Moach

funny thing - HarvesteR plays DayZ, you know....

you should be just fine sending multiple missions over the same launch window, there's some give to it, and you can easily send out vessels even a couple of kerbin-days apart without sacrificing much on dV requirements.... still, perhaps more efficient would be to just dock multiple vessels, then send them all together under the same engine (nuclear, at best) -- remember, once you're in orbit, there's no need to accelerate all that fast - so you'll get a more efficient ride out of assembling a larger vessel in a more homely orbit beforehand plus, then you won't need to juggle between a barrage of assorted vessels - you reduce your "kerbal error" risks by a drastic amount this way remember Murphy - it's the law!

[technical] it might be something related to forces being applied on the rig; this is calculated continuously by physX as they go into ragdoll state once they "lose the ground" - then the physics logic takes over and it's probably that which thus infers what sort of ungodly abuse befalls those poor creatures [/technical] i.e. they die from being squashed

I made it up. Same way I made up "Moach" - just thought it sounded funny harvester did make up the variant "Kerbal" though.... then around a decade later, during our college years we both toyed with the idea of making a game out if our irresponsible antics of young... some years and a move to Mexico later, he actually did. I may still have an old Flash prototype that would have been a rough draft of what then became the VAB... I'll post it once I manage to scrounge it from the sunlight deprived depths of my very ancient backup folders

138: insist (in your best Abe Simpson impersonation) that their company's founder is the same "Sam" as in "Uncle Sam" (it's not) -- bonus points if you stand adamant that you personally fought together with him in World War I - extra bonus if you work it in that WWI was fighting the Soviets! proceed to implementing a clamorous kerfuffle whenever anyone fails to take full heed of your nonsensical arguments and/or does any less than enthusiastically support your odd claim - keep it up until your ulterior goal is finally achieved or - less likely, you manage to finally muster a store wide band of miss-witted employees either way it goes, you can be very pleased with yourself in the end.... for whatever reason if you find someone who not only agrees, but also claims he was there with you and adds that Sam's kickname back then was "Spud" - you win the internet!

we always recommend mod releases be presented in a way that the first topic of the respective thread contains a link to the latest version as well as pictures and all the general information about the mod - and then it's the author's job to keep that first post updated as he/she continues to develop it being that this has been proven to directly affect the reception a mod gets as measured by the download count, most modders seem to have stuck to this model. - I find that very much pleasing, given I had posted this myself and sticky'ed almost 2 years ago -- it's still there for versioning needs, some mods such as MJ have their own external (non-forum) issue trackers set up, still - our poor little forum servers can barely take the brunt of our abuse as is, we can't reasonably attempt to provide bug-tracking features for all the mods out there - then the thing'd finally blow up plus, each modder has his/her own way of doing their thing, so there's not any one-size-fits-all solution we could really come up with... even if we could somehow offer such a thing and without a proper bug tracking system, the release forums would rashly founder into the depthless bowels of mayhem with all the random arbitrarily-managed bugs and issues being wrought and wrangled... that's no job for a poor little forum - this is madness, I tell ye! I really do wish we could offer better support for everyone out there making mods for KSP, they very well deserve it and we sure as well know it... but there's way too much going on, and forum moderators have little say over the larger matters regarding SpacePort features in this way In an utopic society, the SpacePort would offer a built-in bug tracker working on a per-mod basis - but for this to be, it have to take place in such a perfect fictitious scenario that it would also most likely serve you coffee, rub your feet and have trained puppies bring you breakfast in bed on a golden platter In the meantime, we do what we can, you know... cheerz!

sure enough - it does require some untold number of other mods that I cannot account for right now, but knock yourself out: get the StreamCaster Sovereign Mk1 here! <- right click and hit "save as"

One of the loading screen hints says "Overlaying grid onto Bezier curves", this is a high-geek reference to the recurring "Reticulating Splines" line found on similar loading screens in many a Maxis game A "Spline" then refers to a mathematically defined curve, which is continuous as a function of x/y coordinates, SimCity2000 would then "Reticulate" such curves by arraying grid tiles at regular intervals, creating an isometric 3D terrain. - A female voice read "Reticulating Splines" aloud when a terrain was generated, back in the '90s, this sounded "futuristic" perhaps... The term was further popularized when it reappeared in the first version of "The Sims" during loading, possibly as an internal joke, although there indeed were still some splines being reticulated, as that game was not entirely rendered on 3D models I told HarvesteR about this curious fact maybe a month or two ago... He got the joke, apparently!

you can always keep trying it on the demo before you commit your hard-earned cash on the full game, it's perfectly possible to achieve orbit with that. failure is part of the game, you know - you're basically paving a trial and error through rocket science kerbals will get hurt, there's no way around that - but don't feel discouraged, there are plenty more stupid brave astronauts to try to reach the final* frontier *pun intended Something eventually has to work out! when in doubt, keep adding boosters! cheers!

