BlackBicycle

Personally, I'd love to be able to organize my designs by folders. Good thing we already have a separate one for launch vehicles (I mean subassembly "folder"). But yeah, a simple set of OS-based commands to create folders and put designs in those from within the game would be great.

Right... Of course!! Let's bring the old junk back and fix it... and ferry it back up. Are you being serious?? As for experiments that need to be landed, until now I haven't heard of experiments that would weigh more than a kilogram (the part that needs to be returned). I might be wrong of course, I haven't checked the scene for a while, but I doubt any school sent an elephant up there recently.

Earthman, the planet you lived on was commissioned, paid for, and run by mice. Got it?

Hmm, observing the ISS never crossed my mind... It is hard to slew my telescope with precision while observing a fast-moving target, but I will definitely try checking out the ISS! Thanks for the idea, Ultra : ) BTW, just in case someone here doesn't know, there are great apps for mobile phones that show you the real time position of celestial bodies and man-made craft. Just point the thing at he sky, and you will have the fairly exact direction on where to look for a certain object.

Just throwing in another 2 m/s from my memory... note, the costs are from the end of the cold war era - just when the debate of rockets/return capsules versus a reusable spaceplane was at its hottest: Cost of launching 1 kg into low Earth orbit: Shuttle: $120 Soyuz: $40

Well, this is rather a feature request than a suggestion. I design a lot of craft with crew capacity, but with a probe core as well. I launch a lot of those unmanned (for testing, for other crews recovery etc.). I am getting seriously tired of having to evict the crew every time before launch. Could we please have a checkbox somewhere in the VAB - "Do not load any kerbanauts into this vehicle when sending it to launchpad" - a checkbox (state) that is saved with the design? That's it.

There. Read and weep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(spacecraft) "Despite these early fatalities, Soyuz is presently widely considered the world's safest, most cost-effective human spaceflight system, as demonstrated by its unparalleled length of operational history." And that "shuttle" thingie IS a white elephant, imho....

Okay, let's see... I got: 1. A hangover 2. Had to wake up the next morning at 6:30 to prep my son for school and send him off at 7:15 3. All my geranium is ruined due to the last snowstorm, had to cut most of that 4. Cleaned out the fridge (47 hours blackout, see above) Those were the major "presents"... in short: Don't you envy me? You don't? Ah well... : )

Romani ite domum : P

About a couple of years ago I bought a chinese-made telescope for my son. It boasts a 1x288 power with the max attachments, but the attachments themselves are of such low quality (optics-wise), that I hardly use the rig above 1x50. The outer lens is about 6 cm (2+ inches) in diameter. Moon looks great through that, and I can see the phases of Venus and Jupiter. Other than that, the thing is... well... you know. Guess I'll be gazing at the Moon for a while : ) Don't buy chinese. Like, seriously, don't.

OP: wait a second... the kerbals in the lab don't show up, you can click the labs hatch and it will present you with a list of two occupants, with the ability to EVA them. That it?

It IS due to an overdose of turkey. Aircraft land on reasonably long stretches of flat terrain. As a rule.

I have to admit I dreamt out a great Duna lander last night. Had my orange team stranded there - the lander knocked its return engine off on landing. So this morning I woke up (thankfully I didn't have to go to work today), got me a cup of tea and promptly built said lander, before I forgot the design. It worked beautifully, Jeb, Bill and Bob are back home. There.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/63481-Runaway-rover-Science-Lab Post #4 Just my 2 m/s

