Gargamel

HE LIVES! Still frying your computer? Ran a stop watch while loading the game tonight. 14:26. Sigh.......

You can easily build from the bottom up if that's what you want to do, you just have to pick a part that can serve as a root part. For example, I have a tug ship that I load, and then build the payload on top of it. And for reality, I'd think it's both/neither. Launchers have given constraints (mass, size). Projects have certain constraints (budget), and part of that budget involves launch costs, so they design the payload craft to fit onto an available launcher that fits the budget. Both are developed separately and mated together later. With time, that's what often happens in KSP (at least for me). I have a range of launchers that fit certain masses of payloads, and I just mate the correct one to the payload I've designed.

Is that prounounced Bo-Block or Bob-Lock?

And most stab vest don't do diddly vs high speed projectiles. So police officers choose to wear the appropriate armor for their environment. US cops prefer to wear bulletproof vests, while UK cops (to my best knowledge) usually wear stab vests. Same with corrections officers, most wear stab vests. A .50 would go right through that, it's designed to. Not bullet proof. Or maybe I missed the point of your post. But if you put highly gimballed prop motors on it, like in a quad copter config, not only can the props be angled to provide thrust in the direction desired for quick direction changes, but the torque of each can be adjusted for additional thrust, that's how quadcopters (et al) steer now anyways. Remember we're talking zero G atmospheric dog fighting, not 'flight'. You want nimble, not necessarily fast or stable. You want to be able to tumble and twist and juke to the side as quick as you can.

Mods. Free. No sales. Nice avatar.

I only updated from 1.2 to 1.3.1 a couple weeks before the update so I could install the stable mods easier. I'll wait again until everything is copacetic before updating again. Hence why I don't get upset. I know how to wait.

Do it. Or make a gravel garden with raised planters. That's what I was planning to do to my postage stamp before the wife and I split.... I used an electric push mower, did the whole yard in under an hour or so, which includes the logistics of unwrapping the cord from around trees. Next door neighbor had a smaller yard, and a huge riding mower. They'd spend more time than I did overall, just going back to get all the spots the riding mower couldn't hit.

25 years ago... longer than (I'm guessing) the mean age of the average KSP player.... But as much as I love the book, I don't know if I'd remember it without hearing it in Bill Fagerbakke's voice... Which coincidentally is Patrick from SpongeBob...

In a utopian world, sure. But things happen, avoidable or not, and people should relax and undertand, it's just a game. It's not a life saving device that will kill you if you use the current version. It's a game.

This is one of the dumbest analogies I've ever read. The onus is on you for buying a car without a windshield, not the manufacturer. Note, I'm not calling you dumb, just the analogy. Like as @Kerbart said, if it was some part that was bad that you never noticed before purchase, it'd be a different story. If the main menu didn't work, then I can buy the windshield analogy. But then the fault is still your own for buying a lemon and knowing it's a lemon beforehand. But this is just a game people. There's no reason for people to get so upset over a one week delay. If you need to game that much, play a different version, or a different game, or try that wonderful place called "OUTSIDE". This is par for the course with SQUAD (but this time, lack of QA, I'm laying on TTI, as they probably forced the rushed release). They release an update, there's a bunch of bugs that they never found, QA or not, so they fix them quickly. That brings more bugs they never anticipated, and they fix again. Our player base is notorious for finding game breaking bugs in ways that you shouldn't find bugs. Happens a couple few times until it gets worked out. Then we wait for the mods to get updated, and we know some take longer than others. When all that settles down, then I go get the update. Not before.

But people will still complain, especially if it's still running UNity (ha!), and updates are delayed as they work out issues.....

I was a medic for a long time, and I've treated my fair share of bullet wounds. I've also seen quite a few (cops and 'bad guys') that were wearing armor. Some walked it off with no more than a bruise or soreness, one had several broken ribs that punctured a lung (I believe that was a shotgun slug at close range). But they all lived. I've seen heavy jackets stop .22's if the angle is right. I'd go up against a .22 wearing a space suit, if I wasn't in a vacuum. Anything with fins in this scenario would be at a disadvantage to anything without. You need fins to help correct your angle of attack so you maintain lift over the wings. In a zero G environment, you'd only want multiple sources of vectored thrust, on all sides. You wouldn't want anything that would drag the nose of the vehicle around as you were side slipping, strafing your target. I'm guessing, ideally, a sphere with 4 highly gimballed propellers or jets would be the best vehicle.

