ARS

Every craft that I make is always named with 2 words, one of them is always related with space or weather phenomenon, such as: Crimson Sunset (Giant passenger plane) Faraway Sky (Science SSTO) Grateful Sunray (Tourist SSTO) Rolling Thunder (Mobile mining base) Starlight Dream (General purpose SSTO)

Munar return, mk1 capsule with jeb inside. Circularized kerbin orbit. Trying to adjust reentry angle... Fuel depleted. Reentry angle is too sharp, G-force makes jeb unconscious, I can't control the craft, can't open parachutes. When he regained consciousness, the capsule is already 600m above ground....

Look your ship at the VAB/SPH and right click your engine, click fuel overlay. This will show you the fuel glow that connects to that engine. Make sure you have all tanks that contains fuel connected in fuel flow (use fuel duct in fuel tank part, yellow pipe thing) or did you have any decoupler or separator on that ship? Right click that part and enable crossfeed so fuel can flow through

I'm personally not concerned about the energy, since the story is already handwaved it by having arc reactor producing infinite energy as the plot demands (well, as in most superhero). The one that really bugs me is the fact tony survived after an arced blaster jump from that cave and survived a crash at terminal velocity with DIY armor (with a box of scraps!). Okay, maybe we can technobabble how arc reactor produces repulsive force, but how the hell we explain inertia canceller with armor made from missile parts? (With a box of scraps!). Or that even when he's being shot out of the sky (by a tank shell no less), even if the armor able to survive such a crash, tony is still mostly bones and flesh anyway, how you dampen inertial effect from such a crash within metal armor? (Though I even more concerned about how the hell that tank gunner able to aim at a small high speed target like tony and managed to score a hit on first shot with tank's main gun)

So here's my question: There are 2 hypersonic fighter jet, they have the same max speed, performance, etc. But they have different propulsion method Craft 1 use hypersonic scramjet engine attached on rear section that provide thrust that push the aircraft forward Craft 2 use an advanced phlebotinum engine powered by handwavium (basically fictional engine), that propel the craft without actually provide thrust, but accelerate all parts of the craft at the same time forward Both craft travel at the same speed. Craft 1 moves by being pushed by the engines like normal jet configuration Craft 2 moves by accelerating all of it's parts at the second time forward My question is, does craft 2 has better performance in terms of withstanding the air resistance? Since in craft 1, the whole airframe is being pushed, but in craft 2, the whole airframe parts is moving at once

My usual setup is that, number 1, 2, 3... (ascending sequence) is for flight control related AG (change engine modes, turn off individual engines, change SAS mode, etc) while 0, 9, 8... (descending sequence) is for non flight related AG (solar panels, ISRU, extend drills, deploy/retract radiators, cargo doors, collect all science to container, use all science instrument at once, etc.)

Assuming that it's in space, without any air resistance that will compromise structural integrity of the craft, and we ignore fuel limitation, with the booster configuration depicted on the video (dual full 360 degree independent thrust vectoring on vertical axis, allowing the craft to execute roll, yaw and pitch with those pair of boosters to rapidly change movement vector with sudden maneuver), is it possible to create a space fighter that moves and fight like the one usually depicted in space battle movies?

Shaking solution: on main menu, go to settings, and activate advanced tweakables. Now right click every part of your ship and autostrut it. It reduces wobble or shaking, especially on large, multi-part ship. You can also enforce the connection between parts using strut connector (available on contruction part tab, it's basically duct tape for rockets) Also, why ion? It has very low thrust and consumes a lot of power (but high efficiency though). It's intended for small satellites or space probes, not for powering the thrust for something that's carrying liquid fuel+oxidizer, fuel is heavy (well, unless you are trying to do something different). If you make a ship with 20 ions and 12 gigantors, I can guess that your ship would be massive (and unsurprisingly, prone to wobble and shaking). Use nuke instead (LV-N engine). It has high efficiency, consumes only liquid fuel (no oxidizer required), still allows precise orbital maneuver and does not need power to operate. The downside is you need to slap some radiator to prevent overheat, and a rather heavy, large profile engine. But still, using nukes, with it's high efficiency, low thrust (but still higher than ions) is still a more reliable choices for interplanetary travel since it considerably reduces part count compared to ion engine-powered ship Unless you're trying to do something like @Stratzenblitz75. Check out his mission with ion engines:

Drawing, Gaming, Reading, Travel to somewhere using bicycle, Thinking about new story or stuff to build in KSP, or simply stargazing at night I'm a carefree person, so I'm just living with easygoing attitude

For me: - No hyperedit - alt+F12 can only be used in sandbox mode - save often, especially before something critical - gamebreaking parts is okay as long as they are not totally ridiculous (like ion thruster with TWR of 4000 and consume 0,000000001 xenon and electricity)

So does that means earth is gonna be completely obliterated? And what'll happen to the rest of the celestial bodies?

If the energy of the star (aka total energy produced for the duration of it's life until it's death) around the magnitude of our sun is used to ignite a single explosion (all of that energy is used in a single, massive explosion instead of sustained fusion like our sun) and detonated at the center of solar system, would it be enough to destroy a planet like earth? What's the effect on other planets in solar system?

