Superfluous J

It's based on the Kerbal's feet. Standing on a Science, Jr, you can get the experiment every time. If your head is INSIDE THE CONTAINER though, sometimes you're still too far away.

F5/F9 and those nubs vanish.

You should go as fast as possible without exploding, generally. If you can control the rocket and aren't actively exploding, you're not going fast enough. Well, okay maybe not "not going fast enough" but going faster won't hurt you. Until you explode or your rocket flips. If you need to throttle down because your rocket's getting squirrely or all the heat gauges are at 90%, then you have too much engine and should redesign the rocket to not be capable of going that fast. I frequently see flames all over my rocket on launch. I'm also usually mostly sideways and going over 1km/s under 30km. Sometimes, my Pe is over the ground when My Ap gets to 100km, and those are the launches that I feel I launched the best.

Lots of agrees, except for 2 minor ones in special circumstances: Early career I like it for the vectoring. but as soon as you get decent reaction wheels it loses a lot of its charm. I like to stick one of these exactly on the 4-way RCS block, turning it into a 5-way block. But only on those rare occasions where I can't put another 4-way port somewhere else to get the same benefit. It weighs as much as the 4-way port but does 1/4 the job.

I do it, because everybody says I should. I even have pretty vague hand-wavey notions of how and why it helps.

Based on my purchase date (My memory is foggy) I bought the game when it was 0.20.1. Shortly after 0.21 (and 0.21.1) came out, and I spent that entire version learning as much as I could. By the end of it, I had gone interplanetary, set up a Kethane refinery, and the last thing I did before 0.22 (Like, literally, the night before) was return my last Kerbal from Moho so I could close the save and never go back. When 0.22 came out, I started my first "Bases" series on YouTube, and while I don't do that series anymore, it did last all the way through 0.23.5. When 0.24 came out, I started Kerpollo, and pretty much did a major series for every version since, up to the present where I'm doing the KSP Contractor series in 1.0(.whatever). I'm already planning my 1.1 series, which may end up being a Kerpollo-type series, back in Science mode for old timey fun.

Yeah KSP contracts are as unlimited as cell phone data plans.

GETTING fed up? No. Not in the least.

You can, though. you can even radially attach I-beams to other I-beams. I actually had to go into the game to verify it as I almost never use them myself, but they seem to function exactly like the "girders" as far as attachments are concerned. They also mass the same. The MicroNode is the right size to look nice when attached to the end of a girder, and you can then attach another girder to any of the other 5 available nodes on the MicroNode, which looks nice but - in my opinion - is not in any particular way an improvement over just attaching the 2nd girder radially to the first. I suppose it enforces rigid lengths to everything, but that seems a bit niche.

Huh. Then I got nothing. It started its life redundant.

I should have actually reread it to be sure instead of firing off a post. Though now that I reread it I'm confused. So the Hitchhiker itself will eventually become unusable? Not the Kerbals within? And by this I mean if you have a 100-year-old hitchhiker and put a fresh recruit Kebal in it, there will be some detriment? Whether or not something is "used up" or there is a resource is immaterial to me. My concern is - will parts themselves be less useful over time, or is this all dependent on how long the Kerbal is in there? Again I stress I'm not complaining or mad or trying to convince someone of anything. I'm just trying to reconcile two conflicting messages so I can make a decision if the future of this mod is something I do or do not want to install, which could also affect if the current mod goes into my next career game.

The radial engines' stats aren't as bad as they used to be since the rebalancing. I've used the Ant before, but it's pretty specialized, yeah. I don't build many space planes so you could almost put all the wings in the "I don't use it" category I think the micronode is one of the older parts. It my even predate the cubic octagonal strut. So really it's just a legacy part. I've used it, but not often and not lately.

Will there be a (reasonable) size can or bubble that a Kerbal can spend an indefinite amount of time in?

Every time this thread comes up on the page I misread the title as "What is your naming system for planets/rocks?" and for a half second I get extremely confused.

I actually missed that part. Thank you I should have expected it from the awesomeness that is RoverDude.

Into a world without KSP? NEVER!

This would drive me nuts as I always want my ore tanks to become 100% full. Why not instead of: ore bunker is full refinery takes 0.5 units drill sees empty space, springs into action, mines 8.5 units only 0.5 fit into the bunker the other 8 units are spilled We do: ore bunker is full refinery takes 0.5 units drill sees empty space, springs into action, mines 8.5 units only 0.5 fit into the bunker the other 8 units are put back into the frickin' asteroid. I would also add: EC is put back into your batteries so it's as if you only mined 0.5 units instead of 8.5.

While I respect these decisions and hope the best for the mod, anything that puts a timer on a part or module so that it becomes less useful over time turns me off immediately and I won't play with it installed.

This reminds me of all the hoopla in the National Novel Writing Month forums about if the participants were "real" writers, only this seems to be the opposite. They all wanted to be, and a lot of the people here either don't care or don't want to be. The final consensus at the NaNoWriMo forums was if you write, you're a writer. So I'll go with that here. I play games, so I'm a gamer. Easy to define. I actually physically exist in this world and am not lying about my passtime, so I'm also a "real" gamer. And so are all of you.

Forums, Squadcast (obviously) and a side of Twitter (mostly because I only actually check Twitter every other day or so). Things tend to get to the forum before I find them elsewhere, usually by a community member.

That does look better, yes. It feels like that extra pod is not that much more, but you have to think in terms of your payload. What is your payload? What percentage of your payload is that lander can? Just eyeballing it, I'd say your lander can is somewhere around 1/4 to 1/3 of your payload. That means your rocket must be 1/4 to 1/3 larger to get it all the way to Mun and back. Is it possible? By all means. Should you be trying it when you have not yet ever returned from Mun? I don't personally think so. Learn first, in the easiest manner possible, and then extend from there. As an aside, and this is an opinion so take it with as many grains of salt as you feel are warranted: I don't think career mode is the best mode to learn the game. The punishment for failure is steep and the constraints are hard. I think until you are comfortable with - say - a Duna mission you should probably play in Science mode. Science mode is a great middle ground between sandbox (which can overwhelm you with parts) and career (which can overwhelm you with constraints)

At the very least, dropping the Swivels/Reliants on the top for Thumpers Terriers will net you a lot of extra dV. And not just in the return stage, but in the rest of the ship as well. I would also suggest your first Mun lander be a 1-man pod. Your ship is almost 2x as large as it needs to be because you're sending and returning almost 2x the mass. Start small and build up from there!

I just checked in-game. For attaching radially, those two terms are used in the game, but not for the offset gizmo (hotkey 2) or rotate (hotkey 3). For those, the modes are "local" and "absolute" which is what I thought. I don't think absolute mode is all that useful as you usually want to rotate or translate relative to how you had the part attached, I've found.

Val is still orbiting Minmus in my Caveman save. About 2 m/s less dV and she'd have crashed instead of reached orbit. I think her Pe is somewhere around 7500m.

I always thought (for offset at least) it changed the offset between how it was mounted and absolute gridlines. I've never tried it on rotate and am now curious to do so.