pincushionman

I love how beer pong (and I've seen video of the robot, it's pretty impressive) is identified in there, especially because on of the defining "features" (it's in the name, after all) of the game is to deliberately sabotage the player's ability.

Paint is cheap.

If you're smart (and are going to use this again in the future), you prompt the user for the number of copies. NEVER hardcode anything unles you're never going to use it again!

You don't even need rockets if you have IR. I've used Infernal Robotics to create a heavy rover truck that can fold flat to fit in a fairing. Big mofo, too. On Mun and Minmus the hinges are powerful enough to launch the entire truck several meters off the ground. If you get creative, you could probably have enough hangtime on Minmus by flipping open a well-placed lander leg on a small enough probe. …or EVA a Kerbal and jump.

Someone with air-launch experience, how feasible is it to loft your rocket stage enough that you can safely land before you need to bother yourself with the circularization burn? That is, the rocket punts itself above 23 km before it has a chance to despawn, and you land while it coasts to a high apoapsis? Would smartparts, kOS, or MechJeb help with the rocket boost burn? I remember in the past it's been possible to loft stages via rocket booster such that you could ride the booster down and recover it before circularizing, but it's also much easier to get rockets above 23 km than jets, and you typically parachute those, not fly back.

Isn't that how it's supposed to go the first time?

The question: are Maya and Julbella making those faces because of Jeb's flying…or because they just realized they're stuck in the capsule with him?

I'm pretty sure I've answered one of these threads before, but why not again? Anyway, I'm diabetic, so I get stuck with pins and needles. By the way, shameless plug. You can help. It was 1998 when this started, and about that time AOL Instant Messager was A Thing (do you kids know about AIM anymore?). So in the spirit of Refusing to Not Laugh About This, I became pincushionman everywhere I had to sign up for a username, and for most of my "internet persona" accounts since then I've been able to use it.

UPDATED FOR 2017 On April 29th I will be setting aside my space helmet and putting on a bike helmet for the ADA's 2017 Tour de Cure - and we need your help. The Tour de Cure is the American Diabetes Association's primary annual fundraising event, raising more than $29 million yearly going towards diabetes research and education. According to the CDC, Almost 30 million Americans have diabetes, and if current health trends continue, it is expected that 1 in 3 born after 2000 will develop diabetes sometime in their life. It is officially the seventh (7th) leading cause of death in the US, and causes around $250 billion in medical costs annually. And that's just in the US! The WHO notes more than 422 million diagnosed cases worldwide as of 2014. I will be riding this year as a Red Rider: I was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes in 1998 and it has affected me every day since. I hesitate to say that I suffer from this disease, as I feel that I do not. To me, treatment is simple and straightforward, and I have good medical benefits to help me out. And I've been lucky. But I know others aren't nearly as fortunate as I am. Treatments aren't cheap, and poor control often leads to other expensive complications down the road such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, blindness, or kidney disease. None of these are any good, and with nearly one in ten people being diagnosed with diabetes, and with another one out of every four being at risk, this is closer to you and the people you love than you might think. Anyway, as you've probably figured out at this point, this is where you come in. My family and I will be riding in the Wichita Tour de Cure event on April 29. I've committed to raising $250 in donations before the event as part of my entrance requirements. The funds tracker below will link to my personal giving page on the Tour de Cure website. Donating through the website is pretty straightforward as long as you use a credit card or PayPal. If you can't use one of those options but still want to give, please PM me and we'll see what kind of arrangement we can work out. If you don't trust links you find on this website, you can type "tour.diabetes.org" into your address bar and follow the "donate" link at the top of the page, searching for my name (Dan Bender). In case you're wondering...no, I don't know why the progress image has the "TdC 25" logo. That was last year. I've e-mailed them about it. Also, if you want to give, but don't feel like it's appropriate to support some random joe on the internet like me, you can donate "directly" to the ADA from www.diabetes.org instead. Or, you can find a Tour event closer to home and participate that way! Participants don't touch the money that is donated through the website, the only difference is the dollars are "targeted" to the participants' efforts. But I appreciate a donation either way. Thank you all for your consideration.

I'd love a surface-mount probe core the same mass and moment arm as a goo canister.

I only know because the exact same thing happened to me, and I didn't believe the explanation until I bit the bullet and installed KJR. I saw the light and now preach that gospel.

Not really possible. You might get something oldFAR-ish, but the nuStock and nuFAR approaches are about as different as can be. The only way to get nuFAR-like performance is… …install FAR. Whodathunk?

In KSP, there's a long-standing bug that causes stiffness of mirrored parts to be slightly different. Enough so that under a hard pitchup, the wings twist different ammounts, resulting in differential lift, resiuting in roll. The best you can hope to do is reduce this - either add MOAR STRUTS between your wing segments, install the mod Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, or both.

Given how cheap SRBs are any clever solution you can find that works is not going to be significantly less cheap than than the normal way. But here goes: baseline: 2x thumpers = 2 x 850 = 1700 2x TT-38k = 2 x 600 = 1200 total = 2900 proposed solution: 3x thumpers, 2/3 fuel, 2/3 thrust = 3 x 686 = 2058 1x TR-18A = 400 total = 2458 You save a whopping 442 funds.

Well, I have to treat a particular 4-year old like a king today (wait…how is that different from the days that aren't his birthday?). We're still dealing with the aftermath* of that particular prank. *well, strictly speaking I hope I'm "dealing with the aftermath" for a long, long time, but that doesn't mean I won't jokeabout it.

Have you set the deadzone in the input settings? and does the Saitek software allow you to affect the sensitivity curves?

At least they only switched the titles. Everybody probably doesn't even pay attention and just clicks "the link in that place" to go to the appropriate subforum. If they'd switched the actual links it'd be chaos.

I think there's some misunderstanding as to where the complexity is here. Calculating dV is freakishly simple. Tedious, but simple. Implementing it into the editor? Not so much. Why? Because the problem isn't the calculation. The problem is in defining the problem. In our case this is about the staging definition. Thrust and Isp vary with pressure? Fuel flow or engine thrust ambiguity? The game needs to offer reasonable assumptions to the player and communicate those clearly, as well as offer the ability for the player to tell the game "you guessed wrong. Here's what I want." it's similar to what engineers do in the real world. Anyone can do the math right. An engineer's job is to make sure the right math is being done.

Is this a bad thing? Man, it's been ten years since I've used a VCR. Still have one, though.

The second you design to use a nanobot as a building block, you're asking for structural trouble. *EDIT* I see the next guy asking "then what are biological cells?" And all I can say is: specialization. In order to have your structural strength, you need a mechanism to fundamentally change certain individuals permanently, and not all of them will be able to keep their networking, sensing, or ambulatory abilities.

I remember an offhnd comment in a writeup of a recent Squadcast that implied…well, that it wasn't out of the question. But not while the 1.1 effort is still ongoing.

I've "liked" maybe two videos. I don't typically like on Facebook, either. As an ordinary user, I value comments on my posts much more than likes, but I'm sure Youtube and Facebook don't really care what I think. Likes are easy to count.

Yes, but a projectile with half the mass, but moving twice as fast, has the exact same momentum but twice the kinetic energy. That's the kind of system @cantab is describing - smaller projectiles moving very quickly.

I guess that all depends on your preferred zoom level. At 100% on my (1600x1200) monitor, I fit an entire single 8 1/2x11 page vertically, with review, navigation pane, and styles pane vertically, and there's still space to each side. But some people prefer to zoom in. You gotta work how you gotta work.

Pro-/retrogradeaffects the point in the orbit 180 degrees from your current position. (anti-/)radial affects the points 90 degrees behind/ahead of your current position. it is less efficient than a properly-implemented pro-/retrograde burn. But there are uses. A radial component to a circularization burn can save you from a less-than-ideal suborbital trajectory after you've missed apoapsis. Also, if on an impact trajectory with a body and are still a long ways off, a small radial burn may be more effective to nudge your orbit out of the lithosphere, depending where exactly you want it to be.