Netskimmer

I tend to think of wobbly rockets and a bug/design issue (I can't imagine that Squad intended them to act like that). So for me Structural Reinforcement Mod would fall under the category of stock bug fix.

Assuming the craft is manned and you don't have TAC LS or some other reason for continuous power, you could just lock off one of your batteries at full charge and then reactivate it in an emergency.

You can certainly make one, but some d-bag will inevitably take time to post in it about how he doesn't think it's worth his time to post in such a thread... This isn't about judging what other people are doing. It's just a place for people to put their 2 cents in about how THEY choose to play the game. You should also keep in mind that multi-player is coming so how others play the game just MIGHT become important to you.

Reminds me of that old engineers adage: "First make it work, THEN make it work better."

Center of mass is the key to "the flip." The flip is for more common in early career/science modes than it is later on. The reason for this is that these rockets are fairly light and the fuel in the initial stages make up a significant portion of their overall mass. This means that as the rocket burns its fuel, its center of mass changes drastically. Later multistage rockets have a lot more of their mass invested in engines and upper stages so the fuel consumption in the earlier stages doesn't effect their CoM nearly as much. A good way to test this is to build a simple rocket using the first liquid fuel tanks and the reliant engine. You should be able to stack enough of them to get enough DV to get into a good sub-orbital trajectory. The key is to lock off the fuel and oxidizer in the top tank (maybe the top 2 tanks) until you are getting low on fuel, then open them back up. This keeps your CoM from shifting too far down the rocket. Using this design, I had just enough DV just barely get into orbit with no gimbaling engine and no fins at all. My only means of control was the Mk I command pod. The rocket was rock-solid all the way up.

That would be interesting. I may, at some point, try to create a manually controlled ICBM to send a warhead into orbit and see if I can hit a dummy target on the ground. It could be a good learning exercise on how to accurately hit a specific landing site when returning to Kerbin, or landing on another body with an atmosphere.

I edited my original post to be a little more clear on what the poll is about. It's mostly about your philosophy in your own game and how it might effect multi-player.

A mesh of KSP and Space Engineers would be pretty cool. We also need the guys making 'Rouge System" to design IVA and cockpit controls.

It should be fine, I started a different thread to continue the discussion. I apologize for hijacking your thread, that was not my intent.

I created a poll in anther thread so the OP can have his back lol. Sorry again for that. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/124810-Militarization-of-KSP

Poll is up, for some reason, you have to make the post first, then add the poll.

I posted a comment in a thread today about people adding/building weapons into KSP and it got a lot of responses both for and against it so rather than continuing to hijack that poor guys thread, I thought I'd start another one with a poll. It feels wrong to me but that is my personal opinion and I'm not judging those that do it and I have no right to tell anyone how to play KSP. How do you feel about implements of war in KSP? Edit- wanted to clarify, the poll is not whether or not it should be allowed, it's a sandbox game with a great modding community that encourages creativity, so obviously it's up to the player to decide that. Squad has also made it pretty clear that they will not add them to the stock game. I just want to know what you personally think of adding them to your games. This could be really important with multi-player on the way.

I feel I should apologize to the OP. Didn't mean to hijack your thread.

This is my feeling exactly! I have mentioned several times that I am not judging those that do this and that I have no right whatsoever to tell someone else how to play this game, and I too greatly enjoy games like GTA and StarCraft and I even play CoD from time to time. For some reason, weapons, warplanes, and warships in KSP just feels wrong to me.

Yeah, blowing up your own stuff is one thing, blowing up other people's stuff is another. The last thing we need is for KSP to become "Rust in space".

They usually do that on their own I have seen a few massive failures and thought "well at least it was fun to watch" but I've never actually tried to design weapons to make it happen. Again, I'm not judging anyone, it just seems odd to me.

Do we have to weaponize/militarize everything? I realize it's your game and your free to do whatever you want with it and your certainly not alone in this area. I just don't get it. It seems like the first thing some folks do when they find one of the few games out there that isn't about killing things and blowing things up (intentionally) is to try to make it about killing things and blowing things up. I have no right to pass judgment on someone else's vision for any game, especially one with such an active modding community. I just have trouble wrapping my head around it.

Makes sense.

I haven't tried to mine an asteroid yet so I'm sure this is a stupid question but here goes. Wouldn't it be easier to just take the equipment to the asteroid and mine it where it is rather than drag the whole thing all the way back to Kerbin?

I was thinking of landing a base framework with docking ports facing upwards and having a docking port on the bottom of the modules and setting them down on the base so they dock with it. Not sure if it will work, but finding out is half the fun!

Awesome. Are those stock parts you are using to connect your base modules? I have several mods, but none that involve base building and I am planning to set up my first Minmus base soon. The thought of dropping the modules precisely enough to dock radially makes my butt cheeks clench...

cool, is there a limit?

Someone mentioned attaching another module to a science lab to put more scientists in it to buff lab. Does this actually work?

I would like to see something like this as well. It would be really cool if the sound changed with the altitude/atmospheric density. Starting as a really loud roar at launch and gradually becoming a low rumble in the vacuum of space.

FWIW, if all you are missing is some kerbals, it wouldn't take much to get a Mk 3 pod and a hitchhiker can to the Mun.