Snark

In the same vein, Communotron-16 antennas actually make pretty good landing gear for teeny-tiny probes. Just go add their "toggle antenna" action to the "Gear" action group and they work great They're a bit fragile, so only use them on small ships; and they have less friction that a landing-gear leg, so you're more likely to slide downhill if you land on a slope. But they're extremely lightweight, they extend to a nice long length, and you can stick 'em pretty much anywhere.

I have no idea what you mean by "convert to magnetism". Light is magnetism, in a sense-- that's why it's called an "electromagnetic wave". A propagating beam of light (or radio, or microwaver, or any electromagnetic wave) consists of an oscillating electric field at right angles to an oscillating magnetic field. What exactly do you mean by "convert to magnetism"?

As pictured, you've got your Thuds kinda in the middle of the rocket, meaning they don't have much lever arm to work with and I'd expect their thrust vectoring to have considerably less effect. If you want them to have lots of effect on steering the sihp, then you'd want to put them way down at the very bottom of the rocket, i.e. as far behind the CoM as possible, to give them a decent lever arm to work with. (No criticism of your design is implied-- it may make perfect sense, in terms of staging for the twisted-candle asparagus. Just that it's not very friendly for thrust-vectoring.)

Actually, my impression is that people have gotten that point, and are explaining why it's problematic: Rockets have thrust because they expel mass. The amount of thrust is, roughly put, the product of exhaust velocity and the amount of mass expelled. If you capture some of that mass, then you eliminate the thrust it produces. For example, if you capture 10% of the mass, you also reduce the thrust by 10%. If you capture 90% of the mass, you reduce the thrust by 90%. This means that there's basically no point in trying to capture. The net result of any mass you expel and then capture is zero, due to conservation of momentum. You will have wasted some energy, but won't save any momentum, so it's not useful as a propulsion technique. If what you're saying is that you can use some sort of contraption to improve the efficiency of the thrust by ensuring, for example, that all the expelled matter goes perfectly straight backward, and not spraying out in a cone (basically, some sort of collimator for rocket exhaust), then sure, that could help and would be a matter of engineering rather than basic science. Is that what you're proposing? If so, then the way to think about this is "how to focus rocket exhaust better" (which could hypothetically have some benefit, up to a point, by eliminating cosine losses), and not "recapturing exhaust gas" (which would be pointless and counterproductive, due to conservation of momentum).

Hi everyone, Just a note that we've split this thread from the antimatter propulsion thread, since it's completely off-topic there. This discussion has been about conservation of momentum, which is an interesting topic but has nothing to do with antimatter per se. Here's the executive summary up to this point: @Arugela is proposing that a spaceship could save fuel (or, more properly, reaction mass) by somehow collecting the exhaust gases so they can be re-used. Everyone else is trying to explain why the laws of physics-- specifically, conservation of momentum-- means that this idea is completely impossible. To be clear: Conservation of momentum is a thoroughly upheld physical law, with centuries of experimental evidence behind it, and has been well understood since Newton's day. Violating it simply isn't possible-- this is a matter of basic physics, and no amount of engineering will be able to get around it. That's not even hypothetically possible. With that in mind: Please feel free to discuss back and forth, everyone. Discussion and debate are fun and interesting. The most important rule to remember is that we're all friends here (right?), and it's never okay to resort to personal attacks, name-calling, abusive behavior, etc. If you feel frustrated, that's understandable; it's difficult to resist when duty calls. But please, do not take your frustration out on anyone else. If you can't be patient and polite, then just take a breather and go elsewhere. Please remember that being dismissive, rude, or disrespectful never convinced anyone to change their minds, regardless of the merits of the argument in question. (If anything, it tends to just make them mad and dig in their heels even further.) So please try to remember that the goal here is to have a productive discussion, not to "win". So, I trust we can all handle this discussion like friendly adults? Thank you for your understanding.

Hi folks, Just a note that we've split several posts off into a separate thread. The discussion is an interesting one (about conservation of momentum)... but has nothing to do with antimatter propulsion per se, and therefore is off topic for this thread. Please try to stick with the subject at hand (antimatter engines), and if you want to discuss momentum conservation, do it in the other thread. Thank you for your understanding.

Some content has been removed due to personal remarks. Folks, remember that the forum is a place for friendly debate. Not everyone is going to agree with everyone else, and that's fine. (In fact, it makes the forum a more interesting and edifying place than if everyone just sat around going "yup" at each other all day.) So, please expect that folks are going to disagree with you from time to time, and take it in stride. They're not attacking you, they're disagreeing with what you said. And as long as it's done civilly, there's nothing wrong with that. So when they do that, feel free to respond in kind. And please address the post, not the poster. It's never appropriate to make personal remarks; this accomplishes nothing and never ends well. (For example, "I disagree with <thing you said> because <reasons>" is fine, because it's addressing the post. "Why do you have to argue so much" is not, because it's a personal remark directed at the poster themselves.) If you believe that someone is being so egregiously rude that they're violating forum rules, then by all means report the post and the moderator team will have a look. (It's what we're for.) But please don't try to take someone to task for their behavior yourself, because you're not a moderator and it's not your place to do so. Thank you for your understanding.

There is no ideal value. Generally, the smaller the better, for two reasons: Because a higher value doesn't help you Because a lower value is more efficient Why a higher TWR doesn't help you for RCS: If you're using RCS, it's generally because you're in orbit and trying to match up position for docking. What a higher TWR would give you is that you can accelerate faster with it. There's zero need for that in orbit, because you've got all the time in the world. A low TWR just means you dock more slowly-- which is fine. Bear in mind that you generally only need a few centimeters per second of nudge from RCS, so even a really massive ship can work just fine with a few RCS thrusters. Why a lower value is more efficient: Because RCS thrusters have mass. That's dead weight that you're hauling up from the surface, which eats into your dV. If you've got a high TWR with your RCS, that means you're carrying more thrusters than you need, meaning you're wasting mass on unnecessary equipment.

Moving to Add-on Discussions.

Moving to Technical Support.

I don't actually know the answer, but I'd guess that the answer is almost certainly that no, it doesn't. I'd be deeply astonished if the answer were otherwise.

Whoops, sorry, I misinterpreted your question. I was reading that as "I'm a C# mod writer, and I want to get at the current position of the servo in some code that I'm writing." Going back and reading again what you wrote, I gather that really you're asking a gameplay question, i.e. "is there some way in the game to get at the servo position in a controller." The answer to that is "no", as far as I know, but I'm not a heavy user of that feature so perhaps someone else might want to weigh in.

Not totally sure of the answer, but I'd suggest rummaging around in the public members/methods of the BaseServo class. I see, for example, that it has a public servoTransformRotation method (that returns a Quaternion), which I've never used myself, but from the name, it sounds kinda promising. Does this help?

A lengthy, illuminating, and useful technical discussion, with many posts by thoughtful people, has unfortunately had to be removed due to running afoul of the rules (and the EULA) from the get-go. Folks, please remember that you're not allowed to decompile KSP. You're allowed to access public and protected members of classes; that's it. You're also not allowed to inject stuff via reflection-- anything you can't do via public/protected members is out of bounds. We understand that the discussion here was well-meant, but unfortunately it's just not allowed, due to legal boundaries. What's really unfortunate, here, is that much of the ensuing discussion wasn't actually about decompiling per se, and if it had been introduced in a different manner, could have stayed. However, since folks were directly responding to the forbidden content and quoting each other back and forth on it, that made the whole thing into one snarled monolithic block; basically the only way to take out any of it was to take out all of it. And that makes me sad, because it was an otherwise illuminating discussion. It means that the casualties of the snippage include useful observations by various fine folks who took the time and effort to (legitimately) look into things and make useful technical conclusions. It means that these nice people's time ended up being wasted, and it means that the community doesn't get the benefit of their analysis. Folks, if you see someone coloring outside the lines (e.g. discussing decompilation), by all means report the post so the moderators can have a look at it... but please do not otherwise respond because any ensuing conversation-- even if otherwise legitimate-- could end up getting sufficiently entangled with it that we end up having to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as happened here. TL;DR: Please do report problematic posts, but please don't respond to them. If you're sufficiently concerned about something to report it, then it's best not to respond. We apologize for the inconvenience, and thank you for your understanding.

As @Aazard points out, these are part of the game assets and aren't accessible as stand-alone files. This means that, alas, they are not available to players or modders, since the EULA disallows decompiling game files. As the add-on posting rules explain, Sorry about that.

We're sorry, but posting links to recompiles in this fashion violated the add-on posting rules, so we've had to remove the link. It's fine to publish a new fork of a mod (assuming its license allows it)... but if you do, you have to follow the same rules that any publisher of a mod does. There are hoops to jump through (including a license, linking to source code, etc.) Yes, it's a hassle and we're sorry about that, but alas, it's necessary.

Since you're posting an awkwardly cropped and almost unreadable photograph of a screen rather than taking a screenshot in-game, it's almost impossible to tell what you're referring to. As far as I can tell from the image, yeah, it kinda looks like a loading screen... what's your concern? KSP has always had loading screens.

Kind of hard to read from the image. I'd guess it's some kind of loading screen, myself.

