Mars-Bound Hokie

It's pretty self-explanatory. Longer version: whenever I try to add the TVR adapters to my craft in either the SPH or VAB, they disappear - but the price still increases as if the adapter was there. To make matters worse, I also can't launch anything until the disappearing part is truly removed - and apparently the only way to do that is Ctrl-Z. How do I fix this? Another part that vanishes during the assembly and causes problems is the FL-T400 fuel tank. I'm sure that there are other parts that are affected by this as well.

Wow, 1947 seems to be the year of aviation milestones. What's next?

At least it should get @katateochi's attention.

Is it just me, or is anyone getting this message now?

The title is pretty self-explanatory. On the anniversary of a milestone of aviation and spaceflight history, post about it here. It can't just be events you think are significant; the name of the game is "This Day In..." The event in question has to share the same month and day as the current date. e.g. if it took place on December 17, 1903, you'll just have to wait until December 17, (whatever year it is now) to post about it. Replies discussing events already posted DON'T have date limits; just the events themselves. In other words, you're free to talk about any events mentioned on here as far long or as late as you wish. Links to sources are highly encouraged. Even if you first learned about it from the Air Force Museum calendar, we would all benefit from some corroboration. It can be as significant as a first test flight or a shuttle crash to something not-so-well known - such as the Army Air Corps delivering mail for the first time or the first successful V2 rocket launch. The choice of event is yours, but the "Anniversary Posting" rule still stands. Have fun, and I can't wait to read what you all come up with. I'll start us off. October 14th, 1947 - U.S. Air Force Captain Charles "Chuck" Yeager becomes the first man to break the sound barrier using the X-1 rocket plane. Source: https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/breaking-sound-barrier-75th

This has got to be the laziest entry on here: the Apollo 15 Command Module. Using Vesselmover, I relocated this three-piece capsule to the admin building. If you look at the picture of the command module on display, you'll find that this screenshot and the photograph don't look that much different. Only 244 to go - and yes, that includes the two duplicates I mentioned earlier. I'm eager to see some (slight) design variety.

Absolutely. I suppose so, but good luck going anywhere with their weak thrust.

And now, for my next trick, I shall replicate the North American F-82 Twin Mustang. And cue the Blazing Angels flashbacks. The North American P-82/F-82 Twin Mustang on display in the SPH. It had a "P" designation in its early days, then the Air Force began assigning "F" in front of fighter aircraft. Due to the large difference in landing gear height, the craft was tilted with its nose(s) pitched up in the SPH. Its root part is the probe core on the left fuselage (from the pilots' perspective). To increase power capacity and lower the nose length difference, the right fuselage has a battery between its cockpit and motor. Night flight around the KSP. I decided to revert to launch and wait until late-morning to do the off-road landing test. Flying around with both its ladders deployed. At least Jeb didn't jump off this time. At a couple points during the test runs, this prototype was performing at (if not better than) its real-life counterpart's absolute top speed. "Who says men can’t be pinup models?" (Jeb) Turned around and flew toward the mountains. To save fuel while maintaining altitude and velocity, I had to reduce throttle to less than 1/3 (forgot exactly where). After clearing the mountain range west of the KSC, I landed in some bumpy terrain. Good thing I had the reverse thrust action group handy (although I didn't know if the real-life version had it). WORD OF ADVICE: Pay attention to the takeoff and landing instructions on the craft page, and you'll be fine. Come on, kerbalnauts. I can't do all 245 remaining craft all by myself (243 if you ignore the second Superfortress and Twin Mustang). If we all work together, we can cover the entire museum's collection in no time.

This: I know it was finished years ago, but there's a good first step to aim for.

Thank you very much, @swjr-swis. I took your advise and updated the gas-powered P-38 version, tested it, and posted it on KerbalX.