Did this, landed roughly in the middle of a large crater. Had a 2 hour long rather thrilling drive out of the crater. Got out, took the same set of measurements from outside the crater, then returned to the lander, transferred all the stuff to the capsule, took off and headed back. Netted close to a thousand points on that one. Two locations, crater and out of it. Materials, Goo and the rest. Didn't have Gravioli or Seismic then, shame : ) Recommendations: Unless you are absolutely sure the road ahead will not contain sharp changes in the incline (as in heading sharply upward or a sudden drop, and especially those at an angle to your course), for Mun, keep the speed at 5-10 m/s, depending on how adventurous you feel (and depending on how good your torque wheels are - I hardly had any, so I had to be very careful). If you incorporate a decent size (think medium - before Rockomax) torque wheel into the rover, it will probably be good up to 20 m/s on Mun... but don't take my word for it : ) Quicksave often! Yes, you have to stop for that. Final verdict: On Mun, this is not worth it - while the ride itself is absolutely thrilling, especially the work to get out of a steep crater, the sheer time it takes to get out of a friggin bowl, leave alone the time to drive to the other one... we are talking hours of real time. I believe rovers are for the future, for when we have all kinds of biomes on Eeloo (set a probe into its orbit just yesterday, first time for me, yay! : )... Think life support, psychological compatibility (with Courage and Stupidity I cannot wait for a model of psychological incompatibility hehe : ) And then all of a sudden spending a whole decade (poor crew) on examining a far-away planet using a lab rover becomes a feasible idea. Ok, this thing does have a tendency to roll forward on hard breaking... so don't break hard.... But it does look friggin awesome... doesn't it :?

Well... You can, but not in terms of orbital assembly of a mothership. The docking ports don't hold the pieces very well, and anything complex enough will not be able to accelerate without breaking. I tried that accidentally, fired engines on a craft docked to the station. The whole thing promptly tore itself apart. That said though, I'll add a (very) short story on how I built my orbital fuel depot. Version 22 i think it was, that's when the docking parts came about, right? Anyways... I launched a habitable module first, though it had an unmanned control unit and no people on board. The module had a hub of 5+1 docking ports (a cross plus one on top, and one on the other end of the module). I then launched a series of identical tanker modules, designed to rendezvous with the station as a big orange tank + monopropellant (RCS) tank + docking port + probe core + MechJeb. I launched four, and in the end I had a station at 100km orbit, with 4 orange tanks and a habitable module. I then designed a tanker that would carry about one largest white tank full of fuel to orbit (is that like 400? think so) and some monopropellant too. I launched those until I had 4 orange tanks full of fuel and 4 large mono tanks full. Now I could launch a heavy craft, refuel it in orbit and shoot for whatever planet I wanted. I was so happy I took a hiatus from playing this (RL, you know). When I came back, 23 was out, and I just started all over again : )

Just played a few Kerbin returns, the capsule (the first one, with just a parachute on top) orients itself properly, bottom retrograde. Guess your return vehicle is more complicated, and the aerodynamic forces on it push it some other way. A screenshot would be helpful.

Don\'t you think it is a good result? Now a couple of well-measured farts with your RCS and you\'ll be on a perfect orbit.

Can\'t tell for sure without looking at your vehicle, but I have a theory: Maybe your rocket design is sub-par. Could you post a picture or two of the thing you are trying to put in orbit? Even mechjeb cannot help if the rocket is poorly designed. Lack of atmospheric control surfaces, failure to (provide and) switch on the RCS when in upper atmosphere and a few other factors can contribute to your vehicle deviating from the trajectory. Now, this is something new. Never once did those parts worked wonky with mechjeb, for me that is, nor were they redundant - I spend a lot of time with mechjeb off, relying on sas/asas when I want to.

No worries then, we can take it : ) Yeah, there were a number of designs, every major power after WW2 played with the idea. Personally, I am going to go for the hehagonal (or maybe octo) design, rather than try to approximate the round wing.

Very well. I was merely trying to save the fella a mod hit. Talk about good intention going to waste. P.S. In view of Skunky defying the logic, I\'d rather stop posting altogether.

No comment

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=9016.msg191396#msg191396 See number two.

Very interesting craft, I\'ll try to build something like this when I have time : ) As for your spelling, yeah man, it\'s hard to read. You got the autospeller, use it. Just as a sign of respect for us, okay : ?

Necromancer :s