Tex_NL

You are confused because you are introducing things that are totally irrelevant. What you'll need is JUST the URL. Right click the image you want to post and copy the image location. To check the link paste in your browser. If the image opens correctly you have a good link. Use that to paste into the forum. Some image hosting sites offer you the option of a forum link. These are often in UBB format and ad tags. ONLY copy paste the part between the tags.

Sure, gas is a lot cleaner than coal. But is still pumps out tons of CO2. Pure nuclear is also not the solution and neither is pure renewable. There should be a combination between the two just as there is one between coal/gas and renewable today. Fredinno's diagrams are a good example. The polluters just need to go. The problem with renewables is often visual or noise pollution and social impact. Beach tourists complain about 'horizon pollution' when they spot a barely visible row of windmills 10km off the coast. Entire villages need to be relocated in order to make space for a new lake as a result of a hydroelectric dam. Nobody wants their beautiful view of the alpine meadows replaced by a mountainside paved with solar panels. A number of windmills near where I live have been removed a few years ago. They caught a lot of wind and produced a good deal of energy but they where build next to a marina. Tourists started complaining about the noise and in fear of loosing revenue the mills bit the dust. Everybody wants clean energy, but not in their back yard. Sorry people, you can't always have your cake and eat it too. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made. They needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

Never knew they had their own KIS inventory. You learn something new each day. And since I did not know I never checked. I can no longer check it on my Minms base. I already replace them with corridor airlocks.

*sarcasm mod on* No. I have no idea to insert images. *sarcasm mod off* Check the Insert other media button in the lower right hand corner.

True, there is nuclear waste. But coal plants spew out CO2 and numerous other chemicals by the ton. Nuclear can't power 100% of the grid? And coal plant can? BULLCRAP! Indeed certain plants can be used to produce weapons. But others, like the plant at Petten Netherlands, produce life saving isotopes to fight cancer.

Does not matter what part the system uses once you go 'on rails'. The reason you no longer get a wobble 'on rails' is because of the lack of physics. Everything is calculated as if the entire craft was a single point with a certain amount of mass and speed.

Too much duct tape in this thread.

If Chernobyl had never happened people would probably be not so irrationally scared of nuclear power. Agree with me or not, believe me or not, I don't care. But nuclear energy IS currently our best option to fight global warming. Solar and wind are too unreliable for large scale production. Hydro and geothermal or too reliant on local features. The risks of nuclear energy production are absolutely minimal. It's just that the results of a failure are so immense. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima failed only because ALL back-up and safety systems were either temporarily disables or failed. Chances of that happening ever again are close to zero. People nowadays are so scared of radiation they would rather live next to a coal powered plant than next to a nuclear plant. Guess what, the nuclear plant is so well shielded it gives off LESS radiation than the coal stored at the coal plant. I'll take a well maintained nuclear plant any day of the week.

Sorry but what you are trying to say is not true. It is in fact almost 100% wrong. Yes, Mun is tidally locked. That means the same side is always facing Kerbin. For that to happen Mun has to rotate once counter clockwise for each orbit around Kerbin, counter clockwise. And that's EXACTLY THE SAME as Kerbin and all other bodies are rotating.

Some time ago there was a post explaining how craft types determined what would be the root of a docked ship. I can't find that post at the moment but I do remember some of the rules: Base and station are high in the hierarchy, ship and lander in the middle and probe and debris are low. The craft with the highest hierarchy will become the core after docking. The name and type of that section will be inherited and the root part of that section will become the root part of the final craft after docking. So if a lander docks to a station the station keeps its name and will be the root. Now if you would change the station to be a probe before docking the lander would keep its name and would be the root. All this will be useful when building large craft and wanting to keep control over the root part. Simply call your interplanetary craft a station for the time being and call all parts you dock to it ships or probes.

CKAN is for wimps. It does serve a purpose but you do not need it. Dropping entire mods as a zip or any other compressed format would make things only slightly easier. All it does is forcing mod makers to conform to a unified standard file formatting. It will not eliminate people from dropping mods in the wrong location.

Most likely you're simply running into the limitations in KSP. More memory won't help a single bit, KSP is 32bit and can not use memory beyond 3.8GB. Your best options are to try to reduce the physics load by reducing settings. And of course wait for the KSP 1.1 release. (Don't ask when, nobody knows!) KSP 1.1 promises a great improvement in performance as it will be running on unity5 and be 64. (If of course all rumours are true and SQUAD delivers.) Could be useful:

Close, but not quite correct. All objects will rotate around its CoM however the orbital path is calculated from the root part. If the root and CoM are very close together as they are in small ships there will be very little to no wobble when a craft rotates. (Even a stationary craft in orbit will rotate once every orbit relative to the parent body.) In large ships relative to the CoM and parent body the root is changing in altitude and velocity which will result in changes in Pe and Ap. The further the CoM and root are apart the larger the individual differences will be. In low orbit the wobble will usually be only a few metres but on interplanetary encounters you could completely miss (or hit ) a planet/moon. To minimize wobble try to design your large craft with the root and CoM as close together as possible. Starting the build with the fuel tank should suffice. Back to the OP issue. Make a quicksave for safety, write down Ap and Pe. Do not timewarp or switch to another craft. Go do the dishes, take a shower, do your homework, watch a movie. Just leave you craft running for a few orbits. After a few orbits compare Ap and Pe to what you wrote down. If there is no significant change you're simply dealing with orbital wobble as described above. If there are significant changes you could be dealing with phantom forces caused by things like part clipping.

Not only is the lighting wrong, the angle is too. Mun is in a perfect equatorial orbit. No matter where you are on Mun you are always very close to directly above Kerbins equator. In the menu screen you are over the southern hemisphere. Also Kerbin is low over the horizon. This only happens at 'Kerb-rise' and 'Kerb-set' and at the poles. At 'Kerb-rise' and 'Kerb-set' Kerbin will appear to be lying on its side. On the south pole it will appear to be upside-down. Only on the north pole will it look close to what is shown in the menu but as I said before in the menu screen you are over the southern hemisphere.

Even the old non-procedural KW fairings deployed and decoupled at the same time when staging. Nothing has changed except the 'shape' of the fairings. Both the old and the new fairings had/have the option in the menu to deploy and to decouple. Deploy will stage the faring shells. Decouple will obviously stage the build in decoupler. Either right click to open the menu and click the desired button or use action groups.

I'll assume you mean a 'Kerbal inside cockpit'. Kerbin is the planet. Kerbal is the little green man.

Really? Nobody is seeing what's wrong with this design? I won't spoil it for you but it is rather obvious.

I most certainly does. But using MechJeb to execute the node does nothing to shorten the burn. All it will do is take some work out of your hands.

Impressive! Especially that you were able to catch it multiple times and toss it again. I am not easily impressed by what people build in KSP but this is one of the rare exceptions.

Care to share how you came by this 'wisdom'? It wasn't made or posted by anybody from the dev team.

How much fuel storage have you got? Try filling your tanks as much as possible in advance.

As a proof of concept it's pretty neat. But as it stands now it's more a plate dropper than a plate flinger. Perhaps more wheels and something to stop the plate from falling out may result in an actual fling.

About a year ago somebody explained it all in a video. I believe it was one of the devs but I can be mistaking. The game has two render modes; near and far. That line is a glitch where one meets the other. It is common and will not hurt your game. The same glitch can often be seen in parachute shadows. One moment you can clearly see all the cord, the next moment it's a solid shadow.

And what have we learned from this? When experimenting with an unfamiliar, game changing mod ALWAYS make a back-up. Sorry if that sounded harsh but I am afraid you're pretty much 'attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis'