Superfluous J

Can I just submit any of the videos I've made in the past several years in which I dock 2 small ships together? I don't even think about RCS until I'm docking two things that are each bigger than an orange tank. And usually I think "Naaw I still don't need RCS for this."

You do not need Bandicam for screenshots. Hit F1 and the game will take a shot and save it in the screenshots folder.

There are other warp changing mods out there that let you set your own warp levels. This is intended to be a simple extension to the stock warp levels plus a disconnect of the stock warp altitude limits. I'm all for configurability, most of the time. But not in this case.

If you turn them on in game settings, you can set each tank's priority level. Even if you don't do that, you can enable fuel flow through radial decouplers which can have unexpected results (Like engines still burning even though it *appears* that their fuel tank are totally out of fuel). As this is all new, KER must be coded to take it all into account for dV calculations.

Don't sweat it. You fulfilled the spirit of the contract. The "no new ships" rule is to keep you from just bouncing the same satellite around the system forever.

Almost always 1, but sometimes 2. That 1 is usually either a scientist or an engineer. Though if I AM bringing 2, the other is generally a pilot.

I await your entry to prove it's reasonable. FWIW, this is the ultimate goal of my current career, except a few worlds like Eve because yeah Eve's one-and-done at best.

Oh I know (the referenced post quotes me), but I don't remember the idea of a right-click menu on other craft being among the options. Do not get me wrong in the least, NSSC is a great middle ground between this and EPL. I just don't personally want to use the middle ground. I want all stock if at all possible.

I know, and I will use it if necessary, but I really really like how this mod only uses stock parts. I'm trying to have my cake and recycle it too

It has now http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/13346

I just had a random thought - as the only thing I really want that this doesn't provide is recycling (Stakes are nice and all but I can live without them). Would it be possible to trigger the "recycle this ship" action from a right-click menu? My thoughts are like this: Be in control of the ship/base that has empty rocketpart tanks. Right click any part on another vessel that's nearby. Included in the other options ("target this" for example) is a "recycle this ship" button. Click it. Maybe get a warning as this is a very dangerous action. The ship then acts exactly like it passed through the recycling trigger on the active vessel.

You can pick which experiments you want to send, or which antenna you want to send them with, but not both. If you want to send one experiment, use the "transmit" button on that experiment and KSP will pick an antenna, I think in the order you placed them on the ship in the VAB. If you want to send all experiments, right click the antenna you want to use and select "send data" or whatever the button is named. There is no way I know of - modded or otherwise - to transmit a single experiment on the antenna of your choice. "Make this antenna the transmitter" would be a great option though.

I just updated to KSP 1.2.1 specifically to get this update Will this work on new ships launched using old profiles, or do I need to "prove" the launch again?

Not true. If you burn straight up your Pe will never leave Kerbin's surface, little alone its atmosphere. If you burn perfectly sideways at an Ap of 65km, you can also escape Kerbin's SOI without ever raising the Pe out of the atmosphere. Under normal play, of course, you are correct. But it's still possible to do and even in normal play I've done it.

Yes. It is. If you are unwilling to do it yourself, why should you expect another to do it for you? Make the mod you want, or accept what's given to you for free. Is that too much to ask of the mod using community? (To be clear, it's alright to ASK. But your continual insistence in the face of denial by the modder himself is quickly turning your "ask" into a "demand" which is not alright)

As to why, it's because they tend to spurn arguments and tempers and moderator intervention. Nobody wants that, least of all the moderators.

It's a Christmas Miracle! 0.9: MASSIVE rewrite with major additions, all by linuxgurugamer: Updated to 1.2.1 Added Cargo Bays, Drills, Reaction Wheels, Fuel Cells Set up single-button functionality. Was - in general - awesome.

I've never kept a life support mod long enough to grow to like it, and I've tried them all (at least most of them. All the big ones). The closest I liked was Snacks back when it was just Snacks and Mulch, and IIRC you could convert Mulch back into Snacks somehow. I think it's important to conserve mass but I also think it's important to limit the number of extra resources to the bare minimum - in this case 2. I also feel quite strongly that we already have too many resources for the way storage works in the game. Before Life Support becomes stock, I think the game needs to switch to procedural tanks with switchable storage. Though "Procedural Tanks and Configurable Containers" is an odd reply to "Which Life Support mods are your favorite?"

I find it's nice to use Mun to help equatorialize (that is TOO a word) my orbit upon returning from interplanetary, but not to slow down. Just fiddle with your interplanetary mid-course correction until leaving Mun's SOI puts you equatorial. If you can swing it, also have it send you in close to Kerbin for the slowdown burn or aerocapture, but that's trickier. Also tricky to do, you can get your Mun Pe really low and then do your Oberth burning there, but as @Snark points out, Oberth is a lot less useful there than at low Kerbin due to Mun's low mass.

I'm pretty sure it's not only possible, but given the framework within the mod it shouldn't be too hard. I've been leery to do it because most craft I fly can't handle 4x, I'd hate to accidentally go higher However, I'm up for trying when I get time. I had previously considered removing 3x and making the 3rd step 4x, and then a 6x or 8x past that. However, I think now it'd be better to leave the original 4 alone and just add maybe 6x, 8x, and 10x. I don't know how the physics engine will handle 10x physics warp (but I'm guessing it'll do so poorly) but hey, it's your plane, right? I don't know when I'll get to this (I'm still quite busy but not so much as I have been over the past 6 weeks) but hopefully soon.

And patience. You don't get to decide what speed to warp, and the game always chooses a slower speed than I want. And if I speed up, it cancels the "warp to" aspect.

I'm pretty sure you need a y in there somewhere. For syence. Alfa Sentury, I propose. #Scyence!

I stand corrected! Though going just by the movie, the company existing does not imply the product exists. </pedant>

Yeah this is about as important as if Pluto is a planet or not, which means it will cause controversy for years among the laypeople (us) and nobody who actually works in the field will care, except to be happy that there is clarification now. Call it what you want. It's not like black vans are going to pull up and take you away if you do so. Eventually though people will say "Alpha what? Oh you mean Rigil Kentaurus?" Incidentally, I think Rigil Kentaurus is an awesome name.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. 2200m/s is orbital velocity and 860 is about Mun transit, so I'm assuming you mean "if you teleport your ship to 100km and are stationary over the planet, you need 2200m/s to get into orbit and then 860 to get to Mun" Are you saying that if you teleport the same ship to the same place and just burn up for 1720m/s you'll get a Mun intercept? I don't know if that's true or not (but I'm pretty sure it's not), I'm just asking if that's what you're saying. And I'm also not sure what this has to do with getting to mun (or anywhere) from Kerbin's surface.