Starwhip

I remember playing at a very early age some sort of space shuttle simulator. (Wasn't orbiter) Took me 5 and a half seconds to accidentally blow it up. I can blow up stuff in KSP in half the time! Welcome to the forum!

Nada. RICky.

I can't tell if you guys are playing the game or being serious. BBC, dammit! Anyway: Why doesn't the Doctor just regenerate out of every situation? Wouldn't that make it so much easier?

That looks suspiciously like girders and a docking port.

Kerbals flying off into space on EVA is a glitch, and an irritating one at that. Just imagine them being blown out the airlock. It doesn't happen very often for me, but then again it still does happen. And as far as I know, there's nothing you can do for the camera issue. But that's as far as I know.

I wake up. The next poster is chained to a chair in the path of a landing 747.

Aww, it's so short and stubby! Looks like they forgot to add some fuselage parts to make it longer. Seriously, though, the hovering thing is creepy.

I have lost my Duna lander to the sands of time. But here's the gist: Step 1: Gravity slingshot around Duna to Ike. Step 2: Thrust retrograde at Ike periapsis and enter Ike orbit. Step 3: Land on Ike with LV-N. Step 4: Takeoff from Ike with LV-N. Step 5: Transfer to Duna. Periapsis in atmosphere. Step 6: Land on Duna with parachutes and LV-N. Step 7: Take off from Duna with dual RT-10's for high-altitude insertion, LV-N to circularize. Step 8: Wait for about 9 months (Overexaggeration, I know.) Step 9: Return to Kerbin.

Well, a few things. A: The game is indeed BETA. Which means it's in development. Now that scope completion has been reached (I think), the devs can focus on tuning the systems, hopefully sweeping aside the minor annoyances of the game while keeping it's feel and challenging aspects. B: The game is sandbox. Even "career mode" is sandbox. Not everyone builds the same way, flies the same way, understands the game the same way. It's up to you to fulfill the circumstances that might be given to you. C: Addressing the topic of "Spy Satellites": You can launch them if you wish, to spy on those guys over at the KSC2, but other than that there is not much purpose to them yet. We'll see what the devs have in mind, or modders, but I doubt that the stock game would have AI of any kind to spy on in the first place. D: That's quite a "Welcome Aboard" post!

Is it an actual knife yet? It has a blade? I don't think anyone did that yet.

False. The user below me procrastinates.

Banned for not capitalizing the first letter in your sentence.

You never know! I sure did, it seems. Way back when, I basically just browsed the forum and posted in the forum game section; now I'm all over the place. Went from this: (My first post) To being involved in several Rocket Builders companies (BRIXco, FIST, Zokesia Skunkworks, Sparrowhawk Aeronautics), author of a docking tutorial (And a second one soon, hopefully) that received something like 8500 Scratch that, 9600! views and counting, and publisher of several interesting crafts here. I wasn't expecting it at all, but it was fun. Perhaps someday I'll even join the famed Light Green Group, the forum members with over 500 points of reputation. (170-something, getting there! ) Again, welcome and :hailprobe: .

0/10. Never seen you before... well, anywhere.

June 4, 1920: Women's Suffrage (19th Amendment) (Just a wild guess )

We're on the rise.

The story of KSP. Hello, there. You seem to be very familiar with how the game works already, but any questions you have, we'll be happy to answer them.

Go to the KSP store (www.kerbalspaceprogram.com) and download from there. Or get the new launcher, if there is one. I just download the whole thing.

I didn't go through all of that for no reason. 1000 m/s is possible. Now, I've built planes that go at Mach 6, over 2000 m/s, but those are hard to keep stable. The slower and lower you go, the more control you'll have.

They changed ladder mechanics in general, of which a branch most likely involves the seat. So I'd say yes.

Airplane Altitude: 10km Airplane Speed: 1000 m/s Circ = 3832742.04 meters. Period = 3832.7 seconds. (63.87 minutes, just over an hour, which sounds about right.) Now we need to solve for the radius of the satellite's orbit. The formula for orbital period is this: Time = 2pi * sqrt(a^3 / u) where a is the semi-major axis of the orbit. Which in a circular orbit, is the radius. And where u is the gravitational parameter: GM. So T = 2pi * sqrt(r^3 / GM) We need to solve for r. T / 2pi = sqrt(r^3 / GM) (T / 2pi)^2 = r^3 / GM GMT^2 / 4pi^2 = r^3 cubert(GMT^2 / 4pi^2) = r Plug-n'-chug: cubert((3.5316000×10E12 * 3832.7^2) / 4pi^2) = 1095318.631 m Which on the orbital display would read 495318.631 m, or 495.318 km (Geosyc is ~2800 km) There you go. Now all you need to do is position the sat so that when you reach altitude and speed with the plane, tracking the sat will keep your nose up just enough to stay level. Good luck!

Neither of us said it was easy. Just possible. - - - Updated - - - Ack, I did it wrong. You need to compare the times of the "orbits" so that they are the same. Okay. We'll put the sat in a 2400 km orbit. Vo = sqrt(3.53160000x10E12 / 3000000) = 1085.0 m/s The circumference of this orbit is 18849555.92 m Thus, the orbital period is 17372.86 seconds. We'll put the plane at 10,000 meters. It needs the same orbital period as the sat. It's "orbit" circumference is 1916371.52 meters. It needs to move at 110.3 m/s, which at 10km is no easy feat. Aagh, it's hard to balance. Maybe set up the airplane first? Yeah, I'll do that. NO, IT'S NOT! GAH! Circ = 3832742.04 m Speed = 220.62 m/s Still funky. Right, airplane first time.

I is sorry, vacation made me lose my maths. Yes, if you could get the plane to fly at a constant speed, and the satellite to move at that speed relative to Kerbin and stationary compared to the plane, it should* work. *Provided you've actually got the time for that. I'd suggest looking up the equations for orbital velocity vs. altitude. EDIT: Here we go: Velocity = sqrt((G*M)/r) Where G*M is the Gravitational Parameter of the planet (G is the gravitational constant, M the mass of the planet) and r is the radius of the orbit (from the center of the planet.) For Kerbin it's Vo = sqrt(3.5316000×10E12 / r) Say you put the satellite in a 600km orbit. (Realize that Kerbin is also 600km in radius, you add the radius of the orbit to this.) Vo = sqrt(3.5316000×10E12 / 1200000) = 1715.52 m/s Kerbin rotates once every 6 hours. It's circumference is 3769911.184 meters. Thus, the surface moves at: 3769911.184 / 21600 = 174.53 m/s So the plane would need to move at 1541.0 m/s to keep it's position relative to the satellite. This is doable. Let's try 1000km. 1485.68 m/s is the orbital velocity. Thus, the plane needs to move at 1311.2 m/s to keep up with the satellite. These two assume a sea level altitude (I think, right? ). If you wanted to do this for real, designating two altitudes first would be the easiest plan of action. I will attempt to find you an example.

Unless you're going at orbital velocity, the probe will continue to dip below the horizon, and you'll slam into the ground. Good try, though. Me forgot me maths. Sorry.

VHAT? Vhat is zis? I didn't know about that! Must try. Also, spacebar will reset your rotation of the root part (The selected one) which may solve your problem. You could also go into no-angle-snap mode with C and fine-tune your rotation/translation (Also, it doesn't awkwardly snap to a position you didn't want in this mode.)