Bluejayek

I like HMCSS Beagle

So.. does anybody know whether it was 2km or 200m off target they landed? These are the rest of the landing specifications as they read them out in the control room 10:14:39 -0.607398m/s vertical landing velocity 0.044365m/s horizontal landing velocity 1.046kg fuel remaining 4.37 degrees offset from gravity z vector -4.591817 degrees lat 137.4220437 degrees longitude So, 0.6m/s landing is good enough for nasa it should be good enough here in ksp

Ok tog, I must have extrapolated wrong. My feed said something like "227" then the commentator cut in. I assumed it was finishing with 2.27 miles, must have been 227m. That is incredible.

Whered you get that info Alvarien? I have been looking for that for the past 10 minutes. The stream I was watching cut the mission control sound out just as they were saying it.. I had thought they were saying 2.27 miles. Either way, 250m or 2 miles, its incredibly close. You can see curiosities wheel

Safe landing for the insane landing system!

It can sometimes be difficult to pinpoint the orbital period exactly. Velocity is much easier as it is right there in the UI, hence I argue that the more mathetmatically complex method I posted is easier and more exact. Although, being able to do yours with a single ship is good.

That's cheating! Instead, take two circular orbits at different heights. Let R1 be the height of the first orbit above the surface, R2 be the second height, and r be the radius of the planet. Then you solve the two orbits as above and end up with the two equations M = (r+R1)*v1^2/G M = (r+R2)*v2^2/G The M is the same mass of the body in both cases, so we can equate these (r+R1)*v1^2/G = (r+R2)*v2^2/G r*v1^2 - r*v2^2 = R2*v2^2 - R1*v1^2 r = (R2*v2^2 - R1*v1^2)/(v1^2-v2^2) Then, once you have found r you can just substitute into one of the earlier equations to find M, e.g. M = (r+R2)*v2^2/G M = [(R2*v2^2-R1*v1^2)/(v1^2-v2^2)+R2]*v2^2/G

The tracks are both exceptional, but I think I like the one you have in your promo video better. That video is great

The 'issue' with nuclear powered stuff is that the majority of people on the planet are a bit ignorant when it comes to radiation, and overly scared of it. Case in point, the irrational fear around the nuclear reactor collapse in the japanese tsunami. There were 15,867 deaths in total from the earthquake, and only 6 directly attributed to the reactor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami#Casualties http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fukushima-deaths-radiation_n_1540397.html However, all we heard about on the news for the entire disaster was "RADIATION IS GOING TO KILL US ALL". Stores in the west coast sold out of radiatiion suits, and iodine pills. This is irrational fear. This is a different isotope of plutonium then is used in nuclear bombs. This has a halflife of something like 50 years, and will not undergo fission, so will never explode.

Well, we can first consider that the gravitational acceleration of a body at a distance r is: a = GM/r^2 where G is the universal gravitation constant, and M is the mass of the body. Further, the centripital acceleration of a body in a circular orbit is a = v^2/r where v is its velocity. For a stable orbit these two accelerations must be equal, hence v^2/r = GM/r^2 M = rv^2/G Therefore, if you know the radius of an orbit and the velocity of the orbit, you can find the mass of the body. Body radius is a different story. That would have to be measured by direct observation (ie telescope), as any spherical body behaves as a point mass for gravitational purposes.

If you put horizontally pointing engines on tiled wings the wings produce lift as you rotate. Hence, you will take off verticlaly despite no thrust in that direction. It is clear that it is lift producing this and not the verticalness of the engines as you will keep climbing when the engines shut down until the rotation slows too far. Nao: That wouldn\'t work with the design I had... Forget 6RPM, mine was going at closer to 6RPS. Probably higher just before the engines flew off.

One way it is structural hardpoints I believe they are called. Other way they are wing connectors. The wing connectors arent acually attached on both sides which is why the pillars are falling inwards. Congratulations foursh! That is very good flying How did you steer? Just with thrust vectoring? And where exactly on the mun did you land? I was attempting to do it on the mountain in the middle of the very large crater on the mun; probably not the best idea (landing on a slope).

No, what we need is more people who can acually pilot their ships without relying on mechjeb, so that we don\'t need as much instrumentation But really, a headsup display ( as I believe is coming at some point) that gives relative velocity/direction when you are close to an object would be great.

I don\'t think rendering is the issue here, but rather simulating the physics for so many objects at once. On rails rings would not be a problem in this regard.

There\'s a retired hockey player, and a musician with the same name as me, does that mean we have invented cloning too?

What exactly do you mean? We have mods in the game already. Since multiplayer is not planned yet, and is likely to never happen it is too early to speculate on how mods might transfer into multiplayer. Ok, what? Do you mean that ships from multiple players would blow up if they hit each other...? Or.... just that there would be missions for synchronized crashing? Servers cost $$$$$. I would like flags, and some other simple items for kerbals to carry around. It would be fun. Our kerbals need this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE

Only through the infiglide glitch. In reality, drag would slow you down just as it does anything.

Since nobody has commented on this yet, I will. * Krakensbane: A solution to the 'Space Kraken' issue :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Kiling the kraken will make travel outside kerbins SOI much more enjoyable. Fighting the kraken when he is randomly scrambling your control keys is very annoying. Squad is awesome. Keep up the good work, and I hope to see this update sometime in september PS: Can one of the gas giants have a moon made of swiss cheese? Just for the fun of it?

Or just blatantly plagiarise and call it Arrakis.

As out brave kerbals continue to explore the solar system, they will eventually need permanent accommodation on bodies other then Kerbal. Now, we all know that it would be best to dig out a shelter underground on the Mun, or perhaps bring semi-inflatable buildings to erect on landing. However, this is nowhere near kerbal enough! Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to construct multi-part buildings on the Mun. The buildings must consist of at least two peices, and these peices must be launched on separate flights. This will require precision landing, and a good deal of skill. Good luck. This is my best attempt so far. I was attempting to deliver the pillar structure, and then land the roof on top. Unfortunately, this proved beyond my piloting skills with my RCSless lander. I successfully landed the pillars, and safely returned, but when landing the roof I failed to align properly and did a slow motion crash less then 50m from the pillars.

What is the LFE bug? I am finding in 0.16 that my old designs are a bit more efficient in this patch then they were before. Trying to make new designs with the larger rockets sort of failed; I managed to make orbit, and get to the mun. However, the mass of them means that I need an absurd number of rcs thrusters/tanks to do any turnover while not thrusting, and I don\'t like that. With my old designs I leave off RCS altogether and just do slow cockpit SAS turnovers.

As a side note, the aurora would not be called kerbialia. Borealis refers to north, so that would still be valid as is \'Aurora borealis'

There are mere mortals, and then there are people like the author of this video. Wow. I have noticed however that kerbals have a high impact tolerance. I did a lunar descent with bob on the outside of the craft, and accidentally crashed at 60m/s. Bob was the only thing that survived. He is still there.

Lower the legs down will help for landing.. In space, I really don\'t know. Seems fine to me.