Sirrobert

Aaa yes, I remember where I was when humans walked on Jupiter

Try beeing less deep in the atmosphere, and also burning retrograde?

...you blow up more Kerbals

The Monoliths are a small nod to a movie about space travel. They are not a tribute to an actor that once played a part in a movie about space travel. Those names in the generator have nothing to do with anything. Including dead actors. If you want to, you can go change Jebediah's name to Robin. There, you tributed

Not sure about updates, but it's here now

If you use KAS (which I concider a feature the core game misses), it also has strut ends that you can place and link yourself

You can turn them on and off whenever you want. I do believe they also turn off when you undock

If there's a difference at all, pulling is better to prevent wobbling than pushing

You actually gave a better reason than Godot did (as in, you gave something that can kinda be defined as a reason)

SAS is not on, but there is reaction wheel input. Are you giving that input? If not, that's the cause of the wobble. Alternativly, is Mechjeb autopilot currently in control? That might also be the cause of the wobble. While this should be fixed by simply stopping input, Mechjeb tends to overreact in situations like this. So it'll try to correct by oversteering in the wrong direction, amplifying the wobble

What the hell does Robin have to do with KSP?

There are 2 kinds of people in this game. Those that do revert(1), and those that don't(2) This suggestion will have the following effects on people: 1)These people will first launch an new design in 'simulation'. If something goes wrong, they will revert as they normally would. If all goes right, they will suddenly be forced to launch again, which is repetative and boring. 2)No effect on these people, since they don't revert anyway. Currently, if you use revert, every ship you launch is effectivley launched in 'simulation'. If everything works, you go on to the real thing, but since you'll do evertying exactly the same anyway, that step is only boring, so we skip that (the computer follows the same inputs you gave it during the simulation), and start giving inputs for the real flight when it's in orbit So basicly, all this suggestion does, is add a step for the group that does revert.

Exactly. The higher your speed, the cheaper it will be the next time. That's why you want to make your ejection burn in a low orbit

Well if it crashes and doesn't sink, it's still intact on the surface I guess that counts as landed

Asteroids are REALLY HEAVY I doubt you'll even have a craft big enough to transport it. If you want to get to it, try wheels

Flag plant contracts are more for those scenarios where having permanent precence on a body can give you money

I don't know anything about the bug, but if you don't want to go through manually editing each port, maybe there is an alternative. First, rebuild the craft (this time without the bug) in the VAB. Launch, and than quicksave (while it's still on the launchpad). Now editting the save file, swap the orbitall characteristics of the 2 crafts (bugged and fixed version). Than quickload this. This will (if you did it right) swap the 2 crafts. So now you have the fixed rocket in space, and you can recover the broken one

You must be doing something very ineffcient than, because I have 4 million funds, and my upcoming mission to Duna is probably going to cost something like half a million. A single Kerbodyne part in orbit already pays 800k

It was shelved, because the devs determined, after testing, that it was not fun

So basicly stock function of KAS/TAC fuel balancer? I agree This one is tricky, because of the way KSP builds crafts. Basicly, the way this works is like a tree. You start with 1 part, this is the root. And than you add new things to those parts, and those are branches, which can branch out themselves, ect ect. This system however does not allow for loops. Now there are a few workarounds for this, but they are pritty convulted. For example, you could force a loop with docking ports (upon loading the rocket on the launchpad, the docking ports will connect, which creates a loop). But I don't think it's actually possible in stock to make this work properly (I could be wrong offcourse) I don't really understand this part Interesting. I do have a few points for this though. I don't think there should be requirements like 'go to place X to upgrade Y'. The whole idea in KSP is that you can go wherever you want, including to get science (as soon as you unlocked the parts to go there). I don't think we should take that away. Though a base upgrade system wouldn't be to bad I think. Something to do with all that excess science No it doens't. You can't build loops when making crafts. You can't connect a 3 way adapter to 3 fuel tanks. It only connects to 1 off them

Aaa, that's a bug (obviously) Danny2462 did the same thing in one of his videos, .That's all I know about it though. Did you try to exist KSP and load it again? Do you have a quicksave?

You are probably missing Shift (up) and control (down). W is forward, S is back, A is left, D is right, all relative to the screen

And plugin makers are awesome. I love you. If there is a way to prevent such a crash though, I have missed it. What is such a solution? Cause if there is, I'd see no other problem with this idea

Regardless off the technicualitys, this suggestion is always only really suggested with 1 purpose To allow people to load more mods than the memory limit currently allows. The other purpose would be to reduce initial loading times, which is not even worth the trouble. The problem with this idea, is that now, instead of crashing on load, the game will crash when it has to load up 2 ships that, thougether, contain enough modded parts to go over the memory limit. And crash on startup is WAY better than random crashes during the game (no lost progress, and it's way easier to find the problem this way)

It is sometimes possible, though not a very common thing. You can fix this almost always with sepratrons