Hotblack Desiato

would be interesting if it works. because frankly, in my opinion, the engines (all of them) are heavily underpowered now. they would at least deserve a 1.2 times increase in ISP. or is that doable with module manager?

just a little OT-question: cubic strut and a heatshield mounted on it... and bam, the heatshield is massless again?

career (science) mode was nice when it was introduced. it forces to think that you don't have everything available. but now I came up with a better mode (for me): I have limited access to the KSC, first cheated in science for unlocking the techtree, only a few launches (1-3) and then, everything has to work space-based (with EPL, MKS/OKS/Karbonite, TAC-LS and civilian population), and remove the cheated in science points. it's resource-limited, but not with money but with fuel, rocketparts, kerbals (AND their skills) and science points are just trophy-points.

for a friend of mine and me, they are "wurzel(n)", german for the mathematic symbol of the root. translated to english, that would be something like rooties. ;-)

yes thank you... haven't noticed that mod. but if it uses the KIS-mechanics, that would be nice. another thing I thought about yesterday: a fairing-shaped container for vessels, which acts like a fairing, but stores the vessel inside. this way, during ascend, the computer doesn't need to calculate all the parts of the payload.

apparently dunas atmosphere is now more like the atmosphere of mars. on mars, the lower gravity causes the atmosphere to extend further up into space (the karman line on earth is at 100km height, on mars it's 71km, yet mars has less than 1% of earths surface pressure (for venus, it's 266km, for titan it's 152, even with just 1.6 bar on the surface, a weaker gravity-field than moon and the very low temperature). did anyone try something similar with eve? with that surface gravity, I'd expect eves atmosphere height to be lower than on kerbin.

I'd throw another thing into the equation. gigantors are one single part generating ~4 EC (though, for ground-vessels, keep in mind, that it's night half the time. whereas RTGs are much smaller and therefor have a higher partcount for the same amount of energy. that's especially for people who like to build big vessels or with weaker computers something to consider. since I like ion-powered spacecraft, I have to go with nuclear reactors from mods. low partcount, but insane power (for engines with insane power requirements).

thank you

this challenge should be simple: 1. construct a really big SSTO-rocket, which is also capable of landing (means: lots of parachutes), and additional empty tanks. 2. fly it to minmus. ideally, it does all space-based maneuvers with ion-engines. as a funny extra, you can use enough ion engines to land and launch from minmus. 3. on minmus, fuel up every tank. 4. fly it back home and land it safely. ad. #1: if you can't build an SSTO, that is capable of landing in complete, build one which can land as several seperated crafts. maybe each side-tower is equipped with a probecore + parachutes. my guess, capturing more than 5000t fuel should be possible.

I've seen the point "storing vessels" on the list for future features in the first posting. something I'd like to see some day: have a container (a big one) which acts like a hangar. but it should not store the vessel like todays cargo bays, but just as a data inside a box (which needs to be large enough for the vessel). this way, we could have space stations with multiple landing crafts, which don't cause lag. and that would be a great thing for everyone with a computer, which has its problem with more than 300 parts.

he is out there... whitepages.com knows him http://www.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?utf8=%E2%9C%93&who=jebediah+kerman&where= besides, send such a request to the curiosity-team. the martian rocks and other features can be named after everything out there (and since those rovers last quite long, they need a lot of names). and hey, they publish papers all the time. this way the name jebediah kerman will be used in scientific papers

my guess is, that this bug already existed in previous versions of the game. but since everything outside a 2.5 km bubble isn't allowed to do anything (and even if, it gets deleted) in versions prior to 1.0, it never showed up (they started flying after the rocket was in 6km distance. (although I've already seen orbiting launchclamps, but never the reason for them... and that was in modded installs, so I thought that a mod messed up). here, someone experienced the same bug: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117847-launch-stability-enhancer-following-my-craft-to-orbit (but his clamps don't crash into his rocket). maybe there is something in common with our rockets? regarding mods: I have 2 installs of KSP 1.0, one with mods, and one deliberately without mods. after I saw the bug, I removed all mod-parts and moved the rocket itself over to the non-modded install for further testing. yes, and that's the reason for picture number 4 in my list, to show, that no single launchclamp was stuck in between the rocket towers. because that was my first guess too, that something got stuck in between. but no, after the first launchclamp gets fried on the pad (with the craft 6km away), some of them decide to jump up to the rocket.

neat idea. just a thing. apparently, KSP now monitors heat radiation from parts and the effect of that radiation to other parts in close proximity, as it is in reality. just look at the ISS-image, the radiators are mounted in a way, that they don't possibly radiate towards any other part. a mod which takes care of that could possibly as important as others like deadly reentry, procedural fairings and so on

yes, you are right. KSP 1.0 is in a situation that they have delivered a qualitiy within their initial final release, which you won't get at most of the other computergames. usually, games aren't really enjoyable before 1.1 is out (just like windows, which is only usable after service pack 1). but with this release, they added a bunch of new features. features, which would be really fine on their own. but a lot of players do know the mods where those features first surfaced. and since those features evolved over the past 2 (or even 3 years), they are mostly better than the stock system. stock aerodynamic is nice, FAR/NEAR is better. Stock reentry heat is nice but complicated, deadly reentry is better. stock-fairings have a nice system and the auto-opening in VAB is really decent, yet procedural fairings is simpler and has this autostrut-feature. and then there is still no lifesupport-system, whereas players can choose between several different systems as mods. and then there are the rocket-nerfs. honestly, they hurt a lot. especially the vacuum engine nerfs, I do fully understand that a vacuum-optimized rocket engine should be terrible under atmospheric conditions. but they are bad in space too (I consider an ISP below 360 in vacuum as bad). the only reason for that could be, that they expect players to set up a pit stop on minmus, for refuelling of further exploration, or that they should hunt for asteroids. so there needs to be something done in this game... (I guess, I might be continue using near future propulsion, because those engines are energy-hungry, but have an incredible ISP).

