BurningSky93

Just so you know, it's considered bad form on these forums (and well, pretty much any game forum) to pester the devs about when the next version will be released. Always assume "it'll be ready when it's ready" until an announcement is made

To everyone complaining about rockets spinning with SRBs, there is a rather simple solution: use more struts Trust me, it works. Strap the SRBs to each other, strap the sides of the SRBs to the main rocket, strap the noses of the SRBs to the main rocket. Especially the "strap the sides of the SRBs to the main rocket" part. And keep torque and moments in mind. If you put some struts at the bottom of the SRBs, put some at the top too. I've had so many "spinny" rockets corrected by the use of more struts.

Is that... is the music from the Das Boot soundtrack? I love that film!# I think NASA like safe, not stylish

I'm really looking forward to the multiple saves feature. Will be great to have a save for messing around and a save for my more realistic, role-play space program where I try and do things in a similar way to NASA and the Soviet Space Agency in the Space Race (including countless tests and missions with similar objectives).

Its seems we disagree on what would make the game "interesting". Wormholes or stargates, as much as I see their places in other universes (and don't get me wrong, I loved SG-1), just don't fit the feel of KSP, IMO. This game, to me, is about a bunch of hapless little green men (and women, potentially ) bumbling about in attempts to discover and explore their own solar system, and through countless explosions and failed attempts, they actually manage it. The concept of discovering and exploring new star systems or other-wordly, sci fi or theoretical physics based technologies and phenomena just doesn't fit the atmosphere, to me at least. I think its important to remember that KSP is, in general, based firmly in real world physics except were it serves the "fun and quirky" element (like Kerbin's density, the fact that we're controlling little green men etc etc).

Personally, I dont think they have any place in KSP. It's hard to elaborate why. I know KSP tries to strike a balance between fun & "quirkiness" and realism but I just don't much see the point in them.

Hivemind! Literally just edited my post to include the calculations, refesh the page to see we had reached the same conclusion!

Physics and maths are wonderful things So as stated that Eve has 1.7 times the surface gravity and a radius 100km greater than Kerbin (700km), lets see how much denser Eve is than something that is already more dense than any material known to man, shall we? g = ((4 pi)/3)*G*rho*r, rearrange to find rho: rho = g/((4pi/3)*G*r) Gonna do this with proportionality, because I like doing it that way. g(e) = 1.7 g(k), r(e)=1.167r(k) rho(e)=(1.7/1.167)rho(k) I believe? Eve is 1.457 times as dense as Kerbin

Actually, when assuming the desnities are equal, he's correct. See my post above. g = ((4 pi)/3)*G*rho*r Say g(k) is Kerbin's surface gravity, and g(e) is Eve's surface gravity, which is also equal to 1.7g(k) (which is a known value specified by Nova) All the values in the above equation are constants in this case (as Banbite assumed density, rho, for Eve as being the same as Kerbin) except for g and r For g(e) to equal 1.7g(k) then the radius of Eve, r(e) must be 1.7 times the radius of Kerbin r(k) g(e) = 1.7g(k) therefore r(e)=1.7r(k) as expressed by Banbite. Unless I've messed up severely with my physics anywhere, in which case do please correct me.

This^ Surface gravity equation g = ((4 pi)/3)*G*rho*r Where g is the surface gravity, G is Newton's gravitational constant, rho is mean density and r is radius

Save game editing: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/7204-Fun-with-Save-File-Editing-(Instant-Orbits-for-0-14)

Good point, I had forgotten that they were reworking the spaceplane mechanics. I dont think conventional rockets will have much hope though, unless you build something ridiculous.

Along with "Atmosphere density: 5x kerbin" I don't think we should be planning to land on Eve and leave it.

I figured out what was wrong. I had forgotten to install the plugins to make it work. Thats why I edited the query out.

Do you have a link? I've searched for it but nothing came up. All that showed up was the VA parts. EDIT: Nvm, did a bit of digging and found it. For anyone who is interested: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/6680-Collection-Kosmos-Spacecraft-Design-Bureau-%28SSPP-4-1-6-12-12%29

What parts pack is that? And its [*spoiler=name] text goes here [*/spoiler], without the asterisks, of course.

Isnt that the spaceplace tail part?

Alternatively, in future try and make your rockets with debris-reduction in mind. There's two ways off the top of my head I can think of doing this: 1. Set up the stage so that it is spent while still in a sub-orbital trajectory 2. Apply retro-burning rockets (either SRBs or liquid stages, though both are heavy and obtrusive unless you have mod parts available like the clearing SRBs in Silisko's mods) which should hopefully nudge the debris into a decaying orbit (if the debris is low enough). Generally, debris isn't going to be a huge problem unless there's loads of it. If you build stages with debris reduction in mind then you should only really have debris on highly elliptical orbits (from trans-object injections) or orbiting celestial bodies other than Kerbin.

Yeh, I got it to work but I had to have two 2m rockets sandwiching the shuttle, otherwise it would do all sorts of crazy stuff when launched (most common of which was soaring into the ground) EDIT: To clarify, the shuttle (or Space Scuttle as I called it) engines were NOT firing on launch, only the "carrier" rockets where firing. Also, screenshot:

My personal reasoning for using MechJeb is thus: Real rockets do not fly without computer assistance, why should I? As far as I'm concerned, MechJeb isn't really cheating. You still need to design and build a rocket that will do what you want it to do, MechJeb won't tell you whether or not your rocket can complete the mission. MechJeb also isn't perfect, it does mess up maneuvres and can be very heavy handed. I've seen it go overboard with gravity turns on ascent autopilot, sending rockets into a tumble; even if they recover, then precious delta-v has been lost. I've used the injection autopilot only to be put into collision courses when I wanted a periapsis 500km out. I don't see it as taking away from the fun of controlling the craft yourself. You still need to input values into MechJeb for it to work, not to mention I find fully manual control tiresome and somewhat frustrating (as I don't have a joystick, I'm stuck with purely digital controls which are imprecise). The Smart A.S.S. function allows you to put the craft on the heading you want without having to see-saw and muscle about with manual controls. Finally, as I already understand most of the theory that comes with the maneuvres, I don't feel like MechJeb has really "taught" me what some might feel you need to learn on your own.

Those celestial bodies are being added in the 0.17 update.

Ah, that's fair enough. And thanks, though it handles like, well, a couple of oil tankers tied together. Didn't put nearly enough RCS thrusters on it, ha!

Thanks, that worked. I think you should probably try and find a way around having to do that though? EDIT: As I got a station I liked, I thought I'd share it. Thanks, Pelf, like i said earlier, this mod will be truly awesome once we get IVA and docking

Ok, "snap to angle" being turned off still hasn't fixed the problem. I took screenshots to demonstrate my problem. It keeps switching between the two rather than going straight to the centre.

I can't believe I didn't think of turning off snap to angle, herp derp. Thanks