mythic_fci

Smother it with albums and image sauce! Waiter, there's a NERVA in my soup!

Who's glue? Sorry, I don't know him/her/unspecified gender.

Complaining about grammar AND capitalization? Cheater!

I use a spaceplane with missiles attached to shoot it down in midair. I blow up a nuke in the core of Kerbin, killing everyone around it except me (I'm on Duna).

This actually should be in the Forum Games subforum, but whatever. We can blow up planets in 1.0.

Try getting a capsule with Jeb, the Science!, 3 landing legs, and a few parachutes, go screaming low over the surface like it's the Reno air races on Kerbin, and once you find flat land, deploy the capsule, it's landing legs, and the chutes IMMEDIATELY.

If KSP evolves well enough, sure!

So, yeah. Post those wild ideas that've been swirling around in your head for a while! Keep your hype in check though people, it's too early for that. (Mods, no...) CONFIRMED SpacePlane+ Merging with Stock Complete revamp of spaceplane parts New line of parts to replace Mk3 line Career expansion - Administration building Updated navball SPECULATION Crew transfer between parts New contract parts Kerbal tracking system (tracks places Kerbals have been to)

KERBAL NEWSFLASH - ISSUE 02 OUT! "For kerbals, by kerbals!" This is meant as a community-made "supplement" to the official Daily Kerbal daily news bulletins from Squad. These will be produced about every other day (more or less), and are designed to give the reader quick info at a glance. All of these are and will be one page long. Meet the Crew! FCISuperGuy - Founder, Co-Editor Normal123 - Co-Editor, Resource-Lurker (Is that a thing? Because that's what he's doing LOL ) Issue #01 Issue #02

Someone made a craft named "Astroliner" that could take 8 Kerbals there, I don't remember who. What I DO remember is that that guy is a spaceplane GENIUS. He also made a 400 part craft that could take 25 tons to Duna and back... And it could be recovered for all the funds spent (except fuel and payload expenses).

Most designs have been made extremely unreliable or just don't work at all. Say, my old 1m K-Drive. It still works in-atmo, but it doesn't exactly fare well in space. The effort of perfecting new drives with the new joint system is just too much for most.

[victorianGentleman]Fine job, sirs! I commend you on an absolutely amazing decision. May I ask if the interior screen system of the original view will be preserved? Thank you, sirs.[/victorianGentleman]

It depends. Any explosive chemical usually needs a pressurized oxygen environment to function well (see Apollo 1 fire), and needs a spark powerful enough. If the interior mining section you are referring to is pressurized with pure O2, has faulty (sparking) equipment, and has a methane leak of some sort (or one way for methane to get into the atmosphere), it might work. Keep in mind that I'm not a chemist though, so I may be wrong.

Basically, with large designs it would clip into the rocket's side and destroy it. You couldn't mount launch clamps on it, and you couldn't refuel using it, so it was more or less useless. If the devs added a FASA style launch tower with a more stock texture and all the functions of the FASA one, it would probably convince the veterans to use it more often.

Depends. I've got an Early 2013 MBP, which has a 2.8Ghz i7 and a GT650, and it runs KSP fairly we'll. What you want is a balanced rig, with a fairly good CPU and a nice GPU to complement it. I recommend (for an average user) a CPU with 2.5-3Ghz and a GT750 (the new upgraded version of the 650).

It would be basically impossible with a STS orbiter and a modern standard Nimitz class carrier. Too much speed and weight on the shuttle, moving target, tiny landing strip compared to the KSC (Kennedy, not Kerbal), wings could clip the conning tower/other planes on deck... Yeah. Now, let's say we make a new orbiter. This one has largely improved aerodynamics and weight due to the launch engines being located on the launcher and new composite materials. And, we build a huge carrier, with basically a kilometre of landing space. If there was room for a hook, parachutes and strengthened landing gear, with perhaps a Kerbal touch of SRMs on the wings to slow the thing down, it would maybe have a 5-10% chance. Basically, too much no to even try.

For short burns, I just sit them out so I don't miss the burn. For longer 15-20min burns, I usually surf the web with KSP in the background running. And yes, it does get laggy when my 800-part Kerbol system grand tour ship does a 20min burn in the background while I watch some new movies.

Spaceplanes are pretty efficient once you get them built and tested, having wings and jet engines to lessen the drag compared to rockets. And, if you have the skills to aim for a pinpoint landing on the KSC runway (I rarely can), you can get practically every bit of funds that you paid for the spaceplane back minus some of the fuel, therefore it's equivalent to just paying for a bit of fuel and the payload instead of a rocket, the fuel required to launch the rocket AND the payload. For crew transporters/miniature for-fun spaceplanes, I usually use a Mk1 cockpit as the capsule, then strap a single jet fuel tank with a jet engine and 2 of the smallest rocket fuel tanks with 2 tiny Rockomax engines (the 48-7Ss). After that, add the little bits and pieces and attach the wings and yeah, let's fly.

Yessssss. So much yesssssssssss. If Danny joined the HOC/Elysium/Chickenkeeper trio in the series, now THAT would be a REAL DMP stress test, Danny style.

Legit reason: Probably what you said about Ike=Nike=Goddess of Victory. Just a random reason: Erm... South Park anyone? KICK THE BABY! (Don't kick the goddamn baby!)

Favorite: Jeddan Kerman. So far, he's my only kerbal besides the main 3 that has the badS tag in the persistence. Funniest: Seeman Kerman. Believe me, I was cracking up for days on that one.

Hmmm... Spaceplanes: Forgetting the landing gear, staging and action groups all at once. Rockets: Staging again, and as a side note I do forget my boosters quite often... (As in I spend hours building a Duna ship, put it on the pad then realize that I forgot to smack a rocket underneath) Gameplay: In the beginning, I literally went to a garden and found a large enough stone to hold down the F button before I knew about the T button...

Here's two answers: Technical: It's like that because the procedural terrain system is used for both the craters and the valleys. Scientific: It could be a crater, yes.

No, he's serious. The game can't load physics past 2.5km, and a "Ringworld" would have to be WAY more than 2.5km. Also, even if you used mods to bypass this limitation, you'd need one hell of a CPU/GPU config (ex. Maybe Dual Intel Xeon processors and Dual Nvidia Titans) to even think about attempting this. Also, it would be impossible to get it into orbit in large segments, and small segments lifted up would cause even more lag (docking ports + individual control systems)

So yeah, what are yours? Mine is basically that I always start KSP as SOON as my laptop boots up, even if I don't intend to play. My "explanation" for this is that it allows me to create my sudden sparks of inspiration that never make it to the forums...