After some playing around with the Breaking Ground DLC, I finally managed to make a replica of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning. The (gas-powered version of the) aircraft in the SPH. More on that story later. I didn't have any US Army Air Corps flags loaded in my game, so I stuck with the US flag. It took me a long time to not only get a motor-blade combo that worked, but a balanced CoM and CoL placement. The regular propeller blades were weak, so I went with the duct fan blades (especially since they never failed). Jeb flying up north in the aircraft in an attempt to climb over the mountain range. The aircraft's performance stats were pathetic, but they were adequate to maneuver through the mountains to the north. Nice cockpit shot. After a successful landing, Jeb stepped outside for an "Old-timer's selfie." A camera on a tripod with a timer. Apparently, he didn't set the timer correctly and it took a shot of him going up the ladder. "I was going for a pinup pose on the nose." For a while, I thought the off-road takeoff test would fail since it took me the full runway's length to get off the ground. Good thing this worked. All Jeb said was "WILDCARD, BI(censored)! YEEEEEEHAAAAWWW!" before bailing out of the aircraft. Upon recovery, the probe core indicated nothing was wrong with the craft before Jeb bailed - causing it to crash without a controller. Jeb was unharmed, but the same couldn't be said for the P-38. It's "manner of death" was marked as "Pilot Stupidity." The "Electric Boogaloo" Origin Story So, there you have it. My replica/s for the Lockheed P-38 Lightning. Now that you know about the two variants, which one of those two would you rather take into battle? Feel free to answer in your replies below. Personally, I'd go for the electric version due to superior performance alone. If the mission is taking place during the day, then I have unlimited range.

Thanks to a bunch of hippies from Green Springs and their goons at the so-called Environmental Security Agency (or, as we like to call it, the Economical Screw-up Agency), we now have to limit our Kerbin circumnavigation challenges to have ZERO overall emissions. In other words, whenever we circumnavigate the planet, we have to do it in an electric vehicle. Fortunately, thanks to our folks at Kerbal Motion LLC, we now have the means to do so. It may be slow, but it is possible. In other words, the challenge is to go one full equator's length of Kerbin WITHOUT any gas-powered engines - which means ABSOLUTELY NO: Jet engines Rockets Gas-powered turboshaft engines (like the R121 or the R7000) Electric motors are okay. Here are some other rules for this challenge. Leaderboard placement will be awarded based on TOTAL MISSION TIME ELAPSED (As you may have already guessed) vehicle must be all-electric. Which means are solar panels and/or RTGs are highly recommended. Having liquid fuel and/or oxidizer is okay ONLY for weight and balancing purposes. This can come in real handy if you need to move your CoM forward or backward. Fuel cells are not permitted, since we're trying to conserve gas thanks to those pot-smoking bureaucrats at the ESA. Even if I did allow fuel cells, they won't be enough to push your vehicle through the whole length of the trip. Stock and/or DLC parts only. Autopilot/navigation/gauge mods okay. Generally, no mods outside of DLCs that come with additional parts EXCEPTION: mods that come with balloon or dirigible-related parts are permitted, but those craft go in a separate division. If you want to allow a specific mod that conforms to the other rules, let me know and I'll take a look at it before deciding if it shall be allowed. Your vehicle must come back IN ONE PIECE. Not that you should need an extra fuel tank for an all-electric vehicle. Surface vehicles are okay, but they'll get placed in a separate division. Mostly because you'll take longer to go around the planet. On the bright side, if you have to stop to recharge, you can pause and take a break IRL. Just keep in mind that any and all recharge breaks in which the MET clock is running count for your finishing time. Crew capacity is optional. Divisions are as follows: Trekker Division - vehicles that can't fly, but travels on land and/or water to complete the journey. Earhart Division - aircraft like planes, helicopters, and gyroplanes. You'll get an Earhart Division: First Class medal if you successfully fly Kerbin's equator WITHOUT STOPPING. Heisenberg Division - balloons, blimps, zeppelins, et cetera. I don't know much about the balloon/airship mods, but the reason they're a separate division is because they can stay airborne without needing to land or stop. This may provide an unfair advantage over the aircraft, since they'll have to come down and recharge for God-knows-how-long before taking off again. Sun Soaker Division - any craft that can successfully cruise at 175 m/s. More details later. Multiple entries per person allowed, but only the best-performing one for each division will be accepted. Pictures and/or video required for entry to be valid. Be sure to include: Your craft in action. Start/finish times. (Optional) the craft in the hangar. If you're having trouble getting your rotors to work, please consult this thread below. @Echo__3 and @18Watt really helped me out when I started to use the Breaking Ground DLC. Sure, I originally asked about a motor that's prohibited on this challenge. Nevertheless, the same principles still apply - and I got the electric-rotor plane to work successfully. As promised, here's an explanation as to why the Sun Soaker Division has a speed requirement: And last but not least, here's my entry. Can't wait to see what you all come up with. LEADERBOARD - (ONGOING) MARCH 7, 2023 TREKKER DIVISION (empty) EARHART DIVISION @18Watt - 3 hours, 14 minutes (FIRST CLASS) @Mars-Bound Hokie (ME) - 5 hours, 11 minutes, 30 seconds (FIRST CLASS) This was a last-minute entry. Better time than my last entry, but not fast enough to overtake the current leader @OJT - 17 hours, 13 minutes HEISENBERG DIVISION @Snigel - 5 hours, 3 minutes I know that he damaged the Thunderbolt's lower battery pod during the landing, but the "Come back in one piece" rule was mainly intended to prevent jettisoning and mid-air explosions. Had he kept the landing a little softer - or if landing gear wasn't too much of a problem for the craft's performance - he could have landed the craft intact. SUN SOAKER DIVISION (Could be me, but I don't really care since I was doing a speed test before sending the E-40 to Laythe) (Please let me know if I missed anything)

