Jestersage

I am fine. But seems like the maintainer just plainly denied. Well, have to start somewhere for the fork, I guess... May split the community, but hey, why not?

Thank you. This thread shows why KSP NEEDS DLC: To prevent the need of modulemanagers. Hopefully KSP2 will make sure something like this does not happen. Also, the reason why memes must be limited: There are too many malwares. As some people point out, this game is causal. If so, do you want people to actually consider KSP be malware ridden because a community hijacked the game? we already have the KSP-Chinese fiasco. A real world doesn't demand one to take computer 101. In fact, security courses, such as those used by KnowBe4, which we give to our staff actually demand people to question and if you will, panic (and contact IT). It's only IT people who is suppose to be not panick - not causals or normal people, the target audience of this game. In fact, as my boss stated, "If they are not panicking and fearing, they are not learning". [snip]

Post it on KerbalX would be better, at least for this forum, since to download Steam crafts you need to login with a Steam version KSP.

So I am trying to create some kind of shuttle, and one thing I read about is crossrange. Now, by dictionary, it is "distance to a landing site that it can fly to either side of its original entry flight path". But what does that actually means in terms of shuttle orbiter? And also, someone say this of shuttle landing: Not sure what that person mean. Can someone explain it too?

Professionalism. I would actually want T2 to just take it and remove the nyan cat. It's how much I hate it.

Give us an option to remove the nyan cat from the loading screen due to the module manager. Thanks.

After using the mod, my only conclusion is of following: While there is always some collider, it is vigorously enforced for engine plate attachment nodes. So if there is ANY clipping in there, you got yourself a kraken. Test done to reach above: clipping a bunch of parts, such as Ion-engine: a-okay Put the above parts under an engine plate mount: instant kraken

How did you fly your SVR-20 (STS shuttle clone)?

Is it possible to make a mission where a Kerbalnaut cannot exceed a very low amount of G/acceleration even in space?

Okay, hate to answer my own question, but a quick seat-of-the-pant test indicate where it is going to start favoring 1xWolfhound: at 46t, created through a combination of the KV-3 capsule and S3-7200. Ofocurse the TWR is less than 1, but still much better than Poodle. Over all, the Wolfhound will have better TWR consistently, but worse Delta-V -- until that point, in which the the Wolfhound is only 10m/s less. Switching out to S3-14400 and Wolfhound actually jumped ahead.

Can someone provide the geometry of the engine plate's collider? I notice that some parts/fuel tanks (usually 1.25m, but even 0.625m parts), if attached to the mount nodes of the plates and then moved in or out, then during launch it will begin first by spinning (if not just wobbling) before RUD. If these parts are attached to each other without engine plates however, they can clip it to impossibility, and RUD still does not occur. If someone can provide pointers or information about how the engine plate and items attach to it works in terms of part clipping, that would be great.

Part of the reason I am askign abotu Wolfhound is that it would be nice to have a TWR that is horrible, but better ISP (and overall delta V) than poodle, not both as bad (and good) as NERV.

Yeah, been experimenting as a test. Guess I have not hit the limit yet -- been testing up to S3-7200. How big is your hypotheorical outbound transfer stage is?

I am still trying to compare between Wolfhound and Poodle, and so far, it seems that Poodle have better Delta V, while Wolfhound have better TWR. Is that correct, or my game is corrupted?

Seeing the Almaz/Saylut clone, some people probably guessed I have a TKS in work. It ended up being a back-and forth endeavour that gone nowhere until the 1.6 Mk2 lander arrived to save the day... anyway, here it is: While some people may still find it a bit lego-y compared to a few other builds, my focus on part count means something got to give. Yes, I know -- 53 parts in orbit, but it really could have been a lot more ugly, out of scale, and much higher part counts.

Question: In what situation would you put up a component by itself instead of joining it with a Launcher?

I think most of my followers of this thread would have guess its eventual creation due to my Proton clone -- so here it is: my Almaz clone, the Adamas-LCP2Tr4 APOS, is now up: I think after this, I will start to work on completing the Lunar Program before moving to Constellation modules. (Yes, they are in work, just not high priority)

It's from the Chinese movie "Wandering Earth". To my understanding, United Earth scientist basically made Earth into an interstellar spacecraft. Its a prop, but a beautiful prop nonethess. Now, someone should make a mod so a real Wandering Earth can be done. Edit: Yes, it actually caused teh surface uninhabitable. And earthquakes and etc. But hey, at least some people survive.

Yet another quick update: this time, it's my "balanced" replica of proton. At the bottom right hand corner of the poster, you will notice my next project, my Almaz-APOS clone. Functionally, it's pretty much finalize, but its looks may or may not be improved. Why do I call it "balanced"? The problem with many proton clone is the use of Vector. Overkill and too expensive. So prior to 1.6, I was using Skiff... but the rebalance screwed up the TWR. After deciding to forgo the nozzle aesthetic , I decide to just go with Kodiak+Cub. The other aesthetic concession I made is the use of Bobcat instead of 4x1.25m thrusters (too low TWR) or use 1x Skipper (Aesthetic concession, but is actually better)

Based on what I know, the SEV and even one of the Altair concept is to have a base pressurized module that can be transfered between different modules for maximum reusability. This is especially true for the Lunar rover variant, where the presurized module is mounted with ATHLETE legs, and can detach from the decent/ascent module and be used as a rover to shuttle between the lander and base (should the lander be landed far away), and then back onto the ascent module for take off. It actually make sense -- like space shuttle maximize reusability. Or how in KSP many made the rover-lander combo.

So a quick update in this page: I had uploaded the ErX version of the LyncBon, and based on the upvotes and reddit comment, the ErX is more favored. Along with it is the appearance of my Workhorse 2.5m Rocket, "Ladle ErCC". Despite being based on Zenit/Soyuz-5/RD-170 rockets, I actually utilize the Mastadon in order to lower the price of the rocket (If I really have to follow through with the power comparison to F-1, it should have been the Mainsail...). In any case, Click on my signature to see it. Also, when I realize all capsules can have orientation changes, I updated the orientation of the Dongmeng and Dongmeng-G so the Kerbals are not off by 90 degrees from the traveling direction. I also added the radiators to the Dongmeng-G's Orbital module for added thickness.

So what is your poison? (Teacher's and KVINT in my case... the latter may have spoke to me a bit more... and do not be surprise if I actually start to make something name "Koniaki" )

Yes, it was an early (1.0-1.3) design. A 2-person open flyer at the top of LV-1C/LV-2C habitation use lander. The 1.0-1.2 edition utilize monoprop engine, while 1.3 utilize LFO engine. For reason only known to him he decide to depreciate them.

Isn't the Lunar Escape System the inspiration for ER-V (both the mono prop version and the LFO version)?

Yeah, that's what I meant -- I forgot EOR may also implies assemble a lander for direct landing. And thanks for the answer (the boil off is one of those stock-ksp-does-not-teach stuff)