jarmund

My one year old son likes these smoothie-like fruit-based foods that comes in a small squeezable packets. I think I need to buy some for myself as well.

Since nobody else has, I will be the one to say it: MOAR BOOSTERS Now that we've gotten that detestable expression out of the way, I'll add some pointers from a serious perspective: - Those radial engines you have on the lander are somewhat inefficient. If you can, swap to an undermounted engine with higher Isp instead. My Duna lander worked great despite only having ~1.1 TWR on launch. I recommend the poodle for you, as a single one of those is similar to two of the radial ones, but with better efficiency and lower mass. It's also fairly short, so it's good for landers. My landers are normally built on Poodle, LV-909, or Aerospike, depending on the thrust needed. - Consider scaling down. That pod plus the hitchhiker can should be a total of 7 kerbals. Do you need that many? An MK2 lander can is both cheaper and lighter, with only one seat less.

This. While I'm OK with it being possible to return a pod or a simple craft from LKO without a heat shield because of the simplicity and entertainment value, I find the reentry heat to loose its meaning when I can return my minimus miner to kerbin without losing anything else than a ladder to heat. No, I didn't aerobrake over multiple orbits, I did what I almost always do: Plese periapsis around 30k, burn if it looks like I'll skip through. I played with deadly reentry pre 1.0, and from the looks of it, I'll be going back to it again unless the reentry effects will be made tougher on the crafts. I'm waiting a few patches before deciding to see where any balancing measures will converge.

Personally I love the aerospike. Good TWR, and decent Isp, so when the LV-909 lacks in power for my lander, I go for the aerospike. It is currently in use on the lander of my Dres-expedition. It's very low profile makes it easy to build wide instead of tall.

I've always been reluctant when it comes to installing mods. And I still am, despite having around 20 of them installed on my main save. The rationale is that I want the gameplay to be as the publisher intended. Exception are: - A mod that adds something that is clearly missing. For example, the docking port indicator. - A mod that adds complexity where the game is a bit too simplistic. Such as FAR, Deadly Reentry, TAC Life Support, etc. - A mod that generally improves without changing or adding too much. For example the community science message thingy. - A mod that improves in an area that is generally lacking. KAS is a good example of this, as it gives EVA more of a purpose other than licking surface samples. - General fixerupper mods. Bugfixes and the like. While I do not have any good examples, a big no-no for me would be a mod that changes and adds too much. That being said, here's the list of mods that I use: Toolbar Crowdsourced Science Action Groups Extended Distant object enhancement Deadly Reentry Enhanced Navball FAR Flight Indicators KerbalEngineer HyperEdit (With strict guidelines of use. Only for testing purposes, always followed by a revert to assembly/launch. No scientific or monetary gain should be obtained from a hyperedited craft) Docking Port Alignment Indicator PreciseNode Science Alert TAC Fuel Balancer TAC Life Support

Awesome! I can never seem to find a place for lamps on my landers, and for some reason, I always seem to end up on the dark side, especially if aerobraking is in the mix.

I'm thinking with nosecone. Sure, the nosecone is heavy, and has a lot of unecessary drag, as it's so wide -BUT- Your probodobodyne will catch fire because of the shock heating fairly quickly, I'm sure Probe cores seem to not like heat at all. Especially the Stayputnik.

That sounds more like the effect of a Pangalactic Gargleblaster

Semi casual, slow but steady. As a father of 3, I don't have time to put in as many hours as I'd like (this goes for most things, really). So I have a career game that gets maybe an hour of progress now and then.

Yes, that's the one. It presumes perfect ejection angle during optimal transfer windows, plus it hasn't been updated for 1.0.x. Also, I mainly use it for getting quick stats such as gravity and highest elevation.

Why am I posting this here, you ask? Very valid question, but there's a good reason for it, just be patient. I knew my son had a basic grasp of pronouncing letters the way they sound when read as part of a word, but up until now he's mostly recognized words by the way they look, as opposed to actually reading the individual letters and contstructing words from that. All in all, he is unable to read words that he hasn't been told about. Like most other 3 year olds, I guess. That was until today. I was preparing dinner (pasta), while he was tinkering with my phone (He loves to play Bad Piggies). Suddenly, I hear him say "That's the sun!". I wondered what he was referring to so I had to check: It turned out that he had opened up Kerbal Space App, which I like having handy. He had opened the app, and clicked Kerbol. Well, cute, I thought, and confirmed that it was the sun, and continued with the cooking. Not long after, I hear him once more: "That's.... uh..... that's...... that's Pol!" "What the Duck???" I checked, and yes: He was looking at Pol. There's no way he could have picked that up elsewhere, so out of curiosity, we had a look through the app to check which others he could read, and Here's the list: Pol Val Tylo (Well, first he thought it was Yoyo, but when I asked him to try again, he got it right) Duna Mun Jool Almosts: Ike - Pronounced "Eek" because of our household language not being English. Dres - kinda. The "Dr" sound was a bit hard, so it became Des. So... just thought I'd mention it PS: Whenever I open a youtube video, he asks me if I'm about to watch Scott Manley.

I think it comes down to a combination of wibbliness vs intuition. Humans, me included, possibly including most other humans, have an easier time thinking about 4-point orientation, because thinking in 90 degrees is simple. This is why I always use 4 legs: It's easier for me to predict where it'll tip in the event of pilot error. On the other side, wobbly chairs always has that one leg that doesn't reach all the way to the floor.

