Perry Apsis

You all got it wrong! Hah! The problem, as it turns out, was between the earphones. I had drained out some fuel to increase my TWR, and I hadn't done it quite evenly. Then I forgot I had done it. While I'm somewhat proud of having stumped the panel, I must give at least some credit to the fact that I have the attention span of a squirrel. Thank you all for your excellent suggestions.

Been playing for yearsnyears, and I've never seen this before. I've got a rather standard asparagus staged lifter, and the first two (out of three) stages run out of fuel just a bit out of sync, so that my rocket rotates maybe 20 degrees in the second between when one engine quits and when its partner does. I have to bring it back to prograde before I can detach the empty stage. Anybody else seeing this in 1.0.2? Thanks!

I've been using KIS/KAS to rehabilitate derelicts and fly them home. A couple of OSCAR-B's and a--what are we calling it these days, the little 30kN engine--along with some solar cells and parachutes. Good, clean fun, and environmentally responsible, too!

You think our use of the word "you" is anything other than a convenience. It is not. You're more or less the same month to month and even year to year, so it makes sense to treat you as an identity. You start getting into edge cases like this and all bets are off. "You" will not be two people at once. You will each be a person who happens to resemble another person in every particular. This does not become true when differences arise. It is proven when differences arise. If you both survive, there will be two people with the same history, both of whom are "you" or not "you", depending on how you define these things. More interesting to me than whether you are you or not, is how you feel about these things, because that tells us about how and why we generate the illusion of self-hood. Consider the transporter thought experiments. We seem to be more okay with a transporter that destroys you and then recreates you elsewhere, than we are with a transporter that duplicates you elsewhere, then kills the one still standing here, just to avoid unpleasant philosophical conundrums. Why? Idunno, perhaps because it gives us the feeling that our identity went somewhere, whereas when they happen in the opposite order, it's more clear that there are two identities and we just murdered one.

Well, I was going to make a go of not using PF, part of my 1.0 resolution to cut down on the number of mods I was using. Then I saw what you had to do to emulate interstage fairings: ...and here I am, Jonesing for my next fix. That's why I'm glad I never started smoking.* No willpower. Anyway, I'm off to build myself a nice Apollo-style mission. Thanks for supporting this mod. *not counting two times when I was actually on fire. Ah, youth!

Try adding an empty stage below the one you're putting the part in.

It's obvious that once a civilization reaches a certain level of development, they can create simulations that are more satisfying than reality, where those most interested in space exploration would waste the most productive years of their lives putting strangely-colored and curiously stretched-out aliens into simulated spacecraft and achieving all the satisfaction available through spaceflight without the horrible risk and unimaginable expense. - - - Updated - - - I always thought the Kardashev scale was silly. I know what the responses to this statement will be, but I do not imagine that any descendant of human civilization, no matter how numerous, will find use for the entire output of a star. Of course it looks to us like all roads lead upwards, that we will always be doing more with more. We haven't yet found that we just don't need more energy, and we're not even starting to level off. But we're at the beginning of our journey. The fact that our energy use continues to climb is not evidence that it will do so in the future, when only a few short generations ago, muscle power was the primary source of energy for manufacturing and agriculture. As for interstellar travel, I... Well, I'm a romantic. I like to imagine that we have a grand destiny among the stars. But will it ever really be to the personal benefit of enough people to spend the vast resources needed to confine themselves and their offspring to a box for a thousand years before they face an uncertain future on a marginally habitable world? What could we do to the earth to render it uninhabitable? We could turn it into an airless, arid, barren, lifeless wasteland. Compared to interstellar space it would be paradise. If you can survive for a thousand years in space, do you really need a planet? Does that mean that our descendants may die here, prematurely, from a gamma ray burst, cursing their short-sighted forebears? Yes, perhaps it does. But I don't see us making the sacrifices necessary to get us to other star systems, and there are good reasons for us not to. What has always mystified me about the Fermi paradox is the assumption that of course a civilization would colonize the stars unless they died first. I don't know why they would try. Probably not a popular opinion here, and I don't like it much myself, but it's what I'm left with after decades of thinking about this.

