fancycat

Hydrogen wedge bug found: The Hydrogen wedge carries easily 100 times more than it should. the size 1 small hydrogen wedge carries 11109.0 hydrogen where the YD-12-400 carries only 3000 and is way way larger than the wedge

I am sturggling a bit to understand this. I am trying to use the land calculator, the "timer until burn start" is longer than the time until impact. My timer also fluctuates wildly between 7 min and -300 seconds so i am really confused

I sent an email to private division support days ago but it was ignored completely. I kept clicking "my issue is not resolved" forcing the ticket to stay open after each response with steam until they forced the ticket closed so I just opened a new one and will keep asking. I cant find any contact info for the IG community manager

I put in for my 10th refund request after my 9th was denied

I am up to 10 refund requests so far all denied

I am trying to put in a ticket but all roads lead back to the automated refund request. there dosnt seem to be a way to put in a ticket at all.

What options do I have if steam denies my refund request. I only played a few hours and I encountered hundreds of game breaking bugs but because I didnt request the refund within a few weeks its been denied. I feel a little scammed. Is there any options I can do like with the website or emails?

I am experiencing a Bug. I used the delete button on the window with the extra info window extended and the whole window closed with no more maneuver nodes and now I can not create any nodes at all. I have reset and reloaded my game and maneuver nodes are completely broken. Clicking on the path does nothing. Any help at all would be appreciated. Thanks for your time. EDIT: I cant make any maneuver nodes on any of my flights in the game. I also cant target anything like my mouse clicks do nothing in the map at all. edit: I have tried everything. nothing fixes it. As far as I can tell I can never make maneuver nodes again in any of my games no matter what I do, KSP is completely broken....

I have had a few good ones. One landing on two or three on lathe and atmosphere probes on jool and eve. the experts use a tad of planning for when to transfer to another body. choosing when you launch can make the difference between a two min burn and a 30 second burn when transferring to another body. my first attempt to land on eve took me a three min continuous burn with a high powered engine and my second attempt actually only took 24 seconds. I have also used the moons gravity to gain kerbin escape with much less fuel. so each planet has a time (usually once or twice a year) where it is the easiest to get there and that is called the transfer window. the best way to measure it is by using the angle. by drawing a line from kerbin to the sun and then from the sun to your target planet, then measuring the angle between the two. the transfer window is usually given in degrees. I hope this helps.

so we have to devide by two before taking the root. why isnt this in the solution on the key? so weird.

there is no change in mass. both objects have the same mass which is a constant. .... with 1e^3 / 1e^2 = 10 on my calculator this is a physics 1 class so some stuff isn't present. G=6.67x10^-11 for this class.

this is a webassign homework problem that reads... "Two neutron stars are separated by a distance of 2.5x10^10 m. They each have a mass of 2.5x10^30 kg and a radius of 1.0x10^5 m. They are initially at rest with respect to each other. As measured from that rest frame, how fast are they moving just before collision." the answer that the system gave me as the right answer is 28'874'613.94 m/s this is the correct answer for the problem according to the answer key. the equation given by the answer key as the correct way to solve this is the one I provided above.

yes it is a problem dealing with the velocity of two spheres that start at rest at a distance 2.5*10^10 the radius of the spheres are both 100000 each so starting distance is 2xrxd where d is the distance from surface to surface. because it is a gravity problem i need to measure distance between the centers of each sphere.

So I am working on some college physics homework but my calculator is giving me an answer that is off by over 10 million. my equation is sq root (2GM(1/a -1/b)) where G = 6.67*10^-11 M= 2.5*10^30 a= 200000 and b = 200000+2.5*10^10 the confirmed correct answer is 28'874'613.94 however my calculator gives me an answer that is over 40 million. can anyone please help me figure out what is wrong. I have also plugged my formula into wolfram alpha and got over 40 million. a friend with a graphing calculator got the correct answer but I am not allowed to use one of those. I have tried braking it up and doing it one piece at a time and i have tried doing it as one chunk bot times I got over 40 million. a friend with a standard calculator also gets over 40 million. I have been working on this for 6 hrs on friday and 3 hrs today. if anyone can help me figure out how to do this on a standard calculator i would be eternally grateful. my calculator: Sharp EL-531X

Ok so I have watched so many tutorials and a few things are always left out number 1: disabling pod torque will allow your control surfaces to do the work. number 2: a lot of aircraft have the problem of not taking off until you fall off the end of the runway, to help with this try putting your rear landing gear closer to the center of mass. number 3: if yo are having trouble getting your center of lift behind your center of mass try adding a long central tail so you can add winglets to the back to move your COL back and give you more pitch authority. have fun

ok so I added the farr mod but now my rockets all tip over in flight.. no matter how much thrust vectoring or canards or RCS i use they always uncontrollably tip over at about 5000 to 10000 km up. every single rocket so far no matter how small or how big has failed in this way

I had assumed that the atmosphere of kerbin has an ambient level of vaporized kerbals that cover everything in a thing green goo film. Too many exploded rockets.

for me every command pod has a decoupler parachute and sepatrons all rigged to the abort button. even if i don't abort, (especially on space stations) i will have a method of returning them home. great thread idea i feel like ill learn a lot from this.

ill give this a try

I am having trouble getting my center of lift just behind my center of mass without having my wings in the very back of the aircraft or my engines in the very front. Also if i do manage to get that part right my planes seem to have no power to pull up at all, they just leave the run way, pull up to a max angle of 5 degrees and slowly descend into the ocean. Anyway I was hoping someone might be able to give me some design advice to help with this.

That was what i figured they did. Though i would still recommend they render the device inert after first use for the sake of padding out the career mode a tad. there is loss from sending data via antenna but how is that loss calculated? is it a percentage based on distance or a static number?

does the sample container retain all experiments run on it if you run multiple experiments with the same device without transmitting before recovering?

I would recommend making the science units a one time only use device.. for example the specimen container, once opened to an environment will generate a report and then be unusable. the specimen inside is now affected by that one environment and exposing it to others would do nothing but taint the integrity of your experiment. reusable experiments in a flight would be limited to crew reports so the player now has to design flights for specific missions rather than gaining max science points in their first three or four flights. otherwise it looks great, I will look forward to seeing it

People often talk about renewable energy, or energy that wont run out as it is harvested or exploited. From a physics stand point this concept is very strange to me. Let's imagine for example that you put a wind turbine on the side of an acceding rocket. The turbine will generate a lot of electricity from rushing through the air, however this electricity is harvested from the force of the rockets momentum and manifests in the form of extra drag. With solar energy there is no question as it comes from the sun burning itself out over a long period of time and that energy is being produced whether or not we make use of it. However with wind turbines, wouldn't their be an inherent slow down of wind that impacts the turbines? if energy cannot be created or destroyed then converting the kinetic energy of the wind to electricity might cause some kind of inherent effects. Granted these effects would be much less than what is caused by a large square building. I am not trying to preach about save the world or anything, I am just generally curious about the physics of it. Is wind and weather slimier to solar in that that energy is being used regardless of our exploitation of it? (side note) I hope one day to have a form of green generator for the sake of saving on my power bill.. my word power companies are expletive! also solar energy relies on using solar power to knock electrons from the solar cell? if this is the case wont a solar cell become depleted after a while, as the positive ions begin to outnumber the available uncharged atoms of the crystal structure?

that is gorgeous. well done texture artist