Yeomans

I am very interested in this, not only as a player but as a contributor, however I'd like to see the level of quality of the phase a contributions before I consider throwing my hat into the game... I don't really want to build something out of touch with the other buildings. Really excited however!

The loading between scenes hasn't affected me whatsoever, and I've found it to be faster than the loading between build and flight scenes prior to the change, but the initial load up of the game for me has become somewhat slower. To be fair, I use several plugins and parts on my main version of KSP which explain this, however I have still noticed a reasonable drop from last update to this one. It doesn't bother me too much, because it's a once-a-play thing and I can easily alt-tab out with no problems, however if Squad were to fix it or find the source of the slow loading, I imagine it would have a considerable effect on other parts of the game, since it's likely inefficient/convenient code, or hard-to-find bugs that have been "digitally duct taped" over as quick fixes, both pretty common in development stages of a program or game... Which reminds me, the game is far from done, so I expect that the level of quality (not in just this aspect, but in all aspects) will increase immensely between now and the finished product. As it stands the game has shaped up quite remarkably the past few updates alone, and I see no reason to believe it will not continue to do so.

Maybe you'll hit another star system sometime soon!

I have a copy on both the store and steam, and I can tell you that there is no benefit within the program itself if you're using one or the other. It depends how you like to play your games. For one, alot of people enjoy the interconnectedness that comes with the Steam option; your game has the useful steam overlay, people can see when you're playing KSP, and screenshots can be directly uploaded into the steam KSP community. On the other hand, some people do not enjoy Steam. Now, this is usually for reasons such as DRM (which, for the record, KSP has no DRM in steam or non-steam versions), or they just don't like steam for whatever reason. I know my friend bought the game in the store, but he didn't really start playing it until he did the Steam Transfer (which is still a one-time option if you decide you like steam more than the store). This is all up to you, however, one way or the other, you're sure to enjoy the game if you've already given it a try and have decided to buy it! Hopefully I've at least given you some information to make your decision by. Regards, Dan

I hope they leave the KSC in, or add all the pre-0.21 buildings, it would be cool because it would be a reminiscence of days past for the long time players!

When I first put an ASAS unit on a rocket and flew it, I noticed it was veering off course as if I didn't have ASAS enabled. I was troubled at first, however I quickly came to realize something: Advanced SAS no longer influences control surfaces on rockets. Combined with the fact that the engine I was using didn't have gimballing, the only thing attempting to right the large rocket was the gyro-wheels, which couldn't achieve this due to the fact that the rocket was just too large. However, I added two things that not only made my rocket stable, but more stable than any rocket I've ever previously constructed: the first was a reaction wheel (which uses the old standard sas model, look for it in control). This gave the gyro-wheels the extra push needed. The second thing was I added a gimballing engine. Unlike control surfaces, ASAS still works with gimballing engines. In short, please don't discredit the new ASAS system as broken, or "bad". The fact of the matter is, that it's certainly an improvement over the old system, but it's indeed different. Like when electric charge was introduced, we had to accommodate in order for old craft to function properly, and the new ASAS system works the same. Sure, it means another part or two, but with these improvements much more reliable craft can be built. I have accommodated and tested all of my aircraft, and even the craft which were too unstable to fly can now be used for endurance flights with ease. That fact alone makes this system a vast improvement.

There are rumours of this week, however, they're rumours and I couldn't verify the legitimacy of them for you. If that fails, then Soonâ„¢ still applies. (I wish Squad could actually trademark that!)

I say a reasonable amount of clipping is fair. Seeing as we can only build rockets and planes with the parts we're given, more complicated builds will require a bit more creativity. As of current, we can't incorporate an ASAS unit in our capsule, or build a service module that neatly compacts fuel, RCS, and SAS into one unit. Aircraft wings are limited in the stock parts, so even then we need to be creative when building, and given the current aerodynamic model it usually makes perfect sense. So yes, clipping is fair game to me, as long as it's not completely ridiculous.

