Superfluous J

...well I did try to keep it under 5 minutes But it's close. It hits the basic idea of rookie on her own and Clooney helping then sacrificing. If you REQUIRE a basic EVA pack get 2 people about 50x farther (in terms of dV) than a single person could on his own then no. I can't write that movie in 5 minutes or 50 years. I don't either. I really really liked it, and if they do a re-release in my local IMAX I'll be sure to catch it this time (I waited until it was on DVD). It just happens to take place in a setting I'm EXTREMELY familiar with and it DOES get parts of it wrong. It's no different than if they made a movie about someone trapped on Mt Everest and had them running from Yeti in a light jacket*. It may be a really good movie and maybe they got all the not-running-from-a-yeti-while-wearing-a-light-jacket stuff spot on. But the people who know how to climb mountains are going to have trouble swallowing that part. *What he was doing in that light jacket, I'll never know.

Sandra Bullock is on the ISS on her first ever space trip. She thought she could do it but realizes now it's just not for her, so she's happy that she's going home after a very short time. George Clooney is excited to try this new spacewalk suit that's more of a little spaceship than a big suit. He's planning on flying it to the Chinese station as a huge publicity stunt (and also to verify the suit/ship works). The resupply ship has a malfunction and instead of breaking, it accelerates into the ISS, destroying it. Clooney shoves Bullock into the personal ship and slams the hatch shut, as the station falls apart around him. She thinks it's a noble sacrifice gone wrong, until he shows up outside in a suit and talks her through the maneuvers necessary to reach the Chinese station. Charting where she is relative to the station. Doing a burn to raise her apogee, etc etc. Throughout this, we get scenes of her past where she's learning space flight, and maybe slept with her teacher or something. Don't know. That's all the fluff stuff that people will complain got thrown in at the last minute, so I figure the writers can throw it in at the last minute. This whole time, Clooney's been hanging on to the outside, and we discover that in fact his suit has nowhere near as much air as he needs to survive. The personal ship has no airlock, just a docking port and Bullock has no suit inside the ship. So, Clooney dies. Bullock, remembering what he said and her memories of her sparse training, makes it to the Chinese station and they're prepping to get her home. At this point we learn that in fact Clooney died on the ISS, was never with her along the way, and she just dreamt him up to give herself the courage to go on.

I pretty much agree with Sal-vager, though I can see appreciating - say - 3 different ones. A normal one like you'd have on the Shuttle, a tiny one for a probe or something, and a huge one to heft around something that would use those massive tires.

One solution I'd like to try is to clamp onto the asteroid with 2 or 4 fuel/thruster blocks, and do my best to align them so they're not only opposite each other around the COM but also aimed the *exact* same way. And then maybe clamp a ridiculous amount of reaction wheels and solar panels onto it so when I don't get them *exactly* correct the SAS can at least keep the thing moving roughly straight. My KSP Bucket list has "Wrangle an E and take it somewhere mission" on it. I'm hoping it'll be a moon of Jool. So I've given exactly this some thought.

This right here is another reason we need hinges. But you could always make the arms separate from the craft and dock them together. Though if you do you'll learn why we also need the ability to strut in space

In all fairness, they think the NEXT VERSION is ready for 1.0. In all fariness right back, I don't agree with them In regards to the flag thing, yes I think it's dumb. EVAing is what would actually give you the experience of being on a world, not sticking a stick into the ground. I personally plant the flag, title it "asdf," and then immediately take it back down and head home.

The problem with that (though I support the idea of action groups for stuff) is what happens when you have 4 arms, each with 3 hinges (think a "shoulder" and an "elbow" and then a "hand" hinge on each). That's 12 hinges, each with 7 action groups for a total of 84 action groups. Even with the mod to give you more that'd be a pretyt big pain to both set up and use. Allowing them is fine. Requiring them to use doesn't seem to be a good option. I still have yet to try the newer IR (though I'm excited to) so here's another option. "Control from here" on a hinge allows you to control everything downward in the tree from it with their reaction wheels (plus some simulated ones in the hinge itself) to rotate around the hinge as if it was the COM. The rest of the ship's reaction wheels try to compensate and stay still if possible. If RCS is on, those can be used as well. Don't know how easy that would be to implement.

