KerbMav

This is the kind of missions available in stock KSP by .25 - .90 will have assimilated the FinePrint mod, so I suggest Squad gets rid of the infinitely repeating missions that get old quickly.

Holy-SSTO-Batman!

With the Russians the US was in a Cold War - with China they are in a economic contest. See how the world works?

Not really plastic - but not really meat either.

A significant portion of the western (media) population, I think. But it also seems that this western (media) population is quick to exterminate outside visitors - seeing the sudden switch from the original topic of this thread? What do they want, why are they here? small (regarding crew size) FTL ship - probably scientific excursion or diplomatic mission larger generation ship - might still be scientific, for lack of FTL very large ship - makes a desperate colonization attempt much more likely very large FTL ship - take cover I think even a colonization attempt might be beneficial for both sides. We have the planet, they have the technology to make/keep it inhabitable. (Unless THAT was the reason to leave their planet in the first place?) Overall a war would cost both sides - if our military resorts to scorched earth (literally) they would have won nothing. And if they were able to terraform an irradiated planet, they might as well take Mars or Venus. (Maybe the gravity there is more like their home planet's?)

Hmm... how difficult would it be to tell Rosetta to keep 67P between itself and the sun ... ?

For the night is dark and full of errors.

Sorry, could you start over please, I could not follow, you made a new ... what did you call him? I actually wonder that you even met him in your school, because as I see it, he is one of this special kind of humans that will never have to worry about anything but on what to spent all that money his parents give him to show their love. He does not respect you or your hobbies, he is unlikable from what you are telling us and I think you are better of leaving him to his misery. You want to stand up to him? Tell him that if he has such a low opinion on people like yourself he probably should spent his time with someone else. Just my opinion.

That is what they are hoping for.

As I am quite sure ETs would gather information about a new species first, and as they were most likely technologically more advanced than us and therefore even more capable of filtering our every communication, this is as good a place to appoint myself first contact ambassador of the earth as any. So, if you form now on ever read/hear me talking about them existing and visiting us, it is probably true.

Even the most imbalanced craft SHOULD not rotate at all if no force (thrust, reckless EVA-kerbonauts, etc.) is applied to it. Does the rotation stop if you engage timewarp for a moment or does it start to rotate again? Is it getting faster? There was a time many players reportet space stations dancing themselves to death - but I see nothing in your design that was mentioned as a cause back then, like crossing struts or part clipping.

He means to say: pulling is bettern than pushing - but even that is only half true if you are not "pulling through" the center of mass, I think. It may be to difficult to aim 100% at the COM of the asteroid, but if your ship has any length at all, I would try using RCS thrusters at its aft, furthest away from the combined COM of asteroid and ship, to have enough leverage.

Reminds me of the "Children of Goldshire" thread so many years ago. ^^

Instead of deleting Chatterer completely, you might just delete some of the sound folders. I usually only use the Apollo one, the STS sounds to sedate and the russian ones to much like Mars Attacks. If you want to save on RAM, then deleting the "little helpers" will not do much, you would have to get rid of mods with lots of parts - which is only half true if these parts (only differing in size and/or function for example) share the same textures, so you would want to delete part (packs) that have lots of big textures.

FunFact: I clicked this probe thread right after coming from a thread where someone mentioned disliking a visit to the dentist more than a prostate exam ...

I do not mind going to the dentist, although my teeth got less perfect over the years, but the visits are usually limited to cleaning tartar. What really got to me - but not related to my dentist, a likeable person really - was when one of my molars broke in half, it was 35% filling and gave in after 10 years ... had to be pulled a few months later. I had no trouble removing my wisdom teeth, but loosing one of the others - I felt like falling apart myself ... Found yourself a female urologist, Beowolf? (Admittedly funnier than this flat joke is the fact, that it only works for the same reason that would get me PC-kicked in other situations: a straight presumption on your predispositions. )

I switched from a Mach 3 to a comparatively inexpensive Balea Revolution 5.1 (a German drugstore chain's own brand). Electric shaving irritates my skin (even more than a wet shave) and I am always dissatisfied with the results. But equally important - from my experience - is the shaving cream. I like to use gel instead of foam and always go for something with aloe vera, and I also like to shave before showering - at least it feels to me as if my skin is more forgiving this way.

