fchurca

This week I: Bought a graphics card, but didn't have drivers for my old LMDE2 Forced it to Debian Jessie and ploughed all the way up to Buster Realized that the CPU cooler's thermal paste had gone stale, decided to switch the stock AMD cooler for a Thermaltake Upgraded to KSP 1.3.1 Enjoyed loading my space stations without my computer shutting down

Tremble, cores 1-7, for core0 will claim his long-yearned revenge!

Mandatory XKCD reference: /792/

Thanks for the heads-up. Bumping for @HarvesteR

In the software industry, one of various philosophies is to "Deploy Early, Deploy Often". That lets the user enjoy the finished features as soon as possible. Instead of having to wait another month or so for telemetry, you can now make use of the features that are already done. You may happily wait 2-3 weeks or more for this one specific feature, but a great number of people, including me, are eager to make use of the improvements that already have been developed, tested, and proven, like multithreaded physics.

How should we parse that? Is it absolutely forbidden for anything to explode at all, or is everything okay as long as the payload survives?

This comes to mind: What If? Model Rockets

The few issues I've had with the claw have appeared when I used multiple claws per ship and shook them vigorously. Even then, I think they had to be attached to each other with both armed in order for them to summon the kraken. I currently have a station in orbit with two claws and have yet to have any issues with those. It may be because both are locked and not attached to each other, and the station is in orbit. If you don't plan to shake your base around, you may be fine; be sure to back up everything first though. If your base is on wheels and has a forward or backwards-facing docking port accessible to the buggy, you could replace one of the claws with a docking port and it will be Absolutely(tm) kraken-free. Screenshots of your base and the relative position of the ISRU will be helpful! Edited 2016-01-24T21:32-03:00 : Added picture

If you're willing to play hide-and-seek with the Kraken, I could suggest attaching them with an electric buggy with two claws, one on each end. If you forgot to add a drill and ore tank, now could be a good time to add them as part of the buggy. The delivery of the buggy to the premises is left as an exercise to the reader.

Given that 1.1 will finally take advantage of multicore processors, I don't think it will really be necessary...

When is the Hammer Head coming? Maybe even the Bebop? Excellent work!

I've used the Basic Fin once, and given every single part at least a thought, so one vote for the Micronode.

I prefer to imagine some poor intern spending hours on end torching the excess ablator off

You flatterer I'll try this when I get back from work.

Someone could try packing a chopped-up lander with the pieces lined up along the bay, and then taking them out and docking the lander back together in orbit. Thus, we can use a skinny service bay to store what ends up being a stocky lander. As a plus, in the radial assemblies are tanks, they can be staged off manually once empty.

What about refilling Sepratrons? Those don't look too difficult to refurbish mid-mission.

Glad to help! Also, if you have an eccentric orbit and the ascending and descending nodes are at different altitudes, burn at the highest one. You will be travelling more slowly there, so the same Dv will change your trajectory by a greater angle (or you will need less Dv for the same intended deflection).

Quite conveniently, in the Kerbin system, the Mun has a perfectly equatorial orbit. Targetting the Mun will thus show you the ascending and descending nodes of your orbit with respect to an equatorial one. A less-stock but quicker option can be to use the Kerbal Engineering Redux mod.

What Vagani said, and pics please so keks can be had.

Have you tried it in space or just in the launchpad? If it was in the launchpad, maybe the radiators don't work as well in warm air. Have you tried at night?

I see, Zoom. I'm afraid I could see what you did there.

Não gringo, mais Argentino

First of all, excuse my English. I'm not fluent enough in Portuguese to write in it The angular size of the ISS as seen from the Earth is tiny. Even if it was a solid disk of 110 metres in diameter at 330km, it would project at most a shadow of 0.02º in a vacuum if illuminated by a point source at infinity. Given that the sun is seen as a disk with an angular size of 1º, the ISS can't project a shadow on the Earth's surface. As an example, hold a needle at arm's length against the sun. The area of the sun that is not hidden by the needle illuminate the needle's partial shadow so thoroughly that it disappears. Now take into account that it's usually a bit higher and never lower, and that it's not a disk but a "tree" of solar panels, tubes, and trusses, none of those with a width of more than 20m. Diagram of the Sun and the ISS as seen from the Earth:

Minmus gets closer Did we refuel at Depot? ...we will lithobrake.

You can eyeball it summing the weight of the heaviest parts according to the weight in the part descriptions