I am building a series of craft that I feel will allow me to best explore and enjoy the new features implemented in the .21 update. Starting with a high altitude endurance plane for viewing the new surface features on Kerbin. Then, a low-altitude, high speed plane for exploration of the KSC area. The canyons between the high mountains in the .21 previews seem to me to be a perfect place for astronaut training that has to do with other planets, and ill also be using it to R&D new bases. The plan for those is to launch a craft or base component into LKO, and then land them between the mountains. It would be a tough endeavour, however it would be worth trying for sake of honing skills, and stress testing interplanetary components. Finally, I am designing a brand new Mun mission, complete with buggies, scientific equipment, and a proper return vehicle, in order to both witness the new Mun terrain, but also explore it from orbit and up close. Hopefully with these goals in mind, I will be able to take in all of the features of this new update to their fullest.

Perhaps so - but there are the rare Kerbals who don't have that surname in the lore. I guess it all depends on one's own take on the game, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer.I think Kerman is a way of addressing astronauts. Now, if we were to deconstruct the english-translated word Kerman, it would likely be "Kerbin man" (or Kerbin human), which doesn't really match with astronaut, but it could be a term to say "Man from Kerbin" which may also imply that they left Kerbin, in the sense that they are from a place that they were at previously. Their grammar may be different and hold different meanings that our rough English interpretations don't convey, so it's fair game to say that Kerman is a title for astronauts. Now, in the case of the Tutorial's Gene Kerman, he would be the analogue of Gene Cernan. Apart from working at mission control, Cernan also travelled to space. Werner von Kerman however, is an issue, but one resolve would be to use the It's hardly Rocket Science name for him, Lernher von Grün. Or maybe, in this universe, Werner von Kerman actually fulfilled his dream of going to space, or even the moon. Who knows. Under this rule for astronauts however, a title for the russian-analogue of astronauts could be devised. Since Astronaut is considered to be a general english-speaking term, and since Kerbin presumably would be the same in both languages (there is no kerbal-russian language as of yet), man would become the russian counterpart, чõûþòõú (chelovek, which is the term for man, that refers to humans in general). So Kerchelovek would be the proper title, but it could be shortened to Kerchel as well, since chel still denotes people. Hopefully this all makes sense. If somebody speaks Russian, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a pretty sound argument.

These ones are more just jokes, don't take these seriously squad! -Removing Lagrange Points -Cloning Jebediah -Deleting Launch Tower -Breaking Saves -Baking Space Cake -Curing Kessler Syndrome -Breaking Aerodynamics

Well, since it seems most likely that kerbals are in a different universe. The despicable me minions could be the alternate universe kerbals, just that they're in our universe, and that they've learned to understand english.

Kerbal fireworks. With real kerbals.

Well, I am in no position to critique or defend Scott Manley's legitimacy in this regard, however I personally see no flaws. Anyways, in an attempt to halt the digression, I was kind of asking the question "if the KSP universe were real...". I would think that for an earth-like planet (with life) to be as dense as Kerbin while retaining all of the qualities of Earth it would require some tinkering of physical laws. I'm no scientist but if we were to assume Kerbin, in this universe, is the equivalent of Earth in our Universe, then there would likely be some differences. In that case, could a different speed of light be calculated?

Hey guys, this is a question that I came across recently in my day-dreaming sessions... I thought, since the scale of the Kerbin star system is much smaller than ours, yet the planets and stars exert comparable gravitational influence (something that is usually explained as an effect of the celestial bodies being much more dense) it led me to realize that the physical laws in this universe must be somewhat different from ours to compensate for these differences. From that point, I began wondering if the cosmic speed limit - the speed of light - would be different as well. Most importantly, given the knowledge we do know about the Kerbin system, is it possible for us to either calculate or take an educated guess as to the exact value? Not only is this a subject of scientific inquiry, however for practical reasons as someone interested in experimentation within KSP, understanding the presumed physical laws and constants of the universe in this game are important. If anybody has any ideas regarding finding this magic number, I'd be willing to entertain them and try my hand at finding it. Thanks alot! ~Dan

Though there is no remaining evidence of it, I will say that anything I made I tried to at least write a paragraph on, but part of that is due to the fact that I like to write alot, so that may just be me. Though it's not definitely the whole reason as to why people aren't writing detailed posts, I can think of one or two small contributing factors as to why. Firstly, I think some people feel that writing too much is a deterrent, and that people won't want to download their creation if they feel they have to read through a whole essay to do so. On a related note, I think some people are afraid that either bad grammar, or poor rhetoric is going to prevent their creation from being noticed, since the post is a first impression. Surely, not writing very much at all isn't a solution, but it is a shortcut to an otherwise uncomfortable process, albeit leading to a similar result. Hopefully that will change, I mean, this community is pretty relaxed and open, but I wouldn't be opposed to a few mod submission guidelines regarding the clarity of submissions, since it only helps the general populace of the forum at the cost of a few minutes by the authors. Once spaceport becomes the de facto method of mod sharing, it may change as well, since the popularity of submissions seems to be more directly linked to how well they are presented.

Simplistic, but I love it. Orbital Design Bureau Inertia, aka. crazy-green-little-communist-kerbals-building-sleek-but-maniacal-rocketry. Aaand these three here are for anybody interested, they're not anything too special...

These are actually all really interesting ideas.. Has anyone toyed around with sending kerbals on interplanetary trajectories? Because the cannon concept works alot better out of atmosphere and you can get anywhere from 500 to 1200 m/s if you do it right. The trick is you stick a rocket on both sides so that it doesn't really move anywhere in space. Or you can attach parachutes to it and only fire retrograde so the cannon just falls back to the atmosphere. I'm planning to build a rig that acts sort of like a loading gun, so you would dock a 2-part craft (one part is the "ammo" and the other is a small craft with rcs and landing legs) and use it like that. I've tested it and it works with capsules too for the most part, so that's an idea you can toy with.

This was something that dawned on me when I read a fellow's Space Cannon thread on this here forum... Aside from space planes and rockets, what ways have you guys tried to get to space, or have successfully gotten to space with? I have tried cannons, another test I had tried was to use constant explosions below my spacecraft to do the trick, but that didn't work too well. Also, on smaller planets and moons, you could probably use the detonation blast from decouplers if you were smart, but I've never seen it done... so what have you guys tried? Also, space travel! I am actually currently doing some tests to see the feasibility of using a rocket in LKO with a small space craft to propel it to interplanetary space, or into minmus orbit, where it can be propelled by another into a planetary intercept. It's a bit of a crazy idea and would definitely need some part tweaking and things like that, but I like toying around with it! So what have you guys got goin'?

I wanna watch 2001 again now... but I agree.

In response to the moon question, it's also important to note that if this collision took place, it would have happened during a time when the Earth was still mostly molten. Molten rock acts in a much different manner than non-molten rock, and if you can imagine it, the collision probably yielded a large mass of molten rock into space, but enough for the mass to bind together under the force of gravity. In this early time of the planet's development, it wasn't as dense, and so it's sphere of influence, albeit would have been weaker, but more widespread. An unstable mass such as the soon-to-be moon could have been easily captured if it was ejected from the planet at a relatively slow velocity, but not too slow as to cause it to rebound. You have to also remember the moon bears a significant pull on the Earth, and so being completely ejected from the earth's SOI isn't as easy as it sounds.

And, one can speculate they are all of the same family. I like to think they asexually reproduce, it explains why they can come back to fly another rickety rocket after certain death.

This really isn't Kerbal Space Program related... should be in the Off-Topic forum :S

These tutorials just make me more confused, to be honest... Put it this way: I have all the files from the original mk1 pod (i took them out of the demo this time), what is the easiest way to add a ladder? can i open the model up with parttools and add one?