Kerbart

Well, that was quicker than expected. And thanks for adding those superscript/subscript buttons. That should remove a lot of^eyesores. Hopefully

I think there is plenty of new content with every release. I have a wishlist—I'm sure everyone does—but the part list is pretty complete as it is for 95% of what one wants to do. The remaining 5% is usually specialized and that's what mods are for.

[quote name='Yukon0009']Edit nvm got a screenshot of the screenshot on my photobucket[/QUOTE] That, my friend, is not a screenshot. It's the live stream.

[quote name='*Aqua*']@TheTom The GC doesn't occupy continuously an entire core on my system, only physics does. And we don't usually fly rockets made from only 3 parts.[/QUOTE] There's a thread out there where someone claims he needs to code part of his program in assembler to make it run faster. This discussion seems to evolve around the same concept. If the code spends most of the time in Physics, the [I]likely[/I] road to optimization is not to make physics faster, but to make less calls to it. The enormous inefficient way resources (the game ones like fuel and electricity, not the program ones like textures) are/were used suggests that it is not inconceivable similar gains can be made elsewhere. Sure, we can throw in a faster Physics engine but that will only do so much. Most code doesn't scale linear when you throw more data at it. To make KSP run faster with more parts, the logic is what needs updating, not just some code optimization. I have no clue how realistic that is, and if anyone claiming they can do it better really can. My late father told me [I]nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself [/I]and that's what I'm thinking when I read a lot of the responses here.

You'll note those gigantic clouds of smoke coming out of the sides of the launch pad when launching? That's because underneath the lattice that forms the top of the launch pad there are angled banks that deflect the exhaust gases—including the heat—away from the launch pad. Having water sprayers, as in real life, would be a nice-to-have though, perhaps with a cooling effect as well. But you'd have to add them to every launch, so assuming that they're already built into the launch pad is not such a far-fetched idea.

I could post pictures but then I'll get hit with the banhammer for posting indecent pictures.

[quote name='fredinno']Atlantis was actually capable of being rushed to launch and save Columbia due to Atlantis' upcoming mission to the ISS- provided you recongised the problem early. A Camera of the ET might have cut it.[/QUOTE] From what I understand that would have been a [I]very[/I] theoretical exercise, and a very exciting race between Atlantis being rushed to launch and Columbia running out of life support*. The options were basically to put survival on the crew on the timely launch of Atlantis with a ton of unknowns and opportunity for failure (how to ship the crew on board of Atlantis, including suiting up and doing unprepared EVA's which apparently is a lot harder with humans than with Kerbals), or to continue the mission and hope for the best. Given the MO of the Atlantis rescue mission, if anything failed the Columbus crew was certainly doomed as there would be no way to get them back; it wasn't merely an option of "well let's see if we can make it happen". So, knowing that there was a more than minimal chance that the vessel was damaged but that there was nothing (with a reasonable chance of success) that could be done about it. NASA decided to not investigate the wing, as it wouldn't really change their options. It all came down to statistics; and the dice rolled the wrong way. All subsequent launches did have a "rescue launch" ready; that was one lesson learned. * CO[sub]2[/sub] scrubbers, drinking water, whatever. Take “life support” in the widest sense of the phrase as in “whatever resources are needed to prevent the crew from dying”

[quote name='Nibb31']Falcon 9 first stage is suborbital too.[/QUOTE] Try to repeat what BO did in KSP -- go straight up, and land vertically. Now try what Space X is trying to achieve. Get a significant horizontal speed component and try to land your rocket on a patch the size of the launch pad. And then tell me that BO "beat" SpaceX in achieving what SpaceX is trying to achieve.

spaceX has sent rockets straight up and landed them again. Not really impressed by what BO did. Once they do a [I]real[/I] launch nd land the rocket hundreds of kilometers away from where it launched, I will be truly impressed. And unless they sent a second rocket to record the video, it contained a lot of CGI. I'm less impressed with CGI than I am with real footage.

