Tiron

Which has the unfortunate side effect of wasting a TREMENDOUS amount of Delta-V hauling the LET that high: Keep in mind that the rocket equation has a very nasty recursive multiplicative quality when it comes to additional payload. According to XKCD's 'What-if' column(http://what-if.xkcd.com/58/), "the fuel required to increase your speed by 1 km/s multiplies your weight by about 1.4", the way he's phrased that sounds suspiciously like he's talking about 1km/s of delta-v, but then he starts talking in terms of increasing to 8km/s (LEO Approximate orbital velocity) so I'm wondering if he left out drag and gravity losses for the sake of simplicity(Actual delta-V to LEO is around 9.3-10km/s according to a Delta-V map on wikipedia.) The trick is, that's recursive: Each additional km/s multiplies the weight of the rocket including the fuel for the last round by 1.4 again. LKO takes around 4200-4400 m/s of delta-v total, so far as I've seen, but I'll just fudge it to 4 km/s for the sake of simplicity in stealing his numbers: 1.4*1.4*1.4*1.4=3.8416. So every ton of weight you haul to LKO takes ~4 tons of fuel(extremely fudged) to get it there. This is the reason for staging: Every bit of weight you dump on the way up gets recursed fewer times, as does all the fuel you no longer need to haul that to orbit... a small weight reduction will result in a disproportionate reduction in the amount of fuel required. So the sooner you dump the tower, the more you reduce the extra fuel you need to haul it and the more Delta-V you have left when you get to orbit.

Apollo dropped it at about 90km(the edge of space is considered to be 100km). In the later stages they were mostly using it to re-orient the capsule bottom-first so that the parachutes could deploy. But KSP is massively space compressed. Kerbin has 1/10th the radius of Earth, and Low Earth Orbital Velocity is about four times higher than for what we call LKO. Earth's atmosphere doesn't ever really quite 'end' either: the Exosphere is considered to extend out to the point where the remaining gas particles aren't gravitationally bound to the Earth. Although it reaches a density so low that the remaining particles don't act like a gas anymore at about 500-1000km depending on solar activity. As for not using all the sepatrons to eject it, I can't really attest to that. I can say that if you only manage to spin it about the Y-Axis by doing so that'll just make it worse, because that's exactly how rifles work. Getting it to unbalance in a way that sends it off to one side or another could be tricky with symmetrically placed sepatrons, since you can't normally fire only part of a symmetry group (and if it's too unbalanced it'll curve down into your rocket!) I find it easier to just pitch it after I start the gravity turn. No fuss, no muss, no alarming close encounter.

Either of: When your SRBs are decoupled (at which point an escape tower is barely useful anymore, I find), or immediately after starting the gravity turn (so it can't come back down on top of you), whichever comes second.

I-Beams have *quite* flexible joints though. But yeah, if you stand the struts off they'll create a more rigid connection. You could also try a multi-docking connection, although they have their own rigidity issues: Note the port at the BOTTOM is the fully-connected one.

The VAB placement bugs are usually caused by the clipping detection, usually either when replacing an existing part with another one and/or when using symmetry (the detection on the symmetry is different than for a single part for whatever reason, so it'll disallow the symmetrical placements even as it allows the original). There's a workaround. If you hit alt+F12 it brings up the debug menu. One of the items under cheats is 'allow part clipping in editors.' When I run into one of the placement bugs, I flip it on, place the part, then flip it back off. Saves a lot of time and frustration, and isn't actually cheating so far as I'm concerned when working around those bugs. Do note that it'll allow placements that aren't normally allowed at all if it's on, and that clipping can cause physics errors in-flight.

It's just a text file (some form of XML I believe?). Very hand-editable. The .craft files are too (in fact, the structure of a vessel in persistent.sfs is nearly identical to its structure in the .craft file.) Just don't screw up the {} brackets.

