swjr-swis

Just wait until "It's over 9000!" ok sorry, that just had to come out. I'll go now.

Hoi rinie, welkom in 't Neerlandse draadje.

To let you know that if your (vertically launched) rocket's TWR isn't over 1, you won't be going to space today. Edit: I wish the forum would let us know before posting when someone has already answered a question. Mutter.

Impressive constructions, all of them. Very reassuring to know that if ever a Class E slips through our defenses and Kerbin faces total destruction, the technology and capability already exists for a mass exodus into space.

Offered for your consideration:

A display of some kind would be nice. Planting the actual craft around the KSC is already an option, but the added part count within physics range makes launches and landings a pain. Perhaps something that reuses the thumbnails somehow (or makes bigger thumbnails, not sure if there is such a hook in the API) and displays them on a few panels the size of the flag inside the hangar. I'd be happy with that.

Would be helpful to add some words too... for those of us that photobucket refuses to serve.

Just a comment: the word 'nerf' in the title gives a rather wrong impression of what this thread is actually about.

Routine Mission Manager gets close to what you describe, with some limitations and no official version beyond 1.0.4 yet.

Well, they have been: And now they made the Claw stock too. How's that for stock plus?

Tested, and yes, the imgur albums do show now on https. I would be totally fine with the site using a self-signed certificate, btw. It's not like we're doing anything security-sensitive on the site.

I tracked it to a reddit post. Someone proposed adding a Kerbal rocket to the NASA chart, and bsquicklehausen then posted exactly that. He/she doesn't actually claim it, but so far the oldest reference to it I can find: https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/2auz87/an_interesting_size_comparison_real_life_nasa_sls/

True. Thanks for finding the forum source (although WeirdCulture then mentions he found it on the Internet somewhere). And not sure why I titled this Daily Mirror instead of Daily Mail. Not sure if it makes much of a difference either.

Not sure if you want us to post about it or not... I hate to simply say 'me too' but not sure how else to show how many are affected. I think the symptoms I'm seeing are the same others already have alerted you to: Thumbnails of my own craft are not showing on the dashboard, instead showing a broken link icon - this actually changed today after refreshing cache to showing only the imgur album ID in text. I use imgur albums as the front page image for my craft. Over half of the craft on the main page do not show an image for me. Of those that do show an image, it's (seemingly at random) the same two pictures show for all of them. This is multiple crafts from different users, it seems unlikely they really all use the same two pictures for their craft. The ones that don't show a picture have what looks like an imgur album ID in the top left corner, so may be the same issue as the dashboard thumbnails. When I change to https access and accept the heroku cert, it does shows the thumbnails on the dashboard, and some of the other craft images if they are single images, but no Youtube links and no imgur albums. Which leaves my craft pages with a big blank space aside from the text. Changing back to http reverts everything.

So now we have news outlets attributing Kerbal rockets to NASA, on an article about Orion. Scroll down to the picture comparing the scale of different rockets. Left lower corner: Nasa. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3432512/Orion-Capsule-someday-humans-Mars-ready-begin-structural-testing-ahead-2018-lunar-flight.html Saved for posterity on imgur, just in case they edit it.

Based on what I learned from KSP, I'd install a cosmic Custom Asteroid mod and spawn a dense spherical 'belt' of asteroids in low-to-med orbits. The asteroids would have to be composed of pure diamond to be strong enough to kill other stuff in collisions, and simultaneously still allow sufficient (refracted) sun light to reach the planet surface for survival. As an entirely unintended secondary effect, our planet would become every other alien species' female best friend.

There's a couple of mods that move the R&D tree around for a more natural progression, like surface and atmospheric travel before space, instead of the other way around.

