Sidereus

I have the same bug as Dr Gaming and garound_ran. I didn't know it was due to MM updating, though; I had just updated my R&D facility, and I thought that's what borked it.

Yes, please. I just had a mission to go rescue a Kerbal in low Minmus Orbit. She happened to be in the lab that looks like the Materials Bay. No hatch. Can't get her out without a claw, which I didn't have equipped on the vessel I sent to pick her up.

Situation Nominal: All Kerbal'ed Up Tombo there lost the front part of his aircraft when he hit the reverse thruster to slow down after he landed on the Island Airstrip. Unfortunately, the Wheesley had enough excessive thrust to cause the plane to try and take off backwards, which caused a panic reaction that scraped off the nose and front landing gear of the plane. But, with the magic of reaction wheels, He was able to get the nose high enough so that he could take off again without the front landing gear and head back to KSC. Unfortunately, he came in a bit too hot and this time scraped off his cockpit. RIP, Tombo. (Well, until I hit "revert to launch" anyway...)

I don't use them very often. When I do, it's usually on a small lander on a non-atmospheric body, like the Mun, Minmus, etc. My go-to first lander for the Mun is almost always a small 1 seater (either a Mk1 Lander Can or one of the new Pea pods) on top of a 1.25m service bay which contains a probe core (I usually man it with a scientist), batteries, the small reaction wheel, and the smaller science experiments; then a Material Bay, a FL-T200 Fuel Tank, and a single LV-909 for the sole engine. The engine will be fed for most of the trip with a pair of drop tanks, which are attached with radial decouplers that crossfeed into the central FL-T200 tank. Each drop tanks consist of an FL-T400 and an Fl-T200 tank, and will also have the landing legs and sometimes a Stratus-V Roundified monoprop tank on top, if I'm using RCS for that mission. That combination will get me from LKO to the Mun's surface with just about 200-300 or so dV worth of fuel left in the drop tanks, and makes for a compact lander with a wide footprint that is fairly stable, even on steeper slopes. The drop tanks get jettisoned a bit after leaving the Mun's surface but before I've made orbit, which neatly disposes of them. Then I have just enough fuel left in the central FL-T200 tank to get back to Kerbin.

Borderlands 2, ATM.

Vehciles that are primarily designed to test parts get called TR-XX, i.e. TR-01, TR-02, etc. My first couple of rockets are always named Nova I, Nova II, etc. Things like communications relays, satellites launched for contracts, bases, and stations tend to get descriptive acronyms. Manned missions tend to get Greek and Roman god names, like Apollo, Ares, etc. But I don't have any hard rules, so I tend to name 'em whatever strikes my fancy at the time.

Added some habitat modules to my Minmus orbital station: Everything above the lower left hitchhiker module is new. The sidways-mounted cupola used to be on the Mk2 lander can, but I decided to move it to free up an easier-to-access docking port (it has its own monoprop tanks and thrusters so it can be moved around a bit). I also added a 4-way pressurized hub from Nertea's Near Future Construction mod. It has 2 Clamp-O-Tron Sr.s for large docking space craft (it's eventually going to be a refueling hub) and one of Nertea's octagonal docking ports for future construction.

Uh, Jeb, would you kindly remove your aircraft from the roof of the Astronaut Complex? Thank you. -- Mgmt.

I'm curious to see if there is a desire for (or an already-existing) mod that tweaks the Mk1 and Mk2 landing cans a bit to make them more like their descriptions. They are kind of billed as fragile, ultra-lightweight landers, but they aren't particularly fragile and the Mk2 seems to be massively overweight (it is 4.33 times heavier than the Mk1, and is ~0.6 tons heavier than both the MK2 spaceplane cockpits). This has been bothering me for a while, so today I threw together a simple mod that uses module manager to tweak the defaults a bit. For the Mk2, I reduced the weight from 2.6t to 1.6t, and for both the Mk1 and Mk2 I reduced the impact resistance from 8m/s to 6m/s (which I believe was their values in 0.90) and reduced their max skin temperatures from 2000k down to 1600k (I originally thought of taking it down to 1200k, but I'm hesitant to go that far...) So my questions to the community are: 1) Is there any interest in this and/or does something like this already exist? (I tried searching but couldn't find anything) 2) Do you think this strikes the right balance? 3) If no, how do you think they should be changed?

