Vanamonde

Several spaceplane parts are dummies right now, but will serve functions later. The intakes will enhance jet engine performance to varying degrees according to their intake draw capacity, but are dead weight at the moment. I put them on anyway, for practice and for looks.

It\'s not just rockets. I built a little jet that disintegrated during its takeoff roll. It started bouncing around and then throwing parts in random directions. It didn\'t collide with anything or roll over and hit the ground, mind you: just shook itself apart, and then fell over and blew up. But it doesn\'t happen every time, either.

It\'s not just the way you attached your wings, Daniel1324. I am also noticing that the dive-to-the-side-on-takeoff glitch seems to be worse in .16. In fact, there\'s a slight tendency to roll in level flight, and my first ship to orbit spun slowly as well. I made a stock parts rover that is completely unsteerable and just goes wherever it wants, ignoring my instructions. :\'( Wasn\'t that supposed to be fixed in this upgrade? Not that I\'m complaining, because hey! Free-range Kerbals!

My first EVA! 'I\'m taking the rocket car for a spin. You guys want anything from Starbucks?'

Yes, that makes much more sense than just opening the hatch and letting him in.

633) 'Cool! My little guy is out of the spaceplane and on the runway! Um. How exactly does he get back into the plane now?' Moral of the story: ladders are important!

This game makes my face tired from grinning.

While some store glitch won\'t let me upgrade to .16 (I\'m weeping as we speak), I set out to beat my previous record for non-fatal rover jumps. Figure #1: Position of parked marker vehicle at edge of impressive cliff. Figure #2: Looking in direction of jump (marker vehicle next to navball). Figure #3: Moment of launch. Figure #4: Yeah, I think Minmus escape velocity beats my old record of 34.8km. Figure #5: On the way to Kerbin orbit. Who needs rockets?

Happy birthday!

Everything is going apeshit, I\'m having trouble accessing the new version, and pesky people are giving the developers a hard time. So it occurred to me that this would probably be the best time ever to say that I love the game, I have a deep appreciation for the guys who are working on it (not to mention our long-suffering moderators), I have complete faith that everything is going to get fixed, even in its current alpha state this is just about the best game I\'ve ever played, and when the problems get ironed out, I\'m still going to be a loyal fan. Thanks ever so much, KSP team, and try not to let the crazies get to you!

User: Have you ever played Kerbal Space Program? Cleverbot: No. User: You should try it. It\'s a lot of fun. Cleverbot: Awesome, we\'ll have to do it sometime. User: Why not now? Cleverbot: Because I need to take the baby out of the oven. User: Yes, that would be a good thing to do. By the way, why was the baby in the oven in the first place? Cleverbot: I don\'t know. User: Who put him in there? Cleverbot: I think he found a toadstool. User: There was a toadstool growing in the oven? Cleverbot: And then... User: And then... What? Cleverbot: 7 is the square root of 49. User: I agree. But is the baby out of the oven yet? That\'s not something you\'d want to procrastinate about. Cleverbot: I\'ll just make it something you want then. User: Are you offering to cook the baby for me? That\'s nice of you, but I decline. I\'d rather have some pie. Not baby pie, though. Cleverbot: Oh my God you lied to me! . User: What lie was that? Cleverbot: It equals 5. User: You\'re not being very lucid right now. Cleverbot: Only because you\'re making me that way. User: Look, is that baby out of the oven yet or not? Cleverbot: Yes. User: Is he alright? Cleverbot: Yes, he is. User: That\'s good. What about the toadstool, though? Cleverbot: I don\'t no, I\'m not the movie-friend. User: Are you telling me the baby/toadstool story was just a movie you saw? Cleverbot: Yes. User: Well that\'s just great. I\'m glad no real babies were endangered, though. Why did you scare me like that? Cleverbot: I am the robot, you are the boy.

For sheer color and variety of accomplishments, Benjamin Franklin. First postmaster, early proponent of public libraries, ambassador to France, inventor of bifocals, inventor of lightning rods, abolitionist (in his later life), governor of Pennsylvania, almanac publisher, and on and on. And one that most people don\'t know about: in his time, he was world-famous as one of the foremost experts on electricity.

