Sof

So much random hate for EA when they aren't even the worst video game company out there, nor are they personally responsible for half the reasons people hate them.

When I jettisoned my ascent stage, KSP immediately flagged it as debris and that was 0 metres away from the rest of the rocket for a few milliseconds.

slow clap...

Getting the steam version means you get trading cards, and you don't have to be on the KSP website hitting f5 for the update as it will download automatically (if you haven't told it not to) The only downside is that it can be a bit of a maze trying to find the KSP folder for modding if you don't know where to look. You can do everything you can with the store version on steam. Make backup copies etc, but it is your own preference really. The differences are minor at best.

For all the bad press EA get, the do have some good games. It also seems that they have realised some of the errors of their ways in recent weeks and hopefully start to become the publisher gamers need it to be. If KSP was bought by EA, we'd see the final version of the game out by spring. Make of that as you will.

I went back to the very first version of KSP that was available to the public. The wiki told me 0.07 was released on 24/6/11. I assumed then that 0.21 would be released in July, being ~22/7/13. If it takes 25 months to go up 0.14 incriments then it'll take another 11.75 years to get to 1.0, which come to think about it will be 2025.

Which will be sometime in 2024 if my maths are right.

"14 hrs to go until we release 0.21"

The enemy in KSP is the universe itself.

It is cheating if you use it to make a design more powerful than it should be by hiding engines in engines or fuel tanks in fuel tanks intake spam. Much like mechjeb, it takes the fun out of the game and essentially makes it pointless.

Put it along side a picture of the real moon and you'll notice the crater sizes and distance between them are fairly similar. I like what they've done here. It'll make it a more interesting place to go.

Yes, hence why he said "both" The sizes and distances have more or less the same ratios, however Earths moon has an inclination which the Mun doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobraking#Spacecraft_missions "In the space simulation sandbox game Kerbal Space Program, this is a very common method of slowing a craft's orbital speed." We're famous

As of now, you're just assigning random words, which may or may not be actual Kerbal elements into a grid that vaguely resemmbles our periodic table. The real periodic table isn't set out in that way for fun. The periods denote trends in chemical reactivity, and we have no way to know or test how the kerbal analogues behave. It is pointless to stick these into random boxes for no reason. It has already been said before that the Kerbal "elements" are not analogous to real elements.

Call of duty 4

how long did it take for people to discover Earths moon?

Maybe I should make a thread about double posting. Discovering planets with telescopes and moar planets in the game are both things squad has plans for in the final release. Eeloo is going to be a moon of the next gas giant they add, and apparently that one may end up with rings.

Short answer is that the energy of the station would change. If you were just to undock a 30 ton fuel tank or something, then both objects would keep the same orbit.

I would be disappointed, and unhappy knowing that I won't get to see what could have been. On the other hand though, I'm having plenty of fun with this alpha build, so I can't say I'm unhappy with the state the game is in currently, which must mean I'm happy with it at the moment. Had this version been the final 1.0 release for example, I'd still play it.

completely unnecessary if you design your rockets properly though. I use essentially the same first stage but have no problems with rolling. That SAS would just add weight.

The Protractor mod suggests to burn so that you have completed 2/3rds before you pass the periapsis. This is obviously for one burn, but it means it is better to do more burning before periapsis than after, so you would probably be better off doing 3mins before and 1min after or similar. If you are taking more than 2 passes, then your TWR is probably too low.

If your rocket is small enough to have a TWR of > 1 with that engine. It is probably feasible to build crafts that can survive landing with a TWR less than one.

Long burn times for heavy ships. Otherwise it isn't all that noticable if you're just going for a small lander. The lower TWR are the better ones to use in space as they tend to have a higher ISP, and that gives better fuel economy which equates to higher dV. You just need to make sure your TWR is bigger than 1 for taking off. That of course will depend on the size of the world you land on.

lol dem graphic settings

are they all jebs?