Kerbart

This is not about a VP not being a perfect carbon copy. This is about a VP talking dirt, exposing the company to a couple of lawsuits, alienating it's customer, putting those that support you in a uncomfortable position while fueling those that dislike you. In fact, so much of what he says is hurting ULA that I'm wondering if we wasn't on his way out anyway and decided to go out with bang. As to “he was simply being honest and didn’t know he was being recorded”—you don’t get into the position he was by being that naive, even when you have an engineering background. I doubt ULA doesn’t have media and legal training for anyone above entry level (I work in a heavily regulated industry, it’s a requirement for anyone who joins our company, even at the lowest level) and one of the things they make sure you really understand is that in this day and age, anything you say outside the office walls can show up online within a day. There’s no way he though he could speak that freely without repercussions. Unless they fed him some drugs.

In all fairness, and he pointed that out too, SpaceX was set up from the beginning to provide low-cost launches. ULA on the other hand was set up to launch reliably (which they did) and put anything the government threw at them into space. That doesn't change the fact that ULA can't compete on price, but it does change the angle from "corporate fat cats who happily overcharged the government" to... ...well, something more positive at least.

I like the way you think but I fear that this will emit more anti-gravioli particles than the tetron-gnarlide flux incapacitor can handle. I recommend adding a anti-gravioli detector to ensure that the tetron-gnarlide incapacitor shuts down before it blows up.

Well, it's kinda "complete" now, I hope that's not a problem. Once I get home and have access to the save file I'll send it to you (or post it here, I have nothing to hide!) And I'll figure out which contract it was, as to not to waste your time. That's an original solution. Thanks for thinking about that. Sadly I don't have SSTO's and sending up a rocket with a cargo bay would burn up any profit there is to be made. But I'll definitely try to remember this for future use.

2034? Whatever happened with “before this decade is out”?

Thanks for looking in to that. Since I force-accepted the contract (Alt+F12) would it still show up in the save file (apparently I have 212 contracts finished as of now)? I can search the save file and figure out the contract ID myself, probably, to save you some work. Am I 100% sure that it was a satellite and not a station? No, but then again I don't recall seeing contracts for stations for changing orbits either.

Don't bug reports require log files and unmodded versions? I have neither; first of all I have no clue where in a log file this shows up (it's a logical error, not a run time error), and second of all it wasn't an unmodded version (although I have no contract mods running). So I'm not sure if a report in the style of "hey this just happened to me, y'all should take a look at it" would be a valid bug report.

I don't have log files, and I'm not willing to play 200+ hours on my unmodded install to wait for itself to reproduce it, so I'm not posting this under bugs, but as a warning to my fellow kerbonauts. Recently I got a contract to move a satellite into a different orbit. They're usually juicy contracts so as long as you have the DV well worth accepting. So I did. Moved the satellite to a new orbit and... nothing. Of course you start looking at the usual suspects; retrograde, tolerances not narrow enough, etc. Spent a good amount of time really nailing the orbit. Still nothing. Wait... there's a part requirement? My satellite is missing a part that wasn't included in the original contract, but the move satellite to new orbit contract requested it (if I remember correctly, a goo container). So apparently this can happen. Lesson learned: when accepting a contract to move a satellite into a new orbit, make sure you have all the required parts on board. Just because it's a contract based on an existing satellite doesn't mean you do.

It is highly likely that you are playing the demo. The full version, as far as I know, is in a folder named “Kerbal Space Program.” The demo version, on the other hand, is in a folder named “ksp_win” (at least for Windows). You are mentioning a folder “ksp_win” so it seems you are playing the demo version. The demo version does not support mods. So even if you put them in the right folder, the game will not “see” them; you will need the full version for that.

So you don't have windows 10, but you claim this is the case? Because I experience none of this under windows 10.

Actually any Kerbal can. Scientists can reset experiments though (materials bay, goo container)

Oh, that's very easy to answer; there would not have been a KSP. Progress in the beginning would have been so slow that everyone would have lost interest and moved on to something else. KSP would simply not have developed the community around it there is now if it had been developed from the ground up without an engine. Not to mention that any changes in modelling (say, from mass-based souposphere aerodynamics to the current model that, while not perfect, is much better) would probably have been nearly impossible to implement.

I'm glad we got it to work, in the end.

When was that instituted? Don't get me wrong, it's a great change. I was getting annoyed by looking at 15-screen high threads of 6 posts, due to ridiculous signatures. EDIT: nvm. Apparently a long time ago. And yet I'm still seeing them sometimes --must be an oversight in the Stylish script that I use.

The rule "do not exceed terminal velocity" was based on the way drag worked pre 1.0 (based on mass, not based physical size). That does not apply anymore. I'm not saying you should limit your throttle—I'm saying that where in .90 and earlier you should limit your throttle you shouldn't need to do that anymore.

Well, knowing now what works and what doesn't, why don't you give the "pong" picture another try? (100×100 pixels, no optimization as that seems to trigger problems)

That used to be the case pre 1.0 but with the new aero model it's not that simple anymore.

This is the kind of technology where concepts are easy and execution is terribly, terribly hard. Added difficulty is that when you spend millions and millions on the technology and you get it finally to work after many years or even decades, some lawyer will come along and point out that you have "stolen" their technology (concept) that they patented while you were working hard on actually making it work. But I digress...

It didn't take a lot of effort... Don't forget to update your avatar with the latest "non-bouncing" version...

Well for a whopping 35kB in file size increase (50-something now in total) I made it a bit bigger and hopefully better looking... Enjoy! Edit: I just tested this one, and it seems to work fine!

I think you will have to accept my preference to being a total pedantic donkey and point out that it's "librating" and not "liberating"... Since in the process of trying to figuring out what the image size needs to be I did download your original Avatar. If I have a few spare minutes I'll see what can be done about the white border there.

Did you try recalibration the neutron blast deflector? It helps a lot, in my experience.

The weird thing is that is shows up as a squished rectangle... not square, as the actual image is. Mmmh... Perhaps one of the forum meisters can shine their light on it?

I can't wait to launch something this way (sorry for the size, I don't seem to have control over it, it just goes screen wide):

The outside of that box seems to be 150×150 pixels. So let me make another one that is exactly that size... http://i.imgur.com/c3VNOBw.gif This one is exactly 150×150 pixels. At least theoretically it should fill up the entire box. Because it’s actually smaller than the previous version I was able to keep the color count up while maintaining the same file size!