Bobnova

Speaking as someone who repairs/services/retrofits CNC machines, the amount of work that it would take to start with the old blueprints, draw them in *CAD, get them through the post-processor into G code, fix the mistakes, destroy the first few parts, fix those mistakes, and generally get to the point where you can crank out the bits correctly is huge. (The grand irony is that most of retrofits are caused by dead bits in the CNC controller that can no longer be replaced, as they haven't been made in a decade. With the new controller, guess what? You can't use your old programs to cut your old parts.) CNC machining/milling/routing/cutting/whatevering is fantastic for making a lot of copies of a given part. For making a single part, it can still be very very useful, but contrary to the apparently popular belief it takes at least one, more likely two, extremely skilled people. It also cannot directly use a blueprint, you have to turn that into a CAD drawing, which takes (you guessed it!) a very skilled person. So, I'm in the "can't make it now" camp. They can make something very similar, that is as good, but it will not be a direct copy.

I wasn't so much getting to space, as getting out of space:

The only Jool moon I've been to recently is Laythe and that was a simple flyby because it only cost me 10m/s to divert to go through it's SOI. I haven't landed on any of them. Nor have I landed on Moho. Everything else I've been to at least once, in some version or another.

You have to read the energy values. Assuming 1:1 mass:energy conversion, the first warp drive design needed roughly the mass of the universe (or was it just a galaxy? I don't remember) for fuel. Not useful. This new version would only require Jupiter. Significant reduction! But still a bit much.

Give it another three months, odds are that Squad will have released a tidbit or two by then.

I take issue with the first half of the first sentence: Do they? I can't find any evidence of that.

Still does, really. That's a decent chunk of science sitting there, especially if one of the Goos was used on the descent. I've been dumping probes on various planets to raise Science to do manned missions.

I'm really enjoying this mod so far, and have not had any issues with it. One thing I'm curious about: Would it be possible to add a "dump supplies" option? My situation is this: I got a Kerbal to Dres, landed, had 500odd days of supplies left, and am ~200m/s short getting home. Being able to toss 350 days worth of supplies would give me the DV I need, as it's a significant portion of the current vessel weight. I'd love to be able to EVA the dude, pull out a ton of misc. supplies, dump them on Dres (or have them magically disappear, whatever), and be able to get back to Kerbin without a rescue mission. I can think of a couple ways to build a ship with detachable life support containers, but that in itself would add a fair amount of weight.

The node calculator burn time doesn't seem to take into account the increasing TWR as you burn fuel. If you actually time a burn that it says will be 10 minutes it'll take less time. The larger the percentage weight loss due to burnt fuel, the larger the time difference. Beyond that, I don't know.

89963.4m/s Fits the current rules

I scatter some of the little always-open panels around the ship on various edges for just this reason. And so the ship doesn't die if I forget to open the main panels.

It's been done in mods, here's one example: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/tac-life-support/ It definitely changes things a lot.

Both, though the most accurate answer on the list was Boosters on my Boosters. Before installing FAR I typically had boosters to get my boosters off the ground to get the main ship off the ground. After installing FAR, things have changed.

Nosecones have directional drag now last I heard. They tend to pull back to a 0 AoA.

Depends, are you Whackjob? The more weight you can lift to kick things off, the more places you can go.

You sure it's actually the Oberth effect? That requires a rather deep physics model, significantly deeper than I understand KSPs to be. I suspect the actual cause lies elsewhere. Has anybody done any actual scientific testing on this in KSP?

I would like to point at the stock airplane/spaceplane bits right now, which were, as I understand it, initially a mod someone made.

I look forward to career mode having politics and money, that'll make things significantly harder, and deeper. Maybe a sandbox mode, a science-only mode, and a science+money+politics mode.

Nothing. Nothing is there. A truly staggering amount of nothing. Interspersed with potentially blackish clumps of mass that I tend to smack into really, really hard without warning.

The cat on the right is channeling Jeb.

I took a whack at an Eve science probe mission with a roughly 40% completed tech tree and Deadly Re-entry. Forgot the heat shields. Went for an aerobraking pass to establish an orbit prior to landing, got rid of 2000m/s without burning up. Still had 4000m/s. Into Kerbol orbit went the probe. Whoops.

391 hours according to steam. Maybe an hour on the demo before that. Less than I expected, really.

My first radial thing broke and spun. It was only a success in that Jeb lived.

I managed 50odd points earlier with a fairly simple rocket that does a free return Mun pass. I can get more though, and I intend to

[noparse] [/noparse] would post your album.I'm going to give this challenge a whack when I have a chance, looks fun.