I designed a simple rover for Minmus that worked way better than I thought it would. I had a mission to take seismic readings at four fairly closely placed positions, so rather than build a probe I figured a rover would work better. I also had to rescue a Kerbal stranded in low-Minmus orbit, so I decided to slap a command seat on it in order to collect more science. [IMGUR]PjwLF[/IMGUR] The object 15.5 km away in the first screenshot is my starting position. I was looking for a relatively flat area to land, and ended up farther away from the mission area than I intended to. So I drove the rover down to the mission area, did the readings, then flew my return ship (which had a probe core) down to pick up my Kerbal rather than go all the way back. The rover was mounted to the top of the return vehicle and I used the RCS thrusters to place it on the ground. I found that the wheels were basically useless for gaining forward momentum, so I used the RCS thrusters instead, which worked very well. With the reaction wheels going it was extremely stable all the way down the mission area at around 20m/s, save for the one time I fat-fingered my keyboard and caused a flip (which is why it only has one set of solar panels; it originally had another set mounted in back). At the end I only depleted a little over half the RCS. Gravity did most of the work.

I'm not all that far into career mode, and I've already seen two: one asked me to go take a temperature reading at a site I had previously been to because the last mission "detected some temperature anomalies" and the second asked me to adjust the orbit of a satellite I had sent up for the Mun flyby mission.

I just tried it again and I can't get it to replicate, so it may not be your mod, just some weirdness on the part of KSP.

Possible bug report: On the Wheezly, the electric charge meter in the right click menu doesn't work with this mod enabled. The engine still produces EC, but it doesn't register on the meter. Not sure if this is a problem with the other engines. Once I removed this mod, the EC meter worked again on a new craft, but still didn't work on the old one, even after launching a new flight.

I just took my first 1.0.5 career plane, the Spirit of Kerbin, with Val at the stick, across an epic trans-oceanic voyage that probably took an hour or so of real time to complete in order to do some exploration. Only to have Val disappear in a puff of smoke on EVA because of a terrain glitch. And I forgot to quicksave. ;.;

Thanks for the tip. It really shouldn't be necessary to have to change to mobile view, which brings its own set of issues inherent to that format, but at least there's a workaround for now...

I've always had this problem with the announcement articles (such as the 1.0.5 release announcement article), however usually it only happens when I zoom in so I can read the text easier. This time it happened at 0% zoom. This is a serious usability issue. The text needs to be able to wrap around properly so that those who require larger text will be able to zoom in and still be able read the article. Previously, I had thought the problem was that the text overflow property was set so that it would horizontally scroll when the text was too wide, however there isn't even a horizontal scroll option this time. I'm not entirely certain what the problem is, but taking a gander at some of the CSS shows a lot of "white-space:nowrap" and "text-overflow:hidden" properties, either of which could be contributing to this issue, though I haven't been able to track down exactly which one is being applied to the article container. I'm using Firefox 42.0 on Windows Vista, 1280x1024 resolution, btw. Edit: Just tried it in Chrome and IE, and it happens with both of them, too.

Depending on our relationship with Russia to remain stable is pretty much the definition of shortsightedness (especially given that what happened in the Ukraine wasn't in any way unprecedented), but that's wondering a bit too much into politics, I think...

Source? I don't see any indication that's the case. It looks like it was simply decided by ULA not to bother investing in having that capability in place because of the costs associated with it, and that bringing that capability online would simply take too long at this point. I know a bit about these import bans due to my other hobbies, and they pretty much never ban production in the US, just importation from sanctioned countries. I don't see why it would be any different here. ETA: That's essentially what the article you just posted says, too. FTA: No politics, just shortsightedness on the part of ULA.

There's no way to make an Osprey design using stock parts, as there's no way to rotate the engines around. You want to take a game that has its performance heavily dependent on the number of parts used in each craft, and...force people to use more parts? No thanks. I would definitely prefer procedural parts over a proliferation of lego parts.

