Philoman

I bought it through Steam and haven't had any problems

Actually you don't need to put them in geostationary orbit. All you need is to put 4-5 satellites in a high enough orbit so they can "see" each other, and make sure the space between them are fairly even. I did it and aimed for a 1000 km orbit. The only really important thing is that the time it takes the satellites to make one revolution has to be quite accurate

Actually I have thought about something else, but related to TWR, so I think I'll just try and ask in this thread.. Am I totally wrong when I assume that as long as I'm below the terminal velocity and having a TWR > 1, then the rocket should be accelerating? Both numbers are from KER and it's the current TWR of course. One thing is certain.. it's not what is happening in the game. From what I can tell, either the terminal velocity must be wrong or I have just no idea

Another way to find out is to put a probe into a 100 km orbit with the gravioli instrument. It will tell you

Like when Apollo 13 had to move things from the LEM to the CM because of the weight balance, so they would stay on the right trajectory?

I'm in for the decoupling thing. I like to clean up for myself, but I do not like, however, to either add a probe core to my orbit insertion stage or to delete debris in the Tracking Center afterwards. To have sepatrons or something similar to kick in once you have moved to a safe distance, because of the force from the decoupler, would be nice i think

I actually kind of like that publicity thing.. never thought of it. When you think about it, no one would like to fund a mission to the moon for instance, and then not getting a single picture in return

I like the word aspect a lot. Especially with a lot of s's to it, and luckily KSP has the potential to implement a lot of aspects, I think, even when the obvious/announced things aren't accounted for. I just came across an idea with how to make use of the antennas in a way that will effect the way you design the spacecraft, adjust your attitude in space and thereby your flying as a whole plus some other things. Don't know if parts of it has been suggested, but quickly scanned the lists and it wasn't there so forgive me, but I tend to forget things quickly. The first thing is that I think the antennas should be pointing towards Kerbin. After all, it is at KSC that some little kerbal sits with his joystick maneuvering his craft down to the surface of Duna for instance. Since this will lead to a lot of limits, it should perhaps be something to be enabled/disabled i settings. But it affects several things. You have to put solarpanels the right places, you wanna put the antenna the right places, maybe even put several on like they do on real spacecraft. It will affect your flying because lets say, while heading for Duna, you orbit the sun and now if you timewarp, only the solarpanels will try and follow the sun. Here it should be possible to make the craft's antenna follow Kerbin. But then watch out for the solar panels! Also it should still be possible to land while you are on the blind side of things. The way to do this would be to have some sort of orbiter that can recieve and transmit the "signal" to kerbin. This would pave the way for orbiter-lander missions. It shouldn't be as if the antenna was pointing just next to Kerbin then your mission would be over, as if you ran out of power. Perhaps a movement penalty would occur, meaning the effect of the reactionwheels would be a bit lower or perhaps unreliable as a consequence of not entire commands are being recieved by the craft's antenna. Hope you like it

Hi, I don't know if it's because I'm still a bit mad after my last fatal accident, which occured during re-entry in Duna's atmosphere, but there is something about the way it happened that have kept me thinking. I have landed several things on Duna before with the use of parachutes, of course, but this time the chutes ripped off of the command module when they deployed completely. I suppose almost every KSP player has experienced this at some point, but why does it really happen? I try to think of all the elements with different values (compared to Kerbin) that when added up could lead to this accident. I'm thinking that the thinner atmoshpere will naturally lead to less braking before time of deployment. On the other hand, the gravity of Kerbin is significantly stronger than Duna's and thereby the initial speed you have when you enter the atmoshpere (I had an apoapsis of aprox. 100km) is much lower than it would be on Kerbin. It should be mentioned that I did not make use of the drogue chute and that I had a periapsis of around 5km before hitting 42km. Is the relatively weak atmosphere really the factor here that dominates? Can't see what i did wrong.. other than not burning retrograde before deployment

I like the win-win with the reduced visibilty in dense atmospheres. I wouldn't mind getting it implemented just for the visual and challenging aspect, but if it's possible to reduce the stress to the computer at the same time, then I'm sold

I get what you mean and as i tried to point out I'm sure that people are just trying to help

the proposals in link were on the not to suggest list and there aren't really much more to be done in order to prevent that from happening. I must admit I suggested one thing myself when I just got here without reading the list. I understand that some things are perhaps just too big or complex to implement. Here I'm thinking about the reality/scientific aspects. For instance implementing that the shape of the nozzle affects the thrust and stability. This would add a whole new aspect to staging. But again I fear it would be too complicated. That's why I will wait with a suggestion like this if it ever will be suitable for ksp. What I'm calling for is the absence of that immediate "refusal". Maybe something is too big and complex, but why not share it anyways. It could be that someone could spot a way to simplify it or maybe just some parts of the suggestion could be used you never know. In the end I'm just excited about the ksp community and want to get the best out of it.

