Crown

Looks good. But there's a thread where more people might see it: Show off your awesome KSP pictures! ! ;-)

Perfect. Very useful information. I'm going to use this some day. Thanks for posting

Your subconscious is a genius!

I hope your 3rd stage is still alive.

Hmmm .. Fried Gravity Turn Trajectories *grwalbalbwblb* (Homer Simpson gargle noise)

regarding the SHIP:something properties, is there a list of all of them? I couldn't find a list of them in the Docs and I'm not sure if they are a residue from older version and just present to ensure compatibility with older version, or just forgotten. btw, thanks for updating the Docs. :thumbsup:

You don't even need fuel in these. Just empty the SRB by right-clicking on the part in the VAB and drag the bar to the left. Most of the time that's how I tested these. But it makes a nice light show when they are lit.

The screen mentioned by UpsilonAerospace appears to be too, for just a split second. Was about to post something about it but now I actually know what it is. Thanks!

Apparently someone merged two threads together. Confusing What are these delete-things in TRON called again? To stay on topic: It has something majestic, I think, like an eagle ready to grab.

I support that suggestion, but I don't have any problems with the current naming scheme. But ISO 8601 would be nice. Or let them choose Maybe something like this: Screenshot naming scheme: [ ] continuous (e.g. screenshot42.png) [X] ISO 8601 (e.g. 201407512-135412.png) [ ] NATO (e.g. 121354Zjul14.png) joking with the NATO scheme since it's as useless as the imperial scheme to sort files . :-P

I want to say that one of these unbalanced contract lifted me out of the financial hole. Because I hadn't enough money to upgrade something but my rockets needed to be bigger to get somewhere. That was a contract that needed me to test the KR1X2 LFB in orbit with an advance of about 300'000√F and a reward of about 800'000√F. After that I was able to upgrade Mission Control, RD and Pad, and was able to launch some new rockets and actually fulfil some contract. Now I am at about 1'500'000√F and basically out of the money hole. Yes, I agree that some contracts have very low payment, but up to this point I think there's a good balance between contract that focus more on money and other that focus more on science (or reputation). All that money is gone quite quickly if you upgrade to the last tier of RD and VAB (and maybe some others). One or two really high payed contracts early in the game are really tempting and can, choosen wisely, close a gap in the gameplay

I pay close attention to Kerbal lifes in career mode and try to regain as much money from recovered parts as possible. That results in an extra decoupler under the command pod that could be decoupled in case something goes wrong on descent, even tough there are enough parachutes to descent all the parts safely.

Yep. It happened to me, just yesterday when I launched a probe in an eccentric orbit around Kerbin as I ran out of juice. Thanks to the Great Kerbal I had saved before launch so I did put some batteries on to get me through the shadow.

:shocked: Is this a rumour that the site is going offline?

You're welcome. I didn't know that. Well, then ... Squad, fix your game No, really. Since we know that now I'm fine for now. It's an inconvenient thing but I'll get used to it, changing that would be nice but is not of high priority (for me at least).

Kartoffelkuchen, you might find the German Wikipedia article Raketengrundgleichung quite useful since it contains a little bit different information than it's English counterpart. That was what bugs me in the first place. Since I used MechJeb as a reference for the delta-v calculation I think it isn't on Sqaud's side to fix this, rather than on whoever-made-MJ's side.

You too It's "Merry Christmas" btw

Tsiolkovsky's formula looks like this: (as Skylab said), with as the exhaust velocity of the gas. Why 9.82 m/sec²??? The ISP's unit seconds is just a normalisation to a unit that American an German rocket engineers understand. You get that by taking the gas's exhaust velocity and killing the meter by dividing it by a constant. Which is the standard gravity, symbol . [/rant] Attention: I am using KSP 0.25 for the calculations but I think it doesn't matter 1 x Standard Nosecone, mass: 100kg 1 x NCS Adapter, mass: 300kg 1 x MechJeb AR202, mass: 0kg (yes, no mass) 1 x RC-001S probe body, mass: 100kg 1 x kOS module flight computer, mass: 120kg 4 x FL-400 fueltank, mass(full): 9'000kg, 2'250kg each; mass(empty): 1'000kg, 250kg each 1 x LV-T45 engine, mass: 1'500kg The engine has a thrust of 200'000N and an ISP of 370sec in vacuum; I used 9.81 for and the formula . Full mass, (): 11'120kg Empty mass, (): 3'125kg That gives me: MechJeb gives me 11'540kg as full vessel mass and 3'120kg as empty mass, so that's correct. edit: Ok, using 9.81m/sec² as gives me 4'613.03m/sec but using 9.82m/sec² as gives me 4'617.73m/sec, which is about 4'618m/sec and what MechJeb's giving me. Disregard the question, I guess. I don't get why KSP walks away from the scientific definition and uses 9.82 instead of 9.81 m/sec² :-/

When I try to calculate the delta-v by hand it differs a little from what MechJeb is calculating (compared to Tsiolkovsky). It's mostly under 100m/sec but I wonder why that is.

Thanks for the hint. I was wondering if I can hire some Kerbals even if I have one to rescue that would exceed the limit. Second crew here you come!

Oh look! It's a Christmas Tree, there's even some stars on the top. Happy Holidays everyone!

Note to self: a level 1 SPH's roof doesn't support the weight of a 26 ton rocket descending with 6m/sec. You can see the ship, quite tiny in the middle. But repairing that is quite cheep. Only 10'000√F, so it just reduces my profit. I wonder if it gets more expensive the more you destroy it, I want to know but I don't want to try it.