Happy to help

1. Put a decoupler/ separator or docking port inside the cargo bay node. Then put the stuff you want to get inside. Make sure it fits. Reduce ejection force if using decoupler or separator by right clicking it, or add docking port to your cargo when you use docking port so you can separate them later 2. The simplest is by (assuming you are in orbit) point your navball at retrograde and fire your thruster until your camera "tilts" and after that, if you are landing on planet without atmosphere, let the craft fall down and after few km above the ground, fire the thruster or RCS to slow the descent. Be careful not to overthrust and send your craft back to space, look at the surface speed on navball. If landing on planet with atmosphere, make sure to get the best reentry angle! Shallow reentry angle means your craft subjected to lower overheat temperature, but at longer duration in atmosphere while sharp reentry angle means your craft subjected to higher overheat temperature, but at shorter duration in atmosphere. Sharp reentry also have higher G-force than shallow reentry angle. Once your craft is in safe condition to open the parachute (parachute icon goes white), then open it and let it land bay itself. There are 2 parachute types. Drogue chute (red) is for slowing down (activate at high speed, but can't slow the craft enough for safe landing) while parachute (blue) is for landing (unsafe to open at high speed, but can slow down to safe landing speed) make sure to open drogue first! You can also fire your thruster for slowing down even further 3. Burning means you accelerate to change orbital trajectory of your craft. In orbit, you are tied with the gravity of a celestial object. Burning allows you to change the plane, trajectory and even escape from gravitational force by accelerating to specific direction. On the simplest explanation, yes, it's basically accelerating, but also burn applies to decelerating when we're talking about orbit circularization, rendezvous, landing, reentry, etc. 4. Easy is very subjective, a gigantic space station might be easy for some people, but a nightmare for other. In general, a space station must contain: crew quarter, docking port, battery, solar panels, reaction wheel, RCS thruster. Space station is easy to make if you know how to orbit and rendezvous. But if you only know how to orbit, you can basically do it in one launch. Grab the biggest fairing for payload and stuff all necessary station parts inside it. This way you launch all parts in one launch and construct it in orbit, quick and easy. The downside is, you are limited in what you launch. Bigger station needs rendezvous operation to attach more parts from multiple launches than what can be launched in single launch Hope that helps

Really? It's fine in my computer

Aila the Ice Princess Fia the Fire Empress

You can build a "Mobile Refueling Base". Basically, why just land your ship near your base for refuel? Or performing complex RCS maneuvering just to line up and dock to your surface base (potentially wasting fuel)? Have it land on a general location of your base and have your base rolling into it instead! Your base becomes a "Mobile exploration lab with habitation and refueling/mining base capability" Or take a look to this example. A heavy exploration rover that I made back then during 1.1: Carry all stock experiment module, has 5 crew capacity (7 with 2 additional crew members on external seat), mining/ISRU and antenna capability as well as self-sustaining power generation

Title says it all. What's the first thing that you do in KSP? Your first craft? and how it ended? (If you still remember) Especially when you have no clue whatsoever about KSP control or rocketry at all Back then when I first opening KSP, I'm playing sandbox mode. I'm going inside SPH (First building that I visit) and fiddling around how to build an aircraft. Having no clue at all about the control or symmetrical option as well as snap feature, my plane looks unbalanced and bad because the wing doesn't fit properly since I attach them one-by-one. Bored with that, I'm going to VAB and start noticing open folder, and I found premade craft. So I loaded a rocket: Z-MAP satellite launch kit. On launchpad, having no clue how to launch, I tried to press literally all keys on keyboard before I hit spacebar the last and voila, the rocket launched! No clue about SAS, I thought I must steer it manually to keep it stable before suddenly, stage 1 drained out... How do I start the next stage? Maybe pressing spacebar again? Huh? No response? (Literally mashing the spacebar) stage 1 decoupled... stage 2 active!? Whole rocket goes kaboom. Then I started to watch tutorial and youtube KSP players before finally able to make my first orbit What about you?

There are redout and blackout effect caused by high-G when going at highspeed maneuver, but mostly it's during prolonged maneuver such as "pulling up from steep dive at high speed before the pilot start to faint". But what happen when it's instantaneous sudden maneuver like this: At that kind of maneuver, what kind of effect that'll be inflicted on human body by the sudden change of G-force?

AK47 rounds have an energy of 1,991 J per bullets. A single AK47 magazine contains 30 bullets, totalling 59,730 J. Assuming you didn't brace the recoil, you will be pushed by the total force of 59,730 J to the opposite direction. The only thing that's missing is a factor of your mass and the friction on the floor in order to calculate the distance travelled

"Soviet T-35 tank" Charge ahead!!!

How about weak telekinetic pulse that "push" them lightly on a particular direction?

150 years is a very long time. Things got claimed by marine life VERY FAST. Salvaging the sunken ships for metals is not worth the price and effort. The metal would be barely recognizable and poor quality because of rust and getting rid the corals that grew around it is simply too much hassle when all you want to get is just metal. The most that you can get is science, but that can be done without lifting the whole ship to the surface. Sunken ship becomes an underwater ecosystem for a variety of marine life. Lifting that ship isn't gonna be a good idea, since you potentially destroying that ecosystem. Aside from that there's an unwritten rule for sailors to simply left the sunken ship underwater and not disturbing it to honor those who died aboard the ship and sunk with her

Wolf

KSP: 40$ and still played after 3 years AAA games: 60$ purchase, more for each DLC, and I'm already bored after 3 months because being pwned by someone in multiplayer Expensive price doesn't always mean a good game. A good game is the one with high replay value that makes you keep coming back to play it. A 60$ FPS with 50GB disk space and absolutely high end graphic requirement might look far cooler than KSP, but it gets boring really fast because of repetitive gameplay, and after you get everything, what's more to do? Nothing. KSP takes less than 5GB, it's graphic may not be the best, but it's replay value is far higher, limited only with your imagination (and your computer power). Not even counting mods for additional gameplay experience 40$ is reasonable for me. There's a frequent steam sale that reduce that price to 24$. I think it's acceptable for a game that I played for 3 years. No other AAA game in my computer has longer gameplay time than KSP