Ticondrius

It's not bugged, the ship acts like it's top heavy towards the xtank, causing it to pitch forward. The only thing I can do is do a 180 degree roll IMMEDIATELY on liftoff and then correct the corkscrewing that results as quickly as I can. I can usually get it stable at an 70-80 degree pitch toward the ocean before 1000m. I gave mechjeb a try at it, and it crashes the ship every time. Let me try and find a way to get a video of it for you....

I have trouble keeping the ship stable right from launch for the first one or two km. I've tried shuffling fuel around, and so far I've only have a couple successful launches which involved recovering from the bizarre corkscrewing the ship does right on launch. That said, my ship is the Shuttle Excelsior and I have orbited more than twice at over 70km and returned to land at KSCR and also at KSCI. Only with no cargoes as of yet. No screenshots yet either, ship is incredibly touchy to fly manual (Yes, I'm flying the thing manually with no quicksaves/restores), which makes it hard to take time to get a good screenshot.

Is it possible to get information on the necessary flight profile for using this under the Realism Overhaul? Does it even work as-is, or would there need be a separate version to support a KSP with Kerbin at real Earth size?

I'd like to request one other in memoriam in the OP, for the Challenger, mission STS-51-L. The necessary information, including the mission badge, is HERE. I understand that the Columbia is more in the minds of younger folks, but it was the destruction of the Challenger that almost ended American Space exploration forever, such was the nation's grief. Thanks!

1. There's no question of legality. KSP isn't a movie, nor would we be using it on more than one computer. Also, Planetariums tend to all be non-profit. I have no idea why you'd think otherwise. 2. I didn't realize KSP uses Unity. Suddenly everything makes sense. I always thought KSP developed a little slower than it should...and that the devs seemed to feel constrained from their vision somehow. I hate developing for Unity, it's a pain.

I work in the Planetarium at my University campus, and we would like to use KSP to create scenes for some of our shows. I need to know if we can output the game to a second display device (ultra-hd projector) without UI elements (We'd operate the game from another terminal), and display on said second device at anywhere from 1024x1024 to 4096x4096 with a fisheye projection, and mirrored (or not) right-to-left. Can KSP be modded to do this, or is that level of customization up to the devs?

Actually, a Dyson sphere completely encloses a star and any planets inside the habitable zone. If we built one in the Sol System, it would be about 2.4au in diameter....bit bigger than any possible planet.

I knew about the wiki. However, it still leaves you with about 0.2m/sec surface speed. Doing the extra work to add on the 0.0055 precision reduces the surface speed to almost nil, and shows up at 0.0m/sec surface speed. Mostly for perfectionists.

I spent awhile trying to figure out what exact orbit is precisely at keosynchronous orbit. It is almost EXACTLY at 2,868,750.0055 meters. My surface speed at this point is a mere 300-400 micro-meters/sec. It would take centuries to have any perceptible shift from the point over which you park in that orbit. Good luck!

This was a fun challenge. I'd never done a successful aircraft before. It took a few goes to figure out that a ramjet was the way to go. I did a very light single-engine ramjet. Found a sweet spot for fuel at just a bit above 15,000m where the engine will shut off, you glide, engine reengages, then after a bit it shuts off again. Made for a slightly parabolic course, but I did it on just 360 units of fuel. Unfortunately, I misjudged the landing and crashed less than 200m from the runway. I think the biggest challenge was keeping the damned thing level. Roll right, roll left, and every time the thing responded with a 100+ degree correcting roll. UGH!

I've tried everything I can (stock). I can match the results from above, but I can't exceed them. The main problem seems to be a lack of room. The runway is too short, my sleds slide off the end before reaching max speed. Another problem I have, is the wheels and landing gear. They're ridiculously unstable. I ended up using I-Beams on pylons as sled rails. They weigh a good bit more than landing gear, but they're VERY stable. Ultimately, those little sepratrons ARE the best propulsion method. It's just hard to figure out how to mount enough of them. Liquid rockets? Hard to manage, too much power. Jets? Feasible if I had more space; they take too long to ramp up to speed. Aerospikes? Limited to about 300m/s, need a more powerful one. SRBs? Huge and too heavy. Ion? Don't make me laugh. I think the only thing I've not tried yet are those small radial liquid rockets, but I'd not expect much from them. We need someone to make land parts, like freespinning wheels and steerable nose gear. Smaller SRBs with high IPS, like missiles that are used on real land vehicles out on the salt flats. Also, we need to find an ideal location on Kerbin somewhere that is BIG and FLAT.

Exactly! I was going for 100% skycrane survivability and rescuing the Kerbal. Out of 5 tries from each thing I tested, success rates were all less than good. Easiest solution? Use a new skycrane to land one or more of the rovers, and end the flight on the old skycrane.

I built a copy of your crashed skycrane, HOC, and dropped it in the same position on the moon. I then lifted (With the help of a 3rd party program) a modified version of the rover I submitted yesterday, as well as some of the other submissions here, and a few more ideas of my own. *Nothing* could flip the skycrane without either the skycrane or the rover blowing up. :\ Looks like that thing is stuck there, m8. If you want a skycrane on the moon, you're going to have to fly out a new one.

oops...........

ooops.........