Hi I'm about to make a suggestion which is a bit contrary to this whole threat. But still some part of me just needs to get this out (I'm having a rough day) When I decide to go visit the forums the subforums, I always catch myself entering the general subforum and then the suggestion subforum. The reason for this is I love to read about where the game is heading and what to expect in updates - or at least what the community wants in those updates. I know devnote tuesdays, but I can't wait a week to hear about the devs trying not to reveal too much. However, my little problem here is that people, whom I undoubtedly believe are just trying to help, instantly replies new proposals by recommending a mod or two. We've got 4 subforums that are nothing but dedicated to add-ons so wouldn't it be natural to look there if you interested in mods? My ideal of the suggestion forum is that, since my impression is some like it stock, that the suggestions are met with constructive dissent. In this way we try to point out even closer how we want it and the devs will therefore have to "guess" less. If we can see potential problems about implementing something then we might save ourselves an update. So that's it.. I just complained about other guys to keep the forum to stock game related issues, while making a suggestion to the forum itself.

You can get the Canadarm in a mod, but I ended up deleting it again. The reason was that everytime I was within a few hundred meters from a ship with the Canadarm, is suddenly accelerated quite a bit, making docking impossible. I suppose it was because the mod wasn't updated to the latest version of the game, but again that demonstrates the work you have to do and the things you may lose with the use of mods (regarding updates).

I've been playing KSP for quite some time. With stock parts I managed to build rockets that flew nearly perfect during ascent, and i managed to reach Eve, Duna, Jool and other planets and moons. Recently I decided to upgrade my KSP experience by downloading som part packs (You gotta start somewhere ). With these packs (primarily KW) there follows, of course, bigger engines and this stability problem occured again. Only this time I couldn't help it even though I used the extra strong struts, which was also included. I am fairly experienced in this game and therefore it frustrates when I find it difficult to find threads with this topic. Btw I can't explain to you how much I hate struts. They are ugly and you don't see the on rockets anyway! Now I know some, if not many of you will think that "I just have to try and build it a bit stronger", but just try and hear me out. I agree that you shouldn't be able to a rocket that is more wide than it's tall, and I believe in good and not to mention good-looking rocket designs. And because of the forum I know, that a lot of people in the KSP community just can't get enough realism in this game. Every day there are new discussions about realism vs. gameplay over numerous ideas. So here is my idea: How many times have you, in real life, seen at rocket dancing from side to side, parhaps breaking at some point during the launch? You don't see struts either on real rockets. We see them "arcing straight through the sky". Yes it would be potentially much easier to liftoff a rocket, but it would undoubtably also be more inviting to new players. Oh yes and did I mention it would be much more realistic?! I know it would remove pretty much all the challenges we as engineers are currently facing when we design our rockets. So realisticly it should perhaps be implemented together with some sort of optimization of the aerodynamics. That would reward more traditional rockets and it would therefore still be challenging to send up odd sized payloads, but as long as the aerodynamics of the rocket are fine it should in most cases be stable - without the use of the ugly struts. PS I know that struts was used to connect for instance the external fueltank with the shuttle itself, but when did you ever see struts connecting two segments of the Apollo rocket? I hope someone shares my views

I've been playing KSP for a while and it has always annoyed me a little bit that the rockets never seemed to fly perfectly. While I was still playing with only the stock parts i managed to build relatively stable and reached Eve, Duna, Jool etc. Then I recently decided to upgrade my KSP experience with some different Part Packs (primarily KW), which contains fairings and much bigger tanks and parts. It's all very nice until I launch one of these things and they disintegrate on its way out of the atmosphere. With some of the smaller engines there doesn't seem to be any problems, so the only obvious explanation to this is that there is a certain limit when it comes to how much thrust a rocket can tolerate. Now I am, of course, using a lot of the extra strong struts, which I btw hate because they are ugly and we don't see them in real life, but even with these struts it always breaks apart. I know some if not most of you would just think "try building a proper rocket" but i am building it properly. I'm watching several videos on youtube and try to keep up as much as I can on this very busy forum, and I have, as I said, played it for a while. It's just that when we often seek more and more realism and there is this constant discussion about realism vs. gameplay over numerous ideas, I believe that it would be both more fun and inviting to new players if parts weren't that wobbly and it would at the same time be more realistic since you don't really see it on rockets in real life. I hope somebody share this view with me PS I know that struts were used on the space shuttle to connect the external fuel tank to the shuttle, but you don't see eight or sixteen struts between to segments on the Apollo rockets for instance.

I had the same problem but have just managed to fix it!!! I had deleted all mods prior to the update so everything would run smoothly (or so was the plan). I had forgot, however, to delete the pods in my KSP/parts folder. I don't know if I was supposed to put them in that folder back when i got MechJeb, but it worked. Once they were gone the command pod was available in the VAB