[quote name='LordFerret']Do you own a drone? Even just one of those little RC models? If you're a US citizen, expect in the near future to be required to register/license yourself for it.[/QUOTE] Actually not correct. US Citizens outside the US are not required to register (at least not as far as the FAA is concerned as it's outside their jurisdiction), and non-US Citizens who reside in the US are. More correct would be “if you’re a US [I]resident[/I]...” Personally I think the FAA should be applauded for going on a strategy that seems to keep the barrier on owning/operating a drone as low as possible, while simultaneously attempting to curb the effects of the usual parade of idiots who are trying very hard to ruin it for the rest of us. I'm not even talking about the “ZOMG drones near commercial jets” occurrences (of which apparently the vast majority are actually military drones), but more of the boneheaded cases of flying over large crowds, in national parks, and spying on your neighbors. From what I gather there's a small fee, an acknowledgement that you read the regulations (no hiding behind “[I]I didn't know...[/I]”) and a registration of the serial number so they can find you when you're leaving a wreck behind. Given the alternatives (it was considered that you'd need a pilot's license to fly one) it's all very reasonable.

[quote name='RainDreamer']Inb4 someone mentioning beans. Also, I assume you will get more energy from burning the human body as fuel instead of using it as an engine by blowing air.[/QUOTE] Why stop there? If we use Doc Brown's mass converter we can turn it straight into energy and get *a lot* more out of it.

[quote name='Shpaget']This: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLuI118nhzc[/url][/QUOTE] But what if you put the cannon on a conveyer belt that [I]always[/I] matches the exact speed of the cannon? :p

Wheel starts spinning one way, satellite starts spinning the other way. The problem is that, if you used a reaction wheel to [I]stop[/I] movement, you have to keep it spinning. Because it is the [I]change[/I] in rotation speed that causes the ship to (start to) rotate. Which is why once in a while you have to use RCS in real life to “reset” the reaction wheels.

I think there's a huge market for garages and engine shops. Not every part is metal and needs finishing beyond what a high quality 3D printer can achieve. Need a replacement air intake? Mirror assembly? Wire harness? Instead of having to wait up to a week for "parts from the dealership" your local garage can print them on demand, and probably against a fraction of the price of what the car manufacturer is asking for it.

[quote name='abowl']Very funny[/QUOTE] We have no pictures and we can't see the contract. Asking what kind of wheels you're using is, at this point, a reasonable question.

[quote name='Snark'](...) Here are the edge cases I ran up against, and what I do about them: [LIST] [*]... [*]... [*]...that's all I can remember off the top of my head, but you get the idea. [/LIST] (...)[/QUOTE] That's a lot more than I would think of. As mentioned in other posts, yes, you can build some that takes [I]every[/I] case into consideration and rebuild half of KER, but even with the "no staging" (and that would add an amount of complexity I'd rather not think of) this is already [I]way[/I] more accurate than the stock indicator. As for the simplicity of modding... I guess I'll have to try it one day. For now I'm happy as a pig in the mud writing scripts for kRPC. :)

Funny, I was just thinking about this today. “What if I plug in the dv into the rocket equation with the current mass as the starting point, then I know the mass at the end of the burn, and the difference is divided by the fuel flow. I'd get the burn time fairly accurate, every time” I'm clueless about making mods, so thanks for reading my mind.

whoops. wrong thread

[quote name='CliftonM']They destroyed debug.exe. I cannot write boot loaders to floppy disks anymore. :mad::confused::mad::confused::mad::confused::(:(:(:(:(;.;[/QUOTE] Dude, don't get me started... remember when they took away our beloved edlin?

Yeah, I was offered an orbit like that. The 179° inclination made me think... "I'm declining it!" The would-be hit on my rep [I]then[/I] made me think "I'll let it expire!"

[b][size=5][color="#0000cd"]congrats on reaching 10,000![/color][/size][/b]

[quote name='KasperVld']Even though I know you're being sarcastic here[/Quote] oh wow. What gave it away?

Will Squads heavy interaction with the forum continue? Will the forum continue to be the first and foremost method by Squad of announcing new developments to the outside world?

My rockets break all by themselves. No extra parts needed for that.

[quote name='More Boosters'](...) Edit: And as Snark answered, the "free plane change" and Oberth effect you get from being so low don't even come close to making up for the penalty of being so deep in the gravity well.[/QUOTE] While nearly similar in inclination, the argument of the periapsis of Moho is 15°, and of Eeloo is 260°, nearly the opposite. Unless I'm wrong it means that effectively you're dealing with a 15° plane change as well, instead of the plane change being "free?"