Megadeath

So, if it's body lift why does it only show for one of the two identical rcs thrusters? OP: is this repeatable? If so, does rebuilding it without symmetry effect the behaviour? @NathanKell: Parachutes don't lift!? Isn't that their whole point?

Yeah, I kinda like the idea that they lack a real intrinsic understanding of time and only begin measuring for the sake of space flight. @ OP: I'm feeling like there's some kind of language barrier issue here, since you seem to be asking seriously? What exactly are you asking for? If you're asking what the date would be, as measured by the gregorian/Christian/western calendar, on Earth when you start a new game there's no sensible answer because KSP doesn't take place in our universe. If you're asking how old Kerbal or Kerbin is at the start, there's no good answer there either. The observed physical laws shouldn't result in the formation of the system we get, and there isn't sufficient information to validate or even seriously suggest a timeline for the system. Sorry for long post.

I have a spaceplane that survives entry better with the foldable radiators. Though I do use quite a shallow reentry with it. They are in the vessels shadow, and survive deployed quite deep into the atmosphere so long as I don't manoeuvre or use engines.

So, I'm gonna be the dumb guy in the room, because I'd rather read it here: people keep talking about saturation of reaction wheels; what does that mean? As to the realism vs gameplay, it seems to me they went with a gameplay focus. To me at least, a rocket feels like its weight when turning on reaction wheels alone. Using them in rovers, or atmospheric craft feels op, but I do it anyway. My justification runs: nasa/esa/whatever plan things out ahead, and play it cautious and this would be boring;

As I understand, gravity and gravitational shear makes it all moot anyway: it's impossible to build a mechanism that could pass through an event horizon; if you could, it couldn't get a message back; and if it did, it would come through fundamentally scrambled and indecipherable. I read an article, that mostly made a whizzing sound flying over my head. It talked about an event horizon as a permanent barrier to information, that we can't infer anything about what went into a black hole from observation of it. I think the article was saying this sorta supported hawking radiation as it doesn't encode any information. Can anyone explain what I actually read, and what it meant?

Ah, but surely you've read René Deskerb? How can we really know it exists, when you can't demonstrate that you do? Maybe it's all just in our heads, or some kinda computer simulation.

I'm playing science mode, and also recently finished the tree. Faced my own "now what" hump. My solution was to relax some of the artificial constraints I followed. I now happily time warp entire planetary transfers, don't care if my labs are kept topped up with data, and leave kerbals in the middle of a mission, stuck in tiny capsules, or stationary rovers for months while I go do something else. Thinking of starting my first real attempt at career, or maybe finally seeing if my laptop will handle mods. Still haven't been to Jool either though, and I wanna. TL;DR - Sometimes I think I'm done. Then I think of all I haven't done and realise I'm not.

I Wish the claw was more stable. I Wish there was stock support for either procedural wings, or wing welding. I Wish there was more variety to resource extraction and processing. I Wish there was clouds. I Wish I had a better computer; it'd be nice to see the numbers in green. I Wish lightning would reach from the sky and vaporise anyone who argues on either side of the mechjeb "debate." I Wish I could properly thank and reward squad for the many hours of intense enjoyment their work has given me. I Wish, I Wish I didn't kill that fish.

Well, people from all walks of life enjoy it! For example, I'm a high school drop working in a bookstore. I'm pretty sure actual rocket scientists play too. (Didn't NASA contribute to the asteroid update or something?) All that's needed is a love of exploration and discovery, and either a basic understanding of some physics or a huge amount of patience and persistence. I also first heard through the amazing XKCD. As Katateochi said, the community is one of the great parts of this game. welcome to it!

"If the ship is getting hot from the air, then the air is hotter than the ship." This statement doesn't match my understanding of the situation. I'm of the belief that most heat from reentry is caused mostly by compressive, or friction heating (no idea which) rather than ambient air temperature. In either case, wouldn't there be a wind shadow behind the vessel at lower temperature than the leading face? I thought the reality issue with radiating reentry heat was that it's skin heating, not the core. I've also had heating glitches with time warp. Often with service bays, but not always. At least once it was enough to explode a station. It looked spectacular.

I'm sure it's not very sensible, but I've used decoupler mounted fleas on the back of rapiers or nukes to help punch through the sound barrier and/or rato. Also used separatrons for an easy "emergency power" system on small planes. Useful for escaping spins and stalls or pulling out of an ill advised loop.

I didn't see the thread, but now I've got to. I absolve you in advance though. It takes real character to admit a mistake and apologise, especially to a general forum of peers. That sort of thing is symptomatic of why I love the KSP community as much as the game. I'm sure the spaceX team face harsher criticism regularly, anyway.

