Bobnova

I did not go to space today. I did not even go up. All I went was down. That open crew spot on the far right is where the pilot used to sit. Bye bye ~$180k 60k for the above rocket. 60k to repair the launch pad. 60k for the replacement rocket, which I crashed into Mun and destroyed completely. With three tourists onboard.

What I giggle about is how on one they're saying it's super easy to get on PS4 because Unity 4 has PS4 support, and in the same breath talking about moving to Unity 5. Pc going to 5 while Console staying on 4?

I have to admit that I'm concerned about this, and annoyed about the heat gauge bug/memory leak/crash that is still in the "complete" "full release" version after a literal month and a half. Delightful. What power? It's essentially a 1.6GHz Bulldozer. A five year old laptop has more CPU power for KSP's two threads.

I've had the jiggle when I accidentally clipped goo canisters into things. Especially when they are in a service bay and the doors have closed to clip into the goo. That makes for interesting issues.

Hit F10.

It's you. Do be sure that the stuff you have inside service bays are able to be fully inside the bay without running into the door. If they hit the doors when the doors close you will have issues. Large issues.

It's not so much the going to space that was an issue today: Was a rescue the stranded kerbal mission, misjudged lining up to drop the capsule down and caused a slight issues with my rocket's fuel tank. Kerbal got out and pushed, we used the service bay as a heatshield and eeeeaaaassssseeeeddddd into the atmosphere. Turned out well in the end, but was a nervous time.

This cracked me up. Thanks!

I don't know, that sounds pretty realistic to me.

Please note that I'm not actually claiming this as a score as I didn't follow screenshot rules and am using FAR. That said, the score calculates thusly: 73619.1 AP -81891.8 PE = -8272.7 *0.3 for no gravity assists = -2481.81 Now amusingly had I staged and dropped something and acquired the -0.3 and not claimed the no-gravity-assists I'd have a multiplier of -0.3, for a grand total score of positive 2481.81. I'll probably strip FAR out and take another whack at this tonight, I enjoyed it and am pretty sure this route is possible. I like the challenge! I'd suggest a base multiplier of 1.0 though due to the negative multiplied by a negative issue. Staging a craft on the launchpad and calling it good would technically be a decent score (though not within the "in orbit with your highest kerbin apoapsis" rule as it's not exactly orbit). Anyway, this is fun!

Thinking in new ways here. Not completely new, but what the hell. Almost made it. Maybe 100dV short, ahh well. Bit better angle/timing and it'd probably work. Totally would be a Single Fuel SSTO, though not especially planelike per say. Oh and FAR of course, clearly. What that does to dV relative to stock is beyond me.

Memory leaks are the sort of thing that the beta phase is supposed to fix, so yes it was released too soon. A memory leak in a finished game is a big issue, very big. I love the game, but I'm disappointed that something as buggy as the 1.0.0 was a "full release".

I agree with this. I like the new stock aero better than old, the trick is to look at where your rockets center of mass will be WITH EMPTY TANKS. Full tanks are heavy. Empty tanks are light. If you have a rocket with a long stage on it you end up with most of the weight at the back, which makes your rocket flip. Look at how bottle rockets work, heavy nose, light tail. That's what makes for stability. The other tricks are: Don't go too fast. Don't turn too quickly. If you are going a reasonable speed (especially in the transonic region), have a sanely designed rocket, and aren't turning outside the prograde marker, add fins. All that said, I like nuFAR better than the new stock, as it has IMO a saner drag model.

In answer to the first post, what SpaceX plans to do on mars when they make it to mars is to be on mars.

The tidal forces will rip you apart, but the radiation will have already killed you.

Tidal forces maybe? Was it a long rocket pointed more or less directly at or away from the center of Jool?

Generally speaking(I don't like to say always, though I can't think of a situation where this isn't true) changing inclination costs a percentage of your current orbital velocity. That percentage varies based on how much you need to change the inclination. As such changing it at a very low velocity is very cheap, while changing it at high speed is significantly more expensive. The cheapest way of changing inclination is to make something else spend the dV (gravity assist off a planet/moon), but that is often impractical.

It's the whizzing by one. You'll have a closing speed of ~4200m/s. Taking off to the west rather than the east will require around 400m/s more delta-V than normal. Swapping orbit directions like that will take that ~4200m/s. You could do some trickery like boost to ~Minmus (900dV), reverse your direction there (~400dV), then burn to recircularize your orbit going the new direction (~900dV again, less if you aerobrake). That drops the required dV to maybe 1300, but taking off to the west is significantly easier.

Fixed that for you.

Unmodded KSP crashed for the first time in a long time (over a year), thanks 1.0.2!

The stuck-at-transonic-barrier "issue" is a real life thing too. SR-71 can't break the speed of sound in level flight. It has to climb subsonic, dive to go supersonic, then use the drastically increased thrust that its partial-ramjet engine generates at >mach1. IMO this is a good thing to see in KSP, accidentally modeling real world stuff can be an indication of an accurate model.

This. Has a real world SSTO even been managed yet? Where FAR is hard is getting big payloads up there. Small stuff that you can make look like a rocket isn't bad. Single launch Mun bases? Hard.

FAR, by far. Given my choice in the matter Squad would buy FAR, buy Deadly Reentry, and buy Realchute.

Speed is always relative to something, you could complain that you're not getting all the records instantly due to the speed relative to Kerbol.

On earth, which is ~8x the size of Kerbin if I recall correctly, you have ~0.162PSI of air pressure at 30km. This is opposed to 14PSI at sea level (more or less). If you scale things based more or less on the Realism Overhaul numbers (where "space" starts at ~120km(~140km?) or so rather than 70km) that 30km altitude on Kerbin equates to 51km or so on "earth", ~167,322 feet above sea level with a atmospheric pressure of ~0.017PSI. There isn't any air to burn there to speak of, certainly not without one hell of a scramjet. Like many of the "issues" with 1.0 I'd say this is more a case of the previous model being so incredibly terrible and allowing things that really ought not be possible. For further reference purposes the all time record for a jet engined aircraft is 37,650 meters or 123,520 feet. Odds are excellent that it flamed out well before that though and coasted upwards. The wild thrust spikes seem like an issue, though. I'm not aware of that being a thing with any real turbine engines, with the possible exception of the SR-71's engines. Those're odd ducks