Kerbart

Not to be pedantic, but the wind tunnel is there. Take a good look at the Science Center. Now, being able to use it, is a different story. That would be great. Unlikely to happen, but great.

I saw the trailer yesterday. I don't give a #### about his heart's ability to handle Earth's gravity. What I'm curious about is how a boy who grows up in an (assumably) sterile environment can dance around on Earth without getting killed by the common cold, flue, and about a dozen other diseases we're practically immune to but he's not? And it's not like the theme come from mars, get killed by Earth's microbes is exactly new either...

So far it's been a fairly flat performance... (Oh yeah, I can do this aaaaaall day long...)

Somewhere in the world, yes.

That looks great! Have you considered tracking (or charting) the cumulative costs? It might show a better relation between total infrastructure investments and yield. If you want to go really hard core I'd also track contract duration. I feel that Duna and Eve contracts are Bad Business because of the tremendous opportunity losses (while the contract is open it takes up a slot that could have been used for short term contracts. You might get $1,000,000 for a Duna contract, but you could have made $2,000,000 with Minmus tourism contracts in the time it took to complete it, so to say). Your log could provide some insights in that.

@Tarheel1999 I bring 25T vehicles to orbit on a regular basis and have no problems turning them in the right direction with a 1.25m stabilizer, which offers half the torque of the 2.5m one. And that's usually with a jumbo tank attached, with at least 1/4 fuel in it, and a skipper or mainsail attached to it. It doesn't exactly have the handling of a F1 racing car, but "tumbling out of control" isn't occurring either. You might be right of course, but I'm very skeptical that a second set of reaction wheels will fix the issue.

Not necessarily. There is such a thing as too much torque. Especially when you have that wobbly construct in between. Remember, structure wise the quad-coupler only couples one set of LF tanks. The rest attaches at the top, or the bottom, but not on both ends. So you have this structure: [RC-L01] [Wobble Wobble] [Large Reaction Wheel] Whatever the large reaction wheel is doing, it might not be what the SAS unit thinks it's doing because there's a bit of spaghetti noodleness in between. You could try to attach the reaction wheel directly to the RC control unit, and see if that improves things. EDIT: also, even if that helps, consider connecting those two quadcouplers with a set of four struts (preferably corner to corner, if the editor lets you, otherwise from the middle of the straight edge down to the corresponding center of the straight edge of the other coupler) to firm that part of the construction up as much as possible.

Especially since the expectations are rather inflated!

Just go. You don't need contracts to go to Mun, and you'll get the First Kerbin funds anyway. You might miss out on the Explore xxx contract but in the grand scheme of things those aren't moneymakers anyway.

Tested: the issue arises regardless of crew type. I can put Jeb in a hitch hiker, as soon as radio contact is lost I cannot send him to the command pod. Yes that actually works (tested). Not in my particular case, because radially attached tanks block the exit (the lander can, aside from being command pod, is also intended to be used as airlock), but while the astronauts apparently need permission to move from one part to another, they don't need permission for EVA's

Yeah but watch the navball!

Just not the blue ones. They’re weird.

Unless you go down the shore on a Friday night. Then you know why it's called the PARKway Nobody is denying that couple can mean two, and in a lot of cases it does. Looking at dictionaries though, it's hard to claim that it exclusively means two, to the point of “and nothing else.”

@WildLynx I will test this, but I'm relatively confident that when the Scientist is in the command capsule, he can control it (the probe core/flight computer guarantees that he's only issuing high level commands like "keep prograde"). That should not be allowed too then (I will follow up on this to ensure it works like that right now). It seems to me that the current situation is that he can control the ship as long as he's in the command module; I just can't get him there. I'll set up various scenarios to try out and get back to you what happens when.

Not sure if it's a bug or intended behavior. I have a vessel with a probe core, mk I lander can and hitch hiker can. And of course the usual array of batteries, tanks, antenna's, etc. The craft is half way between Minmus and Kerbin, out of radio control reach I cannot control the craft, as the scientist is in the hitch hiker (it's a multi day trip, and I value crew comfort). Fine. I cannot move the scientist from the hitch hiker to the lander can to take control. Wait... What? Isn't the whole point of crew that you'd have autonomous control? Or do they need permission from mission control in Kyong Yang before they can move to different quarters? So, this might be oversight... personally I think crew should be able to move from one part to another regardless if there's a connection or not (and without any delay either). Or is this intended behavior?

