blurrr 2

Burn either normal or anti-normal, rather than prograde / retrograde.

To rescue Jebediah, fly a ship with an empty command module into orbit near the ship with Jebediah, and then use EVA to fly Jebediah into the rescue ship, and then de-orbit the rescue ship.

I love the schematic drawings, and the rockets are awesome too. You did miss one apostrophe in the Phelan's description (service module's low...). I realize I am verging into grammar Hitler area, but since all the rest of the grammar is so well grammared, I thought I ought to point it out so it can be fixed.

What I would like to see would be more realism. For unmanned craft, information packets should have to be sent via antennae to the craft, and executed on a time delay. The instructions themselves can contain delays. The only information you should be able to see from an unmanned craft should come from sensors and/or cameras. You would play as a Kerbal, and only be able to see IVA and camera views, and views from any unmanned craft that you were controlling. Kerbals need resources to survive, via life support. Also, reaction wheels should be taken out of command pods, and SAS/ASAS wheels should only provide control along the axis which they were placed. Reentry heat should be deadly.

This is really awesome. Until I read the text on the last post, I thought you were using the Kerbal Attatchment system to put on the struts.

In the future, many "big" difficulty-enhancing updates are going to be to Kerbal Space program. As is, the game has a very steep learning curve, and this curve is getting steeper. The tech tree next update is a good step to reduce the initial amount of parts game presents, but added complexity that does not relate to parts continues to grow. My suggestion is to have difficulty levels, a beginner's mode (or sandbox mode, or experimentation mode, or something) and expert mode. Beginner's mode will be much like the game is now. Expert mode should include several more interesting, challenging aspects of space flight that would scare beginning players off. Here is a partial list of ideas which when added, should go under the umbrella of hard mode: - deadly reentry heat and corresponding heat shields - line of communication and time lag to control unmanned probes - life support systems - only data viewable has to be from point of view of a kerbal, or from camera data that a kerbal has access to - make reaction wheels no longer part of command pods, and make reaction wheels only work for the axis on which they are placed Cheats should definitely be left in hard mode, even if they break the realism. No one has to use cheats if they want to. Maybe cheats should only be available in a "planning mode". But a non-cheat mode would require disabled editing of config files, which would be hard to implement. :/ I'm not quite sure how these difficulty levels should relate to career mode and the tech tree. Right now, I'm leaning towards them being a separate category chosen at the initialization of a new campaign. In sandbox, difficulty should obviously be malleable, since sandbox mode is supposed to be unlimited. Having options (as in "leave reentry heat on but turn off life support") for sandbox mode would be good as well. Tell me what you think about this. TL;DR difficult aspects of the game should be optional in order to help new players

This is awesome! Just a thought: You would probably be able to save a significant amount of dV by using a 1m decoupler on the CM. It wouldn't look as good, but would probably help new players.

This is brilliant! Well done!

I don't even know....

Alright guys, I finally did this. 5 SRB stages and a final liquid stage, just like the original. I got around the lack of 2m SRBs by having a central SRB in the bottom stages, and then putting more around it and pressing shift+e a couple times to decrease the diameter. The top SRB stages of 16 and 9 sepatrons no-clipped inside struts. Would have had procedural fairings except then it wouldn't be stock. some orbital finagling required with SRB only stages... and there you have it! text here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwwjTJ_GHIuZZ3NEQi1BQ2hDM3M/edit?usp=sharing Flying instructions: stages have following dV. Make a maneuver node with that amount of dV, and then orient the node so as to achieve the desired orbit. 0 | 634 3 | 482 5 | 459 7 | 1694 9 | 2357 11| 2211

dat flag.... can I have the download for the flag?

and it has fire coming out one end too.... XD

This should totally be a thing. It would add a new interesting dynamic to the game, add some incentive for manned missions (i.e. your kerbal can weld the engine back on when you land too hard), and add the EVA functionality the devs have been talking about forever.

I got on at 0.10...

KSP is more friendlier than minecraft, only because it has a smaller player base, so people know each other more. The minecraft server I play on is about a dozen people (FTB again) and very friendly, but the forums are so massive that you get lost...

Beat me to the post.... ;D

So I saw the title, and.... Captain: What happen ? Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb. Operator: We get signal. Captain: What ! Operator: Main screen turn on. Captain: It’s you !! CATS: How are you gentlemen !! CATS: All your base are belong to us. CATS: You are on the way to destruction.

dats beautiful yo I'll have to try out variants

Dis is pretty sweet yo. You could of course hide all the fuel tanks in the middle, and have some other piece (besides the command pod) be the root part.

http://nathannifong.com/FairingFactory/ Every possible fairing included above

Having 2 ASAS doesn't help Just have one

on a Kerbalness scale of 1 to 10, this scores somewhere in the Jebediah range

? Do you mean radial decouplers? what?

This reminds me of the 30-second challenge. Many strategies from it will be viable.

This is a bad challenge because: - There are no clearly defined winning conditions. Does "speed" men rover driving speed, time to deployment (on certain celestial body), or something else? - The OP did not attempt the challenge himself.