Lazro

As in, if you allow too much freedom, it will become very difficult to standardize and tanks will all be slightly different if you have to adjust them. It's not ideal. Plus, procedural tanks take away some design possibilities: Inside surfaces between tanks can be used to mount things onto, not to mention how different each tank looks from each other now. It would make shipbuilder's lives much harder. Also, a simple solution to the too many parts problem: Menu tabs.

My first return mission from Duna. I had considerably more fuel than I needed, and carried no science, but hey! I did it all the same.

My main problem with this is it makes it very hard to make launch vehicles and their respective payloads match up. If it's all free and slide-y, then there will always be some difference in size between one tank and another, let alone between engines, capsules, intakes, etc. and the fuel tanks.

Not really digging this idea. It's reminding me of "Press space (or in this case shift) to win" games. Repetitiveness can really kill fun.

Whackjob goes deeper into KSP than any of us would care to

Yeah, forgot about those. Still, gilly's unique in its...beige and low-gravity...ness.

"Beautiful Desolation" really describes most of the celestial bodies in this game. Kerbol is the only star, Jool the only gas giant, Gilly the only asteroid, and Eve is alone in its own special way...

Ike is probably one of the most ominous bodies in the Kerbolar system. Looks and feels like the Death Star.

Built a better mercury-Redstone and mercury-atlas than I had before. Also docked the LM of Dunebeam-6 (second manned Duna mission) to the CSM. It was a close call, too, the upper stage engines were broken and I had to launch with the lander stage instead.

Dilorf Kerman: "Guys, where's the parachute release button?" Shortly before smacking fairly hard into the ocean.

Hyperedit actually has its own webpage, I think. http://www.kerbaltekaerospace.com/

Do you have hyperedit? If not, get it and change the orbit of your station as soon as you undock. If that fails, you could edit your save file if you know how.

The Kraken strikes back! The reason is that when physics loads, the rocket accelerates from N/A to 175 m/s. The upshot is that this tends to break things quite heavily. I suggest add more clamps at the middle, see if that helps.

This is the internet, after all...

Actually, a member of the Yogscast is currently doing a long-running series on KSP. Quite popular, too. The world hasn't ended yet, it would seem.

Upload to an image sharing site, like Imgur or Tinypic. It should give you a url to post, so you can upload to the forums!

I think someone once mounted a lot of the truss decouplers to wheels and made a suspension that way. I will try this challenge!

Just looked up Explorer 6 and realized that it was launched late next year...sorry about that. Great thread!

I mostly do historical missions, so I name my crafts after them. (Vanera, Merkury, Pie-oneer, Kassini-Hygins...) The downside is that I've only landed and returned from Duna once and have never visited Dres or Eeloo...

Definitely. I made a massive rocket, burned straight up, and turned sideways at 70km

From what I can gather, you're asking if they'll still work. If so, I can confidently say yes. Definitely. As long as you're in an atmosphere and not pointing straight up, you'll experience a lifting effect.

"We need a target for these new missiles!" "How about the VAB?" "Perfect, Jebediah!"

No, the flight model for rockets and planes are the same. The only reason that the lift markers are different is that the VAB assumes you launch straight upwards, while the SPH assumes you fly towards the horizon. Lifting surfaces don't cause any lift while going straight up in KSP, so you don't have to worry about your rocket spinning around in flight.

Sounds good!

Boyo. They didn't know who they were messing with, because as fanatical they are about war, we're as fanatical about KSP! Love how this seems to have rolled off our backs.