Build-ID: 008302015.04.26 CESTBranch: master (in other words, ksp 1.0) OS: Win7 64 bit, AMD Athlon II X4 640, 6 gb ram, 1920x1080 (2x). link to the craft-file (yes, it's large): https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9amtws5y80pg5g/heavy%20stock.craft?dl=0 problem: at approximately 6000m height, the launchclamps on the pad overheat and at least one of them gets destroyed in that process. a few others (6-10) snap up to the rocket and destroy a few engines/tanks (thankfully, this particular design can withstand the loss of a few parts). then the launchclamps stand still in mid air, until the distance between the rocket and the clamps is greater than 5-6km. they snap again, and then travel along with the rocket in a few hundred meters distance. if first happened in a modded install (USI-mods, with parts of Roverdudes FTT-mod built into the rocket), I "stockified" the rocket and ran it on an unmodded install to show, that is is in fact not mod-related. This happened several times, so it's quite reproducable... and yes, I once dragged them all the way up into an orbit. EDIT: from the arrangement of the flying launchclamps: I had an issue with symmetry in symmetry during construction. and we know that KSP always had problems with that issue. and there is no flying launchclamp in the center of the group, they just form a ring. the central rocket has no symmetry in symmetry, as the outer ones were first clones of the central one.

welcome back. I really miss that mod, because everything that brings my partcount below 250 is very very welcome. did they really change that much within ksp? from what I understand, the only real problem could be the new heat-system, and that parts now have a thermal mass aswell. but since welds are usually larger than single parts, their thermal mass is higher, and therefore they can withstand more thermal energy without getting too hot.

of course ksp harms your browsing experience. if you download it and run it, you are less likely browsing on the internet using chrome. therefore your browsing experience is harmed

my rocket was the exact opposite thing to a pancake rocket. first stage: the s1-srb + AV-R8 (4x symmetry) second stage: lv-t45 + lv-t800 tank third stage: lv-t909 + lv-t400 tank + fairing, chutes, probecore, dockingport so basically it was a needle... true, that thing made it into orbit, and the third stage was nearly full. it wobbled like in the good old 0.23 times before squad got hints from ferram4 how to reduce wobbling.

I had that very same problem, and the only solution for me was: go to the pc (I'm usually accessing everything from the notebook) and download it from there. regarding the game experience. when I heard that they introduce a new aerodynamic model, and that the days of the souposphere are gone, I was happy. but they nerfed the engines down to a point where the overall performance of the rocket was equal or worse to the stock 0.90 experience. especially the nerf of the vacuum-engines hurts, because there is no atmosphere that can brake you down... I knew that they tried to integrate the functionality of several mods, which evolved over the last 2 or 3 years, and that it is hard to overtake them with the first try... by the way, at the third launch, an old bug greeted me... being zoomed out at maximum.

just a tip: backup your 0.90 install. just in case...

I have to say, that I'm now waiting for a stock rebalance mod, which brings back the old NEAR/FAR experience. maybe a bit overpowered, but a stock SLS-rocket which looked like the SLS in real was capable of sending more than 60t into LKO. and that was great. but now, hmmm.... by the way: the LV-N has not only an ISP of 800, but it just requires liquid fuel, no oxidizer. think about it this way ;-)

mechvalentina? just pray, that she'll never find out about mechjeb

at least the jet and turbojetengines weren't nerfed at all (from what I got from several preview-videos). and rockets behave quite like with NEAR/FAR, so they shouldn't be heavily altered. can anyone confirm, that the engines now have a constant fuel consumption like real engines? (whereas ISP and max. thrust will be depending on atm. pressure)

1. go do it. if it is in an old version, everyone will appreciate that you did a lot with all those bugs. of course, the kraken is still available in 0.90, even more if you don't install kerbal joint reinforcement...

so if I can't store power, a simple capacitor wouldn't be possible? (the unit for capacitors is farad, which is Coulomb / Volt ) besides, I wrote KW/s, not KW. there is a difference. but I know, batteries, capacitors or at least a bucket of fuel is pure magic for the discussion whether KSP is metric or not: the whole discussion revolves around the idea that unit-prefixes like kilo are somehow not SI. and that's just not true, the SI-system even defines them. one thing that needs to be done in KSP: the SI-units are defined through the some more or less obvious constants. the second was once defined through the length of the day, the meter was defined through the quarter of the length of the equator. those definitions need to be ported over to KSP with kerbin as the center of kerbalkind. maybe they defined the meter as the 600.000th part of the kerbin-radius (hinting that they once had a numbering system with the base 6... this would also explain, why a kerbin day has 6 hours ) mass can (analog to earth) then be defined by the density of water (1m³ of water = 1000 kg).