Whirligig Girl

Download link doesn't appear to be working right.

Science mods, experimental release? I see what you did there.

There is an update for it, but there's a few problems There's a few kinks that still need to be worked out. Github has a link to the new 1.8 version, if you want to try it.

No gimballing engine, no steerable winglets, no fairings, no LV-909! What's the point in even having a Mun and Minmus if you can barely get off the planet? I tried the demo, for science reasons, and it's just too hard. Remember, I'm a seasoned player. I played with RSS, 6.4x, Jumbo32, I've done Jool, Duna, all the Moons, and probes on Moho and Eve, and a whole lot in between. I'm no newbie. So why is the demo too hard for me to play, when it is made exclusively for newbies? Refer to this video. The demo is bad, but the game is fantastic, overall, a loss of sales.

Problem, Wal is mostly black (with a Wal-colored outline) It's the only planet that is like this the rest are fine as far as I can tell. http://imgur.com/bwzdHg4,86MwvnU Scaledspace is fine. EDIT: THis is a known bug, sorry for not reading.

I never said I had an idea of how exactly to use it, I just gave a basic example. It'd be up to Squad to figure anything else out.

Do post it soon, I'm excited to play a prototype of a space game any time! Remember, KSP started out as a little tiny project too. This game may evolve into something bigger than this. Part suggestion: Weapons Feature Suggestion: A game mode where you fight other spacecrafts. EDIT: Part suggestion: Larger rocket parts Feature suggestion: Ability to place more than 1 crew containment capsule (control source), every space game like this has the need for this eventually.

I was thinking about how the new aero compares to FAR, and how rockets and planes don't wobble in the new atmosphere as they did in old FAR. This brought me to the train of thought of how they fine-tuned the whole thing. Then I had an idea. A lot of these things are based on subjective opinions on balance, and may not turn out quite right. So what if instead, you had a genetic algorithm (natural selection, but for designing things instead of being life) to tune things. For instance, a variation on a code or a cfg is run through a series of stress tests, and the best one (in the case of aero, perhaps it could be the SAS configuration that produces the least wobble) gets to bring its "genes" on to the next generation of code or cfgs or whathaveyou. This is so abstract, this might fit in better in the Space Lounge than the development forum. And now I'm wondering about the idea of using a genetic algorithm to control a rocket in kOS or something.

I am happy.

Download please! Part suggestions: Boostahs and NERVAs.

People get more rep faster because there's more people with more rep giving more powerful rep. Unless I'm mistaken, people with more rep have a higher power in their rep giving.

You could try taking a large empty fairing up, approachin it, timewarping until the asteroid is inside the fairing, and have a claw on the inside of the fairing grab it. - - - Updated - - - No, they are at least 4 meters in diameter. - - - Updated - - - But Nova, have you ever been to Dres?

No. Human beings can survive up to 4 gees for a long period of time.

It was taken off of YouTube and I was really sad and its BACK! :D Now, I rarely write emoticons in quick succession, but this is of great excitement!

They will even start to glow reddish if they get hot enough for blackbody radiation.

Reminds me of Aerojet's proposed "High Performance Spaceplane."

Making fun of regex for being a realistically grumpy spacehippy is one of the more fun parts of life. (Sorry man)

I am seeing this as well. Additionally, it is buggy on phones and stuff, and has no female kerbals available. It's really not very good.

If we assume that the constant of gravitation in the Kerbal Universe is higher, in-scale, what would Kerbol's star class be? (I.e., make Kerbol 10 times bigger and keep the surface gravity it has in-game, what would it be?)

I did an experiment, and I found that structural panels act as wing surfaces due to the body lift system. Removing the lift wouldn't actually change much.

Ares IV. The Ares was supposedly cancelled with the constellation program, but the MPCV was brought back, then given back its name Orion. Ares should get its name back as well. But it's clear why its taking funding from the Earth Science programs. Ted Cruz, antiscience senator, is in control of NASA funding. Of course he doesn't like the political implications of the climate science program, so he's putting it to "better" efforts. I feel really selfish right now, but I am almost happy that the deep space programs are being given funding. That's what NASA always was to me. Of course, I know that isn't the "right" thing to do.

Basically, sometimes, if you have a light enough rocket, a lighter rocket engine will be more efficient than a more efficient one. If you had a huge amount of fuel, (Jumbo-64s with oxidizer removed) you would probably get more delta-v from the LV-N

I would just like to mention that it wouldn't be an I-beam if it werent for the "thingys". Those make it look like an uppercase I. Without them, it's not an I-beam, it's just a structural pane So yes, I think we should have a half-size structural panel.

To me it looks like that shuttle is falling about right, just that the game is lagging a bit. Glide slope looks roughly like -20 degrees to me.

How about adding some space-instrumental classics to KSP's space soundtrack? Blue Danube for instance?