Superfluous J

I'm going to say this as cleanly and as respectably as I can. This is a clear case of click-baiting. It's a poorly-researched article that mentions popular games, states a controversial opinion about them, and doesn't back it up. It's written specifically to get people to go to the web site and load ads. And - like most click-bait articles - it's working wonderfully.

This is not a bug. In the KAC thread (Yes there is one) there was discussion of this when it was implemented. There were warnings about it (I think with Asteroids only as perhaps Rescue Contracts were not a thing at the time but I may be misremembering) and there is a setting somewhere in the options that will turn it off if you prefer. I actually thought it was off by default. I would also not be surprised if it was mentioned in the first post of that thread, the readme, or both.

Probably in your sfs file. I know HoloDeck adds some stuff to the persistent.sfs file. I'd back it up, and then remove any blocks of code that include the word "HoloDeck" in them.

Extremely cool. Can't wait until K[AI]S compatibility means we can repair the parts. I don't like the "Dang It" style random failures in parts with no actual cause or way to mitigate it, but if it's my own darn fault? BRING IT ON.

Sounds like maybe this isn't the mod for you. Maybe you should write your own version that works the way you want it to, instead of harping on someone who didn't have to give anything back to the community, but did so anyway. And is probably regretting that decision right now. I personally won't use this mod because the list of features is a long list of taking away what I like about Precise Node to add things I won't use. And that's okay. Not every mod is for everybody.

Every career save is different. I start it with a goal in mind, and when I've achieved that goal (or the game becomes unworkably buggy, or a new version comes out, or I get bored) then the career is over.

The basic concept sounds interesting, but the details are turning me off from this one. I may do something asteroid-y though because of it, so hey you got me back thinking about the game at least

My only current rule is to not play the game again until I will find it fun. Hopefully that will happen again, eventually.

But during the bulk of the constant-altitude burn, you are NOT hanging over the Mun. You are flying across its surface first at orbital speeds, then at sub-orbital-but-still-pretty-high speeds. You travel a significant distance horizontally and the Munar surface falls away from you a significant amount, causing you to not lose as much thrust to gravity as you'd think. Sure, once you get slower maybe you want to rethink things. But if your local TWR is 1.1 at that time, you're still going to need to go about it pretty gingerly.

My gut says no in this case, as what I consider to be the important part (Before being ejected, fuel that starts in one place on the ship travels around it and ends up elsewhere, radially) does not exist. All caveats I expressed above still apply

Good thing Fine Control Mode allows you to use RCS thrusters at full thrust during translation. ... (For those on the far side of the sar-chasm: While I know about fine tuned mode, I still would like a mode where I can translate my ship with the actual full thrust of my RCS jets while not wasting a ton of RCS rocking the ship back and forth forever, just for having RCS and SAS on at the same time)

Two things. One: in the image you posted where you were 20km up, you should probably be far more tilted over to the horizon than you are by that point. My personal goal is to be at about 45 degrees over at about 10km (or a little less!) and sideways by 30km (or less). Actually I go by my rising Apoapsis, because that tends to have an in-built leeway to different TWR in a rocket. I try to be (along the Eastern 90 degree line going down) 40 degrees (more horizontal than Vertical) by the time my Ap is 20km, and horizontal when my Ap gets to about 50 or 60km. You will see mach effects, and probably fire. Those are okay Two: This is awesome. Your rockets look better after 3 days than mine did after 3 weeks. Granted, the atmosphere I learned it was far different from yours but still. Well done!

I will again reiterate what you quoted. Constant altitude burn allows for more efficient CRAFT. You can do a CAB for far cheaper if you build your craft so it can only land doing a CAB. I've seen videos of someone landing on Mun with a craft that starts with less than 1.0 local TWR. Is that an extreme? Sure. Especially on Mun. But on Tylo, it can make a difference especially if you're carrying that Tylo ship along with all the other stuff you're bringing along for a Jool-5 mission.

When you consider strongly (and maybe even actually do) making a physical object to simulate asparagus staging in real life, to see if it would indeed introduce torque on your craft.

I actually don't remember on what forum it was. Doesn't matter, though. The "XX minutes ago" shouldn't be wrong no matter where I posted it, unless it's the TARDIS. And I won't even comment on the lack of Trek knowledge.

