Gaarst

No. Does the Sun bend light going around it in any noticeable manner? Same for your craft, if you seek to reach large fractions of c the Sun might as well not be there it won't change anything (unless you try going through it). Light is really really fast, the fastest thing we got was Helios reaching about 70km/s at Sun periapsis lower than Mercury's orbit. That's 0.0002c. The escape velocity at the surface of the Sun is 620km/s, about 0.002c. To reach speeds comparable to the speed of light around the Sun you'd have to get within a few Schwarzschild radii of its centre which is about 3km. Since the Sun is not a point (we'd have other issues if it was) it's impossible.

People actually use these? When I see a 1 star thread I assume that some guy was proven wrong and didn't like it, not that the thread is bad. And that's when I notice it at all.

Nice try, but we're not doing your homework.

Didn't read thread, but if you need solar system delta-v I have a nice pic). About 20km/s of dV is what you're looking at for a Sun dive from LEO. An escape trajectory is around 10km/s. Taking gravity assists can cut that down to a handful km/s though (basically what you need to get to Jupiter and then head to wherever you want). Definitely doable with reasonable rockets (most rockets are ICBMs without a non-explody thing on top). Dawn can pull out 10km/s of dV and weighs 1.2t which should be about the mass of your average warhead. Put more fuel, launch it on top whatever launcher you want and you're good to go. Don't really see the point of it though, since the Sun outputs a few dozen petatons (billions of megatons) of TNT per second, but yeah, you can do it..

Inb4 lock. Anyway, president is not almighty. He can say what he likes but unless the Congress/Parliament/House of Whatever agrees, nothing's going to happen. Electing a president is more about choosing what won't happen than what will happen (since the Congress/Parliament/House of Whatever will block whatever they don't agree with).

Link to the paper for those interested (and who can access it also): https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.01634

You don't need to add anything, just write stuff after the underlined text, you can even delete it afterwards.

I think it changes the way science is transmitted. Normally, when you transmit science, you transmit everything, and if your battery runs out you continue transmitting as it reloads (but it's a lot longer and in the meantime you can't control your ship since EC is always at zero). This button make it so that it checks that you have enough battery to transmit your science in one go, without running out. Or not. I haven't been playing career/science for several months so I'm just guessing. I'm also too lazy to start KSP and see what it does.

The inclination of the target orbit is 154.7°, yours is 25°. You're orbiting the wrong way around. (Any inclination greater than 90° indicates a retrograde orbit)

My undergraduate physics knowledge tell me this is not possible (high school knowledge tells me the same thing). Some (I suppose) intelligent people at NASA and a good lot of well-known labs and universities tell this is not possible. A handful of random guys claim they built several, with no theoretical research supporting their claims, results drowning in noise, and obvious bias towards their own interests. People were sceptical about QM and relativity about a century ago. Until M-M experiment showed ether was fantasy and photoelectric stuff was explained by wave-particle duality. I still think EM drive it's BS though. Putting one of their holed boxes in orbit will hopefully give an answer to this (though the inventors probably have dozens of excuses ready if it doesn't work).

I feel like planes are pushed harder than anything else currently, but anyway... You can't have everything perfectly set to suit everyone. People like planes and want more plane things. People like realism and want more realism. People want challenge and want more challenge. People want to build bases and want more ways to build bases. I could go on and on but I hope you got my point: KSP is great because it's a game that spans a lot of domains, but that's also its greatest weakness since it's not able to go in depth in every domains with a finite amount of work/time. Mods are great because they don't have to do a thousand things at the same time. You choose the mods that suit your needs and forget about the other things you don't care about. This is why, to me, your suggestion (and to a certain extent a lot of other suggestions) belong to mods. The game should focus on giving you sturdy fundations, and you decide to stick whatever bricks on top of it. Other than that, why not? Adding stuff to the game is always positive. Except plane parts, we've had enough of these; now please add stuff that is related to going to space (the thing that's in the name of the game), or change the name to Kerbal Atmosphere Program. (I feel like I'm quite off-topic but meh, I like to rant)

VR is mod matter IMO since I really really really don't care about VR. I'd rather see Squad spending their time improving the game for all than filling a niche.

"It's OK, CZ-5 is a cryogenic rocket, it's not filled with hundreds of tons of toxic hypergolic fuels. Less of a mess to clean when the rocket crashes onto a village, so we can be a bit more easygoing on security."

It's just a matter of gameplay preference. I like to have a lot of information, and I use numerical information a lot when playing. Eyeballing everything works for basic gameplay, but if you want to push "realism" (in between quotes because I'm only considering stock) a bit further you need these numbers. Even the understanding of the orbital mechanics require a few numbers at some point: for you to be able to easily forget these when gaining experience you have to know what you are actually doing. Anyway, at that point, I can only consider the lack of information in the game as a development choice. Anything else would boil down to: "Squad don't know what they are doing", but I'll stay positive on that one.

It wouldn't cause confusion if there was a way to actually see it in the game! It is used in the contracts, it's a fixed value that doesn't depend on the craft or funky fuel routings; so Squad has no excuse to not add it, as well as other basic orbital information. (Hell just give us the option to see our apoapsis and periapsis in vessel view)

Since I updated to 1.1 I noticed that my fairings are a lot weaker than they used to be (I have KJR). In a lot of flights, at some point one side of the fairing (2 sided) will break due to "structural failure between fairing base and conic fairing". They usually don't break anything and just stick to the rocket until I cut acceleration (which makes me waste some fuel). Before people ask and stuff, I can't be bothered narrowing down the cause by removing mods (I have 60+ mods installed) and I know I'm playing an outdated version. I'm not asking for a proper fix or investigation. I'm just writing this thread to see if anyone ever had this issue before; or if people knew which files to edit to increase the structural strength of these parts. There is a link to my list of mods somewhere in my sig.

The 61 mods here. Would save me a lot of trouble when changing versions.

So we can mess things up? *test* KERstuffwrittenhere

Fairing bases have additional nodes to add possibilities for payload attaching. I think your rocket engine is attached to the fairing base and not the decoupler. Try removing the fairing base and what's below, reattach the decoupler and you should be fine. (If you're struggling finding which node is the right one, there is an option to disable the additional fairing nodes)

Bot or troll?

I had this kind of issue with an interstage fairing disappearing in the VAB when rearranging staging (or something else, I don't remember but I know it had nothing to do with the options). I also experienced fairing disappearing in flight when quickloading. Maybe all these issues are linked ?

I suggest you read a bit about the console builds before buying one yourself. A lot of people are "more than unsatisifed" about them, so be advised.

Lol really? I just counted: there are 7 US rockets, 5 Soviet rockets (and 1 other). No one forgets about the Soviet rockets.

I don't recall ever seeing this suggestion (I maybe just missed dozens of thread) but I find it very interesting. Simple, yet with all the life supports mods out there no one (that I know of) ever thought to make Kerbals die naturally. Now I really want my Kerbals to have a half-life.

Yeah, I realised not long after starting that this would never end up as something one could use as is but rather as a complete mess... I don't know of any tool or mods that can calculate transfers to specific orbits but it shouldn't be too hard to make. Or you could just write a quick program calculating the thing for you. Just out of curiosity, what are the parameters of the orbit you have to reach?