jarmund

Presumptions: 1. You're asking about winged crafts that launch horizontally. 2. Your destination is a 100x100 orbit or lower. 3. You're using an MK2-based design In that case there are multiple options. Personally I'm a big fan of RAPIERs combined with LV-Ns, but that's mostly because I tend to use my SSTOs further than just a 100x100 O. The nuke, despite the massive weight increase, allows me to go a lot further with proper planning and piloting. If I'm just shuttling things to orbit, then RAPIERs work fine on their own. Alternatively, when I'm working lower in the tech tree, Whiplash + Terrier is also a decent combination, but somewhat harder to fly.

It'll load just fine, but it may or may not work the same way as it did before, due to recent wheel-related overhauls. I recently upgraded from 1.0.5 to 1.1.2*, and brought my SSTMun cargo/shuttle "Flounder" over. It worked out of the box. It did behave slightly different, but it was the good kind of "different" *: My computer is kind of potato, and until recently I haven't had the time to start my long-planned USI-based career for kolonizing the kerbol system. So before upgrading I spent a lot of time waiting for the required mods to be updated to 1.1.x while I used 1.0.5 to build the crafts I intended to use. PS: The Flounder is my work-horse for bringing supplies and personell from Kerbin to my Mun base, and the design is unaltered since I built it in 1.0.5.

I wish I knew. I want one now.

Alright, so I'm sure you've all seen this loading hint yourselves: "Combulating Discombulator". While most of the loading hints are a reference to a pun somewhere, this one went way over my head: Yes, it's supposed to be nonsensical, I'm sure, but is it at least a reference to something? My usual JFGI-approach wasn't very helpful. Googling "Combulation" had only one entry, and that was on Urban Dictionary Trying discombulator yelded a few more results, some more interesting than others: As much as I love the above picture, I doubt whoever wrote the loading hint had that in mind. Anyone able to enlighten me? Oh, and for those of you thinking "This guy has a serious lack of humour", you're wrong. I just tend to over-analyze things.

Apollo 18, 19, and 20 were cancelled, and Apollo 20 launch vehicle was used for SkyLab instead.

First of all, a disclaimer: I cannot remember what my source for the info in the premise is, I only remember reading it somewhere (I believe it had something to do with launching nukes against an incoming asteroid), so if someone can verify or debunk something in the premise, please let me know. Premise: Plans, drawings, schematics, and software for the Apollo programme simply doesn't exist any more. It's mostly been destroyed, forgotten, scrapped, and in general disposed of. (WHY???!!!) The question: Let's say an eccentric wealthy person (Not Elon Musk, he's got too much relevant background.) was to influence relevant politicians to continue the Apollo programme today and get the gears in motion for Apollo 21 and therefore returning to the moon. When a design has been proven to work, change is discouraged, so we're talking hardware as close as possible to the original Saturn V vehicles as possible. Is it possible today to build a fully functional Saturn V with required infrastructure for a 7th (if my counting is correct) moonlanding? How close would we be able to get to a design indistinguishable from the original? Are there any parts/components/systems that are simply not possible anymore?

My mun-capable SSTO (M) was named flounder, because of its relatively flat and wide looks. The bigger version was named Halibut... not much of a pun, but it's one of the few cases where I 've had some continuity in the naming, other than the usual PurposeOfCraft 7

The P51 brake/stall maneuver that may as well have been a handbrake turn with skid-audio.... the cringe.. Such a great story ruined by horrible directing

I see a disturbing lack of @Overland custom built trainsets for the occasion.

Am i the only one thinking that kerbals should have unibrows?

I would love to add Gateway to the KSP universe. Preferably with vessels parked on it, ready for use. Alternatively, I would love to have a cylindrical object in a highly eccentric orbit around Kerbol, preferably one that can be entered and explored from the inside. Yeah, I like the scifi classics

I'm doing something similar with my backup system. Every 5th minute, my backup runs and creates an incremental rdiff-backup. On my backup server I have a script running that copies out persistent.sfs and timestamps it, so that i can easily see from which point in time that save is from

My kids are fine but at times when they do something stupid, a revert to construction phase would be nice.

I normally name mine after fish. My mk2 spaceplane is somewhat flat and wide, and was appropriately named Flounder. The mk3 version is Halibut. One major exception is my Laythe lander. During my hardmode (no reverts, no cheaty quickloads, the dead stay dead) my test-pilot was the sole pilot in the development of the Laythe lander - a spaceplane that would detatch from the mothership, glide down, fly to a good landing site, drop a parachuted science-probe, and do a VTOL style landing close to the probe. After sciencing with and without the probe, a VTOL takeoff followed by getting to orbit without staging was next on the agenda. All in all, some serious testing was needed. Somehow, Linlotte survived it all, and did such a good job that the vessel was named after her. She also ended up doing the actual Laythe mission, despite the plan was for her to remain my expendable test pilot.

Excellent idea! I've looked at kOS, but haven't used it much. Does kOS come with a telnet socket from scratch? If so, I may have something to do during those slow hours at work that happen from time to time.

