steuben

In that case you will have to use one of the craft extractor tools. You should be able to find them using the search string persistence and extract.

it has less meaning the greater the difference in inclination of the two bodies. but yes. As for the relative angle it would be 360 divided by the number of sats. Assuming a circular orbit of 60 km, you would lower the Pe of sat #2 so that it will be at Pe when sat #1 is 90 degrees ahead, or behind, sat #2. When it hits Pe circularize to 60 km. Wash rinse repeat. The greater the number of sats the less precise you need to be for orbit altitude, relative angle, and inclination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance Basically the low value integer ratio of the two orbital periods... in musical terms the harmonious chord of the two notes of the orbits. the music of the spheres indeed. in the case of a simple constellation of comm sats like you have descibed it will be 1:1 You may want to up it to 4 or 5. The digital mathamagic that is floating point math will cause the sats to bunch up and separate again. more sats will cushion against this bunching.

I'm laying out the deep space monitoring and communication stations of the Cygnus project, for when the Cygnus class vessels get beyond effective radio distances. The signal is then relayed to a Kerbin orbit constellation of comm-sats. I'm thinking of six stations in orbit between Dres and Duna. I can't figure if putting them co-planar or somekind of spherical arrangement would be better. I don't think it will affect the core of the swan-verse. But I want to be sure before I hang a plot detail on a bad verse detail.

I know the optimal way to shield craft aero braking is to tuck everything behind a heatshield. But how far out can I stick things before I'm outside of the shield's shadow? I figure that the further back from the shield the further they can stick out... but how far? And I recall a post somewhen that said the shape of the nose affects that as well. Anybody have any guidance?

You can just plop the rig down. Scanning is not required. But, the time you spend scanning will easily be saved in the time it takes to fill the ore tanks.

T1 Runway as a joke? What's long, brown, bumpy, and lays in the grass? No, not that... or that... or that... What? How does that even fit? No, don't explain it... It's the T1 runway. But yes it is a bit tricky to land on and take off from. The new gear mechanics do not help things much at all. I'm still splashing most of my planes across the KSC on landing, both on and off the runway.

hyperedit comes to mind

seconded Maybe done through the admin building. Designs can only be purchased when the parts are fully researched. Costs priced at 10x the cost of the fuel + parts.

I'll take that as a yes for works. Are they worth while when it comes to memory usage?

do the force flags still work, and are worthwhile for 1.1? ie these ones? -force-opengl -force-directx11 -force-d3d11

IRL spinning is usually very bad. Leaving aside structural loading, dynamic loading, and aerodynamic loading, it creates a lot of ... interesting equations when it comes to the controller math as well. Keeping things not spinning just makes things simpler.

I've worn out 3 f5 keys, my tablet has a depression where the refresh icon is, and IT is threatening to locally cache the store page. release the 1.1.0 clamps already.

How are we defining today? It is already tomorrow in someparts of the world.

I'm playing around with part cfg files, mostly doing the several orders of magnitude thing with thrust and isp curve. My problem lies in the testing of these things. After I light the fuse things go poof, at time zero. I can't tell if it is an overheating issue or a structural one. The logs indicate both. My thinking is that I'm turning everything into a 1mm pancake on ignition My stacks are pretty short: engine, fuel, pod. nothing terribly fancy. So, what is the hardest you can push a joint,? or a part for that matter?

I've got a plan, with a kerbal in a can. Off to Eeloo, it's true. Send him there, through the air. Bring him back, for a snack. I'm planning out a mission to Eeloo. I figure it will take about 5 k/s of dv to get there, 5 k/s to get back, 2 k/s to land and orbit Eeloo, and about 1 k/s to land back on Kerbin. I'm budgeting using the subway map off the wiki. I'm not budgeting for gravity assists. Yes I know they will save me m/s Doing it with Dawns and Nervs is fairly easy. I'm thinking of doing it with only teir 5 tech. I'm going with the fleet approach. The core ship consisting lander and "living" space for my lucky kerbal. Accompanied by 3 or 4 tankerships. My ships, as always, are over build, over fueled, and over powered. My concern is about electrical, reading the wiki it looks like a factor 20 drop in solar power out there. If my math is right, two correctly oriented ox-stat panels should still power the octo core, correct? Anything else I should be considering?

Pics of your launcher will help. But I've had good luck in the 500 tonne cargo range with onion/asparagus staging, launcher at about 5-6 Kt. Just wish I could break the Kt cargo barrier. Using stock parts in by designs.

A better design would be setting it up as a puller design rather than a pusher. With the claw on free pivot the centre of mass takes care of itself.

Working blind since this computer doesn't let me see youtube vids. 4. depends on how far you want to move it. you might want to invest in KER, don't know if MJ gives the same design readouts. 3. if you have the moveable panels use them and sit them at 4 or 6 point symmetry as far out as possible. similar for the static panels. add batteries as well. stations are more tolerant of dips in power than landers since they can reorient themselves and have much shorter darkness periods. 2. magic. well more of one of those acceptable breaks from reality. you will have to transfer manually if you are fueling/unfueling it. but it will draw from futherest available tank if the engine is burning 1. magic. the interpretation is up to you. they either suit up and cross over, just crawl through some access ways, or something involving quantum. again an acceptable break from reality, especially considering we used to have to manually eva the kerbals around in prevbious versions.

/me places some cheese in the thread since it pairs so nicely I have to wonder if anybody who is complaining about not having access to 1.1B has ever had to work with that kind of software. I've been close enough to it that if I had the chance I wouldn't. I have enough frustration dealing with silly people, silly machines, silly software, at the office, don't want to have to deal with silly software at home.

You are seeing correct behaviour from the engine. You'll either have to do some docking port tricks or strut things together and hang a sign on them that says ignore this. Go with the struts it is easier.

try moving the center of lift backwards or your mass forwards. or you're being to aggressive in your manouvers.

How are we defining normal? My heavy launchers came about from the need to lift a few tens of kilo tons in to Kerbin orbit. There is a 1:1 relationship between mass from surface to KO and number of launches. The difficulty of a heavy to super heavy launcher is worth the time spent in design.

I have a design series that can do 550 tonnes to a rendezvous at 1000km-0 deg, of course more to a lower/inclined orbit. No elegance to the launch or design. Lift to 80 km and turn right. I'm working one that will lift 1000 tonnes to there. I'll post some pics when I get to my ksp comp.

I'll let Kyogurt answer this one: Moichandising, moichandising! Where da real money from da game is made! Kerbals: da T-shirt, Kerbals: da Coloring Book, Kerbals: da Lunchbox, Kerbals: da Breakfast Cereal! Kerbals: da Flame Throwah!! Da kids love dis one."