AVaughan

@golfsoccer9 : For an early Lunar flyby I normally use the 20 inch X-ray detector. That has only a 1W power draw, and plenty of battery to last till after the flyby. Just make sure that after you have the flyby setup, you decouple the transfer stage, and everything you don't need that will drain power.

From memory, -90 works

I have trouble landing planes, so I never build any in RP-0. But in stock KSP before about 1.3, the starting landing strip was terribly bumpy, and the standard workaround was to taxi off the runway and onto the grass, and takeoff/land there. (That is perfectly flat). I normally start with a wac-corporal, and have never had the proc wings burn off during ascent, but as I said we probably have different parts mods. (My install is also a few months out of date, so I expect at least some mods are at different versions. There are also a few different proc wing mods available, so we might be using different proc wing mods. I have a version of B9-aerospace wings I installed on Feb 05. Manually installed, so it might have been manually patched. Whatever @Bornholio's spreadsheet was recommending at that time). Are you using part kits for the Aerobee stage? I always use proc tanks and I start both engines and release the launch clamps at T-0, and probably slightly overburn the Aerobee. I've uploaded a Wac-Corporal design to Google Drive https://drive.google.com/open?id=19XNSx4kyStO5h_7vkZRwlCK-h198M6cD . On my install the wings max out at about 345 degrees during ascent, and burn off during descent. (But that isn't a problem at that time).

I have also used the X-1 cockpit for sub-orbital manned altitude contracts. From memory I added something blunt right behind the capsule, then used the offset tool to move it to the front of the capsule, so I had 2 blunt ends, wrapped everything in a fairing, then used a rocket to go nearly vertical. It got up to around 160km. (If you shut the engine down early you can do multiple contracts, each with a higher altitude). That got my kerbonauts enough experience that no-one retired before I got a proper capsule.

When I was learning to play, moving eva kerbals was something a struggled with. I'm not sure about the current version but back then kerbal attachment system came with a winch that could be attached to the kerbal's back, and reel him in if he got in difficulties. Now KAS and KIS have undergone some changes since then, so that might not work anymore. I'd also like to second Garamels comment and say take the time to learn use the eva pack. Have patience when moving kerbals around on eva. Unless you are transferring from ship to ship, eg a rescue mission you don't need more a puff of eva to get him moving about 0.3 m/s which is fast enough to move around his vessel. (Your kerbal set his ship as his target. This makes it easy to see how fast he is moving). Be slow and patient. Your subsequent attempt to learn how to dock will be much easier if you have mastered maneuvering with the eva pack.

Well I had a quick look at this on my rp-1 install (which hasn't been updated for a few months, so certainly isn't uptodate). I started a new game and designed a new Aerobee + Tiny Tim rocket. (I used procedural tanks and procedural wings like I normally do). I put all the starting points in VAB build rate (again like normal, once I get some science points I'll be able to unlock a tech and can then put that point into research rate. I'll typically buy a few points early on as well). Before I tooled the tanks, KCT said the Wac Corporal would take about 63 days. After tooling that dropped to 21 days. (Normal difficulty, with the RP-0 KCT preset. That matches my recollection of earlier games as well. Subsequent rockets should be faster to build as kct rewards using the same parts with faster build times). So my best guess is that either something was wrong in your original playthrough, or you weren't using the RP-0 KCT preset. For the second playthrough, 36 hrs seems a little fast for a Wac Corporal design at the start of career, but is probably possible if you put enough points in VAB build rate. (By the time I did a geostationary launch in career I was able to push out my workhorse comsat/weathersat design in 7-10 days last time I played).

It not the sending part that is expensive. It's the designing, building and testing of the telescope and sunshield where most of the money is spent.

There used to be an option to send progress information back to the developers. I can't find that option anymore, so maybe they removed the option, but left the code in? The easiest way might be to run wireshark and see what address ksp is connecting to, and capture the sent info.

If they are just hashing raw ipv4 addresses, then it's trivial to hash all ipv4 addresses to sha-256 and create a lookup table that enables you to retrieve the original ip address from the hash. (There might be better/faster ways to do it, but the brute force approach will work). So at best hashing just obscures the original address. If the original address is considered personal info, then the hash should be considered personal info as well. The only way around this that I can think of is to somehow merge the ip address and the username, and then hash that. But for users with static ip address, even that will probably result in a hash that is unique to that user, and hence can be used to uniquely identify that user, and in my opinion should still be considered a personally unique identifier. The silly thing is that for computer games, in general I don't see adds as being a driver of sales. Reviews and Youtube gameplay videos are much more likely to influence my purchasing decisions.

You can simply plan a path that is tangent to the docking port, and time your arrival so the ship and the docking port both arrive at the point where tangent touches the circle, with the same velocity and at the same time. In the real world you could aim for a 0.2 metre gap, and have the docking clamps reach out and grab the ship at the point of closest approach. (You could start the ship rotating during it's approach, so that at the moment of docking the ship is motionless from the perspective of the docking port/clamps). From memory they pump water around to adjust the center of mass to compensate when things dock/undock. But stations have gone unstable in that universe (typically stations that aren't being properly managed). But in the real world you probably couldn't transfer enough water fast enough to handle something as massive as Norway docking to the rim of a station at 1g, but Cherryh's worlds are more space opera rather than hard science fiction, so we aren't dealing with the constraints of the real world. (In the real world you could probably thrust inwards for a few minutes and maintain a powered orbit around the rotation point of the station, which would give enough time for the docking ports/clamps to engage and latch, and allow the station time to transfer fluid to maintain its center of rotation).

The other argument in favour of nervs and rapiers, is that with 4 rapiers you can probably ditch the turbo ramjets, and save even more mass.