The same thing we do every night pinky; add moar boosters, and try to take over the world. That, and prototype and test attempts at a single stage to almost anywhere mk3 spaceplane, with mining and refining capability, without any real understanding of rocket science, aerodynamics or basic math. Great way to kill time. And kerbals.

This is really a language question. In reading this forum I've often seen eastern, or clockwise orbits referred to as prograde. Is this really correct usage? It's just been bugging me that real rocket scientists could have a situation where the instructions to burn prograde could be interpreted with diametrically opposed meanings.

Anytime I think of a game shipping broken, my mind jumps to skyrim. I'm surprised fewer comparisons with it come up. When it first released (on console, mind you) the game was almost unplayable. But I still considered it money well spent, restarting every 30 minutes and all. I Heard about KSP late, and didn't buy it till 0.9. Before that I played the demo, and if I'd paid as much for the demo, as I did for .9 ($30Aus) it would still have been one of the best, and by far best value of all the games I've played. It's not perfect, and it really shouldn't be consider as a >1.0 build since they're still adding features, but it's infinitely better than it's competition, because there is none.

I use a poorly thought out, and badly implemented system: -Greek/Roman gods for stations and satellite. -Birds for planes and spaceplanes. -Aquatic animals for rockets. Then I iterate them. So a basic jet might be the albatross. Then I add rockets and switch to turbojets and name it Albatross II. Then I realise it needs more thrust, add drop srb tanks, and call it Albatross II-A. Previous methods sound much better, so I shall be copying them from now on.

Thanks!

Like most, it seems, I mostly use FitH staging, for reasons of awesomeness and keeping the staging list short but do use the 2 step for precision. Someone mentioned earlier FitH faces challenges IRL that KSP doesn't model. I can imagine some kinda blow back issue from firing the engine with a surface to reflect it, is that it, or part of it? Also, if anyone cares to explain ullage I'd be greatful. I know I can look this up, but I love community support for this game, and figure other uninformed/unintelligent/unmotivated people would benefit from an explanation here too. Cheers in advance!

While the mk3 parts can certainly hold a decent amount of fuel, that doesn't really give the whole picture. As the OP said, there's other constraints weighing against them. Especially in the VAB. To the original reasons, I'd add that I believe they have worse wet/dry mass ratio? Not sure and can't check right now. For something like a modular interplanetary engines, among other things, it seems like a dedicated, liquid fuel tank for rockets specifically is justified.

The other day, trying to put a fairly small mining vessel in orbit. The design was a very slight modification (recently unlocked gigantor solar panels, switched mk2 to mk1 lights, etc.) to a previous design that was fine, but without changing it I apparently broke the ascent stage. Got so sick of flipping I eventually turned it into a gigantic vertically launched plane, added moar boosters and success!

Hey! I saw the title of the thread and it really captured my mood. I see the original post had kind of a different mood though, so I'd like to add to what other people have said, that depression really is just awful. It's great that you've found something that helps, and there really is a great community around this game. Talking really is the best thing. Though while it's a wonderful and supportive community, I would really suggest talking to someone close to you about your problems too. Sorry if you consider that intrusive. But as to the sentiment that bought me here, I wanted to say thank you too, to any and all reading this. It really is a great community, with supportive, welcoming, intelligent (and probably very handsome) people. People discuss things like rational adults, agree to disagree, apologise for misunderstandings and unintentional offence.

1) I have played sessions that started before lunch, and only ended because drifting in and out of consciousness makes docking so hard. 2) I Once entrusted the command of my entire space program to a shoe, a bottle cap and a strategically placed match for many hours, because my "rescue" lander was most of the way around the mun. 3) That same lander lacked a probe core, but was bough to the mun by a tug that had one. (Just coz.) I managed to get the lander down, with the equivalent of an orange tank plus engine balanced on top, but... 4) The landing was unstable, and I just kinda left it hoping it would be ok. When Kerbonaut Dugar reached his escape vessel, he was treated to the sight of it collapsing sideways. I think I nearly cried. I did scream. It was out of monoprop. Detaching from the tug and ramping off a hill only got him only halfway home. 5) Thus, my second ever manned landing + return took a total of 3 tugs, and 2 lander craft. 6) I have never seen a Scott Manley video and don't intend to; I think it would just upset me. 7) I have never known the TWR or dV of any of my vessels. Related, it was a long time lurking on these forums before I found out that pointing the explosion down till ap is >70k then sideways till you fly is BAD. I think seven is enough for now. This is my first post to the forum, so sorry if I have made any egregious faults in formatting or such. Thank you everyone else for sharing your stories and inspiring me to share my own.