I see a lot of assertions of 'laws of nature' that supposedly make immortality an impossible or self-defeating trait. That statistics or evolution do not favour it or make it undesirable. That physics, or DNA, or environmental constraints would never allow it. That unlimited lifespans would effectively turn a species into the equivalent of a pest or a cancer. Etc etc etc. Basically, all the usual responses one could expect from a sentient species who have yet to master living in peace and balance with themselves and their environment long enough to even observe and experience a longer lifespan first hand, let alone learn what actually defines it or how to thrive in that 'condition'. I think we are afraid to admit that we simply do not know. We do know there are observable examples in nature of species with (to us) extremely short and extremely long lifespans, and everything in between. For any supposed direct or inverse correlation we think to have found with size or evolutionary 'advancement' or environmental constraints, there are examples of successful species that show the opposite to also be possible. There are actually examples of species we have never observed dying of old age at all - although that by itself is not considered a proof that it wouldn't happen ever (physics case in point: we still don't fully accept that a proton may be inherently 'immortal', even though we've never observed the natural decay of it). I submit the following pieces of biological evidence to this exchange: Turritopsis dohrnii (the immortal jellyfish) - indication that biological aging can not only be stopped but fully reversed, then back again, at 'will', as far as we know indefinitely. Hydra - indication that tiny organisms could be immortal, without overrunning the environment, and that this is not linked to either sexual or asexual reproduction (Hydra can do both). Planaria (flatworm) - indication that full regeneration is possible for all organs and body parts, including nervous systems Pinus longaeva (bristlecone pine) - indication that immortality does not necessarily require mobility Populus Tremuloides (quaking aspen) - indication that huge organisms could be immortal Lomatia Tasmanica (king's lomatia) - indication that immortality does not necessarily require genomic diversity Tardigrade (water bear) - indication that a single species can survive large variations of environmental extremes and dangers without first having to change, adapt or diversify in evolutionary sense or reach technological 'independence' from the environment. Iow, survival of a biologically immortal species is not inherently made impossible by environmental changes or extremes. And intelligence or technological advancement is not a requirement. There's also tortoises, lobsters, sturgeons, that for all we have observed may be biologically immortal despite complexity, reptilians that teach us that regeneration is possible for complex organisms, sharks that show that cancer is not an absolute inevitable result of living 'too' long, etc. All taken together, I think there is quite a bit of evidence that biological immortality is not only very possible, but that a biologically immortal species does not necessarilly end up destroying itself or the environment, and that the trait does not by and of itself inhibit success as a species. So the OP question is very very valid: why indeed isn't it everywhere around us. Why sacrifice the individual for the survival of the species, if it does not seem to be a requirement? Very interesting discussion so far, but I feel that some of the responses are more indicative of how we try to 'justify' our own lack of longevity, than of how much we truly know about it.

Rockets to go to space, planes to stay atmospheric (*), rovers for surface, boats/subs for sea... there's a pattern in there somewhere. Crew transfers between surface and local orbits are pretty much the only exception. Other than that, my payloads into space are often heavy and bulky and unfit for cargo bays, which quickly rules out spaceplanes as a viable launch method. The other reason: why send it up in multiple cargo-bay-sized pieces and repeatedly do the rendevouz-and-assemble dance in space, if I can send it up in a fraction of the time in one huge fiery blaze of liquid testosterone, and be starting the transfer burn before the spaceplane would've even made it back to KSC to refuel and pick up the second piece? (*: 'plane' in my case has a very loose definition. Sometimes they may actually look more like a rocket. Or something out of a movie. Or ... an open-wing Model F308 concert grand piano. I mean, just saying, my atmospheric crafts don't necessarily have traditional looks. )

Transparent pods... it makes sense that something that tries to make the IVAs visible while not in IVA would have an issue with this. Good job filtering this one out. I added a vote to your post so it moves up there for others to find. Edit: @Bluebottle, JSITransparentPod is part of RasterPropMonitor (RPM). I think in general we can conclude that for systems that suffer a noticeable performance impact from showing IVAs through the portraits, it is a Bad Idea to add a mod that makes IVAs much more detailed (like RPM, or crewed parts that depend on RPM). Basically there's a choice to be made what is considered more important: bling or fps.

Hmm. There's a bit of a catch 22 with this one. I would like there to be a little more error tolerance for this too, and naively I think of the game having some sort of generic placeholder part that is used instead of the missing or corrupted part. The problem is that the properties of a single part can completely change the properties of a ship, in some cases even when unloaded and 'on rails': eg. how many of which resources are on it, uses electric charge or not, participates in a relay network or not, makes a craft controllable or not, etc. In other cases it's the properties of that one part that may make it viable or not explode at all. The game cannot simply make an assumption on any of these things, and since some of these properties are checked and processed every single time step in the game, or at scene or focus changes, they can't be left undefined. And that's exactly the problem with 'invalid parts': the definition at load time is missing, be it due to a missing mod or a corrupted file or patch somewhere, so the game knows nothing about what the part does for the ship, resulting in the entire ship being in limbo. Not sure how that could be solved properly.

@Quijote Este mod cambia las cosas para que puedas hacer misiones sin tripulación antes:

La verdad es que no estoy seguro, porque no me dió por fijarme en detalle mod por mod. Pero me imagino que los mods que añaden nuevos modelos y texturas, como el SpaceY (las piezas) y el KerbinSide (los edificios) son los que más memoria consumirán. Por lo general, las texturas son lo que consumen más memoria, especialmente si son muy detalladas. Los mods que son más bién programación usan poca memoria.

How about both? I like both ideas. Can we get both?

Placing control surfaces so they are .. trailing, for the lack of a better word, compared to the direction of flight, I've so far always been able to somehow convince them to work the way I need them to. Takes some fiddling sometimes but I've always found a way. The final test to make sure always needs to be while at least slightly in forward motion, because what they do in the SPH/VAB or even when at standstill is sometimes not representative of how they will work once moving. My problem is where I tried to create a craft that works in both directions, and so I needed to add control surfaces that would work correctly both when trailing and 'leading'. Except that when leading, no matter what I do, they will completely refuse to react to my control inputs the correct way and do the exact opposite. So the only workaround I've found is to effectively make them fixed when I need to reverse flight, which unfortunately is a manual thing that can't be pegged to an action group to do inflight (in stock). In any case, thanks for checking.