KerbMav

I am stupid. You are right.

I am trying to prepare an orbit to intercept this asteroid here. Which heading on the navball do I have to aim for to get into a parallel orbit? Either the navball is reversed somehow or I am stupid.

It was said that the new engines' thrust was not sufficiently offset by ISP and weight. My questions aims at: Can there be only linear improvement? 8 x 1m engines = 4x 2m = 2x 3m = ... ?

Some very ambitious modder could take on the task to create a program that reads all gamedata files as KSP does and then offer graphically represented "tweak" options for every part. That way everyone could easily built himself his own grand unified modulemanager cfg file.

Still no hard numbers, but one more thought: If higher thrust has to be countered by lower ISP and more weight ... would the biggest engine have to gulp down all fuel and yet still be to heavy to lift itself? Or is there room for improvement?

Not so much a glitch but a question of parameters for the spawning of asteroids. I actually hope that these parameters are (made) available for modding to have asteroids not only fly alongside Kerbin, but also coming in at a retrograde orbit (so really fast relatively to the planet) and such things. And yes, I too had a game (one of only two right now, so it is happening in 50% of all games!!! ) with an asteroid starting out in a close orbit around Kerbin.

I voted balance for career and leave it to the number crunchers I paid to do so to decide what balance means in the game world they are creating.

It has: the ARM pack. As Squad did not want to maintain two different pieces of software - which would have delayed every update for both versions (think about the forum-bloodshed that would have caused ...) - and since lots of players voiced their wish to include the new parts in the standard game ... but as always: whatever you do, you can't do right (for everyone). Since the wiki has not been updated and I cannot look into the game right now (and do not intentionally memorize numbers in games), I cannot compare the hard numbers to form my own opinion whether the new engines have gotten only perks and no drawbacks. But keep in mind that these parts have been created with a purpose, the ARM "addon". As you like to make exaggerated counterarguments: The Mainsail is very powerful compared to other smaller engines and it helps a lot to make things easier when the player finally unlocks them in career mode. Should the Mainsail be toned down/removed in sandbox mode?

Density and buoyancy, if the density of an object is lower than that of the medium around it, it will float. Relevant here is the density of the whole object, not just e.g. the material of a ships hull: 10 tons of solid steel will sink, formed into a hollow object like a ships hull or just simply a ball, you will have to calculate the density by dividing the weight of the metall and the air inside it by the total volume of the object. Make a solid ball of 10 tons of steel and it will sink. Remove steel from inside the ball and replace it with air and it will float. Cut the ball in half an both halves will float (when positioned correctly of corse). Crush them into a lump of steel and it will sink again. So, the drill has a relative big volume for its higher mass compared with the anchor, so its density is lower. (And it seems to be completely waterproof, too. ) But it is best seen with the tank, the more air replaces the fuel, the lower its density is. Though I do not know if KSP calculates all this correctly, your experiments seem to prove this.

Actually after the hotfix by Squad everything should work just fine, does it not?

Actually after the hotfix by Squad everything should work just fine, does it not?

Anyone with a doctorate in particle/material physics up for answering this question: If the solar panels generate electricity (moving electrons) and the electrons in question would be pulled free from the circuits (to be used like the quantum stuff above) and would be accelerated like in an ion engine, how much thrust could be generated and how much "fuel" (electric currents move electrons in the material itself, generators only induce this movement, they do not generate electrons/new matter) would be available?

I sometimes play with the thought to build a junkyard on Minmus, especially for my out of date nuclear drive crafts.

Bearsh, are you talking about the Kerbal grabbing the ladder, slowly sliding along the ladder and falling of the end?

Gnah ... not really ... you have to think more "in story" and less "in game". You are taking out the Goo to return it to the lab at KSC for in depth analysis. Therefore the science system is designed to reward return missions, to such an extend that you will not get all available science from a specific experiment if you simply transmit your observations on location, so the return mission means you return a sample of the Goo after it has been exposed to a specific environment. "Cleaning out" would mean to resupply the container with a new Goo sample for another experiment. The reason you can store the experiment's result in a crew pod is, that there is storage space for the moon rocks, exposed Goo etc. It can store as much experiments as any crew pod, the modder made a part and added the module used to make crew pods able to store experiments. There is supposedly no limit.

As soon as the atmosphere is thin enough for terminal velocity to be ridiculously high (and to not play dirty drag tricks on the rocket) all engines can burn as powerful as they can. Before that drag can get so high at high speeds that you simply waste fuel, so it can even make sense to lower the thrust of the SRBs during construction. A central engine (with gimbals) helps controlling and steering the rocket, especially in thinner atmosphere where fins wont work anymore. I think it is mostly up to personal taste if you counter exceeding terminal velocity by lower thrust or not burning all engines?

Probe cores would not be able to store all experiments, as you are also returning the Goo and surface samples which are physical objects and not just data. You could edit the cores though and add the storage module in the part.cfg, which would be a bit unrealistic, as the Kerbals would stuff moon rocks between computer equipment. Just use this science container for example. Docking ports only dock to ports of the same size - there are universal docking ports available as mods though.

Late to the party, as I had to finish up some things in my old .23 save before I mustered the courage to port it over to .23.5 today. At first I missed some mods (parts that is) to load all my crafts. After that was remedied, no asteroids appeared. Just by copying over my save once more and giving it another try I ended up with this - more than half of them are impactors:

Is it working correctly in .23.5 ?

RealChute mod has some inline cutes, but I do not know if it has one in the size needed for the MK1.

The SRB will burn its fuel slower, burn longer, the rate of acceleration will be lower - makes sense if you need boosters but do not want to lift off with a TWR of 2+ and you also fight drag less in the lower atmosphere as when you push at full "throttle".

You hover in EVA next to it and click the asteroid kerbal to take a sample (like on the surface) - that is all the science I ever saw happening in the videos.

Yesterday I landed a pod with 20 experiments in it - my eyebrow had already arched all the way up to my neck seeing this smooth even number ... I did a quick crew report on the ground, but it still showed only 20 experiments. The debriefing window counted 22 experiments (including the "returned from" one ... should have hauled back the pod I landed on Duna with ... ) May all have been just a coincidence, maybe I really did 20 experiments on my trip to Duna, maybe the 21st experiment was still originally in the report slot of the pod and not stored in the pod - but I just wanted to throw the question into the room.

And lets not forget they were mostly designed to work in the NASA demonstration scenario, to enable a broader public to play through a mission planned by NASA and were only made available in the core game, because the community was already sharpening their teeth should it not happen.

As a career player I do not mind new and more powerful and efficient/easier to built parts up in the tech tree, not forgetting they were mostly designed to work in the NASA demonstration scenario and were only added to the core game because the community was already sharpening their teeth should it not happen. (And maybe at some point the player has earned the right to get an easier way and use more of his time doing stuff in space?) Will I get laughed at if I tell you that I did not even get my asteroid grabber into orbit when I tried to launch it (the five times that I didnt have any dumb staging errors destroying the rocket on the pad or at the first booster seperation...) in a stock .23.5 install? I dont know, maybe I have been playing with FAR far to long to remember how to fly in the soup ...