Rocket In My Pocket

You can also double click the huge computer screen that says "DOCKING MODE"

Hardly ever use it, it's clearly a throwback to the first real satellite...however it differs in one key way. The only way to put stuff inside it is via part clipping (which is not very fun, not very intuitive, and considered cheap or cheaty by some.) The real life Sputnik obviously carried all it's important bits inside that spherical silver shell. I'd consider this part a way more useful/neat option if it opened up like a service bay in the VAB so that you could stuff things inside it to be protected from atmo/heat. It obviously wouldn't be able to be re-opened in flight like the other service bays which should make it an interesting early game combination of service bay/probe which is exactly what it is in real life.

It's clearly an omen. You need to get into game development and design a new franchise that is basically a love child of Halo's shooting/driving mechanics combined with KSP's exploration/vehicle building. Now go forth and do it so I can buy it!

This is a non-idea. You're basically suggesting a sequel to KSP that costs money, not exactly mind blowing, revolutionary stuff. Also, you say you hate subscription fees but then a sentence later you say you'd be willing to pay one...I mean what is it exactly your trying to say in this post? That you don't want KSP to become an MMO? We don't even have multiplayer so I wouldn't worry too much about that... Or are you just suggesting they stop working on KSP 1 and jump right to 2? Either way KSP is obviously a financial success since it's development is still going strong, so all of these points are fairly moot. If you are so desperate to give SQUAD more money, feel free to buy additional copies of KSP and hand them out to friends.

Classic internet reverse psychology. The best way to get a response on a forum isn't by asking a question. It's by giving the wrong answer to a question and watching while dozens of users scramble over each other to be the first to correct you. Case in point:

Hard to say exactly from the video but it's either a somewhat common physics bug based on attaching too many extendable things like solar panels onto a thin, long, light structure or part clipping. (I've seen a couple videos recently of the same thing happening to others and it kept coming back to having lots of solar panels arrayed around girders.) My first station did the same thing whenever I got within physics range of it with another ship, it would just tear itself apart and explode, came down to some batteries that were clipped into a structural girder. Your only hope is to possibly do some file editing and change the state of all the panels to undeployed, or maybe to remove it with hyperedit and redesign it, that's all I can really suggest. Hopefully someone will come along with a better suggestion on how to salvage the craft. Edit: Here's a link to another thread about the same problem.

Alt+F5 let's you create a named quicksave, so you don't have to overwrite previous saves. This allows you to go back to any point you wish, sort of like keeping your finger between the pages in a "choose your own way" book.

Because we don't want the KSP forums turning into Goldshire Inn.

If you turn on the aerodynamics display with F12 you can see that rotating wings do indeed generate lift in KSP, making a usable plane out of the concept is another thing entirely. The important thing is that the wing surfaces need to be angled so that they produce lift, look at the "propeller wings" in the picture you provided, notice how they are tilted back slightly from the direction they travel? The real problem you are going to run into is isolating the body of the aircraft from the rotating section.

The only compelling game play reason to use a plane in my opinion (aside from hoovering up biome science) are the career mode contracts they can be used to complete such as low altitude readings and surface samples on Kerbin, and that's only if they are reasonably close to the KSC. Spaceplanes are a different beast entirely and I think the cost benefit makes them worthwhile and gives them a place in the game. Stock KSP needs more contracts that involve flying a Plane on Kerbin, perhaps rescue missions, part recovery, tourism? (I realize there is a mod for this but as others have noted, SQUAD has spent a lot of time and effort on planes in stock so I think this should be addressed in stock.) I think a core issue here is the lack of timewarp over x4 while flying a plane, any trip of considerable distance will take forever, especially since depending on the stability of the design it may not even be capable of flying at x4. (I actually test and then rate each of my planes in their description box with the max time warp they can handle...lest I forget.) No one wants to watch a plane fly in a straight line for 2 hours, it's not fun. Any contracts regarding planes should be fairly close to the KSC, anything further would be so much easier to do with either a plane strapped to a rocket or an actual rocket that no one is going to go through the trouble. All that said, I'm a huge fan of flying planes in KSP and I probably spend more time designing and flying silly planes without ever leaving sight of the KSC than I do anything else in the game despite the lack of compelling game play reasons to do so.

There is something so ridiculously... Kerbal about your jet engine powered ladder car, I mean seriously...it pretty much sums up KSP engineering in one picture. It reminds me of all the times I just designed something haphazardly to do one specific task, piling on more and more boosters, or ladders, or struts, or whatever it was I thought it didn't have enough of to do the job. Then, months later as your scrolling through your ship list you stumble across it again and just shake your head in bemused appreciation, unsure what in the world you were thinking when you built it.

