Superfluous J

With that long a burn, your only option is to do it really inefficiently and fix it after the main burn's done, preferably outside of Kerbin's SOI. You're not going to get any benefit from Oberth and in fact you're not going to even be able to do the burn near Kerbin, you'll do a full orbit (or two!) during the burn time. You will HAVE to split the burn, as you can't burn backwards in your orbit The only way I see to do it is to do multiple burns at Pe to raise your Ap up far enough that you'll be up in that area for a couple hours, and then do the actual transfer burn up there. IOW, don't do the transfer burn in LKO, but instead somewhere up near Keostationary or higher.

You can load any ship in the VAB, at least I can. You just can't launch them. Let me test in 1.1, I'm not sure if I've actually tried it there but in 1.0.5 it always worked. EDIT: Yup, just tried it and it loads fine. I can't launch, but I can edit it and re-save.

Alternatively, if you just wanted to test the part and don't need it anymore, just remove it from your ship before re-launching.

Radial chutes are physicsless, so they add their mass to the thing they attach to. So: They won't cause your ship to become unbalanced in (space) flight. And in any case, they wouldn't be big enough to notice so long as SAS is on. Not 100% sure on the heating up, but as they're all on the same side, just make sure that side isn't getting direct heating and you should be fine. Coming back from Mun or Minmus, you almost have to intentionally burn stuff up anyway.

I think this is the key. Ships that are not in the physics bubble never actually "land" or even "crash." They are just removed from the game when they get below a certain threshold (because they "would have" crashed). I'd like to test the "crashed = landed" theory, but you need to make SURE the thing that crashes is totally destroyed. To control it, I'd say crash a fuel tank into the surface or something, and test it both in the physics window and out of it.

There are two ways around falling over catastrophically on landing: Build your ship wide. This has the problems you describe above. If you build too wide, it'll be harder to fly. If you build it "just wide enough" then it might still fall over. Build your ship to land on its side. I much prefer this method. Put all the parachutes on one side, down the length of the ship. If you want landing legs, put them on sideways as well. Note that if your ship fully lands the parachutes will go away, but if you land at a 45 degree angle and slowly "fall" over, they will NOT disappear and will help guide you down.

Small Engines Suck For Giant Rockets! News at 11.

What "box" are you dragging it into? The subassembly box? Is this in 1.0.5 or 1.1? Edit: I just tried it in 1.1 and was able to retrieve a 3-piece wing part from a saved subassembly in the SPH.

I want procedural "stuff" on every world. Not necessarily craters everywhere (though the airless worlds could sure use 'em) but maybe rifts on Duna, cracks in the "ice" on Vall, and whatnot. I'd like each world to have a unique flair to its proceduralness but yes, I would like them all to be a bit bumpier in general.

I like both of the proposed tests, but if you've got KER installed then you really don't *need* a test All you need to know is: Do you have 5000 total dV, split between at least 2 phases (pre-landed and post-landed)? Does your ship have at least a local TWR of 2, near landing? Note: TWR of 2 is not strictly necessary. I often land on Tylo with a TWR less than 2, but it can be pretty hairy and the more TWR you have, the easier it is. Also, 5000m/s is not strictly necessary but margins are good, especially far from home with an otherwise untested lander

I won't say "Soon" but I will say I am not a software developer, don't work for Squad, have never written a professional game program, and have not participated in beta releases enough to even remotely guess in any way that would be better than yours. My opinion on the matter is worth just about as much as anybody else's, and my opinion is that it'll be some time in the near future, probably less than a month but I wouldn't be surprised if it was more. (that by the way is the long form of the word you don't want me to say)

Right now, 8 out of 9 people polled (myself included) agree with you. So no, you're not the only one That assumes you answered the poll. If not, then 9 of 10 agree with you.

