CorBlimey

nice idea. Perhaps gone are the days of 75*75 orbits for stuff other than station rendezvous or Kerbisphere missions. Do you know if the on-rails cutoff is still 35km? It annoys me that I can't shed debris by dipping periapsis to about 60km.

I like the lab system (I will play with a life support mod to add an overhead to letting them run) but what i have found most annoying is that I cannot select processed experiments only to remove from the lab for return back to Kerbin with my crew exchanges. I inevitably fill up the data pretty darn quickly (even flying the lab to its site will fill it once pretty much, then grab some stuff from nearby biomes for a refill). However, I cannot leave the experiments that still have data unprocessed on them but take everything else.

I have a MP lab with full data and lots of spare samples to process in the future (Minmus is overpowered). I would like to return the already processed stuff back to Kerbin but leave the stuff that can still be processed in the lab. Is there a way? I can't seem to find a way.

Orbit > Suborbit dip > Orbit is fine for these contracts. I think it was more just a funny thing to read. Plus, at a minimum, it would take the dV to get to Jool + a bit more, to do this. On the other hand, I get 600k funds for just pointing a hitchhiker can + cupola into a Kerbin escape trajectory on some SRBs. You should try KSP again - the current patch is a lot more like 0.90 than 1.0. The atmosphere is quite fun, but I wish the reentry heating was more dangerous.

Kapitalism at work

could you implement a food 'deficit'? (like -x days food) So, for example, if a Kerbal has been without food for 30 days and is on strike, then when food is provided the ravenous fellow gets to binge eat to make up the 30 days? The rationale is to prevent having Kerbals live in starvation only being fed when required to do something. Also, does the strike affect MP Labs in operation? Or any other background process? As always, the USI family of mods really increases my enjoyment of the game. So thanks

yes, true. And a suborbital flight only means dipping your periapsis below the horizon. You don't actually have to let dem Kerbals 'complete' the suborbital part

17k kredits for 2 passengers on a suborbital Kerbol dive. wow.. Let's ignore the 15k m/s dV needed

Balance issue: Docking port costs 280, Docking port Jr costs 800.

welcome to the world of rendezvous I still remember my first one with horror. It gets so easy after a couple you can do it without thinking. Another alternative to the proper approach mentioned above, when 40km away is, if you have oodles of dV, just burn straight towards your target to get about 50m/s in their direction. You will cover the distance in a few minutes so your changed orbit wont matter much (a bit like how to do EVA). Now, docking...that is another kettle of fish and still a PITA for me.

is there a CKAN for the dev release? I can't seem to find it through the CKAN GUI (only v10).

so cool. Really adds something to RPM. THanks for the effort

great planes. Really inspired me to rethink my own SSTO's (normally horrendous high part count, fuel chugging, high engine count monsters who perform very badly).

For comparison: [TABLE=width: 466] [TR] [TD]Family[/TD] [TD]Wet[/TD] [TD]Dry[/TD] [TD]Mass Ratio[/TD] [TD]Cost per fuel tonne[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Mk3[/TD] [TD=align: right]28.0[/TD] [TD=align: right]3.0[/TD] [TD=align: right]9.3[/TD] [TD=align: right]600.0[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Kerbodyne extra large[/TD] [TD=align: right]82.0[/TD] [TD=align: right]10.0[/TD] [TD=align: right]8.2[/TD] [TD=align: right]316.7[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Rockomax (aka Jumbo Oranges)[/TD] [TD=align: right]36.0[/TD] [TD=align: right]4.0[/TD] [TD=align: right]9.0[/TD] [TD=align: right]400.0[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Cylindrical tank volume = height * pi * r^2 Thus, with the largest cross-sectional area, the Kerbodyne extra larges have the lowest surface area per volume and so should (assuming equal skin thickness or material density - and we shouldn't because the Mk3's have a higher crash tolerance) have the least massive structure to contain a given volume of fuel. The only benefit (and I admit it is a big one for very large rockets), is that the Kerbodynes need less height for the same fuel. Anyone else think that the Mk3's should be bumped down to perhaps 8.8 to reflect crash tolerance, and the Kerbodyne's bumped up to 9 or 9.2ish? edit: ok, added in cost per fuel tonne. Kerbodynes are substantially cheaper and the Mk3's are substantially more expensive (perhaps to reflect the superior tank materials and the premium SSTO's place on mass ratio over upfront cost). Perhaps I withdraw my argument, or repitch it to a slight increase to 8.5-9 for Kerbodynes and the others left the same. What a pointless post I made! Mods, feel free to call me an idiot and lock this should you agree

