Levelord

Random things that come to my head. They are usually nonsensical. For example, my mission to Moho involved a ship christened the "Moho Mofo".

Have you seen my craft that uses STABOJETâ„¢ technology?

Or de-orbiting an asteroid

I was stress testing the Jx-42 Vector in flight and was doing a standard flight run with the retired Marin class shuttle. There was an in flight collision resulting in the destruction of the Marin (luckily it was drone controlled) and the Vector being badly damaged losing almost 40% of it's flight surfaces. There was no land in sight for a landing and there was barely enough fuel to make towards the nearest land mass. Guess we're going to have to make an emergency water landing. Luckily I had built VTOL systems into the craft and managed to land it (with some difficulty) intact in the ocean. As for me, the JX-42 has proven it's worth as a capable craft and reminded me of that Israeli F-15 Eagle story where they had to land a plane with 1 wing.

Doughnut tanks. I think you all know what I'm referring to

Landing on Kerbol.

I found a pretty nifty site that showcases the scale of the universe both micro and macroscopically. Have fun scrolling around in this one! http://www.htwins.net/scale2/

No idea. I'm pretty sure I disabled the timer on the poll. You're free to post your opinions here though!

This guy here With the exception of the Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3 and the Fl A10 adapter, the Rockomaxâ„¢ Brand Adapter is one of the few adapters that does not carry fuel as an integral part of its design. It boggles my mind because there are so many possible designs that could have been had with this fairly mediocre piece of hardware. If you'd still want to use it as a nosecone, it'll be easy enough to simply drain all the fuel out instead. Compared to the MK3 adapters and C7 adapters which all have fuel, it feels like the odd one out. I for one would like to see this little nosecone that could, get some fuel capacity. Would you? Edit: Made some editing errors to the 'No' part of the poll. Is there a way I can edit it? If not, don't worry I will acknowledge the editing mistake as my own. The proper list is "No, I would NOT like to see it have fuel capacity."

I cheat a little by flying the satellite back down on wings and returning them to the KSC.

It's not everyday that I see someone post a Krazy Kerbalistic Kraft. Have some rep!

All of them except Moho. Eve, I've returned from it's SOI but I've not attempted a return from a landed spacecraft.

Build an upgraded version of the old ship. Better than before!

Self-proclaimed expert at Duna spaceplane landings here.... D: Try attaching parachutes above the center of mass and use it to slow down the descent to the surface. When the chute deploy, it will bring down your speed to about 10 m/s. Here you will lose lift and use VTOL engines for the final descent. Because you are moving slowly, you don't have to deal with uneven terrain. I've spent the past years landing spaceplanes on Duna and this happens to be my latest plane out of the SPH.

Oh crap! I can imagine trying to come down and land a craft, then getting pushed off course by a small eruption of methane from the surface! That would be an interesting adventure!

I've tried installing Snacks into 0.90, but noticed that the Snacks do not deplete in game. Stocks always appear full. Urgh... Gonna have to wait for an update I guess.

* Some cockpits no longer provide SAS torque. * Pilots or probe cores are now required to maintain heading. * Some parts have been re-weighed, re-sized and some parts now are lifting bodies That what I can come up with at the top of my head

I tried playing that game but it was too hardcore for me. I only managed to land on the Mun about 6 times before giving up. Blew up 2 shuttles before giving up, and now my Space Program is horribly underfunded

Spacebook.

I have no strong feeling either way, but if they were to include a gas planet PLEASE give it rings so that I have an excuse to buzz my spacecraft through them!

I only have 1 rule: Regular updates.

Landing on Moho with just RCS.

Bring what up?

Even if that were the case, the game still calculates the drag accordingly (the stock aero at least) based on the part weight regardless of it being hidden by clipping. You also still have to lift the same mass up to space regardless of clipping. I suppose in real life, clipping isn't realistic because the physics in our world can't magically detect hidden mass inside of other masses. However, without clipping we wouldn't be able to see beautiful recreations of real life craft like the ones Mublin has made. Considering clipping as 'cheating' only matters in contests, which KSP isn't about as a singleplayer game (currently). It's fine if people consider it cheaty in their own playthroughs, but I strongly disagree in them guilt tripping strangers by telling them the same. I'd rather let them play how they like and see what creative contraptions they come up with. Clipping is relevant in the challenge forums or from people making claims of extraordinary feats which would require disclosure so that others can replicate it.

Is it still balanced? If i remember correctly, the values for the cupola mass has been dropped significantly in 0.90.