Jestersage

Question: is Star Clipper type shuttle valid, or considered as SSTO and this not valid?

Question: 300 words in English or one of the 4 new language?

在外国的中国留学生還是在華的学生？

Want to pick your brains, Raptor9: If you need to carry Mk3 cockpit, 2 Mk3 cabin, a lab, and an ISRU-Drill combo to Duna surface AND back, would you go with NITE with extra fuel tanks and more poodles (0.33 inital TWR, but at around high 4k dv), or would you just go with rhino (Inital TWR of around 0.75, but dv of around 4k)? EDIT: used hyperedit to find out NITE can barely depart from Duna in a timely manner.

Uh... Is this still going on?

Well, one can immigrate from China...

The monoprop is for the contract (1650 in your "station"... which is actually a tourist ship o_O) There are no station around Munar orbit, so may as well do the "expansion". So what I ended up doing is: Autostructing to grandparent, especially the area around the ringhub. Changed from Jupiter-III "Main-stack-contain-all-thruster" to conventional Aspargus staging. Jupiter-III actually discard the atmo rocket to reveal 5x J-2X (VAC rocket) though Technically speaking, that will make them into Paris-III. At least that give me an excuse to make the Paris-VII.

How do I switch it in VAB/Editor? As for B, I guess that means going back to the conventional Asparagus Staging...

So my second attempt+revert of my launch of Nautilus-X clone (while satisfying career contract, hence the ISRU and extra large monoprop tank) on a Jupiter-III clone ended with failure. This is my craft: http://pastebin.com/S5jeTNYK Situation: After launch, the rocket begin to rotate or sway quite a bit. I am sure I did not clip anything into it that caused such issue. KER indicate TWR is more than enough with starting at 2. Proposal 1) MOAR structs? I have heard sometimes moar structs/autostructs causes more issues 2) As of now Jupiter III is a straight clone of Teamvision's proposal, and thus all the first stage thrusters is in the main stack. I actually have a version of Jupiter-III that use conventional-KSP asparagus staging, such that each parallel stage contain a Mammoth. 3) Remove the Nuclear service module and thus decrease weight 4) remove the Senior docks in some area Question: Which one should I pick? Sidenote: Jupiter-III design originated from TeamVision's 2006 DIRECT proposal. People speculate the Hab-ring is the only purpose for such Kerbal-like contraption on Earth.

Science mode or Carrier?

Result inconclusive. Upon docking the old station to the new one, the Mission contract ended up referring to the old station. Discarding some parts on the new station changed the referal to its debris. Mods that I have used: KER, Hyperedit, KVV, Stage recovery, Trajectory What to say to other people: Not worth the risk. Build and launch new component will be safer.

Station A is definitely older than accepting contract (and older than Station B)

So does that mean I can't use an existing station (station A) to expand Station-B to satisfy a contract placed on Station B?

Hijacking this thread: Any generated science must be transmitted, not carried by the Data container, right?

I have received a station expansion contract for my Munar station, and I realized that one of my Kerbin Stations (which still have a Rhino attached and plenty of fuel) can dock to my Munar station to satisfy the requirement. However, knowing about timecode of the ship, I am wondering if that is possible-- the Kerbin station is older of the two. So how does the timecode work? Does it always use the oldest component's timecode to determine whether the end-result would satisfy the contract? Or would my original plan (dock the Kerbin station to Munar station) satisfy the contract regardless?

版主有什麽責任？你要的中文程度要有多高深？還有版主是不是要在北京時間看板？（北京跟PST有16小時的時差） (What are the duty for the moderators? And what language level are you look for? And do they have to do their duties according to Beijing time (There is 16 hours difference from PST)

Not mandatory at all. You can turn it off, or turn it up to require even more relays.

Slightly related, are there any purpose to have a KLAW on a rover?

I see. I am debating whether to use Cupola, or to use the landing can mk-1 and KLAW. Cupola and KLAW make it looks ugly. Also, it's hard to type on mobile. Keep having those extra tag. Android phone doesn't have del. How do I take out the rich format and just use the codes?

So my understanding is: Contracts for base in general have a preference for cupola Even if I have (or don't have a cupola), it will not affect the base expansion contract on whether it will ask for one. <-- This is the more important question.

While I finally make a good looking mobile lab that isn't a humongous land train (small enough I am calling it MOLAB), a concern is that when I use it in Career mode, it will eventually ask for a Cupola, which I didn't have on this one. So I am wondering: Does the base contract generators have a preference to ask for a Cupola? Or is it just RNG, totally random?

I am tempted to go back into the Alcubierre Drive mod. That being said, I want my stock save to still be functional in a stock game. Does that work as it is, or do I need to take further pre-cautions? EDIT: Should I have move this to Gameplay questions?

Too bad some of the gate crasher have no links... TemStar's VTOL is more fun to play with.

Would you share the craft file at KerbalX? Seems good.

How is waypoint manager different from Trajectory mod?