Man in the Funny Hat

The composition would be, but the recorded performance would not - depending on the recording. So you can use the 1812 overture for anything you like - but using, say, the New York Philharmonic's recorded performance of it might get you in trouble.

It was f4. Contract complete. Thanks.

Trying to complete a rescue contract. I have the kerbal targetted and am within only about 500m but I can't see him. When I switch to him with bracket I can control him but can't see my rescue ship anywhere. ?? Shouldn't either of them have a nice, bright yellow target on them with info when viewing from the other? I can't move toward and board a rescue vessel that is... invisible.

I've used this for my initial lander. It's very simple and uses low-tech parts. No, it doesn't have gobs of science parts though you can stick goo cannisters on it easily. This is a lander meant for players who are finding it difficult to learn to land while early in career mode. https://www.dropbox.com/s/7xg4om0iex3twzh/KSP%20Lander.png?dl=0 Other advice: Build a rocket that will get this lander into Mun orbit without needing to use fuel from the lander itself. I often use my next-to-last stage for the initial Mun de-orbit burn and then dump it. Pick a FLAT landing site that is in daylight. Start by lowering your orbit altitude above the landing site to say, 10,000 to 15,000. That's keeps the duration of your final landing procedure low but still leaves time for you act. Make a save point to revert back to from this position, THEN start your final landing procedure. Point retrograde and burn off all your orbital velocity. You'll start dropping straight down so now you just need to HAVE PATIENCE and keep your vertical velocity where it needs to be. Use IVA to check radar altitude - altitude in exterior view is given to "sea level" so note the difference. Starting at about 5000m above ground keep your speed down to 50m/s. Starting at about 1000m above ground keep it to around 10m/s. Try to touchdown at LESS than 10m/s. Use the save point to PRACTICE.

This is why I'm not too hard on myself. I definitely knew that one did NOT simply point at destination and burn. I wouldn't have known to call it a gravity turn but I knew the general idea behind why they started pitching over. Couldn't really see it with, say, the Saturn V but I remember once someone pointing out that the shuttles would start pitching even before clearing the tower. As a kid I was a huge fan of rocket launches but I didn't understand bupkus about what was actually going on. But over the years I picked up a bit of information here and there; a magazine article, a book, a movie or whatever. I knew that orbital rendezvous involved the highly counter-intuitive step of burning in the OPPOSITE direction because it had been in a book I'd read where the main character was doing that. Of course, none of that means squat when it comes time to actually FLY it.

I have two career saves: Fly Me to the Mun (not used anymore) Take the Sky

Well it's true that the flag got blown over in the liftoff from the moon because it was filmed by a camera from the ascent stage. I would actually doubt that Aldrin saw it though because I think it'd be HIGHLY likely he was far too busy looking at instruments and not sightseeing. Just FYI...Firstly, the flag code is mostly advisory and you can actually say that there's literally no law against letting a US flag touch the ground. The issue is respect for the flag. Many other nations allow their flags to be dipped and touch the ground as gestures of respect to other nations/leaders but the US flag is not supposed to be subordinated to any other nation or their leaders. An easy place to see this is in Olympic opening ceremonies. You'll see other countries dip their flags in the procession but the US flag will not. It's always supposed to be kept upright/flying/fixed. If a US flag does touch the ground it doesn't mean it needs to be destroyed - but it does mean the sitution should be avoided if at all possible and corrected as soon as possible if it does happen. Also, if the flag is then dirty it simply means it needs to be cleaned. Only flags that are no longer serviceable really need to be destroyed. Again, that's a matter of respect in that you don't just toss it in the trash with the rest of the garbage and is why destroying it by RESPECTFULLY burning it is recommended. It's a little sad but also somewhat amusing that the Apollo 11 flag got knocked over (not sure if it's completely down or just off kilter). It's just one of those few things they simply didn't think of when they put, "Plant US Flag" on the to-do list: "Make sure it's far enough from the lander to withstand the ascent engine exhaust."

Fighter movement in Star Wars was originally based on WWII wing camera footage. At least I know that there was a rough cut that used WWII footage in place of where effects shots would be because the effects shots weren't done yet. But IIRC Lucas WANTED them to move in a manner that was familiar to people, just as he wanted sound for weapons and explosions. I've always assumed BSG went the opposite route but for the same reasons - it was the aesthetic they wanted. The ones I find most annoying are the ones that achieve NEITHER of the styles very well, where they seem not to be thinking at all about what it is their ships are actually doing on screen and why, they just need to have ship A move from one side to the other and then blow something up and don't much care about the style in which it does that.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space." Douglas Adams

Early in career mode I've had Vulture and Raven series crafts in reference to picking up science left lying around, or picking up shiny bits of science. Also used designations like "Pioneer" or "Discovery" if it was going to be the first attempt at something I hadn't done yet, or expanding on something I'd already started. First in a design series is "I", or "MkI", followed by "II"/"MkII" etc. If the change in design is somewhat minor then it might be given a lower-case letter addendum to the designation, like the "Raven IVb". I made a design using the Raven as the bulk of it but it was going to be unmanned so I named it Scarecrow I instead of Raven-something. If the design gets changed during "testing" then I often don't change the designation. So, I guess my names are a reference to what the craft is initially going to do or takes steps toward doing.

Yeah, you have to remember that this is still not the finished form of the game. Eventually you will be dealing with reputation and money constraints that will make putting kerbals into space more expensive and risky - so you'll be weighing the value of getting more science versus the costs of getting it.

Managed to catch the closing livestream from Kerbalcon. I don't have a transcript but what I got from it is that they put a lot of effort into resources but came to find it to be decidedly non-fun. No details really WHY it was not fun but clearly the direction they had been taking it in development didn't get it somewhere they wanted it to go, so despite all the work they were dissatisfied enough with it to, "put it on the back burner". Didn't say, "won't ever do anything," just that they felt they had better things to do with their time and money at this point than beat a dead horse (my phrase, not theirs). I got the impression that they would probably take another go at it at SOME point but it was no longer a priority because there were other things they could work on and wanted to work on that would produce better results.

I have a Saitek Cyborg Evo and decided to try it with KSP but I never could stand "programming" a controller for anything. Naturally, it seems to do nothing. Anyone happen to have, like, an actual profile to use?

Jeb is now back on Big K playing 9-ball after the FANTASTIC success of the first Kerbal docking in orbit. He piloted Zipper I to a rendezvous with Velcro I piloted by Bill. It wasn't too pretty, used way too much fuel, but got it in one try. I don't know about them but the Program Director is wierdly and insufferably pleased with himself.

Rescued Jeb for the third time, after stranding him on the Mun for the third time. Getting lots of landing practice at least...

I'll sign this. Or it doesn't necessarily have to mean adding a "Test Lab" building to KSC; just provide pulldown options for setting the gravity hack to a given planet/atmosphere to be able to test how, say, a lander will handle without having to run a full "dry run" mission.

All I ask for at this point is a radar altimeter toggle so I can get distance to SURFACE not just distance to sea level.

Jeb is currently in a very realistic simulator REPEATEDLY attempting to actually touch down safely on the moon. The program seems to have mastered all the other skills needed to get to orbit, get to a stable Mun orbit, and returning to Kerbin safely - it's actually managing to touchdown safe on the moon that's stalled career progress.