lsutic

I just want to say that I'm following this discussion with interest. I just don't have much to write except thanking you for sharing your advice!

* Living. But I see your strategy - multiple stations based on usage.

Yes. I'll definitely second that. I do use tugs to position things. They go up on a standard heavy lifter which brings them to ~100 meters from the station, then the tug goes out, docks with the module and lifter, grabs as much leftover fuel and RCS from the lifter as possible, before bringing the module back. The lifter is then sent into the nearest lithobraking-capable object. What I'm talking about isn't just "how to get a space station for KSP interplanetary missions up". I'm more thinking "how would I build a spacefaring civilization?" (Like Iain M. Banks's "Culture", if you know that one.) Right now, I'm flying missions from Kerbin to other planets and back. But suppose we had in-orbit construction. (Well, with HyperEdit we more or less do.) How would we build stations if we really conquered space and the missions to other planets weren't supposed to come back, but establish a permanent presence in space for the majority of Kerbalkind?

I second this. Having a dedicated female kerbonaut model may be lots of work, but putting some female names into the random name generator should be a breeze. It's really low-hanging fruit and a lot of bang for the buck.

I'm in the process of lifting module after module to my orbital stations - habitation, kethane refinery, docking complex, fuel depot, nuclear plant, solar panels, batteries, people movers, orbital tugs, etc... You know the drill. All good stuff to have in orbit. The thing is, once the station starts getting to 500 or so parts, frame rates drop quite a lot, and this got me thinking: What is your policy for organizing all these functions in orbit? Is it best to have a single big station with everything, or having multiple stations with ships going between them as needed - one fuel depot, for example, then a habitation module a little behind in orbit, or? Intuitively, I think one big station is the way to go - if nothing else, it makes fuel transfer a lot easier. But let's say that we just have to keep the individual station part count down. What would we do? (As a side note, I'd love for a "station mode" where rigid-body physics (the simulation of parts bending and twisting and so on) were disabled. Or at least that each section, delimited by docking ports, counted as one "station part". But that's neither here nor there.)

Hi, I have a small open-source project called "Bigshot" ( http://code.google.com/p/bigshot/ ). It's a standards-compliant VR panorama viewer for web pages. As a part of the functionality, I have a function where one can overlay an image on the panorama. I also have a demo-panorama of Mars. I'd like to demo the image overlay function by putting a kerbal into the Mars panorama. Something like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradcox34/8411215042/in/photostream , except with one kerbal, no lander and then photoshop out the kerbal as an alpha-transparent image, and put it all into a real Mars background. Now, I can get a shot of a kerbal on Duna or something, but my question is: What is Squad's view of the copyright of such an image? (Unless the view is "go ahead and do whatever", I'll just have to look for something else.)