Diche Bach

I actually tend to use the in game soundtrack most often. However, another option: a playlist I originally made for Euro Truck Simulator. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_JCZ3a5yHpP2JYLpMWpHPpAktsObzEfR That playlist originally had about 125 songs in it, but it has progressively shrunk as more stuff gets deleted off Youtube. Metallica and Souixsie and the Banshee's labels seem particularly aggressive.

Ohh, I LOVE that method! Use the Mark II Precision Eyeball!

Hmmm. That is more or less what I figured. Thanks for clarifying So assuming I establish exactly what the things inclination IS, then the trick is to establish "where (which is really more like "when")" its Longitude of the ascending node is?

Finally getting the tech nodes for some grabber mechanisms and I have a couple very lucrative "take tourists by an asteroid missions." The randomizer has very kindly provided me with an asteroid that is in orbit of Kerbin; it it did toss in a bit of a wrinkle: it is ~140-degree inclined orbit (or thereabouts). So what is the actual method to determine the launch time and inclination for this sort of rendezvous? What tools does the game provide to allow the user to determine where the nodal line is, what the actual inclination of the target is, etc.? I tend to approach problems like this with a "tinkerer" mindset and then use "simulation mode" (in Kerbal Construction Time) to get things figured out. In this case I've created a "Grabby Ship" that has about 10k dV at launch and launched it in a couple of different retrograde orbits. However both times, the size of the burn necessary to align the inclinations from 180 to whatever it actually is for the asteroid was gigantic: I'd have very little dV left with which to alter the asteroid's orbit and put it into a nice parking orbit of Kerbin. I'm not even entirely sure what the damn thing's inclination IS, and apart from using a space craft that is in orbit and looking at the AN/DN divergence values I'm not sure if there is a better way to determine it.

Yeah, I noticed that. However, that particular documentary channel seems exceptionally good.

Kewl.

I'm not an aerospace scientist, nor engineer. But I do have quite a bit of experience with high-risk activities: long-distance cave surveying, including a good bit of high-angle vertical work and exposure to flooding risk. Based on those experiences, I developed an hypothesis. In high-risk endeavours involving intricate technology and operations, there are two populations which are at heightened risk: novices, and experts. Novices are frequently at risk because they simply do not understand what they are getting in to. Experts can suffer heightened risk precisely because of their increasing experience and familiarity with intricate high-risk activities. It is difficult to maintain the same sort of high-intensity attention and decision making, day-after-day, week-after-week and at the same level that one fully understood was REQUISITE at the moment you changed from novice to journeyman. Ultimately, the "solutions" to these sorts of creeping problems are social, psychological, and cultural not technological.

Ohhh, MJ is "good" at finding the optimum rendezvous maneuver? Given that fiddling with that crappy flight planner UI to find the optimum rendezvous is about as much fun as chewing on tacks, this alone is reason for me to wake MJ from its dormancy on my rig and begin installing the MJ modules on my vessels! Much the way the "Fast Forward" button once saved us from playing through songs on a casette tape that we didn't wish to hear at any given point in time, MJ can save us from playing through parts of the game we might not wish to savor (yet again) at any given time . . . No Quarter is a great song . . . But it is a bit slow and sometimes you don't want to savor that. You want to jump straight ahead to THE OCEAN! Skipping No Quarter so as to listen to The Ocean when you want to hear it is NOT CHEATING! Contrary to some espoused beliefs, you can play your Led Zeppelin, or Beyonce, or The Chainsmokers songs however you want (as long as you are not selling them) . . .

Its a good point. But there are two sort of "sub-responses" that deserve consideration. 1. The term "epidemic," while vague, does have a reasonable conceptual structure. An "epidemic" is a rate of suffering that exceeds that which is expected. We might like to imagine that modern societies with hundreds of millions of citizens, billions of miles of roadways, hundreds of millions of licensed vehicles, and trillions of dollars of roadway commerce could be expected to have "ZERO" roadway casualty rates; but if we stop and consider that rationally, it is obvious that makes no sense. As the saying goes "excrements happpens." No matter how perfect the vehicles, the roads, and everything else involved, you've got humans (or computers, which are really just extensions of human analysis and decision-making) involved and we all know there is no accounting for all the variability there. In sum, some rate of automobile casualties is unavoidable, inevitable you might say, given that: "we" have no choice but to make use of the infrastructure. This does not apply to Martian colonists. There is no imperative to expose people to that sort of risk, and thus, the safety and caution standards that a Martian mission will inevitably be subjected to (especially in any second-guessing analysis that would follow on a catastrophe) will be much higher than those of the roadways. This leads into point number two . . . 2. At this point in history, "space" stuff is not mundane. Despite decades of stated desire by various entities to make space stuff mundane (with the shuttle being one example where this selling point was touted, and Elon's stuff being just one of the latest examples) it still is not mundane at all. SpaceX seems to have worked marvels at making cargo deliveries inexpensive and that is one small step toward making space stuff mundane, but there is a lot more to it than that. Minimizing risk is also a big thing. Because space stuff is "not a mundane thing" any aspirations to expand space stuff are automatically vulnerable to detractors--in contrast to say, automobile, or highway stuff. Nobody can argue we should "outlaw automobiles" even if at some objective level the annual carnage suggests that we _SHOULD_ outlaw automobiles: modern society would grind to a screeching halt. Consider, the sum total of all U.S. service personnel deaths during the U.S. entire involvement in the various wars in Indochina following WWII are around 58,000. The first U.S. casualty in "The Vietnam War" was an OSS officer killed in the late 1940s, and the last was in 1975 if memory serves. So (leaving aside the moment the non-fatal casualties as well as the much higher casualty rates among Vietnamese and Chinese participants in those conflicts) the U.S. suffered 58,000 deaths over a 30 year time frame as a result of its involvement in Vietnam, an historical period which is the subject of an enormous amount of dialogue. Contrast this with the ongoing death toll on North American roads: at present rates, it takes only about two years to accumulate the same number of deaths on North American roadways as were suffered by the nation in 30 years of involvement in war in Southeast Asia. At the peak of roadway deaths in the 1980s, it was more like two-thirds of one year to accumulate as many. The point of all this being: while the term "epidemic" does have a reasonable conceptual structure, it is also vague. This is something Elon needs to understand and it is the message that the former astronauts were trying to convey to him when they testified before Congress to express skepticism and caution about SpaceX: in order not to "doom" space stuff, it is necessary to strive for extraordinary standards of safety and quality, because the loss of one life, or one probe in the high-profile frame of space stuff can have the same kind of negative PR effect as if 10,000,000 were lost in more "mundane" frames of reference. So yes, it would be "much worse" had their been 100 colonists on that thing. It would not only represent 100 lives lost unnecessarily it might also represent a set back for space stuff on the order of decades or generations.

Well this rather tense hearing clarified to me a lot of things about how and why "space flight" has got more expensive. Reflects a lot of the preceding comments by forumites who have more expertise in rocket science/industry than me: if you want your sats to have extreme reliability and flexibility on demand, you pay for it . . .

Imagine how much worse it would be if there were 100 "colonists" on that thing.

@regex and @Red Iron Crown: Yes, I agree with you: it seems unlikely that things like MJ or KER will ever be included in stock in any substantive sense, and moreover, even if they were included in full, that would hardly comprise "obliging" players to use them. However, it is conceivable that the inclusion of a "controversial" feature from a mod can have a negative impact on a segment of the user community and thus my point that, "that" is where it becomes more of a substantive debate about "what the game should be" rather than simply "I play this way" . . . "Well I play this way" . . . The designers of this game have generally done a great job of including features and functionality in ways that expand useability for the entire population of users instead of catering to some and alienating others. In sum, while someone who does not like the idea of MJ or KER, etc. has some legitimate basis to express their desire for it not to be included in stock, in practice it seems that such concerns are baseless. The functionality is not likely to ever be included, and even if it were, it probably would mean zero obligation for anyone to use the functionality. I am an example of this: I have MJ installed, and in all the months I played this summer with it installed, "used" it for probably a couple hours: basically just examining it to refresh my memory and try to ascertain if I still could remember how to use it efficiently . . . concluded 'no, this will take some time to relearn' and turned it off and never use it.

