JackDugan

For the Elcano challenge, I will circumnavigate Eve in stock KSP. I will take the route with minimal liquid-crossings and go via an equatorial path. After some testing on my modded version of KSP, I have decided on a design and have landed on Eve in my stock version of the game. Obviously, the way to go was pure electrically, as stock KSP does not allow for easy traveling across liquids without jet engines. You must be curious about why I have so many SAS and ASAS modules on my rover. These provide enough torque to allow the rover to flip over in liquids, as seen in the testing video. This is how I will cross the small portions of water I encounter. Launching it was relatively boring. Building the rocket was quite a challenge, however, as no fairings fit the size of my rover. This meant huge wings would be required to keep the center of lift below the center of mass. Now that the transfer window was open, we were able to go to Eve without any plane changes. We, thankfully, survived atmospheric entry by using the last of my previous engine to slow the rover to a much less dangerous velocity (4 km/s to 2.5 km/s). The EESC has begun (and Jebediah is already dying of heat)!

They were talking about designing a different SIAD for the next test.

This was certainly disappointing... Oh well. Let's hope that next time it's more successful.

My career is hard mode, and I have yet to be responsible for a fatality . Let's just hope it stays this way...

I'm a bit curious about design possibilities. I'm attempting a stock circumnavigation of Eve (haven't started yet), and I'd like to see If anyone sees any obvious ways I can improve on my craft. Obviously, the way to go was with only electricity. In water, the craft flips and acts a bit like a paddle boat (with the exception that with paddle boats, only the oars turn, whereas my whole craft flips). Sadly, its top speed is about 2 meters per second in water. I will take an equatorial path with minimal liquid-crossings. On land, wheels are used.

I think I will join and attempt Eve in stock KSP (the picture has modded visuals; I will remove the visual mods during the circumnavigation). Don't count me in yet, as I think I have a few questions first. First of all, does the contraption I invented in the picture count as a rover? If it does, I will try some other things w/ it and notify you when/if I would like to join.

I noticed that the ion engine is nicknamed "Dawn". I knew Dawn was powered by ions in real life, and it's obviously named that after the probe. How many other engines, if any, are named after real-life things?

I've seen it about 12 times. Each time was intentional. I have an app that shows satellite/debris/iridium flare occurrences. It also includes the obvious astronomical objects (stars, planets, etc.). It's called "Sky Guide" I think. I last used it to see the ISS about 47 minutes ago. The first man-made object I saw was the Tiangong-1. It passed straight over us.

Actually, I'm buying one over the summer! It's going to be somewhere in the 700-800 dollar range, so I think it'll be a dobsonian one (the larger the aperture, the better). I have a low end one currently that is able to see Saturn's rings and Jupiter's moons, but it isn't that incredible.

I'm not too sure about how you would go about it, but you may be able to recover G4Virus's videos if you used something such as the internet archive. It allows you to go to old versions of webpages, and, therefore, potentially recover his videos. I'm not sure if this should go in discussion, so this can be moved if it is necessary.

proves that it can, in fact, be done. Though, obviously, much tweaking and remodeling for the new aerodynamics and such would have to be done, this acts as a proof of concept.

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I'm just too ignorant of what goes on on this forum. Which game mode do you play most often?

Hi. I just wanted to notify the community that KSP received a 9/10 rating from Gamespot. Comparing this to other games, it looks like it got a pretty nice rating, especially because they only rate 1-10. Read it here.

In an old KSP save, I had a space station. One day, a rocket's second stage was going to come within 0.1 Km of it. I moved the station just to be safe.

I was going to, but I realized too many people would choose both. If you like both, just say it. If you like one or the other better, vote.

Because a lot have people have become angry at the new aerodynamics and the new system doesn't affect rockets as much as planes, I'm curious as to which people prefer. I personally use rockets simply because I enjoy going interplanetary and have little skill with planes.

It's a pretty high chance. It looks like 1.1 may be focused around things like 64 bit and Unity 5 support. Read about it here.

I am on a hard mode career and am relatively far in. I have got into orbit about 20 or so times and the next will most likely be for a moon landing. It isn't hard if you put wings on the bottom if necessary, use aerodynamic nosecones, and follow the most efficient flight path. The new aerodynamics mean you have to redesign your rockets. Don't try turning 45 degrees at 10 Km. In fact, my second launch was an orbital launch.

Just do some row operations with another identity matrix beside it to find its inverse. Although, it takes a while if it's a lot of matrices.

Lol. IDK.

We could just spam messages until it gets to 200 (just a joke).

Haha... Sorry about spamming random messages.

This one must be. - - - Updated - - - THIS ONE! - - - Updated - - - Post on pg. 100 is here.

Nevermind... POST 100!

I think this is the first post of the 100th page.