Yes, you're correct. But my real problem was inexperience and clumsiness. Sometimes I was doing the right thing but failing, and other times I was, e.g., trying to stick the round-8 onto the side of the ship for a minute, and I hadn't figured out that there were multiple problems. So finally, I was able to land and recover a pod from a rescue mission. I stuck two Oscar-B's (unlike ROUND-8's, they fit in the inventory) onto the back of the defunct Mk1, put a Terrier and a couple of batteries on the back, and a couple of parachutes on the front. Hopped in and fired it up. Screens come to life (KIS/KAS and RPM are my favorite mods at the moment), the engine ignites, and Bill rides a cherry-red horse all the way home. Five hours of screwing around with this. In-game rewards? Like a few hundred funds. IRL? Priceless. That said... That five hours could have been three if there were a way of attaching the ships together. Maybe if I had brought pipes, but I never realized you can't strut two different ships together. If I could strut them such that a Kerbal holding onto one could place parts on or grab them from both, that could have been 30 minutes. Hmm. I'll bet you the claw would have come in handy... Thanks again for your guidance and taking the time to make that picture. I'm sure it will be helpful to others as well.

Enceos, thanks for the reply. I'm afraid the answer to all your questions is the correct one (yes engineer, yes read the manual, etc.). I did not mention that I got error messages many times while trying to re-attach the round-8 to my craft, though. Not always, and not always the same one, but I was never once, out of many attempts, able to get it to stick on, even though I had been able to with other parts. Maybe I'll try it with the Oscar B and see how it goes. KospY, I'm very excited about the EVA tether. I think that will make zero-G work much easier.

Hi, I have been trying to rehabilitate one of the pods from the rescue missions, and I'm having no end of trouble with it. I'm not too experienced with KIS but I used KAS a lot. I have both now and have remapped the grab key for KAS. I wanted to carry a round-8 over to the pod but after hours of fumbling around, I have been unable to do so. I was able to bring smaller items like batteries and even a Spark engine, but I couldn't transport the round-8 either on my back a la KAS or in my inventory as in KIS. I also wasn't able to attach them anywhere on my own ship, and most of them went drifting off or flying away at high speed (and with some serious spin). I thought about strutting the pod to the side of my ship, but as I have been unable to attach the round-8 anyway, I'm not sure that's going to help. Is there something obvious I'm missing? Any pointers? Thanks in advance!

Just wanted to say thanks. PP has contributed a great deal to the game, in the way of freedom to build ships that look and behave the way I want, while maintaining game balance and realism. Not sure what "realism" means in a game where an astronaut can fall 5km and be okay as long as it/he/she lands on its/her/his head, but still...

Only tangentially relevant, but I was just getting annoyed with the capsules left in orbit after rescue missions when I saw that Kerbal Inventory System gives you the ability to attach an explosive charge to something and blow it up. I am *so* excited by this.

Citizen247, there are a couple of threads floating around about this. They made the heat shields physics-less, which in 1.0 adds the mass to the parent part, which raises your CoM. If you go down into the \GameData\Squad\Parts\Aero\HeatShield folder you can edit the three HeatShield#.cfg files and change PhysicsSignificance=1 to 0. Then the heat shield has its own mass and the capsule enters shield first.

According to Scott Manley's 1.0 livestream, the default setting for atmo heating (100%) does not generate enough heat to destroy a capsule when re-entering from orbit. Coming back from Minmus might be a different story. I've got mine turned up to the maximum (120%) but haven't played around with it enough to see whether return from orbit is now deadly without a heat shield.

I've read almost the whole thread but haven't seen this mentioned: When attaching parts inside the 1.25m service bay, they always attach facing the wrong way. That is, I see the back of the part inside the bay, with the majority of the part inside whatever the bay is attached to. I have to flip each part around manually so that it's inside the bay.

Some buttons still let the click fall through to whatever is below. Build (or load) a big ship. Click load, and then cancel. If the cancel button is above a part, you will simultaneously cancel the load and also select the part, removing it from your ship.

Out on Steam only? Anybody see a statement from Squad about the server migration?

Release day dilemma: Engineering or Science section? (Command is out. Jeb and Val will have their day, once the rockets are built. Plus, my gold ones are in the wash.) Thanks!

Maybe the ability to refuel a tank when parked on the runway? Or in that place next the runway that already looks like a refueling area?

Ew, please no. - - - Updated - - - That'd be kind of neat.

Wishing really, really hard. Well, 2.0 should be out in a few weeks. Maybe then.... - - - Updated - - - Ability to drag the navball around to see where your target is? Anti-target marker on the navball?

I shall. I found myself very gratified by your comments, and I thank you for the time you spent going through my "great" (50+ pics in an undifferentiated stream--seriously?) album. I salute all those who completed this challenge, and I hope to see you all back here after 1.0. Laie, I hope you're taking a few days off before then. I think that your positive attitude and supportive energy contributed to the success of this challenge, so my thanks and a salute to you, too.

Nicely written! I wasn't aware of CKAN. I wonder if they used any of CPAN's code.

At least recently, the rate of submissions has not been overwhelming. I'd be happy to review one now and then.

gaah!