something occurred to me: Is it possible that the amount of delta V required for matching orbits is somehow proportional to the area of the space between the two orbits?? That is, if you had two almost entirely overlapping circles (like a venn diagram with almost ALL of it in common) that the delta-V to match the orbits is somehow proportional to the area of the two thin "crescent" shapes carved out on the outside of that "venn diagram"? There was something tucked away in my memory about Kepler's law when I thought of this. not sure if his "swept out area" idea is similar to what I'm talking about. Anyway, I'd be grateful for any thoughts. -mpk

The tank size on the orange tank, for example is like a 28.8K modem, The one half that size is like a 14.4K modem.

When you press M, when you're just using a web browser to try to switch tabs.

I searched for it quickly, but can't find a reference to it... I've been playing KSP for a couple years now, and today was the first I'd noticed that many of the fuel tanks that have been around a while hold an amount of liquid fuel that is an old dial up modem speed from my youth! It seems unlikely to be coincidental. unless it's some power of 2 thing that i haven't fully thought through... Has anyone else noticed this? Is it just a coincidence?

Thanks guys. I think I'm going to avoid trying this now for fear of making myself crazy.

What is the most number of Asteroids that anyone has linked together? I've never even tried two, but I was thinking of going for four in a tetrahedron (for stability's sake) out of Class A asteroids, but was curious if anyone else has tried something like this and might have some advice? I play in stock, so i would be using grabbbers, but if you've done it with KAS i'd love to hear about your experience too. Matt

Thanks! To be fair, most of the fuel is used to put the piece in orbit. I will have to go back up to fuel up the depot with a fuel supply ship. My fuel supply ship parts are almost fully recoverable, so my only cost is the fuel itself and a few SRBs.

-mpk10 Craft File

It's not a full solution, but one of the tricks I like to use for this problem is the altitude trigger on the parachutes. If you aim to overshoot your landing spot, then change the altitude trigger to something higher than your current altitude right as you pass over where you want to land. Drone chutes first if you're going too fast.

Regardless of what you use for extra structural support, I think that the 4x warp under acceleration is part of the problem. I have noticed that certain parts fail in tension under warp while accelerating that otherwise wouldn't without warping. I know it's annoying moving asteroids without warp, but if you can be patient, you'll find things will fail less often. -mpk

Interesting. I guess it might not be possible for contracts to be comparable like that, but I do believe that there is probably an easy solution to this idea that might let players compare themselves to others on contract completion. It also opens a door to the potential for a mod, or perhaps future stock concept, where players bid on contracts (against other players of equal reputation/skill, say).