My Poseidon Mk. IV is a 20-man (16 passengers + 4 crew) refueling-capable pure stock SSTO that has an emergency ejection system for the occupants. Once the "ABORT" button is hit, the cabin and cockpit will separate from the rest of the plane and freefall to the ground. Be sure to activate the parachutes before you get too close to the ground, or everyone's dead. Hopefully, it's only used on Kerbin. It also has a probe core in the front so it can do both manned and unmanned flights. It's also there to store scientific data from the voyage. During a test run, the cabin was ejected at 17.5 km altitude above Kerbin's surface. Parachutes activated, and the cabin is safely on the ground. Now I know I can recover the occupants if a safe landing on Kerbin is not possible. If I'm on Laythe, however, then I might have a problem since I'll have to extract everyone from a stranded cabin and put them in a rescue craft back home. This photo was taken before the Poseidon got some modifications (heat-resistant nose and tailfin), but the ejection system still works. To see the Poseidon Mk. IV in action, check out the Neptune Mission Files (starting with the Neptune IV). You'll see it is capable of flying to Laythe and back. Here's how I think I should be scored, but I'll leave it to you: Save passenger compartment - 2 points Save crew - 3 points Or does the "crew" in this case consist of passengers AND kerbalnauts that work in the spacecraft? If so, then I'd get 3 instead of 5. I don't know exactly how scoring is done here. At least break down how points are awarded when you score contestants, please. Unmanned piloting - 1 point Does this only count before or after the ejection system is deployed? Either way, as seen in the second screenshot here, the craft can deploy its own abort system without needing a crew inside. Manned piloting - 2 points Cargo space - 1 point It holds the scientific instruments, the drills, ore tank, and the ISRU converter. SSTO - 8 points TOTAL: 17 points Do you agree with this assessment, or not? Either way, I think I should get at least 11 thanks to the craft being an SSTO and the ejection system saving EVERYONE on board ALONE. Is that true?

You know what happened when I did that? My drone wasn't nearly as nose-heavy and it started to actually stay straight and level. Actually, it's still a bit nose-heavy when gliding. Nothing a little throttle won't fix, though. I didn't adjust the wing structure because I wanted to test ONE ADJUSTMENT AT A TIME. And since the engine modification alone worked out great so far, I decided to keep the wings as they are. If I need to modify the airframe for Eve operation/transport, I will. It was dark when I took off. With 18,015 units of electric charge ready, I think I was okay. Once I got the drone to a safe altitude (I did 5 km) and kept it level, I just left it alone. It may have descended approx. 1000 m before rising back up on its own, but otherwise not bad. That's why I took it so high. Its cruising velocity averaged at 120 m/s. Mid-flight, I realized that I was wasting electricity by cruising full throttle. I reduced speed to 1/2 to 1/3 throttle, and the airspeed stayed the same while the plane still maintained a (somewhat) level flight without my help. Note-to-self: when you get your flight path set, reduce throttle. Those bottom lights are more powerful than I thought. They really came in handy when landing on a hilly grassland peninsula and my drone was nearing 5,000 units left. After minutes of some bouncing touch-and-gos (unintended), I brought the plane to a complete stop. It took me almost 1.25 days for the plane to be recharged to maximum capacity. It probably would have gone a lot faster if I remembered to extend the tailfin panels. In my defense, I was too chicken to press the button since the last time I hit it was when I meant to turn on Kerbnet mid-flight and the panels flew off. After that, I took off up the east hill and started flying towards the sunrise. Check the surface info tab and you'll see the general area where I had to make a pitstop. If I took off early in the morning instead of the middle of the night, I would have made it a lot farther. For the next few hours, I'll be flying without risk of a battery drainage. Since it was getting boring watching a plane fly with pretty much no problems over the ocean, I decided to entertain myself with some math. Specifically, how fast I would have to go at minimum to keep up with the sun if I was to maximize my solar charge time. Below are the velocities that the planets revolve around their respective axes in m/s. In addition, since the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, I'll have to fly RETROGRADE (west) to stay with the sun. KERBIN: There is no way I can reach that velocity with that drone, so I'll have to time my takeoff to have as much sun time as possible. More specifically, I'll need to take off shortly before sunrise so that I can get a head start on the sun and have plenty of charge left over by the time the solar panels start charging. Then again, why would I need to use that drone? If I need to collect data on Kerbin, I have a whole collection of jets that can do the job for way less than a sixth of the time and half the money. EVE: If I can match that velocity at a safe altitude without losing control (due to going too slow) on Eve, then I can practically keep my drone airborne FOREVER. @18Watt, although I'll be paying attention to Matt's video on how to pack and move my current drone prototype, I'll keep your designs in mind in case bringing it to Eve is not possible. Thank you. FYI, the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt is actually a single-engine fighter. Are you actually referring to the P-38 Lightning (not to be confused for the F-82 Twin Mustang)? My drone's stats are not as impressive as the P-38's, but at least I got a general structural design going for when I make that replica.

