Gargamel

Does it also happen on orbits that are in the same SOI? Why might also need to see a bigger picture to have more context.

With respect to anybody who has this knowledge and skill to do this, for the average person capable of doing it, usually requires a 4 year computer science degree. Two of my college roommates were a Comp Sci Major and a Comp Engineering major. They teamed up to do their senior projects. The CompE guy built the computer from scratch. By scratch I mean he took a box of 8088 chips and other electrical components and designed and built a computer. My CompSci buddy then wrote the OS to run the computer, including a new language (based on Lisp I believe) and a compiler for it so that they could write new software if they wanted. Of course there are people out there who haven't gone the four year route and have obtained this level of skill. But they didn't do this overnight. It took a lot of work and study. An arduino is the best choice for you here, IMO. Go grab the Arduino for Dummies book. That's not an insult to you, Any new skill I want to learn, I usually grab a dummies book first. They usually make the learning process fun and easy. Pair the book with an arduino starter kit, play with it and the book's examples for a hour a day, and by the end of two weeks, you will know 90% of what your rocket's hardware is going to be, how you'll do it, and how to get it to talk to the rest of your devices. The language used by an Arduino is C++, but it's so simplified and easy to read, that it is a breeze to learn. The majority of simple arduino programs is analog, turning stuff on or off. And then you will want to add some servos for your fins, and that too is easy to code. I love the simplicity of the arduino. My desk lamp is an arduino. I built a motion activated, scheduled thermostat for the barn using an arduino; it replaced the 'normal' one mounted on the wall. Dozens more projects I have done. But I am not a coder. I am a hack at best. You just have to learn the absolute basics to be able to produce a competent arduino sketch (program). The rabbit hole can go very very deep with it, but the barrier to entry is almost non existent for an arduino.

But that's just re-inventing a wheel, and attaching it as a training wheel to the wheel you designed it on. // Messy tangle of ad hoc command interpretation logic here By the time they get that part figured out, it would have been much much easier to just use C in the arduino. As an exercise in learning how to make your own language, I'd say go for it. There's no reason not to try! But since you want a practical use from it, off the shelf stuff might be the better idea.

I saw one last night too, about 3 am EST while driving home. Big bright fireball that broke up. Bright enough that it made me look up through the open sunroof of the car.

Ahh but they would. The relationship between the Earth, Moon, and Sun is pretty unique, at least within our solar system. We have total solar eclipses, but of the type that the Moon perfectly covers the sun, not more. Other planet/moon combinations have eclipses, but I don't believe any have this near perfect arrangement. We're also in a time frame where this occurs, a long time ago the moon was too close, in the future it will be too far away. This presents a reason for aliens to visit earth. Tourism. We might have one of the few places in the galaxy where you can observe an eclipse as such. So aliens would come to Earth to watch the solar eclipses from a planets surface. And what do drunk college kids do on vacation? They torment the locals. Hence all these pointless unexplainable abduction stories we hear about.

Yup. Dead on here. Why reinvent the wheel? LIke Shpaget said, there a numerous applications already out there that do what you want already. Anything you create, in a new language, has two goals to hit: 1) It must be easier to create it from scratch than learn an already existing one. 2) It must be superior on it's intended function than anything already existing. If you can't reach both of those goals, then don't do it. Unless the goal is to create a new language from scratch for the sake of it, there really isn't a reason to. Take a look at Arduino. It's super easy to use, pretty dang powerful with some practice, and really has no limits. It's also cheap, really cheap. For almost anything you'd want to do with a model rocket, an arduino or one of it's cousins would be perfect for it. They make beginners Arduino Kits, take a look at picking one up. The Arduino for Dummies book is excellent, and if you don't want to buy a book, there are many many tutorials on the web.

Looking at the screenshot, it does appear that the camera is not centered on the ship as one wold expect it to. Cheese may be right in that you are actually trying to control some invisible debris. Try hitting [ or ] to toggle through the vessels within range. Also, you seem to be getting spammed by messages, I think that was resolved a few versions ago. If you aren't running the current version of the game, try updating and loading the save to see if both problems get fixed.

Try going to Alt-F12 (that should still work too) and clearing your input locks. See if that resolves it, and then you might be able to notice what causes it to re-appear.

This might be the culprit. It shouldn't, as I've done similar a bunch of times, but it might be. While I doubt it will be the cause, it would be the first possible cause I would look to exonerate. Make a clone of the ship with 6 way with radiators and see if it blows.

