Majiir

This should be easy to identify. I didn't see it already in the thread, so... (More images here.)

There's no singling out individuals with an average "actions per moderator per day" as Damion wrote.

Is that second one an X-37?

Fixed. Any idea on the actual per-moderator count? [EDIT] How about a strikeout BBCode?

My statement was, of course, a little tongue-in-cheek. It's my hope that docking will come sometime and that the implementation will be flexible enough that it's no more effort to add in-orbit construction. Really, orbital construction and docking are the same thing; you're just attaching bits together by docking points. My only fear is that docking may be implemented in a narrow way that only connects controllable vessels, not a more flexible way which connects groups of parts. It's a minor distinction, really, which is why I'm optimistic.

Harv can suck it up and let us do it. Regarding robotic arms, I think you get a lot more flexibility from using two rotatrons instead of a rotatron + hinge. For each end of the arm, three rotatrons will allow for full articulation. I did some thinking about this as well. I didn't consider a ring structure, but I did think it would be important to have a few double-ended arms. Tools like claws could be attached separately. I think a long truss with plenty of attachment points and 2-3 arms would be all you'd really need for assembly, though; your part delivery ships would attach to the station hull and parts could be pulled off one-by-one to build the larger craft. I suppose arms might not always be the best solution, though. Suppose you're trying to connect two very large ships by multiple attachment points simultaneously. Instead of using an arm, you might want something more specialized that pulls two ships together at a perfect angle. The possibilities are endless and exciting. :-) You know, if we ever get docking nodes...

Da, tovarich! As an eligible old fart (legally speaking), I have an important question: ...what is this?

580. 'Get out and push' is a legitimate strategy.

556) The crew have bailed out of the capsule even though 0.16 isn\'t out yet.

Dun dun! In all seriousness, I\'m not sure—as I recall, players started referring to KSC before Squad did, and everyone seemed to realize the duality of the name. I always thought it was an intentional overlap.

It might shock you to learn this, but... It\'s not a coincidence. 8)

This guy jumped on my TeamSpeak server, and it took me until later that night to remember that years before, we played Homeworld and EVE. Oh, Internet.

A powered landing on Kerbin requires surprisingly little fuel if you do it right. The atmosphere slows you down so much that you need at most 20% of a half tank—usually less.

Get Damned Robotics.

Start: Menu/Pause A: Stage B: Toggle camera/ship controls X: Toggle SAS Y: Toggle RCS Left/right buttons: Throttle up/down Left/right triggers: Roll Left stick: Pitch/Yaw Right stick: Translate side/forward D-pad up/down: translate up/down D-pad left/right: ? ...so we have three buttons left. It\'s doable, but you\'d need the camera controls to share with the translation controls.

[list type=decimal] [li]Download and install TeamSpeak 3. Download the client for your operating system from here: http://www.teamspeak.com/?page=downloads[/li] [li]Launch TeamSpeak 3. In the Connections menu, click Connect.[/li] [li]In the Server Address box, type: ksp.nabaal.net[/li] [li]In the Nickname box, pick a name. I suggest using your forum username.[/li] [li]No password is required. Click Connect.[/li] You can also set up a bookmark to easily reconnect. Just connect to the server, click the Bookmarks menu, and then click Add To Bookmarks.

Let\'s put it to the test! TeamSpeak 3 Server Address: ksp.nabaal.net (If that doesn\'t work, your DNS hasn\'t updated yet. Use 173.193.193.214:9995 instead.) 100-man cap for now, can expand if necessary.

This was my thought exactly... ...and being a sadist, I\'m going to set up a TS3 server. Back in a bit!

If we can\'t control it and the target must be called before launch, how is it target-seeking? Or do you just mean 'targeted'?

Here\'s my comm antenna. I\'ve built an improved version, but this is what I have screenshots of: http://imgur.com/a/Jk9o5 [EDIT] I also have some utility vehicles at the launchpad: Sadly, you can\'t keep floodlights on the launch tower. I might build one where the ship sits behind the tower and has arms peering over it.

Neat analysis. You should note, though, that assuming deorbit burns are impulsive is a pretty big assumption! Most Mun landings are far from perfectly impulsive. I wonder if that would change the conclusion, though.

My entry is uploading to YouTube. I just launched up to high altitude and fell back, but I think you\'ll agree my descent wasn\'t very different from an orbital reentry. (I had reached terminal velocity before throttling up.) [EDIT] Here it is (skip to 2:00 for landing):

Very nice. Might I suggest something more complex as a next project? Many planes are fitted with control surfaces that could be used as airbrakes themselves, if only the game would control them accordingly. Many setups would impart a translation force on the plane, but for some situations this is okay, and some planes could cancel that translation force entirely. The trick is to adjust the control surfaces so that the torque produced isn\'t changed, but a large force is applied to slow down the plane.

It\'s not perfectly achievable because KSP doesn\'t simulate physics the same way our universe works. In the real world, we always feel the tug of the Moon, no matter how far it is, and its attractive force increases as you get closer. In KSP, the Mun only exerts a gravitational force once you\'re within its SOI, which serves as an approximation of real physics. You can achieve a similar maneuver in KSP, but it\'ll never be quite as smooth.

Bi-elliptic transfers become more efficient as the elliptical becomes more pronounced (higher eccentricity transfer orbit). Mathematically speaking, it\'s more efficient—but in practice, you need to follow the mathematics. It\'s possible that the SOI limits of the Mun make a proper bi-elliptic descent impractical. However, if you planned your Mun insertion trajectory with a bi-elliptic transfer in mind, I think you could achieve non-trivial fuel savings. However, a proper descent computer (which, by the way, I don\'t think plugins have yet achieved) will save you more in the end.