LitaAlto

I apologize if this was already asked--but are the IACBMs backwards-compatible with stock docking ports? Or can I only dock with other IACBMs?

Thanks for the recommendation, tygoo7. Alas, KSO kept crashing on me no matter what. I'm going to try FusTek as it looks like I got that working.

Anyone have space station part recommendations? I'm looking for what is probably an impossible mix of features: IVA views of crew spaces--preferably not reusing the PPD-10 Hitchhiker Storage Container; Low RAM use; Few or no dependencies on other add-ons (again, trying to keep RAM usage low); Stockalike if possible. I know about MKS/OKS but it doesn't have IVAs yet, and isn't exactly stockalike. FusTek looks great but has a number of dependencies that have me shying away. Porkjet's Habitat Pack is promising but it does have a couple of dependencies and is kinda large. Any others I may be missing?

I used to have a set of Weebles when I was little. This has me grinning. SPACE WEEBLES!!!

FWIW the OpenGL flag does make for a more stable (and smooth!) KSP experience on my end. But the overlaid indicators for my game video recorder (Raptr) cannot render. I'm going to try a different GVR this weekend to see if it's only a Raptr issue.

Nothing fancy--yet. Contemplating what expansions to add.

I'm glad I read this one. I had given up putting chutes on boosters and the like since it appeared at first that there would be no funds recovered. CHUTES FOR EVERYTHING!

Question: Do you need to disable SAS for gravity turns to work? I'm presuming so but nobody's made it explicit, and I'm not sure how you could get a proper gravity turn (one small adjustment shortly after liftoff and letting gravity do all the rest) with SAS on--but maybe I'm missing something...?

I'd love for this to get folded into the game's editor. I had to use it earlier and it was wonderful to have.

I did an experiment, and Command Pod Mk1 cannot be used in crew transfers. The Mk1 Lander Can, whether joined through Clamp-O-Trons or not, works with transfers.

I'm working on a lander design and it's pretty simple--the core is a Command Pod Mk1 connected to a Mk1 Lander Can with Clamp-O-Trons. I've got the latest ConnectedLivingSpaces (1.0.6.0) and I'm using CrewXfer. CrewXfer tells me the Command Pod and Lander Can aren't connected. Does the Command Pod Mk1 not work with CLS? I was hoping I could transfer to the Lander Can for EVAs and not have to add ladders to get to the Command Pod.

The Dropbox URL is broken--faulty BBCode it looks like.

I just got the same block message as @PizzaMore above. I saved it to Dropbox instead and scanned it. It's perfectly clean. So yeah, no idea why that'd happen. Should it be relevant, I'm using Chrome Version 35.0.1916.153 m.

It's under Electronics, one of the 300-point nodes in the tech tree.

Now that Spaceport is gone, are you planning on posting this to CurseForge? Or maybe GitHub? I really would love to give this a try!

It requires 10,000 hours of very specific practice--the kind that keeps pushing you outside your comfort zone and forces you to optimize your skills. You pretty much have to keep coming up with new challenges in KSP, all the time, or otherwise you're just reinforcing what you're already doing, and that's no way to gain actual expertise. That's really easy to do early on but as time passes and you knock down milestone after milestone you get to diminishing results.

Color me intrigued! I'm looking up the Principia mod now to see if there are any status updates. Thanks for the tip!

No, now that I've taken off my space geek hat and put on my CompSci one--of course I'd need a supercluster at minimum to adequately model aerobraking for multiple objects at once. It's just... it feels like CHEATING. I shouldn't be able to put a bunch of probes in an aerobraking orbit, then choose which probe to aerobrake first. They should all deorbit the moment they start to hit atmosphere. At least, that's what would happen in reality. And no, I'm not really complaining. I bet NASA wishes they could dump a bunch of probes into an aerobraking orbit then decide when and where each probe will land.

Fair enough. This is mainly an observation on how it'll impact my gameplay, and I thought I'd share it here. Thanks for the explanation!

[Edited to clarify I wasn't calling this a bug to start with--this is just an observation. Thanks!] It occurred to me that it might be more efficient to send up one rocket with multiple probes than one probe at a time. I created a rig with nine probes on it--one main probe to serve as a communications relay and to operate a rocket-powered orbiter, and eight others clustered in groups of four around the scaffolding connecting the orbiter to the fuel and engine. The cluster probes each have a QBE for heat resistance, with a modicum of solar panels and antennae and instruments, topped with a M16 chute. Perfect for seeding Eve or Laythe with probes! (They might even survive Duna but I have doubts one M16 is enough.) While there is a chance of failure for one or two probes, I could probably get enough probes to survive to make it worthwhile. (And in my test below I found that was the case with a 75% survival rate on Kerbal.) Once in orbit around their final destination, the main probe would adjust the orbit to allow for aerobraking. Then, it starts releasing probes, a minute or two at a time to allow for some separation, before readjusting its orbit for stability. Before sending these probes half-way across the Kerbol system, I thought I should do a little test closer to home first. So I sent up my rocket, put it in an orbital with the periapsis around 50km, deployed the probes, moved the orbiter back to a stable orbit, and waited. And waited. And waited. Nothing was aerobraking. I switched focus to one of the probes to see what was going in. Then, and only then, did aerobraking happen, with chute and touchdown coming at the end of the second orbit after focus-switch. The rest of the probes kept orbiting happily, totally ignoring that, technically, they were passing through atmosphere that should have degraded their orbit. I had to switch focus to each of them individually and keep the focus on them to get them to aerobrake and land. If I let aerobraking happen on the first orbit, then switched to another probe, the first probe would continue in the degraded orbit, again as if it weren't passing through atmosphere each time, until I switched back again. This isn't entirely a bad thing, since it allows for better control of when (and by extension where) each probe lands. If the destination isn't tidally locked, it's easy to scatter the probes across the world's surface. Even if it is tidally locked, like in the case of Laythe, I presume that if I'm orbiting it and not Jool then I should be able to pick moments in its orbit around Jool which would be good for keeping the probes separated. But it's not realistic. In this test I released all the probes only moments apart, hoping at best for a few kilometers of scattering, not having them more or less evenly spaced all around Kerbal. To scatter them better, I anticipated waiting until my orbiter was climbing out of the atmosphere during its sole aerobraking run, then releasing the probes several minutes apart as I traveled the rest of the orbit, with only minutes to readjust the orbit to prevent further aerobraking of the orbiter. But it's obvious now that it makes no difference--the only difference is in how long I go in-between switching focus between probes. Again, I'm sure Squad wasn't even thinking of scenarios like this when they designed the game. And I'm sure there may be good gameplay reasons not to allow aerobraking for anything except the focused craft. But it's something to think about.

Hey everyone! Steam had their KSP sale recently and so I made the leap, and I'm really glad I did. Right now I'm mainly obsessed with creating rover probes and landing them on every world that has enough gravity to keep the probe there. Learning orbital mechanics is just a fringe benefit.

My first relatively successful rover landing. I like the overall design but it was top-heavy, so I removed the central octagonal strut and dropped the main RCS tank to take its place. I also got rid of the round RCS tanks as I didn't even touch them during descent. It probably could use more batteries, and I think I need redundant solar panel arrays since--oops!--I broke mine five minutes after touchdown. I may come up with a delivery scaffolding as well, with chutes and legs, that would gently drop the rover onto the ground upon touchdown. That would save wear and tear on the wheels. Maybe add docking ports and batteries and larger solar panels, so I could reduce the number of solar panels on the rover itself. Not sure yet.