With your kindly help here I\'ve been able to make some small planes I\'m pleased with, but larger models are proving to have problems of their own. I understand that the violent-veer-on-takeoff is a problem of self-collision, but even so, it\'s stronger on some planes than others. What affects it and how can I reduce it? (I\'ve got a plane right now that slalloms down the field like a competitive skier.) Do lift-generating parts generate any forces if placed vertically? Suppose I want to add tanks to side mounts, as in the screenshot, and I want to reinforce the arrangement with small hardpoints. If I place the hardpoints first, as in the second screenshot, the interface has a tendency to try to stick the tanks to them, possibly leaving gaps between the tanks. So my question is, if I attach tank-to-tank and then place the hardpoint between the fuselage and the second tank, as in the third screenshot, is the hardpoint actually connecting to the outer tank, or is that just a visual overlap?

There\'s some confusion in my mind still, but isn\'t that a matter of control systems? Advanced SAS must work through control devices and the module exerts no force itself, correct? In that case, the single gimballed engine would be the only thing trying to control the mass of the ship against any slight wobbles or incipient rotations. Shouldn\'t RCS and/or regular SAS help? Also, I\'m told multiple ASAS are redundant while multiple SAS are cumulative, right?

Holy crap! I didn\'t want to be mean, but I never thought you\'d actually get that thing off the ground! ON ONE ENGINE, no less? ??? You\'re welcome!

What are your altitude and attitude in the second picture? If you\'re still too low and/or trying to plow ahead rather than up, air resistence will be countering your thrust, you won\'t build up to orbital speed, and you\'re basically still just flying like an airplane, and that can\'t ever get out of atmo. (Which is basically what butt head just said, minus the gloating.) I got a SSTO splaceplane to reach orbit (but not to land without blowing up ) by climbing to 6000m on jets, then standing it on its tail and transitioning to the liquid fuels. It was really just like flying a normal rocket ascent from there, except you get a headstart on speed and altitude. If you\'re not able to raise that apoapsis while climbing at 80 degrees or so, then I think the problem is not your flight plan, but the thrust/weight ratio of your ship while in rocket mode. Hope this helps.

I also would like a one-system universe, like Firefly, or the stories of Olaf Stapledon (ancient sci-fi writer). Spore\'s galaxy was an awe-inspiring idea (I\'ve read that it has 100,000 systems?), but seriously, what percentage of that did any player ever get around to visiting? Oh, shoot! Sorry, I thought you could zoom in on the Firefly thing. The idea is that it\'s a multi-star system with several earth-like planets, but many more terraformed moons of planets. All available by sub-light cruise, since they don\'t have FTL.

Your DC-3 looks more like a Ford or Junkers trimotor from the 30s. I always liked the look of those planes.

I\'m not exactly sure what your issue is, but are you aware that when changing orbit, you can\'t change your current altitude from where you are now; you can only change your future altitude from where you are now? In my little diagram the planet is the green blob and your ship is leaving the atmosphere at point A on the red path. No matter how much fuel you burn at point A, your orbit will always come back around to that low point at A. (Experts on this stuff: I know I\'m cutting corners on the explanation, but I\'m trying to keep it simple and clear.) Burning fuel at A does, however, raise the altitude of point B. Later when you get to point B, again you can\'t change its altitude from there, but burning fuel there will raise the altitude of point A, putting you on the yellow path. So reaching orbit always requires 2 burns: one to reach altitude, and one to keep you at that height. If this isn\'t your issue, sorry if I sound like a know-it-all. I just like helping nice people on these boards when I can. Maybe you could post a screen shot of the map view of your flight?

Your little kerbinauts will be able to leave their ships and move around outside, including from a stranded ship to a working ship that can bring them home.

595) When 'tail dragger' isn\'t just pilot slang.

... then you can send him the .craft file for that ship, which he can copy into his ships folder, and then the next time he plays the game, your ship will show up in his VAB as a saved ship just like the ones he made for himself.

Oh yeah. I don\'t know why why I was thinking I needed to create a new one instead of altering an existing one, but I guess it works either way?

The guys already crossed over to Daedalus, which is clearly large enough to have some passengers seats, from which they are attempting to save the taxpayers\' investment in Icarus-2 by using the backup remote control option to deorbit the ship. Their relayed bio-telemetry and crew portraits may cut to static if Icarus-2 crashes, but they\'ll be safe on Daedalus either way.

And you can add those files as attachments to a post, as I did with mine. If you want to look at that one, copy it into the 'ships' folder of your KSP folders, as UmbralRaptor says. Then it will appear in your VAB as a saved ship the next time your play the game. I tried to make it just like yours, but it might be a little different. I flew that version to orbit, by the way, so it should work just fine for you. ;D That\'s odd. I\'ve never run into it before.