No, it's just fine. the version numbers don't matter, the length of time that has passed doesn't matter, in fact, even the game itself doesn't matter. Just don't poke the bears.

You'd be surprised at the number of people this is not obvious for. Not a KSP player for the most part, but the populace in general.

No, it really isn't. A singular object is an it. A group of objects are a they. But they can also mean a singular object too. If I sit here, looking out my window, and I watch a hawk take down a squirrel, I'm going to think, "That hawk just grabbed that squirrel, it's toast!" Not he's toast, or she's toast. They would be appropriate, but not more or less so than an it. Until one knows the sex of a gendered object, it is completely appropriate to refer to them as an it. There are much bigger issues to deal with in this world than offending the gender of a dying squirrel. When I call my boat "she" or "her", I don't hear people complaining that maybe it's got another preferred gender.

This is so tongue in cheek that I'm not going to bother putting in the kerbal network forum, as the intent of this joke thread might even violate the forums rules. I've used this system on other forums to play a littel game when a thread get's necro'd. Seeing as @Snark just got burned by one (he may be a bit salty right now, so I'm half hiding posting this), I figured I'd add a bit to the bonus section. Start with 4 points. +1 if you warn about the necro -1 if you don't. -2.5 over 3 years -1.5 over 1 year - 3 years -1 6 months to a year -.5 3 -6 months -2 points if there is a newer applicable thread within the first 3 pages of the forum, regardless of age. -1 points if the post or thread pertains to topics rendered obsolete and useless. -1 point if the topic was already answered in another thread that could be found in a search. You had to search to necro, but chose to bump the one thread that doesn't answer your question? +1 if the post is on topic. +2 if the post is improves upon the thread, ie a significant contribution. -1 if the post offers no significant improvement to the thread. Ie mindless rambling on or off topic. Bonus points: +.5 for using a picture to warn of the necro. +.25 for every post after until the necro is pointed out. Double points if a moderator posts in the thread without realizing it's a necro. First poster to identify a necro gets 1 point, and another point for correctly scoring it. Total score is applied to the poster who caused the necro. *Championship to be awarded at a later time. ANY thread on the first page of a forum is immune to necro status. Note, as I said, this is all tongue in cheek, it's a joke. I am not condoning, supporting, or complaining about necro's. Just having a bit of sport.

Cross posting similar questions in multiple threads will only fracture any answers you get, making it harder for you and others to research the question at hand. So to keep this one alive, what other bugs do you have? A lot of common issues have simple work arounds or answers that show it is not a bug, but a feature :D.

Might not be a stock bug. Might be a mod, there also might be other issues at play. Some screen shots would help of the landed vessel you are attempting to recover. I have found the most common issue for not being able to recover a vessel is that it is slowly sliding across the surface. Just fast enough to not let me grab it. Time warping gently can help, or sometimes you just have to wait till it settles down on it's own (ie reaches the bottom of a hill).

Only took ya 3 years to respond there Snark. But no, this is a good thread, and I'm glad it got necro'd.

They are full of very dense Plutonium ( bunch of different designs out there, but Ill run with this one for now). That stuff is very dense. But looking at real world counterparts, if your 160 lbs is right, it's a bit less than twice the mass of comparable RTG's. But given the rockets in KSP are somewhat over powered when compared to their real world counterparts, I think it's balanced just about right. As for price, the materials are expensive. PU 238 costs around $8 million per kilo. The Mars curiosity rover's RTG contains about 4 kilos of PU238, so that's about 32 million for just the fuel source alone, not even counting the rest of the generator or the development/production costs. So if you look at the cost of a RTG vs the rest of a mission, KSP has the costs just about right, if not discounted. If we look at what the design is based from, the SNAP-19 RTG used on pioneer 10 & 11, then it's about 4 times the mass of that one. Those contained 1 kilo of fuel each. But I think they based the visual design off the SNAP-19, but made the electrical output more inline with the bigger RTGs, and they had very similar design looks to them. https://ne.oregonstate.edu/rebuilding-supply-pu-238