But you managed to put so much effort into scolding me for: 1. mixing up Jupiter Ascending and Andromeda Ascendant, 2. expecting the sci-fi crowd around here to have seen the trailers, 3. asking for spacecrafts reminiscent of gothic architecture in general without making 100% clear that the trailer was just the spark. Seeing that you otherwise post in a more reasonable manner, you either had a very bad day and found just the vent you needed - happy to oblige, once ... - or you have some personal problem with me, which leaves me curious. "I am not sure how well I should wish you but I'm sure we'll have a lot of fun. Tata," K.

Planned on finishing my .23.5 save last friday, but it aint as easy it seems. My Explorer III at Bop was to pick up the Duna Return crew - the guys used up all their fuel before finishing their three planned landings. Explorer III left Jool after lots of waiting time and fiddling with maneuver nodes - only to miss the encounter, because I forgot to leave the ship on rails instead of watching it fly through space during 100000x time warp ... corrected the KSP sketchiness during high time warps by activating unlimited fuel and an enormous burn right next (astronomically speaking) to Duna - not to proud, but sometimes you just want to get something done. The ship also left its own crew lander and a Kethane converter module behind - it brought the mining lander (with a smaller converter) along though, but that is what is causing me new headaches: The miner was designed to be able to get up fully loaded from Bop and Pol - Ikes gravity is a couple times higher and I am not sure I will be able to land safely and later bring any useful amount of fuel back to Duna's orbit. In an effort to make my life easier, I left the miner during my burn into an orbit around Duna while the AP was still on Ikes orbit - but the little bugger chose to not meet me on the first pass, so much for easy once more. Meanwhile the Duna crew ferried over with the Duna lander (or by EVA) to the Explorer III Having no fuel, crew or AI onboard, the only way to move the Duna Return ship out of Duna's orbit would be to use the Explorer III's automated mining lander to refuel and steer the ship - should I feel inclined to ever do so. An old ion probe used to map parts of the Jool system and now on a journey to the stars will have a maneuver alarm in about 2 years - if I only new what the maneuver was supposed to do ... In other news: Thinking about starting a sandbox game in the current or the next version of KSP and trying for an Eve return mission without any game changing mods, most notably no FAR to get the old feeling of concrete atmosphere on Eve.

Ever since he saw the first trailer of Jupiter Ascendant a friend of mine was obsessed with what he calls gothic design of the spacecrafts. He asked me if I had/could build such a ship in KSP. No, I can/have not - but I know just the place to ask if someone did!

For me this happened only twice. F5 took to long to reconnect, but pausing and starting the stream worked fine.

This may sound like an answer, but it is actually a longish question. In short: Am I right or what? Pilots of (especially sail-)planes turn kinetic energy (velocity) into potential energy (altitude) - ignoring losses due to drag here. In an orbit the satellite does the same, its potential energy at AP becomes kinetic energy at PE, the value is the same. The higher I am, the deeper I fall, the faster I am at my lowest point in orbit. The reverse is true too, the faster I am at my lowest point in orbit, the higher I can go before gravity has slowed me down and I start to fall. When I add velocity at my PE, I will go up higher later at my AP. As the relation between kinetic energy and velocity is different from the relation between potential energy and altitude, but the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy always stays the same, a change in velocity by 100m/s results in a different change in altitude depending on my velocity at the beginning of my burn. Basically, the way I see it, Oberth is a very complicated way to justify the behaviour of orbiting objects, but has the advantage of giving an explanation coherent with fundamental laws of physics. (Which must be my most anti-science statement since a very long time!) Another question regarding fuel efficiency: Is the only way to exploit Oberth to save fuel by not launching into a high orbit - or do I even save fuel by lowering my PE first should I wish to raise my AP afterwards? Good list, basically summing everything you really need to know about Oberth without fully understandig it. But educationally it is better to give examples of misconceptions in the negative (does not, is not, etc.) form. We tend to remember wrong examples when they were phrased positively, because we learn what we read/hear repeatedly and reading a false statement (if only as an example) counts as a repetition.

I wonder how much effort it would have cost to include a much smaller probe, detaching from Philae a few minutes before the landing. Just some gyros, batteries, a camera, an antenna and something to detect the position of Philae via radio, so the gyros can align the camera to observe the landing. This would have been impractical for a landing on Mars, but as the landing on 67P was very slow ... ?

If you think about it - as all life on earth shares one DNA "system", life possibly developed only once somewhere on Earth. It developed into cells, became multi-cellular, evolved into all the plants, fungi, animals we know (and not yet know), that adapted to their niches, forming a food chain, symbiotic relationships etc. - so, in a (mostly philosophical) way, Earth is inhabitad by one LIFEform.

Could this mod be adapted to give asteroids an initial and after that persistent rotation?