@Echo__3 Like I said earlier, I only made that plane for show. Apart from maybe posting on KerbalX, I have no further uses for the B.B. After watching Matt Lowne's video on a science plane to Eve (see video), I decided to give it a try myself with some modifications of my own. More specifically, my version is: Completely unmanned Right now, Eve's surface is a one-way trip. I'd rather not send anybody there until I've established that two-way travel is possible. No goo or materials Which is related to the first major difference in my design. More energy storage When it came to making the twin engines, I found that if I make one good forward-facing prop engine in the back as usual and then added the engine+blade combo symmetrically in the front (as Matt did here), the engines work out great. Trying to change the direction and blade orientation of the two engines individually didn't work. After confirming that my design works on Kerbin (despite being nose-heavy), I teleported it to Eve's surface and waited for a signal. Here are the screenshots of my Eve test run. Almost looks like I'm going faster on Eve than I am on Kerbin. Not bad. Still have to constantly pitch up to keep it level, not to mention it just loves to keep rolling And the roll hold is completely useless if not treasonous. Took a total nosedive when the signal broke, signaling the craft's doom. I promise you that my career save will have better coverage once this drone is finalized. My first Eve drone prototype in the SPH The front tanks are empty while the rear one is full. I fear that, if I fill up the front tanks, the craft will get even more nose-heavy. Well, if it's that risky, then I probably won't be using aerial drones on Duna often if at all. I already have the Dirtblood and a quite popular mobile base, so I'm pretty much all set in exploring Duna. Thanks to you, though, I would have general guidelines for making a VTOL drone when it comes to exploring the canyons. @18Watt I checked the Wikipedia pages for both planes, and they're not exactly impressive stats. At least they'd be good places to start when making larger and/or more practical aircraft. Holy crap, you're right. At the time I posted on here, I had no idea that the VC-118 was the military counterpart for the DC-6. All I knew was that the VC-118 was the second Air Force One. Now I know what to go for when making that replica. If you scroll up on this post, you'll find that I did make a twin-engine drone. I didn't use the small electric rotors since I was unsure on how much thrust I'll need due to Eve's increased gravity (and Matt's recommendation, but I think it was mainly because his model weighed more). Maybe I could still fly just fine with the small rotors like you said. Also, like I said earlier, when I tried making counter-rotating individual rotors, the plane couldn't take off. I just followed Matt's instructions, and they seemed to work out fine for me during testing. Thank God for Alt+F12 and Sandbox Mode for test runs, both on Kerbin and Eve. I'll just need to teleport some more relays.

