GoSlash27

This is not true. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asexual Best, -Slashy

That can't be the case. The first image (just before you crashed into the satellite dish) shows you in a final approach attitude and speed. Actually *slower* than optimal. You *can* slow down, 'cuz you did it in that pic. All you have to do is do that into the runway instead of the buildings. I swear I don't mean to be mean when I say this, but judging from the pictures it looks like the main problem is that you haven't yet learned how to fly. Not just jamming the throttles and maneuvering around, but actually *flying*. Once you do that, you shouldn't have any problem sticking that landing. Best, -Slashy

This is a known bug in KSP and it happens on all the planets and moons. For whatever reason, the angle of a slope doesn't define how much traction or gravity you have to contend with. I've had rovers slide uphill on slopes well beyond 60*, then hit a shallower patch and nearly fall off. I think it's an error in the math; maybe radians vs degrees in resolving gravity... but that's just a guess. The best thing to do when stuck in one of these patches is what's been suggested above: weave it back and forth to climb at shallower angles. And if at all possible, recognize when you're entering a problem patch and find another, friendlier patch to climb instead. Best, -Slashy

From the pictures, your problem has already been identified: You're trying to land at full throttle. Using flaps and spoilers will reduce the speed at which you can make a gentle descent, but you have to throttle back to get it slow enough to land. Landing requires grasping a new concept; angle of attack (or "alpha"). It is the angle between where you're pointed and where you're going. When you're in a shallow descent with your prograde marker about 5 degrees below your nose pipper, you're in a proper attitude and speed for landing. I recommend practicing that a few kilometers up to get a feel for how the aircraft handles at that lower speed. Just set it in level flight and throttle back until the prograde marker falls 5 degrees below the nose. Then add enough throttle to hold that and practice flying it. No sudden maneuvers and nice, gentle banking, or else you will put it in a stall. To recover from that, get the nose down immediately and add throttle, then fly out of it. Get used to flying the plane in this state, because the last thing you want to do is stall it just above the ground where you're out of altitude and time to recover. Good luck! -Slashy

My top 3 favorite "old" games (skipping the super-obvious classics): #3: Starflight (1991, Sega Genesis) #2: River City Ransom (1989, NES) #1: Syphon Filter 2 (2000, Playstation)

Something we can all agree on!

While both are cartoon characters, they are portrayals of Earth mammals. Kerbals aren't. Best, -Slashy

IRT the OP, I would guess that given enough time the orbits would degrade (space being an imperfect vacuum) and both bodies would eventually smoosh together into a single oblong body. Best, -Slashy

For those who may have missed the reference... Best, -Slashy

^ Me in this discussion That looks like a large cumulus cloud and Kerbals are just characters in a video game. Best, -Slashy

All due respect, but I believe *you* are missing the point You are assuming that Kerbals have genders with no real basis for doing so, and the only "in-game canon" is, by definition, decided by Squad. Without official word from them, they can be whatever you (or anybody else) wants them to be. Hence, not really worth discussing, let alone debating. Best, -Slashy

Probably a waste of typing on my part, but ranting "Apple sucks!!" out of frustration really shouldn't be "flamebait". It's not personally directed at anyone, political, religious, or singling out any subset of people. Nevertheless, people do have an odd affinity for aligning themselves with brand names and some will take slights against their brand personally *shrug*... Best, -Slashy

When you keep screenshots of your latest creation as wallpaper on your work computer. -Slashy

We're trying to anthropomorphize fictional alien creatures with insufficient data. Sucking all the fun out of the discussion: Kerbals are clones. They are generated from a computer on Earth and are completely identical other than their names and personalities. These traits are assigned at random when they are created. Best, -Slashy

While it may not be Apple's *fault* exactly, it is a direct result of how Apple products are designed. The OP is looking for guidance on how to jailbreak it (which seems reasonable to me) and if nothing else it provides a useful cautionary tale; don't buy old Apple stuff expecting to update it. Besides... I really wouldn't expect someone who just wants to play bingo to be tech-savvy enough to expect sw/os conflicts for such a simple game. Best, -Slashy

