Supernovy

Suggesting specific parts is fine. On topic, I agree with you that more structural fuselage sizes would be helpful. I personally would like to see 2.5 metre ones for space stations.

When you choose the link you're using on imgur, it should give you the option to use smaller pictures ("Large thumbnail" or "Small square" or something). I'll see if I can do something about the poll.

Asking for release dates is prohibited in the Forum Rules. It's done when it's done, and no earlier. If you want to discuss ammunition calibres, feel free to make a thread in the Space Lounge. Either way, thread locked. Have a nice day.

You can also focus on a manoeuvre node by tabbing or shift-tabbing through all the planets. Backspace resets the focus to your craft.

Career mode is very much planned for the future of KSP, as it says on the FAQ and it has been revealed that the next update (0.22) will feature one of the first steps of career mode, the tech tree. If you're not opposed to using mods, I recommend Mission Controller Extended which adds finance managing and missions to complete. In any case, since this is a planned feature, I am locking this thread. Have a nice day.

AFAIK, this sort of thing is tracked by the game but not shown to the player. Last I heard, any future planets will start out undiscovered, but the current ones will be visible from the start. Indeed it has.

From what I can tell, KSP drag is directly proportional to mass, which means the acceleration due to drag that you feel is directly proportional to the average drag coefficient (the mass weighted average). Adding a part of the same drag coefficient as a ship to it does not affect its aerodynamic properties at all, no matter where it is placed or what mass it is. This also means that the centre of drag will always be on the centre of mass, unless parts of differing drag coefficient are added. In this case, you can get torque due to the drag and mass centres not being aligned. The more massive the different-drag part is, and the further away from the current centre of drag it is, the more torque it will cause. Solid rocket boosters are 0.3 drag, greater than the 0.2 that most parts have. This means that if you put boosters at the bottom of the ship, they will aerodynamically stabilise it. Parachutes have something like 0.22 drag when undeployed, and the torque this causes can easily be seen during re-entry with a pod. Most nosecones are 0.3 drag, so will pull the centre of drag toward them. this will have a stabilising effect if used on lower stage boosters, but will increase the overall drag. The aeroplane nosecone is different, it has 0.1 drag, so will lower overall drag and push the centre of drag away from it, so will stabilise if put on the front of a craft. The Cupola pod has 0.4 drag and a mass of 4.5 tonnes, meaning it will increase the overall drag a lot and will cause a very strong torque in atmosphere. At least, that's what I think happens.

Just FYI, the update video starts at 14:26 in the first recorded stream. EDIT: this belongs here.

I've been using the interstage adapters to change how my rockets look by covering up the stock fuel tanks. I was trying to make something Juno-1-esque here. Everything's covered in fairings except the payload. What's nice about this is that you can get other sizes apart from the standard 0.625, 1.25, 2.5 metres.

You can already do this by removing the "Brake" action for the wheels from the "Brake" action group during construction.

Banned because in a thread of bans, the banner... ...becomes the banee.

Fusing parts during construction to prevent wobble is on the what not to suggest list, under "Combining parts". If you want to do similar things, check out model nodes. Thread Locked. Have a nice day.

It sounds to me like it might be a Drag issue, they are hard to detect due to the lack of a stock centre of drag indicator (similar to centre of pressure, as I've heard). Since KSP drag is proportional to mass, the centre of drag is usually right on the centre of mass, resulting in no torque. When you add parts that don't have a drag value of 0.2 (which most parts have), this can move the centre of drag, making the rocket stable or unstable depending on where the part is. Even more so with high mass differing drag parts like the Aerospike and Cupola. So, you can make it more stable by adding higher drag parts near the bottom or lower drag parts near the top. You could also try a gentler gravity turn (e.g. following prograde) or slower ascent to reduce the aerodynamic forces on the craft.

Moved to Gameplay Questions and Tutorials. Do you have enough oxidiser? The staging bar only reports liquid fuel, so it might be showing you the jet fuel tanks instead of the rocket fuel tanks.

You can try using "Control From Here" on the docking ports, the lower one facing up should give you the right orientation.

What exactly happens when you hit 'Control From Here"? That should work, unless the remote guidance system is also upside-down.

Time warp boundaries seem like a natural place to put orbit definition boundaries, I generally use 70 - 120 km as LKO, but beyond that I haven't really thought about it. It's either Mid Kerbin Orbit from there to semisynch (approx. 1588km) and high orbit beyond that, or MKO to geosynch and HKO beyond that. 3Mm seems like a nice number for a GKO graveyard orbit.

Both of your ports are upside down. If you pick up a port in the VAB and hit spacebar, it'll flip to an orientation where the bit that docks is on top.

In my experience, it takes around 1500-2000 m/s delta-v to land on the Mun and get back into orbit, 700-800 m/s to land and about 600 m/s to get into orbit. If you want to make the lander as light as possible you could cut that down to 1300 and leave only a little margin for error. I have also found that two stage landers are generally less efficient than single stage ones for Mun landings. Using a seat or two will cut down your dry mass by a significant amount as TheDarkStar mentioned. You should also investigate the possibility of using the orbiter to deorbit the lander to add a few metres per second to its delta-v budget. You should also see if different engines can get you more delta-v, often the lower mass of a different engine will offset its lower Isp. If I recall correctly, the surface gravity on the Mun is about a sixth of Kerbin's, so take that into account when calculating TWR. You could get a more accurate measurement of this if you landed a gravimeter or accelerometer on the Mun. If you can spare a few kilograms, consider taking these sensors with you when you land. Higher TWR is better for non-atmospheric bodies, but you probably want to find out the lowest engine mass you can get away with.

Here are some of HarvesteR's posts about science / the tech tree: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44915-About-the-Tech-tree?p=577486#post577486 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44915-About-the-Tech-tree?p=595806#post595806 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44915-About-the-Tech-tree?p=597557#post597557 Since this is almost definitely coming in the next update, it may be a good idea to switch this to a discussion instead of a suggestion.

A charge of roughly 25 units lasts a standard stock probe core through the dark portion of a low Kerbin orbit, so I'd be very happy if the default charge amount was increased. Different levels of internal battery could help balance the stock probes, which at the moment are only differentiated in shape and mass. On the other hand, changing electricity generation or storage (e.g. smaller batteries) may be a better option for game balance. I do agree that battery powered probes are a little underpowered (no pun intended) right now.

You can use the scroll wheel and press the middle mouse button to zoom in in IVA. On topic, I agree that IVA needs some work. For example, I'd like to see buttons for custom action groups. Probe cameras with HUDs sounds like a good idea too.

Since this is in the what not to suggest list under "Multiplayer", thread locked. Have a nice day.

I'll admit I put more effort into the payload than the LV, but I didn't want to do anything tricky (like clipping), since the point of the challenge was a newbie-friendly design. I did, however, redo the booster stage including fins, which I will post a picture of here at some point. I also noticed that I was the only one to cluster LV-1Rs, they seem like a nice way to get a thrust between the 24-77 and Ant, if lacking in specific impulse (and being four times as loud). I voted for the K-MAP because it's simple and it emulates the original Z-MAP very well. EDIT: Here's the HMAP version three:

It seems like this is the same mechanic as with the deployable panels, only that smashing the static one doesn't make it explode into a million pieces. In fact, the OX-STATs have isBreakable = false in their part.cfgs. It is perhaps a bug that they display as broken in the first place.