I believe the official rule isn't that it can't be DISCUSSED (which we're doing) but SUGGESTED (which GoSlash did in the OP). It can't be suggested because it's been suggested 4,213,291 times already and there is nothing new that can be brought to the devs' attentions. If we're just going to discuss it, it's far better to discuss the current mods that do it, or perhaps the creation of a new mod and what it should or should not have. "Discussing" if it should be in the stock game is pretty much "suggesting" it

I think I'm understanding the difference in opinion here, after leaving the forum for a day and coming back (this weekend is my first real break from work since Thanksgiving and I decided to go Internet-free for the past 24 hours, and likely most of the next 24 as well. Nothing to do with this thread or those involved. I'm actually enjoying the discussion, when I'm not instead watching TV and spending time with RL friends!) so let me try to clear up my viewpoint. The misunderstanding may be entirely due to my lack of proper terms, and possible use of terms incorrectly. I apologize is this is the case, but in many cases I just don't know any better. I have what could be called "street" education in many things; my learning was done on my own, using books and the Internet, and my (sometimes imperfect) personal deduction and experiment. I agree that the ship would not start rotating faster and faster. What I'm saying is it WOULD rotate, while the fuel was being pumped around. I do not know by how much, but my gut (tempered only with experience, I'll admit) tells me it would be significant enough that it would require solving or at LEAST taking account of. Also I'm totally okay being wrong. I just still think I'm right. I've actually given this some thought and think I may have a fairly simple test that will at least satisfy ME one way or another. If I get the means and opportunity (I have the motive) I'll give it a try and if possible I'll film it. Then everybody can either say they told me so, or why my test is invalid Also, regarding whether or not this was valid in the other thread. I actually thought about that before my 2nd post (when it became obvious that this could derail the thread) and came to the conclusion that it was okay specifically because the OP wanted to remove Asparagus staging because it was unrealistic. This begs the question "is Asparagus staging unrealistic?" which I was involved in answering.

Well the merry-go-round isn't a perfect analogy because you're not, at the end of your journey, being ignited and spat downward at the greatest possible velocity. I can't think of a real-world way to simulate that, other than building something that holds water and allows it to flow out as if the thing were an asparagus setup for a rocket. I'm not about to build such a contraption If the fuel was just getting pumped in a circle, sure, only torque would be applied at the beginning, and then torque backward would be applied at the end of pumping. But the fuel is being pumped around in a half circle and then pumped inward, where it then goes straight down.

Having played with the "Dang It" mod, I do not want to ever have to deal with part failures, ever.

I landed in it once, coming back from space and trying to get moderately close to KSC just for fun. It was pretty cool. Not literally. It was equatorial so it was actually quite warm. Unless you know exactly where it is, though, I bet it's quicker to send a rocket to the real Tundra though.

No, it's as true as I think. If you ever get the chance alone on a merry-go-round, get on the edge and slowly make your way around it. You'll notice that the Merry-go-round more slowly (but perceptibly) goes the other way. Even though there is no outside force on the two of you, your force on it (or more easily imagined the shifting of the center of mass of you two as a pair) causes - when one of you moves relative to the COM - for the other to move to compensate.

Nice. Actually by "everybody" I meant "every Kerbal." I'll be making this into a modulemanager config if it ever bugs me enough. Thanks

Observe the following image: First off, let me get off my chest how totally un-useful "56 minutes ago" is compared to a time stamp. I've given up on the Internet realizing that years ago and just accept that the less useful, more processor intensive, and harder to standardize way is just what I'll have to deal with for life. But could it at least be correct? I have no idea which is wrong, of course, but obviously one of them is.

Nice! I don't have much flying time with that bottom booster, but my gut's telling me it's way overpowered for the job. You can probably get by with a Skipper there, or maybe a Mainsail. And this isn't landing on Mun, right? You can toss the landing gear, and just land the pod on Kerbin when done. Then you don't have to carry those all the way to Mun and back.

Oh I agree it's odd. Frankly I'd be happy just allowing everybody to carry whatever they want. Somehow my Fallout character can carry 100 coffee cups without batting an eye. Why shouldn't a Kerbal be able to do it too?