Aethon

Slash, If you'd like to participate in a more hands on way, you should check out one of my favorite programs, the Citizen Science group Zooniverse. https://www.zooniverse.org/ Help scientists comb through mountains of data in any one of twenty five different subjects from biology-survey animals with remote cameras in Africa, to space- hunt planets lurking in the raw Kepler data, to physics- comb through data from the LHC after the Higgs boson, to archaeology- use your superior pattern recognition skills to translate ancient texts better than a computer can- everyone is guaranteed to find something there they will enjoy and YOU can actually contribute to science. You may not be able to see this link unless you're a member, but here's one of my favorites from the Galaxy Zoo, where you help identify Galaxy types from the enormous amount of data acquired from wide field surveys, S(loan) D(igital) S(ky) S(urvey), Hubble data, and the U(nited) K(ingdom) I(nfrared) T(elescope). http://www.galaxyzoo.org/#/examine/AGZ0002nrt Or even discover something unknown to science, similar to what happened to Hanny van Arckel who wondered what the green thing was in this image she was given to analyze one day, and began asking around the forums if anyone knew what it was. Even the project scientists were stumped. It's now called Hannys' Voorwerp. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/22apr_zooniverse/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanny%27s_Voorwerp WARNING: Zooniverse may cut into your KSP play time. Could lead to IRL feelings of accomplishment. Leaves a sciency aftertaste.

Hmm. You're link isn't working for me Sal though it may be on my end. I'm having some connection problems. From the article: "The resulting nanosuits were hard on the outside and soft on the inside, and could repair themselves if the insects' movement broke the surfaces. The researchers were able to take detailed images of the insects without harming the creatures, Hariyama said, adding that almost all of the insects in the study survived the imaging. In ongoing work, Hariyama and his team plan to analyze the DNA of the insects after the imaging, to see if the nanosuits caused any lasting health issues." Awww. So yeah, that DNA test is going to involve some pretty fatal grinding.

http://www.livescience.com/49598-insects-spacesuits-microscopes-protection.html TL;DR To avoid electron scatter, the objective in an electron microscope must be in a vacuum. For the first time scientists have imaged a living organism by coating insects in a thin flexible membrane they're calling a nano suit.

A super Saturn, with a ring system larger than it's parent star. http://www.universetoday.com/118500/super-saturn-has-an-enormous-ring-system-and-maybe-even-exomoons/ and the oldest planetary system discovered so far at 11 billion years old. Kepler 444 is 25% smaller than our sun and lies 117 light years away. It has at least 5 rocky planets Venus sized or smaller which are almost as old as the Universe itself. Interesting implications for life in the Cosmos. http://www.space.com/28386-ancient-alien-planets-discovery-kepler-444.html

And Vesta also had flowing water/mud on it's surface. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=pia19170

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, Laie. The first posts' vessel ( root MKII cockpit ) behaves abnormally with respect to the target reticle. The next two tests with different roots ( fuel tank, MkII clomp-o ) work like they should. I'm upset that I used the clamp-o jr ( realized it after I took the screen shot ), but will retest with the regular after work.

Follow up. I re rooted. First to the fuel tank behind the command pod and probe core, and after realizing my mistake, to the MK II clamp-o-tron. In both cases the navball behaved like I expected, showing the marker in the right places. Maybe it's something to do with the MKII cockpit?

And it's got it's own moon! http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/asteroid-that-flew-past-earth-today-has-moon/index.html#.VMbBnf7F-Yc

Here's a semi-relevant video demonstration that covers some of the questions you have.

http://www.universetoday.com/118444/latest-research-reveals-a-bizarre-and-vibrant-rosettas-comet/ New research on the comet trickling out. Definitely worth a click.

Well that stinks. Can't wait for those super huge bug fixes before 1.0 release. I guess I'll go get Nav hud. So maybe next launch I change the root part to be the clamp-o and I 'control from here' with the Mk II comand pod?

Thanks for the reply bakanando but I don't think that's it. What you see there is just a ground reenactment of what happens in space. The docking port is the target, not the center of mass. I find the stock docking UI completely sufficient for my docking needs and the target port is on a simple, quickly cobbled rover, FOR TEST PURPOSES ONLY... Point away from face! The shadow on the ground is from the counter balance port on the other side of the rover.

Having a very frustrating day, not just with KSP, and on the weekend no less. Port is targeted. Controlling from the MK II clamp-o-tron. Navball shows it's being controlled from the part pointing to the zenith, yet no pink target reticle. I can still dock it but why no reticle, why?? I'm modestly modded but nothing I can think of that would cause this. Chatterer, ENB, KER, Trigger tech, NASA, Precise node, Proc. farings, Scansat, Squad, World cup. edited for vulgarity and to fit on your screen.

I'll hafta quote myself for this one. From post 159, October 3, 2014. There's a crack forming on comet 67p. Is it braking up? http://www.universetoday.com/118445/theres-a-crack-forming-on-rosettas-67p-is-it-breaking-up/

Um. Wow! Insert you're own Squad fan boy comments here. Sounds great guys! Resources. Aero. Procedural fairings. I'm dumbfounded.