I used to make these all the time as a kid. Just grab a ruler that has a vaguely airfoil cross section, attach a string at one end, and ROuruurruruurrrururuurururrrooooo away. The key is to get the foil rotating along it's long axis before spinning it around on the string. Here's my guess from playing with these things 30 some years ago. (Quick definitions here: Spinning: rotation around the users hand, on the end of the rope. Rotation: the spinning along the long axis of the foil. Otherwise the following statements are going to be mighty confusing) As it's spinning around the rope, it's creating a bit of lift, vectored on one edge of the foil, inline with the direction of axial rotation. This causes it to continue to rotate in that direction, twisting up the cord some. The trailing edge of the foil causes a bit of a vacuum, and this cavitation causes the sound, from the collapsing of the vacuum behind the foil. The minuscule amount of lift it creates, (since there will probably be opposing lift vectors as it rotates, but the one vector will be slightly more than the other, given angles of attack and such)will eventually be overcome by the force of the twisted string, which shows how little lift force there actually is. The string will eventually cause it stop rotating, leading to a slight pause in the sound, and then start rotating it in the opposite direction. This will make the previous "trailing edge" into the new "leading edge", and the whole process starts over. As long as your initial rotational speed is enough to create enough lift to overcome the most stable neutral position it wants to settle to, it will roar. If you don't rotate the roarer before spinning it, it will often not produce a noise louder than a soft whoosh. As it spins, tensions in the rope (as you are holding onto it in a fixed position, not letting the rope rotate in your fingers) and probably a bit of precession will often cause the rope to start the airfoil spinning. I think that is why, if you use a flat board, you can sometimes get a soft roar out of it too. The rotation is causing cavitation and a sound. I had always used symmetrical airfoils, so the sound was the same in both directions of rotation. But I would guess that if you used a more asymmetric NACA style airfoil, you could probably get two different tones, maybe even be tunable based on the speed of spin. Possibly, also using an elastic style string would allow it to build up more rotational energy in the string before being reversed, causing it to rotate faster each time it reversed. I would guess that since it's so very simple to make one, a stick of the right random dimensions would work, that it was accidentally discovered in many different places over time. Some dude had a length of vine attached to a stick one day, for some reason, and he got bored, started twirling the board on the string, and whoa, noise. Hey Goorb, do that again! Hey look, Ongt made a better one! And so on. Random Hypothesis: The tonal qualities of the bull roarer are due to the spin speed, rotational speed, and the amount of cavitation. I posit that you could design a multi tone roarer, with a few section sof different sized (width and thickness) airfoil to create different tones. With a little R&D, these tones could produce harmonics that would greatly increase the volume, and ergo audible range, of the roarer. Since the spin speed is what gives the roarer it's energy, the actual tones and ergo the harmonic, would be very dependent on the users ability to maintain a fixed spin speed. Even then, the rotational energy being stored/dissipated in the rope will affect the rotational speed, altering the tones. So, with a properly harmonic bull roarer, you would get an oscillating wave. A normal roar with a brief bit of very loud, then a normal roar, a bit of whoosh as it stops and reverses, and then the whole cycle again. ----- Sometimes the stuff that falls out of my head amazes me.

I'm guessing you also have the Near Future pack installed? And perhaps are using the NF radiators? Read through this thread, and if the issue is the same, would you mind posting something there too? So we can start to maybe figure out whats going on.

Yup, this. Quoted to emphasize how easy it is. This should work for any image you see on the web. Although, google search results get a little tricky without going to the source page.

Yeah, by the time a tank is firing, the time to discover it and deal with it 'safely' has passed. The resulting explosions, from a hit or a miss, would be a gentle clue that something is shooting at you.

The hell I can't. But I guess it does require a staircase and a helmet.

This would be my suggestion. The custom tags allow you to sort through your vessels quickly.

Hmmm..... KER is your only mod, yes? Which tanks are you transferring from and to? Can you recreate this with a different vessel, or is it this vessel only? Can you control which tanks explode, is it only the one tank? I haven't heard of an ore tank exploding before, so hence the questions. We might need the logs for this. Blow up a tank and post the log. Perhaps a video too. But a gut guess is that the CoM shift from moving the ore around is causing a kraken attack at some overlapping/adjacent tanks.

Like @StrandedonEarth said, stability. But you are also doing it in the wrong order. Eve missions go Landing then launch. Kerbin missions go Launch then landing. If you are testing an Eve vessel on Kerbin, you gotta remember the flight modes are reversed. Very much so, especially if you are landing on terrain that might not be flat and level. Spreading out your footprint using legs to keep your CoG within the footprint will keep the ship upright. Otherwise, the ship will FDGB.