You make a very good point. We're here on a forum with a heavy emphasis on engineering, and from my experience (spending a couple of years in college, make that moar than two years, and life in general afterwards), “engineering types” tend to value "Fact". Which is good. To the point of “as long as I'm stating indisputable facts it's clear what I say.” Which is not good. Now that I have a role in marketing I can see the value of proper communication, and ensuring that whatever you say is to be interpreted in the way you want it interpreted. Of course, and that gives marketing a bad name, marketeers have become specialists in ensuring how you interpret it might not be what we are actually saying but it does teach you to pick words carefully, to ensure that they're interpreted the way you want them. I doubt if Squad’s marketing background comes in play with what they write. That comes from the Dev Team after all, not from management, and the devs are (to my knowledge) no marketeers. But in that sense “couple” is an interesting choice. As discussed ad nauseum, it means “usually two, sometimes more.” Yes, a married couple is rarely anything else than two, but at the same time no one will interpret I was president of the United States for a couple of years as only two years. Was it the intention to suggest “we’re off the grid for two weeks” while, when away longer, you can point out that “we never said two?” It does highlight that it doesn’t hurt to think carefully about what words we pick. Usually there are a couple of options, on better than the other three.

Well, to put some perspective to it: Landing on a planet is a lot more costly than merely orbiting a planet. Do a search on "DV requirements mars landing" (DV = Delta Velocity. There might even be a couple of video games out there that could introduce you to orbital mechanics to experience first hand these issues) and you'll see that while a landing might initially be a pipe-dream, budget wise, orbiting Mars is not There is a ton of technology that needs to be tested out to go to mars. Most of that will be, indeed, to go to Mars; the trip to it. It's not a bad idea to master that first. Orbiting missions can lay the groundwork for surface missions. Providing a dormant habitat in orbit, fuel for the way back perhaps? The main issue with remote surface operations on Mars right now is that everything has to happen very slowly. A command “nononono STOP STOP STOP!” cannot be sent to a rover, as it will take minutes to get there; by that time your rover is already at the bottom of a ravine. Roving drone-style with a pilot (or driver) giving live commands is possible from orbit, though. So you can explore a lot more, and faster, even without humans on the surface Successfully orbiting Mars can open budgets for surface operations like nothing else.

Not everyone uses Unity. Granted, not everyone knows HTML but it's a lot more likely. Is putting up extra barriers for your fanbase to create content is the right thing to do, especially when the reason is it's easier this way for us? That's not the mentality that got us to the moon. Now, to return to my main issue... If this would allow dynamic (game/mod/settings dependent) content, I can see why. But we don't have that either. Yet?

Where does it say to get there by 2069? All I found was this: These efforts shall be centered on enabling such a mission to Alpha Centauri, which can be launched by the one-hundredth anniversary, 2069, of the Apollo 11 moon landing But that's launching, not arriving there in 2069.

There's a difference between ordering and sneaking in a sentence that says "we should really try to launch one of those 50 years from now" Especially when the value of the NASA budget for the far future (i.e. one year from now) is worth less than the paper it's printed on.

EVA, Kerbal gets out on top, falls off. No Krakens or weird behavior.

If there was a need to express the number of weeks unambiguously, and that number was to be an integer larger than one and smaller than three, one cannot help but think that the word "two" would have been used. It's really a good choice in that scenario. The fact that the word "couple" was used indicates that, in the initial communication, there was a need for at least some maneuvering space regarding the exact number. I yet have to find a dictionary that defines couple as "two, and only two, and nothing else."

Hacking into their computer systems will be a lot harder if they're still using those 1990s connectors.

Looking at a thread like this one, I get the impression that the content of KSPedia pages is rather static. Perhaps it is already planned, but wouldn't it be great if the KSPedia included dynamic content as well in the future? The most obvious thing that comes to mind are key-mappings (so you can look up in-game what the actual mappings are, not the default mappings), but also celestial body and part catalogs. "Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself," so I'm sure it can be done!

A reasonable suggestion, especially with the benefits of hindsight. But don't forget that the pre-release was only available on Steam, which on the evil-scale hovers only a few notches below Curse, if I were to judge by the forum responses. I like to believe that the hastened release (because it absolutely could have benefited from another week or four in pre-release) was part due to the backlash about the Steam-only pre-release. So, hopefully by the time 1.3 comes out that process has been optimized to everyone's satisfaction (I'm sure 1.2 will come with its own set of road bumps).