DerekL1963

Why would anyone post something that they don't have time to do right?

No wonder you can't reach the Mun - it's orbit is in the equatorial plane (0 degrees). That's a very odd bug... what other mods do you have installed?

No, you don't need to burst the case. In fact, you don't even need to shut them down - you generally just need them to produce zero net thrust, which can be done by opening some relatively small ports in the forward dome. Nor is this theoretical, SUBROC, ASROC, Polaris A-1 and A-2, and Poseidon all used this technique. (Every so often you'll come across a picture of a Titan-II or -III from the 60's with oval 'bevels' on the nose fairing of the solids - these were ports on the fairing that could be opened to vent the case and were built for Dyna-Soar, which also would have used this technique, and were recycled when that program was cancelled.) The Shuttle didn't use this technique because the sudden cessation of thrust tore/tossed the Orbiter off of the ET the same way Challenger was when her ET broke up. NASA planned on using a solid fuel escape rocket mounted on the Orbiter to power it away from the ET in the even of SRB shutdown, but even if that motor was used for boost after the SRB's were jettisoned, it was too heavy.

Save, emptying the VAB and reloading will work...

Does this mod recognize the pseudo 'RTG' in the Fustek Expansion utilities module?

Ike is a little b$t@d alright - he seems to get himself involved in about half of my Duna approaches/departures.

You've phrased this as a fact, but it's not. It's an opinion. A complete non sequitur. That's simply not going to happen. The race to the moon in the 1960's happened because of a unique combination of political circumstances and because Kennedy was killed in Dallas. That might be true the second time around, it certainly wasn't the first.

Somewhere along the line, you've loaded command pods that include MechJeb or run some other mod that put MechJeb there... but even so, when you installed MechJeb, it still should have put the AR202 case in the control tab. So, something decidedly odd is going onn.

Mercury didn't. (Mercury didn't have a shroud at all.) None of the Soviet/Russians ones did or do. (They had/have aerodynamic shrouds over their decidedly un-aerodynamic capsules.) Apollo didn't. (The BPC was to protect against aerodynamic heating during launch.) So, which real world LES had a shroud to protect the capsule from LES exhaust?

The new MJ still requires a part. The only way to make other parts have MJ is to modify them, which is beyond the scope of MJ. That being said, I've flown with as many as eight MJ's on a ship (where I forgot to turn off symmetry when placing it) with no problems. One unit will take charge (and have a green light) and the others will go passive (and have a red light).

It's not that people fear monoxides are bad, it's that decades of unrelenting spin and propaganda have produced the belief that "chemicals are bad, and chemicals with unfamiliar names are worse, and if I can't pronounce them...". Myself, I've always thought that someone saying "I can't pronounce this" is actually telling me "and I'm too lazy or stupid to learn".

(deleted message)

2. It's widely used and maintained by a person who has had code committed to the main branch... 3. A lander can has next to no torque. (7.5 on each axis.) Try one of the stabilizers or SAS modules under the control tab. (20 on each axis.) Seriously - use the Mechjeb fork and *add torque*. I just auto docked an assembly of three Fustek Expansion modules with a tug with RCS at one end, and it was rock steady in alignment as it translated. *Add torque*.

Well, the Chinese program is anything but an example of that. They have just enough of a program to keep the propaganda flowing at home and to prove they are Great Nation - and not a renminbi more.

Right - look how well the last sterile and meaningless race ended. Count me out. We need space development, not more stunts to fuel nerd fantasies. (Not that there is going to be another race to start with - the historical situation that gave rise to the space race were and are unique.)

The MechJeb No RCS docking method: http://youtu.be/gyTTzJvZqjI And download the Patch Testbed version of MechJeb, it's *much* *much* better than the 'official' version. And give your bus some gyro torque - then Mechjeb will translate with RCS and correct attitude with the torque.

I've had this problem after the game has been running a while too... I just restart it.

Try the volume control on your computer.

That sounds suspiciously like an opinion... doubly so since the NF-104 was a USAF aircraft and wasn't developed until years after the X-15 program had been transferred to NASA. You'll also note the claim is unsupported by cites or sources. FWIW, the Shuttle was always intended to dock, and while the early versions of the final design featured wingtip RCS pods they were ultimately deleted.

No, GMT refers to GMT - it's a universal standard used worldwide. Daylight Savings Time is a local modification to GMT. Apples and orangutangs. How, exactly, is there *ANY* ambiguity between GMT and GMT+1? That's like saying there's ambiguity over whether something is an apple or an orangutang. On top of which, there are any number of sites on the web that will give you the current time in GMT and/or your local timezone's offset from GMT. Um, yes and no. UTC is the de jure standard for regulating time. GMT is the de facto standard for pretty much everyone who isn't precisely setting a clock or otherwise has a need precise time synchronization. Not to mention that UTC and GMT are identical to within a few fractions of a second of each other.

Just my opinion, but there is such a thing as too much realism... If KSP doesn't need the thrust vectors angled, there's no need to angle them in your model and create problems from thin air. Work within the system, not against it.

Thanks... (That means my score isn't limited by my CPU and graphics card!) /me wanders off to plan...

Did you actually read the document? Keep scrolling past 1980 for an ongoing litany of failures and errors. "Off course" is such a gentle way of saying "the controls and/or the computer failed" that it obscures the facts. There have been several such "off course" landings in subsequent years, plus an undocking failure. Plus at least one rumored failure of the orbital module to detach. (This comes from very credible sources.... but finding out any facts about the Soyuz failures is very hard. The Russians still tend to treat such things as state secrets.)

Actually, system failures of one kind or another during Soyuz landings are depressingly common.

Is the scoring per station? I.E. 2 in Kerbin orbit could each add to the score?