Tex_NL

I wholeheartedly agree. Don't waste resources on multiplayer, at least not yet. Better to first finish the game and only then start thinking about addition features like multiplayer. Some modders come, some modders go. Some mods get abandoned or obsoleted, others get resurrected or created. You can't stop that from happening. As long as SQUAD keeps developing the game in such a way, and such a pace the players stay interested the (mod)community will stay active. I've seen it happen to other games. As soon as the developers reduced their support the community collapsed. Less and less players meant there was no longer feedback on mods so the modders lost interest too and even more players lost interest. In the end the game simply died a sad, slow and silent death.

Don't get me wrong, I like this to be true. But without any reliable source this is just hearsay and scuttlebutt. Both the Atlas V and Falcon 9 mentioned on the map are modern rockets. Therefor the 'plan' must date from no later than the turn of the century. The only things I have been able to find thus far on a Peenemünde space center is either WWII related or fictional.

If you're going to build a space center in western Europe Peenemuende might indeed be one of the better locations. It's location on the Baltic coast gives it a wide open area to the east where failing rockets can't do too much damage. With a latitude of 54° 8' it isn't even too far off the ISS' maximum inclination (51.65°). P.S. A link to your source would be appreciated by many.

I nearly perfected my Munar lander. Below you'll find a mission report of first version of my Peregrin V. T- 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ... Lift-off! First booster separation. Ignition of Mainsail engine. Second booster separation. De-orbiting the engine fairing and rescue tower. Re-connecting to the lander. De-orbiting the final lifting stage. Trans Munar Injection. Final descent. Time for science and snap-shots. Munar Lift-off. (All science stored in lander can and radial container.) Munar rendezvous. Re-entry and splashdown. Mods: KW Rocketry, B9 Aerospace ,Radial Experiment Storage Container, SCANSat, MechJeb. (Yes MechJeb, so SUE ME!) Peregrin V.craft (SCANSat and MechJeb removed) (User manual and action groups included in vehicle description.)

Both options have their pro's and cons. The hitchhiker is designed to house four, the can fits better housing two. The hitchhiker fits better for size and shape. Either options is a great placeholder until something better is released. +1

I can confirm Murph's method of transferring .craft. And he is also correct about weird things happening when you try to edit a craft with different symmetry. The second method of transferring craft is indeed through sub-assemblies. Important to remember when doing this is that a sub-assembly can NEVER include a root part. e.g. If you build a plane in the SPH starting with a cockpit you can take off the entire fuselage and wings (everything without the cockpit) and safe this as a sub-assembly. Once in the VAB you add the sub-assembly to a new cockpit to 'rebuild' your plane. A third option is to use Editor Extensions. It allows, among other things, for easy switching between SPH and VAB symmetry in both SPH and VAB.

If you're trying to be helpful at least post a working URL. Simply copying the abbreviated URL does not work. You need to post the ENTIRE URL: https://github.com/careo/ExsurgentEngineering/raw/master/ExsurgentEngineering/obj/Release/ExsurgentEngineering.dll (Yes, I know they LOOK the same but they aren't!)

What you need is Editor Extensions. It allows quick and easy swapping between VAB and SPH symmetry in both VAB and SPH. Click the link to see what else it can do.

Both B9 Aerospace and KW Rocketry have more powerful RCS thrusters but they also use more monoprop. Easiest way to get more RCS thrust is to simply add more thrusters.

Great find. Definitely one for the easter egg wiki page. There are a few other parts that show numbers. I wonder what some Google-Fu will reveal about those.

I just pulled a HUGE 'MaxMaps' coming back from Minmus. I lowered my periapsis a bit lower than planned to -55km. No real problem as I don't use deadly re-entry. I engaged high timewarp to get back to Kerbin faster. The timewarp might have been a bit too extreme. In no time flat Kerbin filled my screen and before I was able to get back to normal time I was already back in outer space, close to Minmus' orbital path.

Aerial launches can be extremely cost effective. Get up has high and as fast as you possibly can in airplane mode. Only then shed your fairings and ignite the rocket. Similarly to and airplane SSTO you could call this a TSTO: Two Stage To Orbit.

"... that just LOOKs like multi-axis." I guess there is the ultimate answer then. Fake it, take a shot cut. If it works and looks the part why not?

I know you've said this before and each time you said it I've been asking myself the same thing: How where the caterpillar tracks made? Those are multiple axis, aren't they?

A bit more info might be required. Are you talking about VAB or SPH? Is the tank you're trying to attach things to horizontal or vertical? Just post some screenshots showing your troubles and it'll be a lot easier to answer.

Add this litle gizmo to your return vehicle. It accepts data just like any command pod.

Why not a comet? Highly elliptical and highly inclined. Probably some weird shape that would make it even harder to land on.

You're right, I was focusing too much on longitude. Latitude is indeed a lot harder. But as we all have learned from KSP you can do plane changes while transferring to another body. It might not be fuel efficient but few wars ever are. Who cares about efficiency if it means you can you devastate your enemy with a single swift blow.

Drop some Grey Goo. Even a small amount will suffice. They'll never know what hit them. Just make sure you don't forget where your left the kill-switch.

Good point. Logistically it wouldn't make sense. And like you said strategically it wouldn't either. Launch windows would occur once a day. The moon is tidally locked to earth so it always faces earth the same way. The only rotation you'll have to account for is that of earth.

Putting ballistic missiles on the moon just to shoot them back at earth would be a ludicrous waste of resources. The fuel, materials and money spend to just get a single missile there could be used to send half a dozen, or more, to any place on earth. But just in case it would really happen it would surely give the US space program a boost. The US government is already the earths bully. If they can't get the moon themselves they sure as hell won't let China claim it.

He probably just means his arrangement looks like the petals of a flower. But his image looks like Asparagus staging.

I heard the beaches of Laythe are pretty nice this time of year.

I wonder how many times this has been suggested over the past year in one form or another. Still, I am all in favor of this since I too have suggested this several months ago.