Then by all means you'll want to participate in this thread, which was allowed to be started due to the unique situation we're in now: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108890-With-Fairings-becoming-stock-we-NEED-stock-hinges

So what percentage of female players will make it okay to discriminate against them? #RhetoricalQuestion

You may benefit from some tutorials I made on just this subject: I never got to the Mun/Minmus satellite tutorials but this should hopefully get you headed in the right direction.

I've not used them a lot (I just started playing SETI) but from what I can tell, you can set the height and width, but the widths are standard sizes. Or at least, you can easily snap to those standard sizes. One thing: The texture of each tank is not unique like they are with the pieces-parts, so if you had an Orange-tank sized tank floating in space and an 800-sized tank floating in space, you could confuse them for each other without something to tell their relative sizes.

I agree with things like engines, but anything where we have "normal" size, 1/2 size, 1/4 size, and 1/8 size (ie, fuel tanks) there is NO reason I can see that you shouldn't just be able to make the tank any size you want - within limits set by your progression through the tech tree. Sure you can't tell by looking exactly how much fuel there is. I had a similar problem with tweakables when they were introduced.

I can play that too. Why don't we just snap every single pipe and fitting inside and outside the rockets, from a vast array of thousands of parts? That way you can focus on building the exact rocket you want and who cares if it's 10,000 parts and won't load? There is a middle ground between the extremes, and for fairings going procedural may be outside what you personally want but it is nowhere NEAR* the extreme of just plopping down a single, pre-made spaceplane and calling it done. *no relation to the mod. - - - Updated - - - Having just toyed around with SETI (I never have enough time to play this game, darn it!) I can say (for me) that that sentiment is crazy wrong.

All of those would just be visual differences. In KSP, there would be very little difference between Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. Titan would be cool and unique (we only have one moon with an atmosphere and it's oxygenated). Iapetus LOOKS cool but what makes it different - from a gameplay perspective - than any other airless world?

Important to consider is the user interface. I never got into Infernal Robotics because the interface was... well my mother told me if you have nothing nice to say... I'd love some sort of huddish type gui where instead of just enabling and disabling the arms, you could click and drag them. Maybe if you right click a hinge a rotator widget (gizmo? I never remember what they called them) like in the editor would pop up. You can drag it wherever you want and the arm would (to the best of its power) try to go there. I personally think stock attachable struts are (and have been for years) also necessary.

I may be daft but it seems that 6 parts (and a pilot so SAS will function) would get this done. (front to back) intake, inline cockpit, fuel tank, jet engine. Attached to the fuel tank facing down, right under the COM is a cubic octagonal strut with another jet engine attached. Note, I haven't tried this but now I want to. Even with the OP jet engines this probably chews fuel.

Wow. I never knew that tooltip text even existed. "5thHorseman has a reputation that rivals Jebediah's"

0.16 (demo) did a full "Apollo" type mission to Mun. Completing this was my personal requirement to know if I'd want to buy the game. Not sure what version of the game I bought. 0.19 or 0.20 I think. 0.24 Completed a series of missions that returned a Kerbal from landings on all worlds, including Eve but not Jool (I did fly a Kerbal through Jool's atmo to collect "flying" science though)

I see no reason to add a new gas giant before axial tilt or a reasonable way to model planetary rings is in the game. Otherwise, GP2 will just be another Jool that takes longer to get to. What makes KSP planets so interesting is that they're all different. And before you point out Moho/Dres/Eeloo, the reason people talk down these 3 is because they are not sufficiently different from each other. Why bother going to Dres? It's just a smaller Moho. And Eeloo? It's just Moho farther away. We don't need another gas giant. We need more variety, and until we have a way to make more variety new planets is not an important thing. (all IMO, of coruse)

I have no idea the wizardry involved in this but thanks to everybody who made it happen.

But leave the tooltips during flight if you can. Makes finding that sweet spot much easier

Exactly. And if you're supposed to put such a lander on top of a Saturn-5 size rocket so the fairings "look right" then maybe the game should nerf engines so you literally can't get it to orbit with anything less than 5 mainsails under fuel tanks bigger than the SLS ones. (PS: Squad please don't actually do that)

Click the EPL button in the taskbar. Left or right click, I don't remember. I did it a long time ago and haven't clicked it since

I thought the whole point of CKAN was that the authors don't have to worry about it and everything will just work. Seems it's more of a PITA than it's worth.

Just make sure you cut the crusts off. Why do my fingernails keep growing? Don't they know I'll just keep biting them off?