Infinite, provided they are of different type/situation

It should be noted that on Eve, glitches like this isn't that uncommon due to the increased gravity. I cannot recall having this happen to EVAers, but there have been plenty of times when my landing gear somewhat sinks through the ground, necessitating a very gentle landing. I don't consider this a glitch, I just think of the surface as being very sandy Also, good luck getting that kerbal back to Kerbin, stuck or not

Mechjeb allows you to set heading and altitude hold

TAC Life support for me. It really does make interplanetary trips more fun when you have to plan consumption rates and consider sending supply pods ahead. Last week i had to make a tough choice when my plans were off: Sacrifice one kerbal lest everyone starved on Duna. However, I managed to build a supply craft with 14000 dV that got there in time with 2 days of food left when they docked. The kerbal who drew the shortest straw was very happy.

The Kraken spat at you and missed, that's what it was. On a serious note, it'd be awesome if it is an undiscovered easter egg

I think the original issue in this thread is similar to what I first experienced when flying RC helicopters: It's not about swift reaction, or large inputs. It's a matter of patience so that you are able to see tiny amounts of drift/tilt and correct them with a minimum of control input. The biggest cause of crashing RC helicopters are: a) Not enough altitude for margin of error (Since you're trying to land, this isn't really something you can do anything about) Overcorrecting when trying to recover from drift or tilt To overcome these, make sure you have enough fuel to take your time when landing. To ease into it, try the following procedure: 1) SAS lock on retrograde 2) Trust the SAS while you burn to slow down your descent until you're at a reasonable altitude, and have around -5 meters per second surface speed 3) Keep bringing down the speed until you're at 1 m/s 4) SAS to stability assist 5) Try to hover in a stationary position. Once you have that, tap ctrl, and it should set you down easily Yes, you can probably go straight to landing from step 3, but if you learn to hover, you are able to do the rover drops later on more easily. A couple of tips: * If your craft is very input-sensitive, try to enable fine controls. I don't know about the default key for this, as I have mine mapped to ` * Before your landing legs touch ground, watch your navball, not your craft.

How does this mod perform if installed on an already started save? In particular, my save: - Career mode - Perma death on - Loads of mods that I think shouldn't affect this mod (FAR, TAC-LS, Deadly Reentry, RealChutes) - 1.0.2 - Plenty of crew with plenty of experience. Will these automagically receive the ribbons they deserve?

Interstellar has a solar sail.

I've never even loaded a stock craft. I take pride in designing them myself, even if they look like crap and doesn't fly

The lander looks great. Not sure if you need that large reaction wheel, tho. You've got the basics covered: Wide base, compact design, and enough delta V from the looks of it. Personally I try to avoid drop tanks and the like as I prefer my landers to be reusable, but that's a matter of taste, really. As for the rocket, I'm thinking that you should remove the upper set of finns or stick a large set in stead of the lower ones. If the problem is flipping, this might be the fix, and I'm guessing that's exactly what is bothering your design, as all the lift will be in front of CoM once you drop the side tanks. If you really need finns on your upper stage, you can replace the lower set with delta wings and control surfaces instead, and place them where the SBRs are. That's what I do on my larger launch vehicles. SBRs can be placed on the tanks instead. If you haven't already done so, I recommend disabling gimballing on all but the center engines, as the gimbaling is a bit trigger-happy. Some things I would do differently (not implying that my way is necessarily better): - On the center rocket, I would combine the bottom two stages - I would remove all RCS ports below the upper stage. You have the atmosphere to help you turn around anyway. If needed, large reaction wheels. - Consider separatrons on the outer engines as well as SBRs to ensure clean separation. - Launch clamps - Move monoprop tanks to the upper stage, as it can interfere with the upper fin aerodynamics where they are now. Also, higher up allows you to use them longer.

1) Precisenode 2) Kerbal Engineer Redux 3) The above allows for editing the displays to suit your needs, so it can be as comprehensive as you want I used to use mechjeb for what you describe as well, but now I don't have it installed anymore, because the above mods provide what i need.

I've always played science mode, but I'm currently on my second career game. The first time around I gave up on the career as I found myself either grinding contracts for funds or editing saves for the same reasons. This time around I'm faring much better at it - Expenses are a lot more balanced, and I'm able to go for contracts that are pretty much in line with what I wanted to do in the first place. Career mode in my current save adds the addition of budget-rocketry - I can't just strap on stage upon stage without any consequences, I actually have to try to limit the expenses, as well as try to develop reusable vehicles. Another part that I really like is the fact that I now have to train crew(wo)men, and the pool of skilled labour is actually limited. I am currently in the process of returning a 9-man Duna expedition, and it's been a blast, especially considering that I'm using TAC life support, and supplies were limited. When they make it home, it will serve to complete two contracts: - Minimus 3 Course - Return to Kerbin from Duna orbit ....In addition to the ones I completed by going there in the first place. In short: I like career games now. If you plan ahead, you won't need to grind for funds.

While writing this, my 9-man duna expedition is orbiting duna with its lander slowing down in the upper atmosphere. The mothership consists of mostly MK3 parts (because I only need oxidizer for the lander), equipped with 2x LV-Ns, and what I noticed is this: 1) They're not as efficient as they used to be (at least not in my use case), so I'll have to use another fuel tank for future designs. 2) I will need to upgrade to 4x LV-Ns, as its TWR is horrible as it is. They're worth it, but not as much as before, in my opinion. Personally, I think this is a good thing, because that will give other engines some attention too. In pre-1.0, pretty much all interplanetary ships used LV-Ns after a while, and its efficiency allowed you to go almost anywhere. Now, combinations and careful considerations dictate the engine choice rather than just choosing how many LV-Ns to stick on there.