icefire

I suck at losing

nope Though seeing stuff like this makes me wonder if I should have pursued 2D animation instead of 3D...

mmm space lasagna

tickets are overpriced.

:hailprobe:

go straight up till you reach 30-40 km then pitch to 10 degrees and burn till apoapsis is 150km+

Thinner landing tank is good, and fixes some other(rare) problems that I have run into using it with its current width.

I have 4,134 of them, what now?

Get out of here S.T.A.L.K.E.R Get out of here S.T.A.L.K.E.R Get out of here S.T.A.L.K.E.R Get out of here S.T.A.L.K.E.R

[shadow=green,left]nope[/shadow] [move][shadow=purple,left]AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA[/shadow][/move] I\'m enjoying this way too much

they lay eggs that are hatched only in the fire and heat of a rocket explosion

Made this video to show my friend how to launch a rocket I gave him, but figured I would share it here as well. made entirely with this mod packs parts of course

The thrust to weight ratios on most of the engines are very good. LV-T600: 81 LV-B20: 101 LV-T300: 122 Large Bertha: 203 For comparison: Vanilla Engine: 10 Space Shuttle Main Engine: 73 F-1(Saturn V engine): 94 NK-33(N-1 engine): 137 This gets to munar orbit. The \'long slow burn\' method only works in vanilla because the liquid engine has an insane ISP of 500+. Whereas the engines in this mod are at a much more realistic 250-350.

Most of the engines in this pack has thrust levels well beyond what the vanilla parts have. You\'re just doing it wrong.

I thought this was one of the main points of the mod. Nerf giant obnoxious inefficient rockets.

Planetary exploration is probably the largest (or easiest anyway) public outreach program for NASA outside of manned flight. The common public usually doesn\'t get excited about aircraft research and Earth Science. It\'s what I meant when I say \'dead\', it would be dead to the public. No manned flights, no planetary science, no hubble, no more rovers. NASA would have lost what little public attention it currently has. And with no public awareness the politicians funding it wouldn\'t have a fear of losing rep for axing other NASA programs.

I\'m so jelly

Not really...

thank you this made my day.

Yup, Harvester made it nice and easy by having the Mun orbit pretty much on the equator. And an orbital altitude where a \'visual approach\' actually works. However if you aren\'t orbiting on the equator or just don\'t feel like doing it that way, go into map mode and look at the muns orbit top down. It takes 7 hours to get from kerbin to the mun, so imagine the mun 60 degrees ahead of its current position and you\'ll know where to go. orbital velocity is 500 m/s roughly, escape from the moon is ~800. Which means your final velocity will be ~200 m/s. If you plan your escape vector correctly you\'ll fling yourself retrograde to the mun\'s orbit and just fall back to kerbin. Example:

¬_¬

ohh god that sound invades my nightmares