Is there, or could there be, a mod that allows my rover to drive on its own, even when not focused? I like the concept of rovers, but at the moment the reward is bottlenecked by my willingness to play the most boring car game ever. Yes, I know that there are mods like mechjeb that does this, but Ideally I would like to set my rover up so that it can drive on its own while I do other things in the meantime, including timewarp. I understand that following the terrain during timewarp will be a challenge/impossible due to the destruction of things moving across the surface with the on-rails system, but is it possible to emulate auto-roving by simply teleporting the rover an appropriate distance and placing it on the terrain? I'd love the ability to have my rover drive between biomes on its own.

I for one actually like the tank butts. Yes, they take up room, but it just looks wrong to me if there's no "visual connection" between engine and tank. Besides, a lot of an engines vital parts are visually a part of the tank butt. If something has to be done with them, then I am for the procedural approach. Just a thought: Make it more modular. Instead of just sticking an engine onto a tank, just stick a nozzle onto a tank if you please, but with the option of having a procedural tank-butt in between to change/improve the characteristics of the nozzle slightly. The tank but defines vectoring capability, while the nozzle defines the thrust. Both of them together define the Isp. This sounds like a nice mod that i'd love playing with, as I generally like tinkering with the finer details. --- Edit: Just to elaborate on the mod-idea: the tank-butt won't be required, but something that you may want to use. Without it it'll act slightly less efficiently with no vectoring. Essentially, a throttle-controlled bottle rocket on steroids.

I recommend that you check out his Hardcore Pawn series for that exact reason. I love the combination of KSP and the some sort of roleplaying that he does.

"Enter your facebook credentials to integrate with KSP" "Warning: Without logging in, your friends cannot see your KSP achievements" "Are you sure you do not want to create a Facebook account? Multiplayer will be disabled until you do" "Cannot activate ksp while stowed"

[quote name='numerobis']One key physics-based benefit of a spaceplane is that it's also a non-space plane, so you can more easily explore an atmospheric world. And you can fix a botched re-entry to land in the right place (the number of times I've screwed up and come in for a landing literally antipodal from where I intended...) Planes don't need to be single-stage of course.[/QUOTE] I consider this to be an important aspect as well. The ability to ditch an MK2-based structure that somehow failed to get to orbit is priceless. But as I suspected, in science mode I basically have no reason to use them for payload delivery to orbit other than the HSE aspect and cool factor. Thanks for your inputs.

Alright, so I'm considering starting my 1.0.5 save soon, and I'm currently revising the details of the save (Career? Science? Difficulty? Mods? Etc?). On thing is that I'm leaning towards science, as careers have a tendency of either having too much funds or resulting in a mission grind. The problem with this is that I really want spaceplanes to serve a purpose other than being cool. I've made many SSTOs, but I end up just sticking a huge launcher under the payload, as they're a lot less hassle getting into orbit. So, my question is therefore twofold: 1. Do spaceplanes/SSTOs/Shuttles give any benefits other than reduced cost and increased cool? 2. Any mods that'd make spaceplanes useful in a science save?

[quote name='TMS']Somebody uses the launcher???[/QUOTE] If i hit tab at the wrong time when launching from terminal, yes. Normally i just run the 64 executable directly

Boring answer: That's the KIA screen. Not entirely sure how it's done from a programatical point of view, but if I remember correctly from reading the devnotes and the like, the KIA screen is the default portrait, and if the kerbal is alive, the head is rendered over it. The portrait is actually "filmed" with a "camera" in the cockpit, so therefore each passenger needs to have a KIA screen associated with him/her. Feeble attempt at being funny: They're watching the tube when they're supposed to be working, hence why it disappears when you look at them. And they're easy to entertain, so static is their favourite show.

Pardon the useless post, but this has to be said: I want to make that trip now, regardless of any fuel-related benefits or lack thereof. Kerbin->Moho->Eeloo->Kerbin sounds like a beautiful trip.

My Jool 5 expedition's composition, summed up: 3 landers, 4 NERVs, and a bunch of MK3 liquid tanks. This resulted in a stupid amount of DeltaV (KER just said NaN.. it was literally off the charts), but on the downside was that it had a TWR of 0.05. I assembled it in a 75x75 orbit, and when it was time to leave I did multiple burns to raise my AP. I think I made maybe 10-15 orbits, each time burning at PE for about 2 minutes. In the end I ejected as planned and my PE never got above 80km. Tips: 1. Start raising your AP early. After a while your orbital period will be so long that you run the risk of missing your transfer window while still working on raising your AP. And remember, a kerbin day is only 6 hours long. I spent around 2 weeks of ingame time raising my AP 2. Don't let the mun toss you around in the process 3. A low TWR ejection usually means a looooooong orbital insertion burn for when you arrive at your destination. My Jool5 expedition burned for 5 minutes continuously when arriving, including a triple reverse gravity assist by Laythe, Tylo and Vall