I used to edit it a bit to remove debris, but that's gotten a LOT easier to do in game if I really want to (though I've moved on to where I consider even THAT cheating.) I've also been known to reset Kerbals to 'alive' status (Not anymore, though.) Or to try to fix it when it failed to flag someone as in flight(Which I haven't seen happen in 0.21 yet.) I *did* recently edit it to add a group of four kerbals, one at each extreme of the Courage/Stupidity chart, for testing purposes (Specifically, to check if Stupidity was in fact backwards...and decided that despite the very explicitly defined reaction, which way it is is almost completely open to interpretation.) I should really probably get rid of them, now the testing's done... keep forgetting to. Never actually gonna put them on a real flight though.

Glad to hear it I recovered my Kethane database this way a few times when I was doing stock reinstalls to check stuff. It's a nice little trick, though not nearly as reliable as I'd like, due to it being almost entirely dependent on there still being a system restore point with the file in it. Edit: How in the heck did I typo 'Persistent' that badly, sheesh. lol.

If you're lucky, you MIGHT be able to recover a slightly less old version, if you're using a new enough version of windows. These directions are based on my Windows 7 ultimate First, you need to find your presistant.sfs file, this SHOULD be in /<KSP Root Folder>/Saves/<Name you set for your Save> Once you've found it, right click on it and hit properties. There should hopefully be a tab labeled 'Previous Versions', click on it. It'll be blank at first, but after some searching it will hopefully come up with a list of alternate Persistent.sfs files, with the date they're from and their source. There are only two possible sources: Windows-made Backups and System Restore Points. This is where the luck part comes in: Most people don't do regular backups, so you're basically dependent on there having been a system restore point created after your quicksave was, which contains a backup of persistent.sfs. None of that's guaranteed, because it's dependent on your system restore settings and how much you've used your system since you quicksaved. If there is a newer version listed, you merely click on it then hit 'restore'. Might want to back up the current one first though eh? But, if you're lucky, it might very well have one that's only a day old.

Specifically, it uses a Tree structure to represent the craft. There's a single 'root part' (the first one placed), and every part branches off that. Each non-root part has exactly one parent and a theoretically unlimited number of child parts: anywhere from 0 to the maximum number you can trick the editor into fitting as radial attachments. The requirement that each part has one, and only one, parent node makes it impossible to form a 'loop' structure with the normal parent->child connections. You can get around it via a PHYSICAL connection that isn't a link in the tree. There are two ways to get a physical connection at present: struts, and multidocking. Multidocking has the same limitations: only one port can be the 'parent' port of a substructure, the others can only make physical connections (this is why the magnetic attraction shuts off when the first pair mates, and the subsequent pairs are able to connect while not perfectly aligned: they're making physical connections instead of actual links.) Struts can be connected in the VAB. You can also set up unconnected docking port pairs facing each other in the VAB: They'll automatically form a physical connection when the craft loads in on the pad.

My first mun missions were also in the old 0.13.3 demo. No EVA, No Persistence, so no chance of rescue. (Also no plugins, and I've never really gone for parts pack, so no mods at all). My first one just flat crashed because I landed too hard. The subsequent several attempts tipped over due to bad steering on my part. They didn't NEED rescue, however: The rocket I sent them with was so massive and so overbuilt that the remaining, undamaged portion was enough to get them back to Kerbin, even after a horizontal takeoff due to landing on its side (yes, it's possible!)

Let's see... Have the rescue ship do a suborbital hop to a closer position, if it has enough fuel. Send the poor stranded kerbal a rover. Send the Rescue Ship a rover to pick him up with. Send another rescue ship to land closer. Send the poor stranded kerbal a suborbital Hopper. Send another rescue ship with a rover to pick him up with. That'll do for now.

They're checkboxes, you can hit more than one. As for me, none of the above... I've played with an early version of Deadly Reentry, though. FAR screws up Mechjeb, DR just really doesn't do that much, and Life Support I haven't really looked at. Remotetech I've thought about but never seriously looked at, because it seems like it'd mostly just make things more annoying... with the saves getting screwed up every few months, anyway. My big problems with the above are mostly in two categories: Adds more tedium than real challenge, increases part counts. Remotetech I might do anyway if I didn't just KNOW that I'd end up setting up a network, and then having to relaunch the entire (@%( thing because my save got broken again. Remapping everything is bad enough by itself!