Every mod that gets incorporated into the game is one less mod I need to install. Well, most of the time I feel no need to install FAR since 1.0, but I still run Enhanced Navball even though some of it's been implemented into the game. And of course there are many around here who feel FAR is still necessary to enjoy the game. I can't speak for modders, but one problem with getting permission is that with many mods you simply CANNOT get all the permission. Fro KER, for example, it was taken over at least once if not twice by totally different people, but the code wasn't rewritten. If Squad were to just take that code and use it, they'd need permission from every single person who added any code before they could implement it in their closed-source game. And no, KSP mods are not the property of Squad and they cannot just take what they want. Nobody - Squad included - wants that. I can't speak for any other games but there is no such agreement here, implied or otherwise. Many mods specifically prohibit redistribution; see the recent kerfuffle when KerbalStuff closed.

I have so far found 3 bugs in the 1.1 prerelease, and all 3 were previously reported on the bugtracker. I'm a bit despondent that I'm "not helping" but it's nice to see such an active bug-finding community. I'm of course on the outside of all of this but it really looks like this public beta thing is so far going quite well.

This. To both parts. So "these" I guess I'm actually a bit surprised that you got credit for entering Tylo's SOI, considering you never went and loaded the ship while it was in Tylo's SOI. I thought you had to "be there" for it to count. Cool that it's otherwise But yeah I'd guess (in order of likeliness) that you either hit Tylo, Slung your ship into Jool, or it got 'et by the Kraken.

It could also serve as a reminder in flight. "Oh yeah I wanted to move that around before getting to Mun."

I don't feel dissed, no worries there I assume it's in 1.1. I never check it. My opinion of the Engineer's report is that it would be very useful if it did 2 things: 1) Actually remind me when I miss things I tend to miss. That includes having enough batteries and power generation to power everything I have on the ship. It does not do this, and in fact it actually lies and tells me I'm generating power but not using it, when I need to generate power to keep a probe core running. If I blindly followed the report, my probe would die minutes after launch. If I can't trust what the report is telling me, what use is it? 2) Stop hiding in the corner. I want the report to get right in my face. "Hey, stupid. That ISRU scanner needs an antenna." I want a message like that (but nicer of course) when I click "launch." Not in a little button in the corner that I can forget to click. The whole point of the report is to remind us more forgetful folks to do things. Having to remember to click it just pushes the problem one step further. It doesn't actually fix the problem. Both of these need to be present. I can't be yelled at that I'm generating unneeded power when power is in fact needed, and I can't be reminded that I forgot to remove the monoprop in a hidden window that I have to remember to click - because if I remembered to click it I'd remember to remove the monoprop. Until those things happen, the report is almost useless to me, said flagrantly or not.

All you need to do is note all the landmarks on the track, how far apart they are, and then plug the time values into this spreadsheet I've made... Pfft if you can't add numbers together why are you playing an appendage/ball based physics simulator? I can't joke about this one because people DO maintain spreadsheets on RPGs. I agree with this one. In all the excitement I lose track myself. See my note about RPGs Okay I got bored. In short, I totally agree with you. I was just riffing on the idea

Bug report bumps - even after a year - are not necros if they are still valid. And I haven't heard of any redesigning of the contract system - though I'm a bit more out of the loop lately than I have been in the past.

Thank you for saying this. My Grand Tour ship has just such a probe attached to it and now I have something to add to my checklist When it stops telling me that I'm generating power I'm not using on a probe, I'll start using it more often. (Note: I haven't checked this in 1.1)

You just got 2 likes. One for the mod, and one for the toolbar button

My big forget it the opposite: I forget to REMOVE RCS fuel from command pods. My missions are never quite so well planned as for it to matter, but it still bugs me. I also frequently forget batteries, so much so that I've actually gotten quite good at conserving power.

I don't remember by first actual docking, but I'll never forget my first ATTEMPT. Two ships, each a 3-man command pod with a docking port on top and an orange tank with a Mainsail on the bottom (because why not) crashed into each other in very close to a perfect X configuration, at about 100m/s relative velocity. The orange tanks explody-vanished, and the command pods and mainsails kept going on their merry ways, no longer connected to each other. I'm sure the first successful one was nowhere near as cool.

There was a mod posted in the bug report page (of all places) that purported to "fix" this. I tested it back then and for the fun of it tested it now, and it didn't work either time. As a non-modder myself I by no means will speak to how easy it'd be, but is anybody involved in this discussion capable of modding this into the game?

Unity doesn't really support it. It also doesn't support maps the size of star systems, so there's always hope.