Gaarst

I blame Squad's terrible handling of 1.1 for my non-eligibility on points 4 and 5... Wait, is blaming Squad for everything a criterion for being a mod ?

My personal feedback for 1.1.3: Good: haven't experienced the crash when deleting parts in the VAB/SPH... Bad: ...because I haven't been able to load a craft without KSP crashing. Back in my cave until 1.1.4 that is...

All rockets are flown by programs, even manned ones. The programs flying these rockets are (many) orders of magnitude more complex than MJ.

No. Flying a real rocket is (many) orders of magnitude harder than flying one in KSP.

This has already been noticed, and IIRC it was there before the movie came out (might still be a reference to the book though).

Trajectories taken for a LEO or GTO/SSO/MTO/whatever are different. This is why Ariane 5 only launches dual satellites to GTO (or whatever other launcher launching multiple sats), and why there are two different variants for LEO (ES) and GTO (ECA).

It's there in the settings.cfg file: WHEEL_WEIGHT_STRESS_MULTIPLIER = 1 WHEEL_SLIP_STRESS_MULTIPLIER = 1 Don't know if it can be tweaked in the game though, neither do I know what changing that multiplier would do.

Kopernicus doesn't work on 1.1.3. If you're using that version, that is why you are still on Kerbin.

Yeah, just tried with 11.2 and it doesn't work either. An issue with Kopernicus was probably what I would have looked into next. Thanks for the answer !

Is 11.3 supposed to be a release as it stands ? Because right now, KSP 1.1.3 doesn't appear to detect it (stock install, with only RSS; I have the textures and stuff) and Kerbin is still there. Will try with 11.2 and wait for the "official" 11.3.

Thank you.

Almost made me laugh while deep inside my gigantic mountain of salt. I'd settle on 2 (KSP being able to work properly has always been a miraculous event) or 3 (easier to blame Unity than to fix bugs, not directed to anyone). Or 4: Some random combination of KSP not working and Unity not helping, which means we'll have to wait for a Unity fix then a KSP fix.

Logs, modlist, description of issue... you know, that kind of stuff.

Stop with these polls already. The game is highly unstable for about 15% of people. I am one of these, and I don't give a flying **** about whether we are 14.95% or 15.05%. There is already a thread made by Claw which on its own is 100 times more useful than all of these polls combined. 1.1 has been out for a month and a half, so have the crashes/bugs. If the answer was as simple as "lol don't use windoze 10" or that kind of banter (staying polite here) we'd have figured it out long ago. The game needs to be fixed. Polls don't help in fixing the game, just help in making people angry (see this very post for a demonstration). The End. EDIT: and yes, I am mad.

Simple lander I made in career for a Duna landing, with orbital rendezvous (this is not coming back to Kerbin on its own). A bit on the short side in terms of dV, if you're not feeling confident I recommend using a lighter capsule (Mk-1 Can is good and light) and taking fewer science equipment. A simple lander is fine for Duna, this one weighs 10t and does the job. If you're not sure if you're going to make it, you can use delta-V maps and KER (or any dV readout) to properly engineer your lander. For a direct ascent mission, your lander should be a bit bigger since it would have to have enough fuel to do the ejection burn at Duna.

Steam gets pre-releases, store gets old versions: everyone is (un)happy.

Time to add an atmosphere to Moho, Gilly, the Mun, Minmus, Ike, Vall, Tylo, Bop, Pol and Eeloo

The Constellation Program was estimated between $150 and $300 billion. Now, someone is going to tell you that SpaceX can do it in 2 months for ten bucks, but I seriously doubt Spacex's estimations. Anyway, a manned mission is considerably more expensive than a probe, it has always been such and will always be. Just consider the hardware: return mission so larger booster, and need to develop all the tech to host a group of astronauts for over a year. An astronaut may be more efficient than a probe/rover, but if you're just looking for money/science benefits, it's not worth the trouble.

When you have a bug you can't fix, make it a feature: time to add orbital decay to KSP !

Unless I've missed something, 24542 is greater than 23732, isn't it ?

I strongly protest against the removal of this mission. The reason I RQ'd KSP at the moment were the dozens (22 when I gave up) of crashes I experienced while designing a shuttle able to land a 150t rock... this and also the fact that my craft file ended up corrupted which almost made me throw my computer out the window from the fifth floor. I will land this thing... whenever Squad decides to fix this.

Someone please fix my computer not being able to run 1000 parts ships at 60fps... Seriously now, I don't know where you have been since 1.1 release, but since that time everyone (literally every single KSP player) has complained about the wheels being completely broken. A patch is coming soon™, in the mean time, you can try @GoSlash27's fixes or the Stock Bug Fixes mod which I believe make the wheels a little better.

Ah, just remembered the whole thing about bi-elliptic transfers. So this result is true as both (transfer) orbits are very elliptical and one is much higher, and slow orbital velocity and stuff... Hohmann transfer orbits are not the most efficient in some cases. In cases even more extreme than what you described, the most efficient way can be a bi-elliptic transfer, ie: getting a higher-than-needed apo first, and then lowering your orbit is more efficient than a Hohmann transfer.

Doing the maths gives the same result (1228m/s to 10Mm and 1118m/s to 80Mm). I think the explanation is the difference in dV spent in LKO, where Oberth effect is strong. The higher orbit is slower (8 times higher), so the circularisation must be cheaper. For the burn in low orbit, the second manoeuvre requires a greater burn at a high orbital speed (low orbit) so more dV is saved than for the first one.

Must be a mistake. In terms of work getting to a higher orbit is always more expensive, at least from what I know in orbital mechanics. Though maybe the speed at 80Mm being really low, circularising is very cheap, combining that with the Oberth effect that you use to get your apo to 80Mm might explain this. Would be interested to see someone do the maths.