The whole point of magnets is that they don't have to be placed Via EVA unless you're trying to place them very precisely. In which case, you might as well use detachable connectors and save the electrical usage.

Only if it were optional. A lot of people would end up just reloading their last quicksave if something broke spontaneously. For people that don't find the challenge interesting (and maybe at times even for those that do), it'd just be tedious and frustrating. I'm pretty sure the devs already said it wasn't going to happen, though.

Hate: 1.) The Rover Suspension/Terrain Mesh bug that makes rovers almost unusable. It's all but halted my gameplay. 2.) Single core physics. I gave up on my refueling station design because it caused intermittent low level physics delta time just ORBITING. 3.) It taking the better part of a day to map a single body, and having to re-map things I already mapped because stuff changed, again. Or my save got lost (again), And it felt like cheating to keep the old maps. Love: 1.) The sheer awesome ridiculousness that's possible...and relatively common. Yay Emergent Gameplay! 2.) Just being able to build a rocket and go to space! 3.) The cute little Kerbals, d'awwh. 4.) Um...almost everything else, honestly, I could probably go on all day on this side if I spent enough time thinking about it.

The Rovemax 1s lack enough traction to take a corner reasonably well. The TR-2Ls have too MUCH traction. I've personally never had problems with the suspension being inadequate. The suspension+ground mesh problem, however, has basically stopped my gameplay, because I got tired of it interfering with my rovers and I refuse to do anything else until I've found all the anomalies on Kerbin...which isn't going to happen unless the rovers get fixed.

Actually technically it's the 'Dumb' stat, per the persistence file. It's just presented in game as 'Stupidity'. The question isn't really which way it is, but which way the game USES it. Empirical evidence is all we've got to go off of, unless the code gets released or a dev interjects, and Bill certainly acts the smarter of the two kerbals with defined attributes. I'm probably going to shoot a test flight later, just to see, but I need to get some way to compress the video first so it doesn't take all night to uploader. Windows movie maker or summat. Edit: Well the flight was a series of botches, so I didn't film it (well I filmed part of it), and will redo that later if necessary, but it did collect interesting information. I replaced the parachute on a Kerbal-X with a Mk1pod, with a small parachute on top and two radials on the mark 1-2 pod. Here's my four hacked kerbals, I couldn't think of a good name for the 0/0 one. You'll note I named the others following my belief that Stupidty/Dumb is backwards (assuming you get the references). Dunder = 0 Courage/Brave, 0 Stupidity/Dumb Forrest = 1 Courage/Brave, 0 Stupidity/Dumb Sam = 0 Courage/Brave, 1 Stupidity/Dumb Tony = 1 Courage/Brave, 1 Stupidity/Dumb Test results were interesting. In particular, during normal flight there were basically only two sets of reactions: Dunder and Forrest spent the entire ascent and half the descent completely freaking out. While that was happening, Sam and Tony were both neutral-ish, and maybe a bit excited. In Orbit and for the first half of the descent, Sam and Tony were Grinny, while Dunder and Forrest were moderately concerned to neutral. There was little to no noticeable difference on the courage axis while in normal flight. However Mechjeb seriously botched up the landing for some reason. It was trying to land like, right ON the launchpad, almost perfectly lined up... but brought the ship to a hover several hundred meters up. I then attempted to take manual control and shift it downrange a bit so it wouldn't fall off the side of the launchpad...and after a series of overcorrections, ran out of fuel and came down just a bit hard on the edge of the launchpad. Some breakage of connections and one minor explosion, but allmost all of the upper stage was intact, if a bit more...spread out than it really should've been. And then I noticed something interesting. The two pods had broken off each other and the main landing stage, and I was left in control of the Mk 1-2 pod containing Dunder, Forrest, and Sam (Tony was in the mk1pod several meters away.) I noticed that Dunder and Sam were looking about in some alarm, while Forrest sat there looking fairly calm. The appearance is that Stupidty/Dumb primarily affects their attitude in normal flight, while Courage/Brave primarily affects their level of scaredness when something goes a bit wrong. Notable is that in both instances, a *higher* value makes them less likely to be scared. In the case of Stupidity/Dumb, this can be taken two ways, which support either conclusion: Higher is dumber because they're not as frightened by operating a Kerbal Rocket in the more dangerous flight regimes; or Higher is Smarter because they're not as likely to dramatically overreact to normal flight.