I think there is an issue with the command module: you are unable to retrieve science data

small bug I think (hmm, I should replicate on another less complicated craft ): Action groups copied over with a craft as a Subassembly do not retain whether they are a Toggle Group or not.

awesome. I am still learning the options edit: and that works perfectly - thank you

I am having a lot of fun with Umbra Space Industries Honeybadger VTOL solutions and this mod. Thanks for the effort I would love a mode that simply sets the engine thrusts balanced for a neutral or specified thrust vector, such as to reduce the thrust on forward rotors of a VTOL where the centre of mass is slightly behind the thrust vector. In this mode it would not change throttle to respond to tilts forwards and so on and would really only change over time as cargo and fuel changes. This would allow it to be easy to fly a VTOL like a helicopter. I suppose this could be implemented by allowing lower P and I. p.s. also have the same keybinding issue mentioned a few posts above (Remotetech is also installed).

So, Mechjeb offers Land at Pad and Land at VAB options. Is there a way in the configs to configure more of these preset locations? I would ideally like to add some coordinates for a point in the sea east of KSC for times when I need a softer landing, and also add a point further west for times when I know I will be gliding in (SSTOs etc). Perhaps MJ could consider adding a feature to save landing points selected in the usual manner (in map mode with the cursor or via target selection) to a list with a user defined name added?

Is there any workaround for the Life Support Monitoring window counting down time when in fact, due to recyclers and MKS, life support is going up? I am scared TAC is going to kill them off when they are fine and dandy with a decade of supplies left Edit: ah, see from a post a while back that "It will catch up when you next load the ship, so it is as if it was running the entire time that you are in the map view -- but the Life Support Monitoring Window does not work in the map view yet. I am working on a new version that will fix that." i.e. it seems to suggest that they won't die, just it won't display time left. Good enough for now

it would be nice if the small radial canisters were KAS grabable. I am struggling to think of ways to transfer resources to small rovers etc. Shame I have to resort to a 'pipe' to pump over top-ups rather than carrying a neat little hexagonal canister over.

hahaha, your payload is about the total mass of one of my largest rockets - - - Updated - - - in a hundred years we should have fusion reactors (call it 20 years for terrestrial generation + a generous 80 for miniaturisation), or matter-antimatter reactors (for use in space where mass is at a premium - no point on Earth), where the side effects of failing are much less hazardous than heavy radioisotopes being thrown around. It is worth pointing out, I suppose, that none of the fission reactors contemplated going into space were massive enough to turn critical - it was only ever about radioactive dust/debris. If one could create a reactor in such an incredibly strong shell that it was impervious to a few hundred m/s impact then perhaps fission can have a second swing of the bat.

I am in no way related to this but I saw it was posted a year ago and I thought it deserved an interwebs bump for being so well done, so all the Kerbal noobs like me can see it. Picture comparisons of Earth, Kerbin, Saturn V and so on (apparently, Saturn V first stage was about 67 jumbo oranges and 26 Mainsails) http://imgur.com/gallery/ckadxCa The most incredible reminder I think is that, only 66 years before humans were landing on the moon, the Wright brothers were setting out with a few bits of wood, some canvas and a glorified bicycle for the first flight of mankind. Edit: as some commentators have mentioned, this of course in no way captures all the differences: indeed, some RL features are advantages (higher TWR, customisability etc). But still, this helps to put things in comparison, for the most important elements.

idea: an option on the timers and altimeters to set a certain attitude and and x second burn/throttle. The point would be to be able to drop several independent supply packages at low altitude. Currently I use Landertrons but even these need attitude control to keep retrograde. In atmosphere this is less important because chutes will naturally point your ship at retrograde, but otherwise it is necessary to manually cycle through the ships quickly to set SAS / SmartAss / Remotetech Flight Computer. This is challenging at high speed!

awesome update - thanks!