Hi @OvinandRusk, The way you're trying to post your image isn't going to work-- you're trying to link to a private thing that only you can see. If you'd like someone to look at your pictures, you need to do it a different way. Basically what you need to do is this: Host your image on a publicly viewable hosting site. There are lots of free sites that can do this, but https://imgur.com is probably the most popular here on the forum, likely because it doesn't require you to make an account-- you can post images anonymously with just a couple of clicks. Just go to their website, click on the green "new post" button up top, drag your image to the "drop image here" box, and you're done! Once it's hosted there, right-click on the image itself and choose "Copy Image Location". Important, you want the URL of the image, not the URL of the page that it's sitting on. Don't copy the URL out of your web browser's address bar. If the URL you copy doesn't end in ".jpg" or ".png" you haven't copied the right thing. Paste that URL into your forum post and it will automagically get converted into an inline image.

No. The mod is licensed "All Rights Reserved", which means you're allowed to download it from the author's posted location and nowhere else. If he's taken that down, then that means you can't get it, sorry.

Hi @NanoOps , and welcome to the forum! So, just a side note: This thread is really old, from 2014, and the game has been through many revisions since the people who posted here wrote what they did. Accordingly, I'd advise against reading too much into such an old thread-- if you've got questions, better to start your own thread. Accordingly, locking this one to prevent further confusion. In answer to your question, though: if you have a science instrument that contains a measurement, and you want to get credit for that by retrieving it on Kerbin, then there are basically two ways. One way is to recover the instrument itself, i.e. have the instrument still be on your ship when you land, and then recover the ship. The other way is to collect the science from the instrument, either using the "science box" part or by sending a kerbal on Eva to remove the science, and then retrieve that. If you've gotten the science out of the instrument, then you no longer need to recover the instrument itself.

Yep, I'm getting this, too. Running Scatterer, but no other visual f/x mods.

For a target in low orbit, I just wait until they're about 10 degrees above KSC's western horizon and then launch direct to intercept, docking before it even reaches that Korea-looking peninsula to the east. For a target in high orbit, I launch to low orbit and then set a maneuver node, drag its handle until Ap reaches the target's altitude, and then slide the maneuver node around until I get a good intercept with the target. Thus, there's only ever about 1/4th of an orbit for a low-orbit target, and at most 1 orbit for a high-orbit target.

Much content has been removed or redacted, due to people who should know better choosing to turn a civil discussion about physics into a personal flamewar, slinging insults and personal remarks. C'mon, folks, you know better than this. I can't believe I'm having to say this, but it looks like a refresher is in order: It is always okay to state an opinion. (But other people have different opinions, and it would be unreasonable to expect them to agree with you.) It is okay to state assertions of fact. But others may disagree, so you'd be well-advised to cite evidence if you make an assertion. "Everyone knows this" is not evidence. "You're ignorant if you don't understand this" is also not evidence. When someone asserts that you're wrong, by citing what you said, it is not a personal attack on you. This is simply what's called "civil debate" and is perfectly fine. They're not insulting you. They're merely pointing out that they believe you are, in fact, wrong, because reasons. Which you might be. Or maybe they're wrong. Which is why things work best if all parties concerned simply cite their evidence so that people can decide for themselves whom to believe. It is never okay to make personal remarks. It's not okay to make personal remarks in response to civil debate. It's also not okay to make personal remarks in response to someone else making personal remarks. When you do this, it's not "debate", it's a "catfight", and not something that's appropriate for the forums. To be clear: "Personal remarks" (which are not allowed) includes addressing a person's behavior rather than the content of what they said. Example: calling a person ignorant, or uneducated, or uninformed, or speculating about their level of personal knowledge. Example: referring to or putting interpretations on a person's behavior (e.g. "you always do X", "you don't seem to understand X", etc.) Address the post, not the poster. In short: Please comport yourselves like civil adults. Don't respond to civil debate (including someone saying you're wrong) by making personal remarks. And if someone else makes personal remarks, please either ignore them or report them-- but don't respond to them. If you don't feel that you can be a grown-up, or can't handle people civilly disagreeing with you, then kindly hold your fire and pass on by. Thank you for your understanding.

A lot of content, from various people who really should know better, has been removed. This is due to various combinations of: off topic personal remarks, insults, or attacks publicly calling for moderator action ...all of which are against the forum rules (2.2.o, 2.2.d, and 3.2, respectively). Folks, please play nice. Remember that we're all pals here, and if you can't discuss something civilly, then just stroll on by. If you see someone posting something that you disagree with, then by all means debate it-- but please debate it on the merits, not by trying to ridicule the person who posted it. Address the post, not the poster. Furthermore, if you see someone behaving in a way that seems to you to be against the rules, by all means report the post so that the moderators can have a look-- it's what we're for. But any report made is private, between you and the moderator team; it's not okay to threaten people with reports, per rule 3.2 as mentioned above. I trust that we can all comport ourselves like civil adults? Thanks.