Today is June 6th, the 69th anniversary of Operation Overlord In memory of such a noble undertaking, I shall go on playing the skillfully devised ArmAII mod "Invasion 1944" - an activity which has keeping me somewhat occupied since the last couple of weeks. It's a great mod for a great game! I think more people should know about it! cheers!

This is interesting! I propose that entries be considered only when accompanied by a picture documenting the placement of a flag and a plaque at a location as planted by the claimant (or a Kerbal at of his/her own committing); Aye or Nay? A name may be further contested by another conqueror, say if he would extend the achievements by e.g. building a base where only a flag has stood Nevertheless, history must preserve the previous name in high regard, and this society would then vow to uphold this notion A map ought to be produced as well...

planted a flag and renamed the would-be return craft a "permanent research station"

well, look here, this is REALLY the origins of KSP -- a hand drawing by HarvesteR (back then "the shadow") depicting the earliest reckless attempts of a pack of teenagers playing with fireworks! These craft were constructed out of whatever could be found at the kitchen of our grandparents farm house, the engines were Estes model rockets in the first few tests. When those ran out (surplus from a shuttle kit which was promptly destroyed by our erstwhile ineptitude), more common bottle rockets from a local novelties shop became the main source for propulsion - it took a few kerbals before the notion to remove the explosive end at the tip of those things came to mind The first two tests still used the same launch pad that came with that ill-fated shuttle kit - that was no longer a feature in later missions, as the damaged plastic parts from Kerbal I did not survive long enough to accommodate launches after Kerbal II Note that back then, the terminology was different in that a pilot of our craft ('ably' fashioned out of crumpled tin foil) was called a "Kerbo", originating "Kerbal" as an adjective meaning "of Kerbo-related nature" - Subsequent history gradually phased out the ancient form and replaced "Kerbal" for the name of the species as well. "Allumminnia", as seen noted on some of the logged entries, is probably an archaic word for perhaps the Mün, but some kerbal historians suggest it more likely would have been Minmus. This theory is contested by claims that such name has its roots in a reference to "alluminum paper", (the local name given to tin foil in Brazil), proposing a reference to such like a surface being found at said unconquered destination, thus favouring the Mün as a candidate. - That name has since fallen to disuse and more lately may be considered rude among kerbal historians and tin foil enthusiasts. Log entries where the pilot line reads "n/a" should be better read as "not accountable", and thus may not imply these craft were unmanned - rather that nobody thought to actually write down the names of them brave 'nauts before they fatefully became unable to account for themselves, being dead and all... HarvesteR will attest that this is indeed his own hand drawing (notice the similarity to the sketches found on the credits ingame). He will dispute me, no doubt, that it was really I who first came up with the whole idea for a tin-foil pilot and calling it a "Kerbo" in the first place. - Did I mention we share the same mother? invariantly, albeit appearing needless to say, since we've all grown knowledgeable of the many perils of kerbal spacefare, it fits to state: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME! cheers!

I managed to take it a little further, see: tacked on some nuke bottles on it, and we got ourselves a sweet interplanetary ride! Jeb appears to love the thing! His colleagues don't seem to agree, though several dozen kerbals unwittingly bravely gave their lives for science in order to make that ungodly apparatus finally airworthy

if you take genetic programming as an analogue for such a thing (ignoring the massive irony in the comparison between sex as an evolutionary advantage to computer geekiness) the notion of coupling the best of two individuals to generate the fittest offspring seems to propose a possible 'convergence' scenario... there are experiments on this type of thing that allows you to see the difference this 'feature' has on the results of an evolving system - actually, there's a clever little flash game that does that, here: http://boxcar2d.com/ (warning! you may just have been nerd-sniped) it so could be, that having 2 sexes would maximize the benefits of natural selection vs the cost of physically mating said two individuals... thus, the 'ease' of having each individual reproduce by itself does not outweigh the benefits of having two of them mix their own 'brew' if you try and imagine a reduced scale setting, wherein mutation takes place in a dramatically accelerated pace, the chances that bad mutation will not stump further development are much higher if mating is a requirement for any given strand to continue... without mating, evolution would come down to a lot of trial and error, and there are an infinite amount of things that can go wrong in that dangerous world out there... the mating process is in itself a 'booster' for natural selection - if not for that, death would be the only factor to sort out the fit from the fodder on the other hand, it does also appear that two genders may be an optimal number for such activities (though many people will not agree, albeit not for evolutionary reasons) - if you had more genders, it's even possible that mating could become so strict a selecting factor that the species would not be able to reproduce in numbers large enough to avoid being extinct... there are, though, some select species (of beetles i think) that do have 3 genders... but i really don't know how that works - or even if this is really a fact and not something i perhaps misrecall