@Echo__3 Thank you so much for helping me with my problem, and especially for sending me a link with a modified version to work with. Test run with your version Once I took it to the SPH, I opened the fuel tank PAWs so I can see how the weight was distributed. After that, I opened the engine and propeller PAWs and checked the main throttle action group. Apparently, the RPM limit may have been an inhibitor in my performance. I do have some questions regarding the motor size and output setting: What made you decide 10%? Is that standard for all your propeller motors? What are the absolute minimum and maximum motor size percentages I should heed if I expect the aircraft to fly? Depending on the size of the aircraft (e.g. electric open-cockpit plane vs B-36 bomber), I'll have to adjust as necessary. I then took your engine and blade adjustments under advisement and returned to my original B.B. craft file. Below you will find how I adjusted the Lf+Ox setup, the engine, and the blades. To be honest, I don't remember why I used 20% in the motor size and output instead of 10. I think it was because the aircraft was bigger and heavier than yours. Either way, this design worked out great for me. My B.B. prototype with the new prop engine successfully flying over the KSC Perfect landing. I'll need to get my MJ autopilot to work on keeping it level without sending it into an endless spiral first, but otherwise I'm impressed with the results. Thank you so much for your help. @18Watt Okay. Would the BG props and engines be fine for, let's say, a DC-3 - or something of medium-large size like a VC-118? I haven't even put kerbals on Eve yet, so crew recovery missions will be a while. However, I should be able to send a drone in the meantime to collect science. Since Eve has no usable atmosphere for the air intakes, I'll have to use the electric motors - which is another bonus, since I should use solar panels and RTGs to charge it. I'll just need to test the drone on Kerbin first. After that, it's a matter of sending the drone to Eve's surface without blowing up. A couple of questions: For an unmanned science drone on Eve, should I go with the ducted fan blades or the regular propeller blades? I plan to carry: Thermometer Atmospheric GCMS (Maybe) a scanning arm Seismic accelerometer Gravioli detector Barometer Surface scanning module Would this work on Duna too? Again, thank you all so much for your help. Can't wait to fly old-school.

And here you go. Below are the screenshots of my second attempt with the PAWs open for the engine and the propeller blades For this prototype, I may actually agree with you. However, when I mounted a three-blade engine on the back of my Baykar Bayraktar drone replica, I ran into worse problems. I know for sure it's not just poor aerodynamic design that's the problem since: This B.B. prototype didn't make it past 2 m/s on the runway, no matter which propeller direction I tried. I didn't know if I needed to change it since it was a rear propeller. If I can master this, then I can make a B-36 Peacemaker The engine was silent (as usual). Even if the plane was able to take off, it should have flown just fine since a different B.B. prototype of the same exact design EXCEPT FOR THE AFTERBURNER IN THE BACK was able to. I tried reducing the motor size as you and @Echo__3 said, but that didn't seem to work. Here are the screenshots I have of my latest attempt at this (and a true replica of its namesake) https://mega.nz/file/LOIXmB4I#_2fruOJo05Xv-CIWR7eOTE6Z3VdJSYXDkICJkQuTTtU - craft file if you want to try it out to see what went wrong. Apparently, reducing motor size didn't work out. How do you recommend I get this baby airborne? If I can fix the problem with this prop, then I can make functional aircraft replicas that won't depend too heavily on electric charge.

The title's self-explanatory, but here are the details. I recently acquired Breaking Ground and want to try the new R121 Turboshaft Engine. However, none of the tutorials I find seem to work out for me. Even my most successful attempts turned out to be failures. First attempt as it accelerates on the runway. After taking off at ~60 m/s, it rose for a bit then took a nosedive. Eventually, I crashed into the ocean. When I installed the KAL-1000 controller and tried to follow the instructions from the tutorial videos, it seems like it made things WORSE - and, apparently, wrecked all subsequent attempts to correct this error. My second prototype for testing a propeller didn't help out either. Below are the craft files of both of my failed attempts. https://mega.nz/file/TeAhwJwD#VQhNdFvCKejmi4nUusIjLx38ZOdLN_9mbQCVBWsGxzY https://mega.nz/file/yD40HTSa#sE2O_GRCPjaeAGSaIgDsw5YjQo_ET1Fcu8A014L21gw Any ideas where I went wrong? Was it due to poor aerodynamic design or improperly setting up the propeller? How can I get the propeller to work? And do I really need the KAL-1000 controller? Sure, the second prototype failed, but initial performance without it seemed promising for the first thirty seconds. WITH the controller, the plane was barely moving at all. Is there a written set of instructions I can reference - one that actually works? And does these rules apply to electric propellers too? I'll test whatever answers are given and let you all know how they work out. Thank you very much. If I can get this to work, then I can build USAF aircraft replicas and luxury vehicles for Laythe tourism.

And here I go again. Behold, the Boeing X-45. The Boeing X-45 on display in the SPH. Closest I could get to a functional replica with all stock parts. Flying as close to its real-life counterpart's cruising altitude speed as possible Safe landing. The F3 Menu said that almost 2,000 km was covered, and I had approximately 75 units of fuel left. A little disappointed that I didn't make the real-life counterpart's combat range of 2,400 km. Even so, that's still pretty impressive. Come on, people. I can't cover the whole museum by myself here (even though I have Breaking Ground). I can't wait to see your all's replicas in action.