So will Steam workshop properly handle the use case of a user has mods installed, the game updates, and some of the mods get an immediate update to make them compatible with the new KSP version. Next time the user goes to play ksp he gets the updated kps and the updated mods, and some of the mods that haven't updated yet either don't load, or don't work. So his modded save is now unplayable. Next he tries using the steam beta branches to revert to the previous version of ksp. Will steam correctly revert his updated mods to versions compatible with the previous version of ksp, and allow him to continue his save game? I realise there are mods where this sort of compatibility isn't a problem, but there are also mods like kopernicus which are tied to specific ksp versions, and make whose sudden loss would make the save virtually unplayable, as well as mods whose loss would mean that ships in transit would suddenly vanish. I'm sure that technical solutions for that and steam workshop could be found, but we already have that. It is called ckan. It would be better for KSP to get a new launcher that integrated ckan-like functionality. That way the player could revert to exactly the same ksp version and modlist he had been playing with. As a bonus it would also support non-steam players as well. Well the real mistake is playing a modded Steam install. For a modded game I recommend always copying the ksp install to a folder outside of steam and installing mods in the copy. That way your modded install won't get automatically updated when ksp updates. (This is also why I'm not a fan of calls to add mods to steam workshop. It just seems like another recipe for a similar issue to what @sathill experienced).

Fair enough I shouldn't have said "never". It can be done. But as your screenshot shows it requires large wings on the booster, wings that might be larger than the shuttle's wings, to achieve something that is aerodynamically stable.

Shuttle style lifters are easier than mounting a winged spaceplane on top of a booster. (That is never going to be aerodynamically stable). You can also do something similar to Falcon Heavy/Delta Heavy, and mount a pair on boosters on the spaceplane's wingtips and/or 2 pair of boosters attached to the wings.

I sometime use the Steam version directly, but only for a pure vanilla experience. (Typically straight after a major update drops, and I want to look at the changes whilst waiting for mods to update).

I've seen pictures of BFRs docked side to side, and side to ISS, so I think that the design includes (or at least used to include) a dorsal mounted docking port suitable for personal transfers. (Dorsal from the point of view of a BFR during atmospheric re-entry). For the space tourism in LEO case, you probably don't need to transfer propellant, just passengers and luggage. (If you are using this to test BFRs life support setup for a Mars mission, then you don't even need to transfer food/water/oxygen, since you should be able to launch with enough of those to last the full 6+ months).

Another potential revenue generating "use" for BFR is space tourism. Assuming SpaceX can get BFR human rated for tourist trips to LEO, they could offer 24 hr and 1 week tourist trips to LEO. Doing that they could also test the life support facilities for multi-month trips. (For long duration testing send up a BFR that will act as a hotel for a 6 month duration, then every week send up a new load of tourists, dock to the hotel BFR, and swap passengers. This could provide a revenue source for long duration life support testing, and improvements to living arrangements, with the possibility of a quick return to Earth if something fails and can't be fixed in space). If you were going to pay for a space tourist experience, would you rather pay for 10 mins of zero g with Blue Origin, or pay more for 24 hrs or so on BFR? (If they can get launch/training/crew costs down to $20M per launch, then 40 paying customers at $1M each is profitable).

Well the thread for the part switcher is Note that the thread title implies it is updated for 1.4.3 already.

I'm just guessing at the cause of your problem, but one possibility is remotetech deciding you have no comm link and shutting the engines down. Check that you have some sort of antenna. Avionics normally have a built in antenna, but you could try adding another antenna as well. There is also an option in remotetech's settings to disable that behaviour.

So that would mean that an Ammolox engine would have around 320 ISP? According to wikipedia the Methane/Lox vacuum engine SpaceX is developing has a vacuum ISP of 375. So even is Ammolox is easier to make and store, Methane/Lox is a more efficient rocket fuel.

Not quite what the OP had in mind, but the devs could also add some tiny pseudo SOIs at the Lagrange points. They could be considered part of their parent's bodies SOI for most purposes, (sort of like the how launchpad and crawler way are "mini-biomes").

Most mods that are available for 1.3.0 will either have a 1.3.1 version, or the 1.3.0 version will work in 1.3.1. (There are probably some exceptions, but they should be pretty uncommon). Which mod in particular needs 1.3.0?

To me, that is not a new bug. I've seen that happen since at least 1.3 and 1.2. (Modded games. It might have happened in stock as well, but I don't play much stock KSP). To me, it's just a visual glitch, with no gameplay effect.

But she is going to be a Keeper. So maybe the birth of a new class of Scientist-Keeper. Someone who uses Kerman technology to help live a Kermol lifestyle. (Or you could argue that she is the second Scientist-Keeper, since Jonton was arguable conducting an experiment when he planted an extra Kerm cutting).

Is there any reason they couldn't just capture the hydrogen boil off, and re-liquify it? (Although it might be easier/more efficient to just use insulated tanks, manage ship orientation to help keep the hydrogen tanks as cool as possible, and bring extra hydrogen to deal with the remaining boil off). This sort of process (hydrogen + carbon dioxide -> methane + water, with the water then split into hydrogen + oxygen) could be run in a plant that was installed in an automated BFR that was sent on a conjunction before a manned mission. That way they could demonstrate that everything the plant was working, and that fuel would be available for the return leg of a manned mission. By not relying on extracting water from Martian soil, there should be less that could go wrong for an automated fuel generation mission. (By my math, 80 tons of hydrogen would make about 960 tons of methane + liquid oxygen. which is close to full tanks for a BFR cargo ship. That would mean such a BFR could still bring about 70 tons of fuel production plant or other cargo. Since a fuel production plant would already need the equipment to liquify oxygen, maybe it's not too much of a stretch to also include the ability to liquify hydrogen). Water extraction from the Martian soil could wait for a manned mission.