i hear 4~5g's is considered among roller coaster designers to be a good general 'design ceiling' for such loads... remember, those things are designed for some the broadest definitions of the 'general public' you'll find in engineering, so that should give you a good guess of how much force you can put a 'normal' person through and still have them willing to pay to go again 3 g's is really not bad, you can get that on an average theme park ride - you'll feel it, no doubt - and you might find that it takes a non-trivial amount of effort to keep your head facing up straight... but breathing is still largely unaffected at this point now, airline pilots are expected to try their best to avoid going out of a 0~2g 'window' -- anything outside of that range is considered rather extreme flying conditions and remember, fighter pilots can reach 9g's and still maintain control because of some VERY intense training and the use of G-suits which inflate when high loads are detected by the aircraft (those compress one's legs to keep blood pumping to the head, rather than pushed down to one's feet) astronauts undergoing 7g's have that force directed mainly along their Z axis (that's the direction they're sitting towards - aka 'up' for someone watching the launch from the ground) now, direction is quite important for how much G's a person will take before becoming less productive than what his/her boss would require - astronauts sitting 'towards' the forces general direction wouldn't have to worry about blood rushing to their feet... nor race car drivers worry suchwise during high performance turns fighter pilots in dogfights put their loads on the Y axis - and that indeed can be bad for, you know... staying alive

sounds like a lot of trouble for the 14% relative buoyancy cost of using good ole' helium

the main thing to consider with performing such a maneuver, is that reentry orbits are usually eccentric ones, with only the periapsis putting it's "toes in the water"... so it would not be a smooth glide but rather a gentle 'skip' - then lather, rinse, repeat until you get low enough to manage to avoid coming up back out again unfortunately (for me, at least thus far) what usually happens is that on this 'final' pass, you are still going rather fast - and end up pulling more G's than perhaps you'd be comfortable with enough to still call it a 'smooth glide' another alternative that comes to mind, would be to maneuver the craft upside down upon first entering the atmosphere so you get just the right amount of negative lift to pull your ApA down inside the atmosphere - this would indeed require some VERY fine flying - and quite a shallow approach to begin with i fear that in the end, the requirements for performing such a tricky maneuver on the craft would be greater than those imposed by blunting it against the atmosphere and having it do the traditional "coast 'n toast" another thing to consider is that to generate useful lift at such high altitudes, you need a LOT of speed - it would be similar to the kind a flying that a spaceplane would face during hypersonic ascent.... and thus, it still burns! then remember, having a large surface area to distribute the heat load is better for your health than pinning it all on the nose of the ship - so even though more 'down-to-earth' aerodynamics would suggest otherwise, you'll find it's actually easier to be blunt than sleek up there cheers!

for one, I think without Orbiter KSP wouldn't even exist Harvester and I started out flying MSFS, and then Orbiter - it was tough back then, and still is! - full-scale spaceflight is not for those who expect to go flying seat-of-the-pants all the way anyhow, this greater serving of complexity dealt by Orbiter (in comparison to most other titles) was in some morbid way, the thing that inspired the somewhat cruel sense of humor you'll find in most Kerbal spaceflight endeavours I also think Orbiter is pretty awesome! cheers!

the default mode '1' shows your "future" orbits in relative space to the position of the body you're intercepting... it's stable, but arguably the best depiction of what's gonna happen, as far as situational awareness goes... it makes it look like you'd physically change velocity when you reach an SoI in quite a misleading way.... mode '2' i don't really remember.... but that's not important right now mode '3' is expected to replace the default after the bugs are ironed out -- it shows encounters with bodies that are "below" your current SoI (Kerbin to Mün is a move "down" in the hierarchy, whereas a Kerbin escape is a move "up") in space relative to the the "larger" body - while a move "up" would display the post-escape orbit in relation to the dominant body from then on so you'll see your encounter to the mun, for instance, in the same way it would appear to an observer on the ground at Kerbin - great for those "figure-8" free-return paths - and by far the most intuitive display of your predicted flight upon reaching the Mün's SoI, it would change over to display your trajectory in relation to the Mun itself, and following after the escape back onto Kerbin SoI, you'd see the future trajectory in Kerbin-relative space again, so it's easy to adjust your post-escape orbit while still inside the "smaller" SoI it's by far the best setting for interplanetary travel and general orbitings - so i'd even recommend everyone set their conics draw mode to 3 (which i believe it'll be set by default soon enough), even though there are bugs where it goes kinda crazy when you reach escape velocity from a planet while in one of it's moons' SoI cheers!

i believe the stock SAS unit was botched on .17... it causes the ship to start spinning like mad... you're better off without those - use a single ASAS (no point in adding more of those) and enough RCS packs for your vehicle to be controllable... it should be less mad then i hope....

if you care anything about getting the crew back, you could send a rescue mission.... that'd be a nice challenge to pull it off

did you have something else in mind for that ship?.... and more important - does it have any fuel left? helps to know those things before you decide

more of this!

i keep thinking of new ones! this is hilarious! Timeless Kerbal sayings: