Psycix

KMP happened. Why play alone together, when you can play together?

Waste of time is relative. It would probably take like 15 minutes to update all heights manually. And the mun's terrain is done now isn't it? Could at least fix the easter eggs there.

It's Duna!

Floating objects make the game look sloppy. It wouldn't take that long to fix, so this should indeed be fixed.

In LKO, I assume orbit decay and terminate the tracking. In other places, I send decoupled stages into a crash trajectory when possible, but only if I can spare the extra fuel. Like decoupling a stage with a small amount of fuel in before circularising, or pumping a bit of fuel into an empty stage to finish an aerobrake preparation maneuver with the stage attached to make sure the debris goes through the atmosphere. But a few empty tanks around Duna is not going to harm anyone, so I rarely go out of my way to prevent debris there. The more ambitious the mission, the less I care about debris.

Perhaps it's a good idea to make a compatibility chart or list of do's and don'ts , as to avoid repeated questions an bug reports.

Aside from various challenges and random abuse of physics I can provide you with one valid scenario: Launch escape systems! But yeah, I think that SRB usage will skyrocket as soon as cost is implemented. They are indeed a bit pointless right now.

I would almost suggest that the bars use the same technique as arcade fighter style health bars: they temporarily highlight a part of the bar when losing some of it. It might be a bit too fancy, but it has its use as it would allow us to see how much we burned in this burn.

I challenge that statement! http://imgur.com/a/cbbjG#61

A 3 man capsule can return from the mun with one keypress using the RT10 SRB. (Of course, this only works from the Kerbin-facing side in a somewhat retrograde angle.) This makes a very simple and reliable escape pod to bring everybody home ASAP. @Kegereneku While that may be true, the SRB's also have a very low dry weight. If your payload is small and requires a high TWR, it is actually one of the most efficient engines.

Even if you always build planes that take off before the end of the runway, why do you oppose a relocation of the lights? It doesn't hurt you in any way, and allows other people to use more of the runway. Many people enjoy KSP by going BIG, and the landing lights are limiting that. Sure, it is possible to construct planes that can take off without running off the runway. You can also not. Why would moving the lights be such a problem to you?

I'm with horndgmium here: No need to bash this guys plane, this thread is about the lights. The lights are annoying in the same way the launch tower was in the earlier versions of KSP. They might be aesthetically pleasing, but they could achieve that as well while not colliding, or being positioned lower, next to the runway.

WAS, till Fukishima came along. The city may be evacuated, but that is existing contamination from the accident... Fukishima, as I said, is STILL leaking... its spread from Japan to the USA thanks to the currents, contaminated fish are being caught... AND... recently, I saw an article which said they are slowly removing the fuel rods from that reactor... its going to take them years. Meanwhile..... its still leaking.... I love how you both quote and completely ignore his point about dosages and dilutions, going on "it is STILL leaking!"

Absolutely beautiful. Nothing else to say.

What I do instead, is run an I beam or girder down from the pod and radially attach 4 1.25m fuel tanks and rockomaxes (or LV-909's) to that. This way I can have an engine cluster inside a 2.5m stack for both better performance - and looking pretty! You can achieve the same level of decouple-ability, while using medium/tiny decouplers instead of the big ugly heavy large ones. This is my standard approach to Poodle-workaround, greatly enhancing performance due to losing a few tons of weight. An implementation of it is featured on my Kerbal Xi rocket:

Who knows more about it, the nuclear physicists, or the general public that opposes nuclear energy? If you look at the numbers, nuclear energy is not dangerous at all. The Fukushima disaster is responsible for ~1% of all deaths resulting from the 2011 earthquake[1], yet the media focuses almost exclusively on the nuclear disaster rather than the earthquake and tsunami itself. [1] Deaths from the earthquake: 15883 Deaths from Fukushima: LNT model predicts 130. The LNT model is known to grossly overestimate.

As bad as they were, they are not as bad as the public thinks they are. Radiophobia prevents mankind from tapping into one of the most powerful clean energy sources.

All you need to do is include the mass of all upper stages and payload in the "dry mass" and your calculation will be valid and meaningful.

KAS features strut connectors which you can place on the vehicles, and then link to eachother.

You're welcome Note how the poodle isn't even included with the charts. The 909 outperforms it on every single aspect with the only downsides being that they are not 2.5m and part count.

http://imgur.com/a/cbbjG http://imgur.com/a/yuUH4 http://imgur.com/a/x4dIn (I am not the author of this)

Only radial engines manage to deliver a performance worse than the poodle. Although it's specific impulse is high, it's thrust to weight is terrible and a cluster of 909's is a lot better. It's sad. All my designs have to work around it and actively avoid poodles, even in a 2.5m stack.

One reason why we haven't done this in real life is because the orbital velocity is about 8km/s of earth instead of a little over 2km/s. On Kerbin 2 km/s is about 90+ % of the orbital speed. On Earth, 2 km/s is only about 25% of orbital speed.

If you want your project to be finished, I have a powerful CPU and a lot of patience, and am willing to carry the torch of lag. (Or at least try to)

http://xkcd.com/1063/