Sure thing. Let me grab a screen cap or three for ya . . . be right back . . . Just doing searches on names you see for those directories should give you a bead on 90% of the ones I use. I believe there are a small number which wind up getting packaged into a parent directory, so they might be "hidden" in this screen cap. But that screen cap should cover most of them. Worth noting: it took me quite a while to iterate to this list, so I'm not planning on abandoning it for 1.2 for quite some time! My initial set was about twice as large, and while I enjoyed nearly all the additional mods, I found that various negative effects (mostly performance issues) compelled me to prune the list several times. On my rig, this particular set performs reasonably well: loading times are a bit longish compared to stock (well, 2 minutes instead of 20 seconds so, considerable! from a mathematical standpoint, but not out of bounds from a user experience standpoint), and there is some lag, and some evidence of software aging (probably memory leaks taking place). But all tolerable.

And that is where the "debate" or merely bird-for-tat expression of opinions becomes salient in a way that takes it beyond a mere discussion. If developers see that a particular "automating function" is popular and decide to make it an obligatory part of stock gameplay in an updated version, they run the risk of annoying, even alienating significant fractions of their user base. Game setup option panes (like the one's in KSP right now) which allow the user to turn such things on/off (or on by degrees) are generally a good solution though. So: they make KER or MJ stock, but also include a line entry in the game setup options pane to turn either of them on/off. As long as these additions to the code do not impact the game in any other way (which is more or less a reasonable expectation) then no one has any basis to complain, eh? I don't particularly like the Microsoft "Aero" features; they eat RAM and do not particular enhance my user experience. But thankfully, Microsoft had the good sense to allow me to reset my OS so that the damn thing looks like a Windows 98 or XP interface if I want!

I may never update to 1.2 for one simple reason: 60 mods that I treasure. 1.13 is fully functional and the mods add so much depth and breadth to the game and allow me to play it exactly how I want to play it. I would be silly to update until most or all of them are updated to 1.2.

Much the way your Operating System "operates" your hardware for you, and much the way your browser "navigates" the internet for you, and much the way a paint app "controls" the graphics software on your VGA for you. So does this mean you're going to uninstall your OS, and start running everything from the equivalent of a DOS prompt as a matter of "pride" or something? You do realize that _MOST_ of what you have ever done on a computer amounts to "using an autopilot" don't you? People are being over the top silly if they honestly think that there is something "unethical" or "wrong" about anyone playing this game anyway they want, much less using a famous, well-designed, and very popular app like MechJeb. It is a single player game, short of breaching your EULA or otherwise engaging in cybercrime/IP crime, play it however, whenever, and for whatever reasons you want and enjoy and do not judge anyone else because they do not play it in exactly the same way as you. "Cheating" is impossible in a single player game; reserve the judgementalism for the script kiddies who love to troll the various multiplayer gaming communities.

Ah cool. So in this case, it was not actually so much that it was necro, as it was a topic that (particularly here lately) a bit sensitive. So you guys don't really have an "anti-Necro" policy? If so, I applaud that. I find a lot of moderation groups just seem to have this idea that once no one has posted in a particular thread for a certain time, it becomes inherently poor form to post in it and revive the conversation. I can think of situations where this could be a very bad thing (if it is reopening old wounds or something) but other situations where it is a actually a very good thing for a community. Any idea what the logic behind a generalized "anti-Necro" policy might be among those groups who follow it? Just curious if you guys, as moderators have any experience with how that sort of policy might develop in a moderator community.

Someone recently "necroed" a thread from 2013 Which I actually thought was kinda interesting in multiple respects. For one, it was interesting to see what people were saying about the game back in 2013 and for another, I found the topic interesting. I was just gonna respond to it; I had read down to the end and between the time I spotted it and started reading and that point it had been locked. Now, please don't get me wrong. I am not questioning any moderators decision; that is not my place, and ultimately I don't care one way or the other; ban me and every user if you want, I don't care! I have no desire to change anyone's behavior on this forum, much less any moderators, and even less desire to question, critique, or 'correct' anyone's behavior. Nor do I have any desire or intent to suggest any changes to how the volunteers who do such a great job as moderators on this forum do their work. This board is exceptionally good and I think a big part of that is the wise and well-organized policies and procedures the moderators of this board follow. You guys/gals do a great job! So please mods, don't get your panties in a wade . . . I'm just curious to know if there is an actual reason, or a really good reason that necroing should be discouraged. What I'm really curious about here is this seemingly ubiquitous notion among "moderator culture" (and by ubiquitous I mean, it seems to be the norm in nearly everyone of the hundreds of gamer bulletin boards I've ever participated in . . . with some exceptions noted), which is exemplifed in Sal Vager's closing comment before it was locked So by this I gather that . . . old = "any thread that has not had activity in it for a certain period of time" and not simply "a thread with an opening date that is a long time ago? What is it about a thread being "old" that leads so many moderator groups across so many online communities to regard that thread as "off limits" for new posts? You see this constantly, and yet . . . I cannot explain why anyone would regard opening up an old thread as somehow "bad" or potentially detrimental to the community. In fact, I've always thought that the results of "necro" posts were generally rather interesting and instructive and I almost wonder if this philosophy that "Necroing is bad. Good moderation = discourage necroing and lock any and all necro posts that do not somehow clearly justify their need to necro . . " is just a sort of 'urban myth' that somehow has spread through the cultural norms of moderator communities? Please, again, don't take this the wrong way. I'm just curious to learn more about the underlying philosophy and expect there is some good reason to discourage users from "recycling" old threads or "restarting" old dialogues and thus facilitating an examination of the historical continuity between an old issue and its modern form/analogues, else otherwise engaging in any form of communication that can best be accomplished by "necroing" an old thread.

What is Minmus? It is either (i) a figment of a game designers imagination(s') with little or no viability as an accurate representation of a realworld celestial object; or it is (ii) a figment of a game designers imagination(s') with some credible viability as a realistic representation of a celestial object. The only person(s) who might know for certain are the guy(s)/gal(s) who designed it into the game, and if the answer is (i) then they might be understandably reticent. Designers who have come along subsequently might also be reticent for similar reasons, and the owner of the IP would almost never have any great interest in expressing any views on the subject (given they probably don't know the first thing about most of the subjects involved, i.e., cosmology, chemistry, physics, games, gamer culture, or theorycrafting). Based on some informative posts in this thread by folks with far more knowledge of chemistry and physics than me, I gather that the balance of evidence weighs toward (i) and not (ii). But ultimately, who cares. It is a fun and humorous element in a fun and humorous game, which otherwise, generally has done a fine job of accurately reflecting naturalistic phenomena . . . well at least enough to get the basic subjects of the game covered (space flight and aeronautics).

Same for me. I used a very early version of Mechjeb and it is awesome. If I ever get so far with my career that I've got too much going on, I'll probably endure relearning how to use Mechjeb to automate a lot of stuff. But otherwise I enjoy being able to do stuff 'manually.' I actually enjoy using the "Flight Computer" in Remote Tech though. I use that constantly on unmanned probes.

I think maybe it has had some successes more recent that what you are thinking of. That video I posted up there seems to suggest that, while they did have one or two of the first missions that didn't do so well, the IRVE 3 mission performed flawlessly. That is the one with the alternative attitude control, involving splitting the reentry vehicle in half and the the top (more massive) half shifting position relative to the center of the lower half and HIAD 'foil(?)' as a way to lean the vehicle in a controlled fashion as it descends and thus to (as one of the scientists in the video put it) "surf" through the atmosphere.

Is 1.2 really worth giving up ~60 mods and a career that was about 4 in-game years in? The only thing about 1.13 that I was really hoping for a fix on were landing gear and it sounds like that wasn't really fixed after all. Not to mention, RemoteTech is one of my favorite mods and the new Squad version of RemoteTech doesn't really sound 'better.' Been too busy and haven't played the game in a couple months, so it isn't like I am burning to make a decisions; but I think I'll stick with 1.13 until most of the mods I use are updated to 1.2, not update to 1.2 and hope that most of the mods eventually update to 1.2. ADDIT: of course, the other thing you could do is copy a second instance of the entire game KSP directory before you update from Steam. Rename/reposition it before you let Steam have its biannual access to the internet, and then you can just play multiple instances of the game . . .

Not sure how things are different in 1.13 . . . I like my mods so may never upgrade . . . but here is a thread where I got a lot of help from experienced KSP plane designers and pilots and it helped me to go from "able to fly but with difficulty" to "no problemo." The couple designs at the top are originals which do not reflect the benefit of the advice I was given. However, if you look at my Space X craft files linked to any of those you'll find several alternates. Sorry they have some mods included, that poses a problem for integration with 1.2 (thus part of why I didn't mention previously . . .). If there were some demand expressed, I could redo them without the mod parts and upload them stock.

No idear. Was hoping someone else could fill us in!