♪ The first thing in KSP that's such a pain to me, is part placement in the tech tree... ♫ ♪ The second thing in KSP that's such a pain to me, is too much lag and part placement in the tech tree... ♫ ♪ The third thing in KSP that's such a pain to me, is crashing all the time, too much lag, and part placement in the tech tree... ♫ ♪ The fourth thing in KSP that's such a pain to me, is time-based mechanics, crashing all the time, too much lag, and part placement in the tech tree... ♫ ♪ The fifth thing in KSP that's such a pain to me, is forgetting my antennae, time-based mechanics, crashing all the time, too much lag, and part placement in the tech tree... ♫ ♪ The sixth thing in KSP that's such a pain to me, is wonky maneuver nodes, forgetting my antennae, time-based mechanics, crashing all the time, too much lag, and part placement in the tech tree... ♫ ♪ The seventh thing in KSP that's such a pain to me, is click-thru in the VAB, wonky maneuver nodes, forgetting my antennae, time-based mechanics, crashing all the time, too much lag, and part placement in the tech tree... ♫ ♪ The eighth thing in KSP that's such a pain to me, is no delta-V readout, click-thru in the VAB, wonky maneuver nodes, forgetting my antennae, time-based mechanics, crashing all the time, too much lag, and part placement in the tech tree... ♫ ♪ The ninth thing in KSP that's such a pain to me, is repetitive contracts, no delta-V readout, click-thru in the VAB, wonky maneuver nodes, forgetting my antennae, time-based mechanics, crashing all the time, too much lag, and part placement in the tech tree... ♫ ♪ The tenth thing in KSP that's such a pain to me, is boring planetary surfaces, repetitively redundant contracts, no delta-V readout, click-thru in the VAB, wonky maneuver nodes, forgetting my antennae, time-based mechanics, crashing all the time, too much lag, and part placement in the tech tree... ♫ ♪ The eleventh thing in KSP that's such a pain to me, is save destroying Kraken, boring planetary surfaces, repetitively redundant contracts, no delta-V readout, click-thru in the VAB, wonky maneuver nodes, forgetting my antennae, time-based mechanics, crashing all the time, too much lag, and part placement in the tech tree... ♫ ♪ The twelfth thing in KSP that's such a pain to me, is out-of-memory errors, save destroying Kraken, boring planetary surfaces, repetitively redundant contracts, no delta-V readout, click-thru in the VAB, wonky maneuver nodes, forgetting my antennae, time-based mechanics, crashing all the time, too much lag, and part placement in the tech tree... ♫

I've landed probes on all of the planets/moons. I don't think I've done a manned mission to Eeloo or Moho yet...haven't done a return mission from Eve yet, either, mostly because my computer is a potato and I can't figure out how to get the part count low enough for such a mission.

To be fair (not that it's a competition), it wasn't as bad as Glaran K'erman's; at least no one died. (Sorry man). And yesterday was a hell of a lot better. Looks like there's no chance of needing that root canal (I was told there'd be a 20% chance I'd need it anyway, particularly if any sensitivity lasted for more than 4 days, and so far there's been no sensitivity issues). And I spent the day hanging out with family, seeing my 5 month old nephew, and generally slacking off. Today was more yardwork, though. This time clearing blackberry vines. Not fun (it's damn near physically impossible to clear blackberry vines without ending up bleeding in several places), but it needed to be done. They will completely take over large swaths of land if you let them, and they're extremely difficult to kill off without bringing out heavy duty pesticides.

Can I third it? Woke up, went to the dentist to get some prep work for a crown done on a tooth I broke several weeks ago (that involved Novocaine, lots of drilling, and being informed that I narrowly missed needing a root canal), then spent the rest of the day doing yard work and cleaning up a couple of downed trees. Oh, and I had to borrow a car all day because the accelerator pedal on mine literally broke off. Oh x2, I received a phone call from ADT that my sister's house burglar alarm went off and they couldn't get a hold of her, so I tried calling and couldn't get a hold of her, her husband, or my brother (who lives in the same city as my sister). After several attempts, my sister finally picked up the phone and revealed that it was a false alarm. I could do without days like this.

What is "Two Types of DC" a reference to?

"Duck and Cover" may have been somewhat overly optimistic, but it wasn't really bad advice, either. Consider that a lot of the serious injuries suffered by people who observed the Chelyabinsk meteor were caused by the shock wave from the explosion (which was equivalent to about 500 kilotons, or 20-30 times larger than the bomb used on Hiroshima) blew out the windows they were standing in front of. So if you're not close enough to be instantly vaporized, but you're still close enough to get hit with the shock wave, ducking and covering would be a good way to keep from being injured from exploding windows or other flying debris that you might get hit with if you're standing there gawking or gauging the distance to the mushroom cloud with your thumb... The phrase is much older than the atomic age, with the earliest known use occurring in the late 1600s. It's thought that it might have come from carpenters using their thumbs as a measuring tool.