Since I visited the Air Force Museum again yesterday (twice - and yes, twice on the same day) and the Armstrong Air and Space Museum - along with the Waco Air Museum in Troy, OH, I was inspired to play KSP again and revive this thread. Anyway, here's my next entry: the Boeing YF-118G Bird of Prey. The YF-118G Bird of Prey on display in the SPH. Jeb and Bob circling around the KSP to depart 2-7-0 (west). Afterburner activated. Flight starts in subsonic mode. Successful landing after a nice test flight. Bob golfing performing an experiment on Kerbin's surface upon landing. The Mk. II cockpit has four repair kits and four experiment kits in the cargo bay. I don't know if they stayed in the craft file upon upload. Can't wait to see what you all come up with.

Spaghetti Kerman was in a pasta slurping contest with some of his frat brothers. In his haste to stay in the lead, he sucked several noodles down the wrong pipe. His friends tried to save him, but it was no use. By the time the paramedics arrived, it was too late. Spaghetti Kerman was pronounced DOA from choking on pasta. Gary Kerman: aurora borealis

I may be late to the party, but at 8/18/2022 after work I found the article below. Since I live in the Cincinnati area, I jumped at the chance to find the northern lights. https://localcincinnatinews.com/cincinnati-news/northern-lights-could-be-visible-in-ohio-thursday-night/ Of course, neither this article nor any of the other ones I found about this gave any indication as to where specifically to look. All I knew was to look at a high-elevation area with low light pollution, and since the map below shows the high activity visibility line SOUTH of the city, of course looked there. Like I said, nothing more specific on the location than this. Unfortunately, during my trip Thursday night from 2100 - 2340 EDT, all the good spots south of Cincinnati were either in residential neighborhoods, closed-off parks, or on private property. I thought about giving up, but then the next day my supervisor at work told me that he had heard that they would show up "for the next few nights." After work that day, I phoned someone from the Cincinnati Astronomical Society and he told me: I should look NORTH of the city, along the north horizon The best place to look is Hueston Woods State Park - or any other state parks north of Cincinnati Expect the lights to show up between 0300 and 0400. But I think I should have pressed him for a time zone, since other article said to expect the lights to start showing up at 2100 EDT. When I got to the park at 0315 Saturday morning, all the trees were blocking the horizon and I couldn't find a good place to stop and look from my car. After some driving around to no avail, I left the park at approximately 0345 and found a spot beside the road near some farmland to look north - but no auroras. Although I did see some lights on the horizon, I didn't really think it was anything particularly noteworthy. More specifically, they seemed like the residual lights you see from a far-away town (maybe Eaton). I then gave up and drove back to Cincinnati and went back to bed. To sum it all up, both attempts to see the northern lights near Cincinnati failed. If anyone has pictures of the midwestern northern lights, I'm sure we'd all be more than happy to see them.

El Kerman was at the VAB waiting for the elevator doors to shut when some hot new intern ran inside. He tried to flirt with her, but he had an undiagnosed heart condition which left him extremely vulnerable to heart attacks. The intern thought he had just fainted from shyness and would get up soon, leaving him in the elevator after she got off. Ten minutes later, the janitor was entering the elevator when he saw El's lifeless body. He called for help and tried to use the defibrillator, but it was no use. El Kerman was dead on arrival. As a result, the KSP administration unanimously voted for a new policy that mandated calling for help for any unconscious kerbal found on premises that were not sleeping areas - even if it's a mere faint. Despite Mortimer Kerman's reluctance, they had also agreed to offer free health screenings for non-kerbalnaut personnel to see who would be predisposed to collapsing for any reason - especially from heart conditions. Martin Kerman will die from an osprey crash

Johnny Kerman was mining for diamonds in the caves underneath his new farm. To clear some rock in his path, he used his iron pickaxe to make a crack small enough for him to place a bomb inside. However, due to his dyslexia, he set the timer to 1 SECOND when he thought it would be 1 minute. He was also dumb enough to place his pickaxe right next to the rock. As soon as Johnny started the timer, he started to walk away. Much to his surprise, the bomb exploded and the force of the blast sent his pickaxe flying right at him. Less than five minutes later, his wife Betsy came running into the mines to check out the noise. After she cleared some of the rubble, she found Johnny dead with a pickaxe in his back. The autopsy showed that his cause of death was exsanguination from the puncture wound - and that the damage the body sustained from the rubble was actually postmortem. Trevor Kerman will get hit by a school bus.

Yes, so long as you can prove it can be done.