My guess: Asteroids. They'd give a bunch of false positives. And we know from movies how dense the asteroid belt is. AHHA! Google Fu is strong with me today: https://tess.gsfc.nasa.gov/documents/TESS_FactSheet_Oct2014.pdf Translation (with some educated guesses, and I'm stuck in this goofy font): The Scan area of TESS would reach up to, but not including the poles if they included the ecliptic plane. The JWST, being place in L2(?), would only be able to see deep into the ecliptic at limited times, while the ecliptic polar regions it can see all the time. So they wanted to get the best coverage, ergo best data, from the Polar regions to give JWST more and better targets to look at. Given the expected lifespan of this mission, I would not be surprised to see a secondary or tertiary mission, like K2 (but not on accident this time) that would cover regions that received less attention on the first mission. They are estimating the orbit would be stable for 20 years with little to no station keeping from the motor, so the craft should have ample opportunity to do multiple science missions. ------------------------- Aaaannnnd... this page should answer any technical detail questions you might have. It's actually written in only semi-techno babble, so it's actually readable without having to just nod and smile: https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/tess/docs/TESS_observatory_guide_v1.1.pdf There''s more on the TESS/JWST overlap on page 14-15 of this document, but it won't copy/paste nicely here.

It's a known bug in 1.4.2. If you read one of a dozen other threads on the front pages of the forums, you'll see you're not alone. Assuming it's the same bug, they've been reported to explode, rather than vanish. Once you decouple your lander from the delivery vehicle, transfer over to another vehicle, and then back, or go to KSC and back. That has been reported to solve the issue.

Ah ok, apples and oranges here. The mission builder allows you to build, call them scenarios, where you determine all the starting conditions, (craft, location, orbit, etc) and have end goals (landing, not dying, etc). A contract just specifies an end goal and usually doesn't care how you get there. It is a standalone game mode, think like user created maps for FPS's. There are mods that allow for contract building, but I don't think any work in game as a true creator/editor (correct me if I'm wrong), they just allow for adjusting the variables.

I think this falls into the "That would be cool ,but I'd rather them work on bigger issues than polish what they have" category. A third option of "meh", on the poll might be needed.

When you say missions, do you mean contracts? The mission builder is a different thing than a contract builder.

Ok... that one made me smile.

Interesting would be one way of putting it, if you kept the wings on. It would be like driving a car that pulls hard to the left, all the time. That's a great video by scott. I got to the point where the girl gets frozen in the ice (about 5 minutes in, so no spoiler there) and turned it off....

Yup, I have no idea either. But doing this mission made me appreciate the Hubble STS missions even more, as they encountered 'similar' issues, with it being at the far end of the range the shuttle could reach.

Tough is putting it mildly I'd assume....

I don't think MJ will stop the issue from happening, as it's not a piloting error.

Put a Space telescope at a 5500 km equatorial orbit around Kerbin. Then my dumb *** decided it would be a good idea to point it at the sun. So I had to send up a repair mission. I used a vessel that I routinely use for crew transfers to the various stations around the Mun and Minmus. But I didn't account for the fact I usually refuel them when I get there. I also have learned from using this craft, that it can't handle a direct return from a moon, at 3 km/s reentry speed, it tends to burn up (Jeb and 6 tourists found this out the hard way). So I have to re-enter from a 80km orbit, helps with recovering funds too, as I'm pretty accurate with my landings (+/- 5km lol). Turns out I only had 100 dv left to re-enter. I got it home, but it was an eye opener to the demands of MKO flight operations. And oddly enough, I had designed an emergency fuel shuttle for just such an occasion just before launching this one, so I was ready if it was needed, but it wasn't.

Well it would give really weird results, and those are the types that would make for early candidates for other observation, the whole idea behind the TESS mission!

Gotcha! Again, take a look at the data sets the K2 project has released for public interpretation. Basically, they are looking for periodic dips in brightness. A star passing behind another such that it represents a binary system would give a one time dip in brightness, or a cyclic one if the passing is due to parallax. Both of which are accounted for. But that's why a good portion of the K2 data interpretation is being done via crowd sourced science. In some aspects, the Human Eye Mk1 is far better at detecting certain patterns than a computer. The computers sort through all the data and flag any potential candidates, and then the crowd looks at the candidates and votes yay or nay. They never expected to have the number of candidates like they did, so they had to turn to crowd sourcing. A binary star system, in any form we are discussing, if it gives a periodic dip in brightness would produce a sine wave brightness curve: (From the K2 data set itself): Sorry that's for a variable star. A 'normal' star produces a flat light curve, and when a planet passes in front of it, gives a sharp clear dip in the data points, on a regular schedule: A binary system, has a 'lift' on each side of the transit, as the detector would now see an increase in light output on either side of the dip right before and after the eclipse, and then a drop below mean output as the stars separate visually: But if the binary system does not separate enough for the sensor to see they are two stars, you'll get a curve like this. There is a slight rise above the mean before each eclipse, and the dips are wider than a planet. And for S&G's, here's what a Variable star does look like: