pincushionman

Click the "x of y downloads completed" on the bottom of the screen to bring up the download manager, and make sure there isn't something else holding it up.

What is the equation you're seeing without that factor? Does it include a term for damping?

Hansen's Diet Tanerine and Lime sodapop. And if there's chocolate in the house, it will join in along with an extra blast of insulin. But I only on weekends - during the week, just water.

The key in real life is engineers can design the airfoil of a canard such that it will stall before the main wing does, with high confidence. At the angles real wings stall at, the moment from stall drag is minimal compared to that from main wing lift. We don't have that ability in KSP. Airfoils largely have the same generic properties, and stall behavior is generally nothing to be particularly impressed with. The main reasons we don't see them in more use in real life are probably because a) the chief advantage - that all wing surfaces provide lift rather than downforce - isn't that advantageous with all the other design options we have at our disposal. Also, b) we understand very well and are used to wing-tailplane designs, which are practically demanded by single-engine tractor-propeller designs, which were easier to deal with in the early days of the industry. "Pusher" designs, which call for canards more often, demand multiple engines or (for single engines) more structurally complex or multiple tails. And "design inertia" is a very difficult phenomenon to overcome. Fewer major design changes (like the lift paradigm) result in cheaper design and engineering costs. Which is probably why rear-engine jetliners use T-tails, even though canard configurations are possible with them. In KSP, we use canards often because we don't have the same kind of fine control over fuel location (CoM) or wing design (lift/stall) that real engineers do.

My six-year-old wants to be a toilet. His four-year-old brother wants to be a bat. He insisted that I be one too. …so I'm going to find some big tubes and go as a Louisville Slugger.

The whole point of the nose-cone core was to allow a Scientist or Engineer to act like a pilot; the loss of functionality is definitely a 1.2 thing. You should post this in the 1.2pre subforum so the devs see it while they can still address it before release - it's a special case that apparently got overlooked in the communication overhaul.

It doesn't need to even be as coarse as 45 degrees - being keyed at the small rotation angle of the build scene (what is it - 1/40 of a rotation, or 10 steps per 90 degrees?) would be close enough to force two units into the correct alignment most of the time. Getting two units almost aligned isn't the hard part - it's the final few degrees or tenths where the trouble is.

The A380 doesn't look too awkward from a ways off. …but the Beluga is made from an A300, and you'd know it if you saw it.

Do we really have such terms in real life for All the moons? I was under the impression that we only really used -helion, -gee, and -cynthion very much. (and I swear I saw -selene used rather than -cynthion once. Might have been when reading Lost Moon)

Cool! My company makes components for 3 of those.

I'd like this a lot. Something where you have the aircraft in the tunnel, you set altitude, speed, angle of attck, and control surface deflection, and it draws the lift, weight, drag, and moment vectors at the CoM. Facility upgrades would let you sweep AoA, altitude, or speed, and plot a curve for those results, but what beginners really need is simply something to indicate visually at what AoA they're going to either flip out or stall - in an environment where they can easily replicate and reset, instead of constant launch+revert to VAB because they're unstable the moment their nose gear leaves the runway. And by "beginner" I mean nearly everyone.

I wonder if you could patch that in with ModuleManager. For the time being, though, a right-click will exit it.

The real question is "which way is the wheel-down vector?" It may not align with the strut.

I haven't yet been able to get my joystick to bind to EVA rotation. The jets fire, but the kerbal no rotates. I think there's still some residual "kerbals aren't ships" code.

You can get - to anywhere - from anywhere - -at any time as long as you are willing to pay through the nose in dV. It's the approach New Horizons took - they said "we need to get to Pluto in ten years," found the biggest rocket they could afford, put down on the smallest probe they could afford, and went like a bat out of hell. And couldn't make a braking burn, because the radial velocity at target was far, far too large. You're going to face the same challenge with your high-energy maneuver, so you're going to need some redonkulous plan to stop. Also, remember that while the most efficient windows may come around every two years, one that is good enough may arrive sooner; it's just a more aggressive Hohmann. This is particularly important to keep in mind for the more remote targets. There's no sense waiting 40 years for an optimal transfer when it's only slightly better than what you can get this orbit.

I swear I read from a developer that the "part upgrades" feature was intended for modders to take advantage of, and wasn't planned to be used at all in stock. I thought it was said by @NathanKell in the devnotes thread, but I can't find it there. It was in the last couple of days.

Leave the Squad folder. That's the stock one; if you delete it you'll have no parts. I haz done this …more than once

It's a choice for gameplay balance. You need to balance mass (light probe vs heavy crew capsule) vs. capability (limited/non-functional probe vs. fully-capable crew capsule) vs. infrastructure (single craft vs. built-up network. Better? Worse? I'll withhold judgement until everybody (else) hops on the pre-release and starts giving feedback.

I was just going to be a troll and say "Yes, most of us here do," but a few people who actually wanted to be helpful beat me to the punch.

Terrible terrible idea. The key isn't the energy to intercept, it's the time. If interceptors are on known orbits (and they would be known, if not acknowledged), it would be utterly trivial to launch a missle in a window such that no orbital weapon could ever hope to intercept it, even if the sky were flooded with them. It may, on the other hand, be a good location to base a laser net. Except the power requirements are the limitation for that.

Instead of clicking the portrait to send to EVA, click on the hatch itself and select EVA from there? Does that help?

This too. You can get away with darn near anything on Minmus.

Stiffer stiffer stiffer stiffer stiffer KJR stiffer stiffer stiffer stiffer struts stiffer stiffer stiffer stiffer…

You need to make sure your twitches are centered about the rover section's center of mass, specifically at the fuel level you expect to have at the time. It might help to open just the rover section in the SPH and use the CoM and CoT markers to line those up. You might have to move some parts around to control your CoM, or it may be easier to just move your thrusters around to accomodate. Your setup looks pretty simple. Also, put a docking port on the horizontal top, and when you go to flip the vessel sidways, right-click it and select "control from here." This will re-orient the navball so that instead of looking at the horizon like a rover, it's looking up like a lander can.

Aircraft production, specifically engine nacelles. So the quote @wumpus posted is pretty close to home too.