Coyote27

I think that if we were going to keep it, the lumps on the sides should be replaced with mini-intakes so it'd not only be different but useful too.

Oh, I forgot to mention that I really want a 4 or 5 way heavy-duty RCS thruster pod, either Vernor-based or using monoprop. Streamlining it would be extra cool.

I'm liking a lot of these suggestions. One that I haven't seen so far but would be nice would be a 3.75m heavy aerospike engine, for better efficiency in a first stage at the cost of less raw thrust than a Mammoth. I'd also love to have a lot more science experiment parts as well - let's say, for example, an optical space telescope that we can IVA in to actually peer through at various targets, or an X-ray telescope, a scientific sample-return device, magnetometer on a deployable boom, radiation meters and particle counters and spectrometers... there's a lot of possibilities here! If they can display some kind of useful data that provides more than mere science points that'd be even better.

Would it make people happier to just have heavy-duty monoprop RCS thrusters instead of Vernors?

I may be in the minority here, but I actually really like the cosmetic improvement of the new Mk 1 cockpit. The old one was kinda ugly.

To start this off, how many of you would love to see a streamlined 4-way or 5-way Vernor heavy thruster pod in stock? Wouldn't it be useful?

Based on some feedback, I tried replacing the heatshield on the nose with a closed shock-cone intake for less drag. Results were a melted shock-cone and explosion at about 1300 m/s. Looks like the head shield is necessary. The real-life Nike Sprint had its entire upper stage coated in an ablative heatshield, of course.

So, I saw today and needed to make my own! The real Nike Sprint could hit Mach 10 in 5 seconds. Mine can only get up to 2500m/s(Mach 7) and it takes a lot longer. Download here if you want to: http://kerbalx.com/Coyote27/Ironspike Now, can anyone get a functional faster-accelerating rocket that can actually top Mach 10 in atmo?

Hey, that's pretty neato. What song is that in the vid? I'm really digging it.

But how does it land?

^ New version with a new suspension system and a couple of minor tweaks. I'm not sure if it's really improved that much, but it is noticeably springier now.

This is the Adventurer - it may not have any fancy suspension (because I haven't figured out how that's built) but it's decently versatile. It can tow things with the claw on the back and has a shielded dock up front, too. Vernor thrusters and a pair of radial engines allow it to fly around in low gravity, though it's able to lift off the ground even on Kerbin. If you don't use the rockets and thrusters much, though, the fuel supply is enough for some long-range operation - and during daylight, you can open the rear compartment to expose solar panels.

Well, it worked today. Maybe it's my ISP's fault, then! Anyway, time to once more start launching into space...

Hey all, I'm trying to set KSP up on a new computer, and need the Linux version of the game for it - the one on my old decrepit comp is Windows, so it won't just copy over. However, I can't manage to get a complete download from the KSP store - it'll get up to about 100- 120mb and then stop, unable to get going again. I'm not sure if this is an issue with my ISP or the KSP site or something else. Are there any approved download mirrors or anything? Anything odd going on with the servers today? Thanks in advance. Edit: proof http://i.imgur.com/Gdkb8Xe.png

Apple-apsis and Peary-apsis. Apples are larger on top and pears are larger on bottom, so it's easy to remember which is the top of the orbit and which is the bottom. I think the alternate terms "apoapse" and "periapse" are equally fine, though.

http://www.popsci.com/colonizing-moon-may-be-90-percent-cheaper-we-thought?JoD4rSLMpFGvc0D3.01 This article claims that we could start a lunar colony for $10 billion and have it become economically viable as a fuel depot for further exploration.

Ooh, I like this suggestion. I mean, I like making Eve more challenging in general, but this would be a nice addition to the heat-dynamics system and possibly lead to extra fun no matter the location. A ship with multiple RTGs in vacuum would probably need some extra radiators to operate efficiently, which is fine.

What would an IVA on an unmanned probe look like, then?

On that thought, an 0.625m jet engine might be nice too. A pulse-jet maybe?

Turboprop engines excite me, so I'd like to be able to make them with a propeller+wheesley combination. I'm not sure about a prop engine that uses fuel and intake air so much, perhaps an electric one that can run on fuel cells (or be powered by jets on said turboprop design) would be best - simpler too perhaps since only a propeller, spinner, and shaft connected to an electric motor would be necessary. And the big advantage of an electrically driven prop is that it'd work in oxygen-free atmospheres, so we could go flying on Eve and Duna...

How about a proper fission reactor, then?

I'd like to be able to splash aquatic rovers down on Eve and Laythe...

Did any 3rd-party fixes for this ever get made?

Well, if he is correct, then this should be third-party-fixable by replacing the shaders. I haven't a clue how to do this properly, but I know that there's plenty of people around who do.

Here's a pastebin of my output.log - http://pastebin.com/x6phiBx8 - not only does it reference the following type of error: But there's pages and pages of something else that's less explicable.... I have no idea what the second type of error relates to or what effect it's having.