Meithan, Sounds reasonable to me. Best, -Slashy

Also the point should be raised: "STS" was originally conceived to be exactly that; a space transportation system. The shuttle was just one piece of the entire puzzle, but the rest of the system (stations, tugs, nerva mass movers, etc) never got off the drawing board. The shuttle *might* have been cost effective and efficient in the context of the entire network, but as a standalone put-stuff-in-LEO truck... not so much. The Buran... really the only reason it ever existed was because the Americans had a shuttle and the Soviets thought it put them at a political/ military disadvantage to not have one. "Keeping up with the Joneses" as we call it. The Russians never had a need or use for a shuttle-style reusable vehicle, so it was doomed from the outset. Best, -Slashy

This is actually what I'm talking about. Apologies for any confusion. Soviet science and technical abilities were excellent and still are. They were hamstrung by impossible demands and limits imposed by people with no insight into the technical problems. That's a problem in any large organization; certainly not unique to the Soviets. My point is that many of the solutions adopted were so incredibly wonky that they were borderline suicidal, yet the cosmonauts managed to perform near miracles anyway. Best, -Slashy

Cool documentary. It's amazing how they managed to accomplish so much with such wonky technology. -Slashy

psyper, A couple recommended adjustments to the rules: 1) Either stock aerodynamics or a seperate leaderboard for mods like FAR, etc. 2) Smallest massed craft instead of largest. That's the challenge of it. Since I can't participate right now, I'd like to post my observations for anyone to take advantage of. Eve DSTO from sea level looks to me to come down to 2 strategies for a workable vehicle: Conventional upper stage using aerospikes, or ion upper stage, possibly a glider. Anything else looks to incur too much mass penalty for the lower stage. Assuming a 1t payload to orbit, an aerospike upper stage is going to end up in the 40t region which will make for a huge booster stage, whereas an ion insertion stage will be in the 2-3 ton range and can be lifted to insertion much more easily. An aerospike upper stage is more conventional but makes for a cumbersome booster. An ion upper stage is riskier and more complicated, but can potentially pay off with a more manageable aerospike booster. My first choice would be the ion insertion stage with an aerospike boost/ transstage. Makes for a more manageable descent/ lander. Good luck! -Slashy

I haven't thoroughly researched this by any stretch, but I have heard of it before. The story goes Ilyushin's flight made it into space, but did not run according to plan and severely injured him on impact. Because of that, the flight was a failure. As a rule, the Soviet space program never admitted anything less than perfection, so the flight "never happened". No idea how much (if any) of this is true. Best, -Slashy

I'm excited to see how this one turns out, but I can't participate right now. I'll run some numbers on the problem and see what pops out... Best, -Slashy

I'm thinking 2 stages to orbit is going to be iffy, especially if you're lifting payload. I'm interested in finding out if it's possible. Maybe a challenge? I concur with Red Iron Crown that wings will do you more harm than good... except where you're using ions. An ion Eve glider with drop tanks *might* be possible, especially if you drop the wings once you've reached the edge of the atmosphere. Best, -Slashy

Cannon, Eve's challenges are, in order: 1) Atmospheric DV 2) T/W in the 2:1 region and 3) stability as a lander Shooting for high cumulative DV is a matter of small payload, appropriate engines, and lots of efficient staging. Getting the t/w necessarily impacts how much engine/fuel you will use. Stability as a lander requires a shorter and wider vehicle than you would normally use on Kerbin. My designs all start with the payload to orbit and work their way backward through the launch profile and this one is no different. Bare-bones mk 1 lander can with FL-t200 tank and Rockomax 24-7S. Around that is an asparagus arrangement of the same; FL-T200 and 24-7S. Layer-caked below these is an asparagus arrangement of X200-8 tanks with Aerospike engines. ^ Illustration of the basic concept during field trials on Kerbin. My Eve strategy involves not only rendezvous in Eve orbit, but also on the surface. I personally wouldn't bother making it any more difficult than it has to be, and the "one big rocket" concept is not something I'd be keen to pursue. I understand that you're not interested in rendezvous, so your design will necessary lift a whole lot more payload than this. Nevertheless, the same design principles hold. The further up the stack, the more critical it is to keep mass to a minimum. Lots of staging and make sure you're using the right engines for the job to maximize mass efficiency and Isp while still generating adequate thrust. And finally, make sure it won't tip over or break on landing. Good luck! Best, -Slashy

Less failey, too