Jovus

I haven't either. I have this fixation with constantly making things harder on myself. Not more grindy, just harder. For example, stock KSP pales for me, so I move on to RSS. RSS is so fun I have trouble going back to stock. So now my goal is to run all my rockets via KRPC and not touch the keyboard during the mission. Needless to say, I haven't played much KSP at all lately...

I'm not surprised to see this thread. Still, I think SQUAD has done well in their pricing. Why? Knowing what I do now about the amount of enjoyment I derive from this game, I would easily pay $50. Knowing what I did when I bought this game, I most certainly would not. The disconnect between the two is where this thread resides.

Cool! Thanks, this makes me really happy. I guess I'm just not imaginative with my rocket designs.

There's a joke in there somewhere, but pursuing it might get me banned.

My next RSS game will be without KER or Mechjeb. Instead I'll be using KRPC.

There's a mod called Persistent Rotation. But even with that, I think not. I've never seen changes in angular momentum due to changes in craft mass distributions that don't involve adding or losing parts. This itself is excusable; I don't think the game tracks the mass distribution of an open solar panel vs. a closed one. However, I think the game is just using a moment of inertia scalar instead of tensor, because I've never seen an unstable axis of rotation.

I think the two foremost are some modification to limit or eliminate bone and muscle loss due to microgravity, and something to make our DNA and RNA more robust against radiation. With those, I think we're covered for long-term habitation. For an actual colony or other permanent settlement, we'd need to make sure that pregnancies and births taking place in microgravity aren't lethal for either mother or baby. We don't now know that they are, but I suspect, as it stands now, the baby's bone structure would not develop the necessary resilience to survive birth.

Just discovered this, and I'm going to use it extensively to convince myself that, no, I'm not just playing games; I'm studying! Two questions have come up as I'm poring over the documentation, though: Can one use KRPC to control non-focused vessels? I'm guessing no, since KSP probably won't be able to process commands for them, but I figured it'd be worth asking. Setting up my own automated refueling busses would be awesome. For Engine and RCS, what exactly does the propellant_ratios() method return? Is it literally a ratio of propellants - so some resource will always be, and the others will be relative to it? Or does it return something more like individual fuel flow rates? I guess I'm asking what's it a ratio to Thanks so much.

I don't know where "you people" come up with stuff, but I like to reference technical bulletins myself: http://www.level.com.tw/html/ezcatfiles/vipweb20/img/img/20297/contamination-COR.pdf

Except HeLa is so vociferous it can contaminate research stock without the researcher knowing it (has happened in the past). And is in the wild. In fact, by some readings it likely that around 5% of the US' population is walking around with an opportunistic HeLa infection without knowing it.

Also, point of order: Columbus didn't stay home. However, the Queen stayed home, and she was the financier of the venture. Her place is more analogous to Musk's than Columbus', which would be the position of mission leader.

So, bets on how long until HeLa picks up some careless geneticist's cas9-CRISPR code?

Is it too late to go back to Alpha? Can we call this 0.27.2?

It's unfortunate that the poll questions can't be linked. This probably makes the data sadly useless, since you can't track trends. You can't, for example, discover that Windows 8 users have the fewest crashes, Windows 10 users have the most crashes of Windows users, and Linux users have the most crashes of all, just edging out Mac users. Those are made up examples, of course.

I can confirm that it doesn't happen on (my) Windows 64-bit install. I can jump up and down on landing legs on Minimus or the Mun all day with no ill effects. This doesn't surprise me; there are some...interesting differences in the Unity backend for Mac and Linux.

I have exactly the right sig for this. Take the MM patch in my sig, remove the Oxidizer from the second mode, and you're ready to go.

You say all that like you think I disagree with you.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Personally, I haven't experienced much in the way of problems with landing gear of any sort (unpowered wheels or legs). I've had my wheels explode under me sometimes when claiming they're overstressed, but every example of that has made sense, more or less. (I'd like them to be tweaked a bit. They seem not to take true weight into account, but rather some estimate. I say this because my gear explode on the runway while taking off - the rear ones, because the weight of the plane is on them. But the weight of the plane should be partially supported by the air, no? Anyway...) That said, while I'm sure that some accounts are initially from people using too-small (or maybe too-large) gear, many seem to be reasonable. So I suspect we're seeing different behaviour on different platforms. This is bad news, because this means it's most likely a Unity problem. And if it's a Unity problem, it's possible Squad may only be able to mitigate it.

No! It hurts! Someone make the bad man stop! Much more seriously, whatever works for you. Just checking, though: you know this is horribly inefficient, right?

FTFY. But yes, absolutely.

Hey now. I'm no fan of the STS program, but the real well-and-truly expensive thing about it wasn't re-use per se, but rather the fact that the STS was engineer-retention program with this minor problem of Congress thinking it was a space program. With an actual focus on cost-saving and economic re-use, the Shuttle could have been made much cheaper to fly. With an actual design sticking to the original pitched-to-Congress-as-reusable project design document, it would have been much cheaper still. Don't get me wrong. I'm no Shuttle fanboy. It still would have been worse than a traditional rocket a la the Soyuz. But don't you think pulling out the STS program as a model of economic re-usability of space hardware is a little unfair? At the very least, NASA's incentives are the exact opposite of 'make a profit'. Assuming that's correct, the payload fraction would be somewhere around 0.00002%. Hardly worth the fuss, don't you think?

Point of order: At least for NTRs that have actually been built and tested (i.e. solid core NTRs in Project Rover) the core temperature is actually lower than that afforded by hydrogen combustion in, say, an RL10. The gains in Isp come from the fact that you don't have to throw that heavy oxygen out the back.

You and I have different definitions of fast. Mach 2 won't get you to orbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15#Specifications_.28X-15.29 But even the Concorde has relatively high wing-loading. The Concorde's wings are so big simply because the fuselage is so heavy.(and, I imagine, because passengers don't like the kinds of landings necessitated by smaller wings). Bell X-1 wing loading: 463 kg/m2 SR-71a wing loading: 406 kg/m2 Concorde wing loading: 530 kg/m2 X-15 wing loading: 829 kg/m2 Compare the wing loading of a C-130, a quintessential heavy cargo plane: 434 kg/m2 I excuse the X-1 and SR-71 by pointing out those are early experiments, and they wanted the Blackbird to have some staying power instead of just getting up and down.

I do now. Huh. Stock is weird.

I know about the AeroGUI data, but thanks for pointing it out. What I didn't know was the differences in L/D optimum AoA and how wing area functions differently between Stock and FAR, though it makes sense they'd be vastly different, since that's the point of FAR