SLS booster on the stand in Utah ( "What's he a Mormon?" ) prepared for a March 11, 2 minute static test fire. http://www.nasa.gov/sls/booster-aimed-and-ready-to-fire.html#.VMGI9kfF-Yc

This was kind of alluded to in the video but NASA's going for it. http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-microsoft-collaboration-will-allow-scientists-to-work-on-mars/index.html

Jees.. Is this thing on?? TAP, TAP, TAP! Check 2... Check 2... SSSSibilant, sibilant. PHHHHHT.... PHHHHT. To determine when Kerbin crosses Mohos' AN/DN: The date this happens the first time: If I'm still not making myself clear, you can't contact me directly (PM) and I can explain further.

If you have a ship in orbit, you can set Moho as its' target, and pull out a dummy maneuver node far enough to escape Kerbin. This will allow you to see the AN/DN between your current Kerbin orbit and the plane of Mohos' orbit. Obviously it happens twice a year. Wait for Kerbin to be very close to the AN ( Earth Year 1 Day 21, on or about Hour 17). The next time you pass the place where you think you want your exit burn to start (retrograde to Kerbins' orbit), set up your actual escape burn maneuver node so it just touches Mohos' solar periapse, and it has enough anti- normal (south) so that your inclination relative to Mohos' orbit is zero. Combining your inclination change with your escape burn saves mucho dv. Thanks to improved chase camera, you can see System Shuttle Argos and IPEX Hydras' anti-normal component built in to the Kerbin escape burn. No calculations necessary. It's all handled by the maneuver node system. After the burn, Argos refuels Hydra, undocks, and burns retrograde, returning to Kerbin for an aerobrake, refuel and reuse. This burn was around 2300 m/sec. After you pass your (and Mohos') solar periapse, set up a retrograde maneuver burn on the periapse ( which you just passed ) so that you will encounter Moho on your next orbit, at a dv cost of around 1800m/sec. This has the added bonus of decreasing the relative velocities in the eventual Moho encounter. My Moho capture burn cost around 1000 m/sec. Hope this helps.

Here you go. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/26656-Delta-V-to-reach-Moho-orbit/page2?highlight=moho Scroll down to Macollo's post. Mine under it has the date. The first time this occurs ( IIRC the AN ) is ( Earth ) Year 1 Day 21, on or about Hour 17.

Not sure exactly what mechanism you're trying to protect in your plot, but if you're afraid someone might kill your grandpa, you can use the Novikov self-consistency principle. "The Novikov self-consistency principle, also known as the Novikov self-consistency conjecture, is a principle developed by Russian physicist Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov in the mid-1980s to solve the problem of paradoxes in time travel, which is theoretically permitted in certain solutions of general relativity (solutions containing what are known as closed timelike curves). The principle asserts that if an event exists that would give rise to a paradox, or to any "change" to the past whatsoever, then the probability of that event is zero. It would thus be impossible to create time paradoxes." "We shall embody this viewpoint in a principle of self-consistency, which states that the only solutions to the laws of physics that can occur locally in the real Universe are those which are globally self-consistent. This principle allows one to build a local solution to the equations of physics only if that local solution can be extended to a part of a (not necessarily unique) global solution, which is well defined throughout the nonsingular regions of the spacetime." "In response, another physicist named Joseph Polchinski sent them a letter in which he argued that one could avoid questions of free will by considering a potentially paradoxical situation involving abilliard ball sent through a wormhole which sends it back in time. In this scenario, the ball is fired into a wormhole at an angle such that, if it continues along that path, it will exit the wormhole in the past at just the right angle to collide with its earlier self, thereby knocking it off course and preventing it from entering the wormhole in the first place. Thorne deemed this problem "Polchinski's paradox".[3]:510–511After considering the problem, two students at Caltech (where Thorne taught), Fernando Echeverria and Gunnar Klinkhammer, were able to find a solution beginning with the original billiard ball trajectory proposed by Polchinski which managed to avoid any inconsistencies. In this situation, the billiard ball emerges from the future at a different angle than the one used to generate the paradox, and delivers its younger self a glancing blow instead of knocking it completely away from the wormhole, a blow which changes its trajectory in just the right way so that it will travel back in time with the angle required to deliver its younger self this glancing blow. Echeverria and Klinkhammer actually found that there was more than one self-consistent solution, with slightly different angles for the glancing blow in each case. Later analysis by Thorne and Robert Forward showed that for certain initial trajectories of the billiard ball, there could actually be an infinite number of self-consistent solutions." Lol. The Princeton university website links to the Wikipedia, so here it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

Quit your complaining and do your damn job Bob!

Do you need that much RCS fuel?

"It's no big deal." http://www.universetoday.com/118127/huge-rocket-recovery-strides-accomplished-spacex-drone-ship-back-in-port/

Hit tab to cycle through celestial bodies until you are focused on your intended destination. That should solve a couple of your problems.