Science gathering parts. (Science Junior, Mystery Goo, Barometer, etc... Keeps them all neat and together.) Parachutes! (Good place to keep them safe from heat, just make sure you open the doors first! Also great place to stow back-up emergency parachutes in case the mains fail.) Extendable Radiators/Solar Panels. (Although potentially dangerous if you are not careful in your placement, I use this method a lot.) Back up parts! (A secondary battery, possibly a secondary antenna, a back-up floodlight, etc...) A Ladder? (Sounds odd I know but in a pinch a Kerbal can grab the ladder, close the doors and ride home safely inside the bay, just don't time warp or he'll pass through the wall!) Mk.1 Lander Can. (Yes this works, and it gives it some heat/crash protection it is sorely lacking otherwise.) Personally I love service bays, despite their tendency to summon the Kraken. I'm hard pressed to think of a part you couldn't stuff in a bay for some reason or other!

Technically, I was making a joke to poke fun at what I think is a silly rule. I mean on any other forum I could see that rule working out for the best, don't want umpteen posts from "steamkiddies" whining about the next patch taking too long. The KSP forums however are pretty mature for the most part, and the average thread posing this question is typically very innocent in nature. That said the mods rarely actually act on the rule, so I think they realize this as well.

To be fair this is a game about building your own stuff, encouraging people to embrace the spirit of the game and get creative can't really be a bad thing in my opinion. I don't think anyone was trying to be dismissive towards him, more so just realistic...it's likely that no one with the required skills to mod this will see it or be interested enough to do so. Rather than being offered no solution by nobody, he was offered several alternative solutions by several somebodies. This (to me at least) seems like the whole point of having a forum.

French space program? The French are only good at two things. Kissing and surrendering! On a more serious note, I'm 99% sure no mod exists currently to do this, In stock KSP it would be easiest to construct your own lightening strike tower in game and park it next to the launch pad. If you return to space center instead of recovering craft it will stay there forever so long as it isn't too close to the launch pad. Think of it as a fun challenge! I've built all sorts of structures for my KSC like Spotlight towers, Runway markers, even a SAM site! If you aren't afraid of a little modding, the aforementioned Kerbal Konstructs/Welding tool mods would be very helpful in setting up multiple towers that won't lag your launches up. Best of luck!

Several mods add the ability to first person EVA but I find it to be...unpleasant at best. Simply slapping a camera onto the Kerbal's face amounts to a shuddering janky viewpoint that looks and feels very unfinished. (No offense to said mods, you do what you can, with what you got.) Doing first person EVA right would require a lot of work I imagine. It's something I'd love to see but not at the cost of time/resources that could be spent on something more important.

In stock KSP I'd try lowering the sensitivity setting in the options menu. Also are you using Caps Lock to put the game in "Soft Control" mode which decreases the touchiness of the input? Failing either of those, you can download Claw's Stock Bug Fixes, which among other things lets you specify authority for each control surface.

Nobody asked SQUAD to look at other options, or devote any time, energy, or money to a modding site. The option is ours as a community to go elsewhere and not endorse or use Curse. That's all I'm suggesting.

You do realize the average person will never visit the forum or the offical KSP website to see that link right? Forum users are a minority, most new players are just going to google search "ksp mods" and end up at the main Curse page with all the Ads. I take it you like Curse? Could you explain what you find appealing about the site? Why you would choose it over a simpler and more elegant site like KerbalStuff? I'm honestly curious.

Sarcasm doesn't carry over text. My point was more so that you shouldn't mention illegal activities or places here lest you get this whole thread locked.

1. Off topic. 2. It's actually still up. 3. Not sure but you can probably get in trouble for even mentioning that name around here.

This is the only hard info I could find as of yet: http://www.curse.com/news/kerbal/49516-kerbal-space-program-and-curse-join-forces-on-mods

Cool Straw man argument but I don't respond to those.

I think it's far more likely the average user is going to end up on the main Curse page when google searching "curse" or "curse mods" so this is kind of a moot point.

Don't forget to sign up for your premium account on Curse guys! Only 3 bucks a month! Make sure you download the client too! I just visited the site for the first time in ages, and it's basically one giant obnoxious pink T-mobile ad. Oh and another thing...which one of these websites are we actually supposed to be using? http://www.curse.com/shareables/kerbal or http://kerbal.curseforge.com/ They are both different, and seem to feature different content organized in different manners...not confusing at all is it? ...I hate to say it but I think we should boycott Curse as a community. I hope this KerbalStuff alternative works out.