Tw1

I have 2577 screenshots in 19.1 alone, not counting my archive from 18.x Only a few from the 0.13 demo, which I've still got around somewhere.

I know the feeling... I'm having some technical difficulties at the moment. Basically: I've put the parts in the parts folder, the plugin in the plugins folder, and plugin data in the plugin data folder. My kerbal collected the parachute from the station, then proceeded to de-orbit himself. The Deploy Parachute button appeared in his little click menu, as was supposed to happen. But then, after falling through the atmosphere, when I click to trigger the parachute, nothing happens. F9 time. Have I missed something?

Probably won't use this, I want mine to say something along the lines of "We are the people of Kerbin, and we travel in the name of peace and discovery, and because it is awesome." But I jumped on GIMP when I realised no one had done it yet: Origional image from Novasilisko. (I hope he approves, or this is theft.) I considered sticking a KSP logo on the flag, then realised I'd have to do all the recursion again. Oh well.

Basically, the need for both oxidizer and hydrogen reduces the advantages of the nuclear heating? I think I get it.

Sounds like this belongs in science or off-topic. I'm thinking it may be Mars One that gets there first.

What's the first? Going to space yourself?

250. (Yay, round number!) The planets should NOt Be HOLLOW! I want to see the core when my kerbins fall under thee ground. I want magma under there, and maybe I can dig up precious minerals.

Perhaps a smaller, second parachute could be added, and you deploy that before opening the main one? You'd still only grab the one thing, just trigger then separaly as you fall. Just to save the poor little guys from getting wiplash I don't mind the parachute box. It's a nice splash of colour, and easy to spot when added to stations. I'm going to have a few guys jump from the station, to try it out tonight!

I can think of two. One was the lost Eeloo probe. No one from mission control understands the data it sent back before it was lost. (Apart from a scan of half the equator, and some photos.) The second one was the landing of the Duna explore-o-pod for my stranded astronauts to use while they waited to go home. It was the bug where the camera stops following the active vessel. It didn't land straight, and lost some important parts. Fortunately, I'd quicksaved, so that was only a "simulation".

Nice work! If you managed that, you shouldn't have to much trouble when it comes to rendezvousing with the station, to add more bits to it. Aim using the maneuver nodes, then when you're near catch up with it much the same. I wouldn't worry to much about the guys under the engines. Mine sometimes like to watch from there. They'll probably be escorted away before the next launch.

The only shuttle like thing I've made uses a pair of tanks, one on each side, perpendicular to the wings. It still turns a bit, but it's controllable, and it's just due to small problems with the orbiter design that need ironing out. I'm uncertain of the benefits of th NASA shuttle design, it seems strange to waste some thrust steering like that. Unless someone can explain why they decided to make it work as it did?

I went straight for the Mun, just my making rockets go higher and higher. Similar to what Sal described, just without the orbit part. I lernt to orbit later. Everything's hard at first. Edit: Things still blow up on the way to space sometimes. It's still hard.

Mine don't tend to have all the little bits that float around. Somebody has already parodied it: This was the Off-Topic sub-forum, I claim no credit.

Nice! One small step for Jeb. That's the first step.

Maybe you should try the truss pieces instead? Or in combination. I had the I-beams dance the tango (more or less) if I turn the warp up one more on this thing.

I got that lifter working! Time to try an actual payload, not dummy weights. Up we go! Woosh! No! No! No! "Structural failure between rockomax brand decoupler and rockomax jumbo 64 fuel tank" Dammit. I think you know what's coming next. No space today for those guys. Perhaps not ever.

I decided to try adding some of the parts without the plugin. This way, I can slowly phase them in, as I replace stations, station parts etc. Then, once one generation of interplanetary trips comes home, I shouldn't have any problem putting in the full plug in. Have you got someone to customize the parts? That'd be great. I reckon you should stick to just doing oxygen, unless you consider renaming the resource to "Oxygen and Water"- covering both of them all in one blow.

A space mine? This is why Squad doesn't like weapons. Might not need to see that movie now.

212 (yay, palindrome!) I want birds. I want them to sing, and I want to be able to tag and track them. This adds nothing to anyone else's experience, and belongs in a different game, but I want to do it on kerbin. They're's so much you can do in this game, why stop at rocket science?

Don't worry, just take it slow. Build a simple rocket. See how high you can get. Make it bigger. Try and leave the atmosphere.See how far you can get, heading over the sea. Keep building, go further, and further, and eventually, you'll go right around the planet. Do this above the atmosphere, and the air won't slow you down. And that's an orbit. Read the part descriptions carefully, and use them according to that. Best of luck to you! (And if KSP is not your thing, it's only a game, so go outside and enjoy the sunshine! (Or get on with assignments like I've been doing all day:( ))

I read the thread name and got the impression this was one of those threads requesting ships, as in water ships, being constructed in space. Terms like navy don't really work well in a space context. We need new words, I reckon, for a new type of travel.

To clarify, propellant is the substance expelled by the engine to make it go, fuel provides the energy. I'm a fan of the main fuel for liquid engines being hydrogen. It's versatile, it contains lots of energy, and it burns to produce water vapor. I'd rather not muck around with more pollutive fuels like kerosene if hydrogen an option. Assuming the Kerbals have mastered storing it properly. I have wondered why there isn't a design that combines nuclear and chemical power. If you're using a fuel that burns, why waste the chemical potential energy? There must be design challenges that make it impractical.

Is this a website? Plz Eplane. (Please explain. Sorry, don't know what drove me to write that.)

That is a huge url. What even is that.

I was under the impression they did have effects on debris as well, but maybe not. The pic I was thinking of only shows the debris from this failed launch glowing red hot. Testing rockets (and having them fail) yesterday, it seemed that only the active vessel got flames, when I tried switching between one falling part, and another.