Nope, just their reactions. More or less, Stupidity/Dumb affects their ability to determine if what's going on is dangerous or not. Courage/Brave determines the amount of perceived danger they're willing to put up with without screaming their heads off. At least, so I've gathered from things I've read and what I've seen. I'm now debating doing a test launch later with some kerbals hacked to be in the 'four corners' of possibility to compare their reactions. Also: BadS = true overrides their values completely and makes them grin like a madman (or like they're completely baked) all the time, unless there's explosions. Jeb actually has 0.5/0.5, it's just his BadS flag that makes him grinny.

There's been some problems getting all the bugs worked out. Here's a rundown, copied from The Wiki, of issues with one of the older ones. They're easier to move around in once you get it on, and puncture testing showed that up to a square millimeter of skin could be exposed by a puncture without any 'permanent effects'. But harder to get on. The chief problems remain as they were in the late 60s/early 70s: Keeping the pressure uniform on all parts of the body, accommodating the natural change in shape of parts of the body as they're moved, and getting the appropriate level of pressure without making getting in the thing a complete chore. As far as the 'breathing' thing goes, keep in mind that a normal space suit is generally pressurized to 4.7 psi. It's actually LESS pressure being exerted on the body than in a normal space suit, it's just mechanical instead of air pressure. The chief designer back then had this to say on the subject, in the final Report: Development's never really actually stopped: MIT's *still* working on improved versions.

I think it already IS that way: Bill has high Stupidity/Dumb (0.8), Bob has Low Stupidity/Dumb (0.1). So far as I'm aware, Bob's always been portrayed as the 'stupid' one, so... yeah.

There's actually another way. In the VAB/SPH, there's a 'Brake' action group, which all wheels are assigned to by default. You can prevent flipping in one direction by removing some of the wheels from the 'brake' action group: For example, removing the front wheels will allow you to use full brakes while travelling forward, but still flip you going backwards, on most rover designs.

Huge is distinctly relative: Such a change at the outskirts of Kerbin's SOI is going to take very, very little Delta-V to accomplish. Yes, it'd take even less now. But it's harder to make the adjustments accurately at this point. To the OP: What you're seeing, and the reasons they're different colors, is the result of the game predicting your orbit assuming you don't make any maneuvers. You've successfully set up a Kerbin Encounter, and what's happening is that Kerbin's gravity is going to alter your orbit somewhat: The Purple is a prediction of what it'll end up as. The points where you enter and leave Kerbin's SoI are indicated by small circles on either side of it in your screenshots. If you were to change focus to Kerbin and Zoom in, you would find that your trajectory inside its SoI is indicated with a third color: A yellow line that bridges your current trajectory and the purple one.

There is a line, though, and crossing it should not be tolerated. At all. Threats of violence in particular should result in immediate, total removal from whatever community they're made in with no appeal or chance of revocation, in addition to the normal consequences of making such statements by other means (IE: Going to Jail.)

And games shouldn't have contracts involved in the first place. Seriously, large sections of most EULAs consists of attempts to abrogate various consumer protection laws and legal conventions in an attempt to prevent the consumer having any reasonable method of recourse. It works both ways: If you're going to claim protection because there's a contract involved, they get their assertion that it's okay to have it be a contract instead of a sale reaffirmed. It's not worth the damage. And so far as I'm aware, in KSP's case, the promises are pretty much limited to 'You'll get the later versions for free as they come out'.