pincushionman

This would explain the Stupidity stat.

Not necessarily. TAC Life Support does it this way as the "hardcore" life support mod but Snacks! applies reputation penalties for running out of…well, "snacks," and Roverdude's USI Life Support turns all your crew members into Tourists (who can't do anything) until you can provide them with more of the generic life support resource. I think these are fabulous concepts. Have you used the encounter/periapsis/etc. nodes in the map view? These provide ETA data that can be used to plan future missions by sending probes first and just writing these transfer times down. Determining this before you launch your craft is harder, but that's only because the lack of life support makes it unnecessary. Such a planner is necessary for a proper life support implementation, but a current lack of it shouldn't be seen as a reason not to make one. Again check out the USILS. Very much like this.

What about changing them into the same kind of objects as the KSC models? These are static, yet they can still be interacted with in the flight scene (building destruction).

The concept of "energy being" seems to be based on some kind of idea that "energy" is somehow different from what we exprience every day, ignoring the fact that nothing happens to matter in the absence of energy, and likewise energy doesn't exist in the absence of matter to act on. Life as we know it can be described as organized self-manipulation of energy by matter - it certainly isn't "matter all by itself" that an "energy being" can be the polar opposite of.

Yes, but only if the relevant relative inclinations are high. Otherwise the Z component has little influence, as the R components are so large.

Not a midi file, and not a .kar either; but the music sounds like it would have been sequenced by software that could be used to make .mids. Except the voice track. That means it was something else. .st3 files can do graphics, but again not voice. Tough to say exactly how it was put together, but ultimately it was recorded to video and published that way. I was into .midis way back in the '90's, but with everybody having high-speed internet and huge hard drives, as well as good audio compression (.mp3, .aac, .ogg, etc.), the chief advantages of the format (uber-small file size) are largely unimportant anymore for consumers. Still very important for musicians transferring work amongst themselves, though. I'm sure NovaSilisko has the plenty of knowledge and opinions on the subject; more than me since I've been out of the scene for some time.

Trim is applied with mod+WASDQE. I know. I huffed and puffed about that myself for some time before another forum user pointed it out to me. Won't help any coupling you're getting, though.

Yes, but trim=rotations. Gonna have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get thatto eork for a burn.

Oh my engineers would so get up and quit if they saw that in an RFP we were supposed to answer.

The only thing this would accomplish would be you stick to the floor. It would not feel like walking on Earth, any more than trying to walk up a vertical pool wall while underwater does. Perhaps even less. It would also not alleviate any of the real problems of microgravity, in particular unsecured objects and the changed behavior of fluids.

Grab those horizontal tails with the rotation tool and point them down a click (non-angle-snap mode). This will have a surprisingly big effect, and will allow you to keep the tailplanes far back and keep the long moment arm you're gonna want with the tiny control surfaces. - - - Updated - - - By the way, while we say "keep your CoL behind your CoM," that's not exactly how real planes are made. What happens is the lift center of the main wing is placed behind the CoM, and the resulting moment is canceled out by downforce (on tailplanes) or upforce (on canards). The result is the overall lift vector is exacly over the CoM with no net moment, or "trim." It's just REALLY hard to zero the moment using the tools we have in KSP. And it's why the main wings of rear-engine aircraft (think T-tails like the DC-9/MD-90/B717 or the various CRJ's) are so far aft.

Certification is a tricky issue in the aerospace industry. I'm dealing with it right now at my company. But I can't make an opinion on this since I have no idea how they were certified in the first place. Was it by analysis, or by test? Similarity to previous design? A failure at 1/4 the design load sounds fishy to me - yes, the design could be flawed, but with that kind of discrepancy it's not out of the question that the load requirements weren't properly defined (there may be more to it than just the number of pounds), and no parties - including SpaceX and any relevant regulators - properly vetted that information.

This is one of those rare situations in space where the mass is irrelevant and the weight matters greatly. Yes, a force can only accelerate it a small amount, but it only needs a small acceleration to send it sloooooowly tumbling across the surface.

Break it apart and take different parts to different places. Instead of one refueling station, have one in equatorial LKO, one at Mun, one at Minmus, etc…

"I think it would be bad" =/= "I would not like to know"

You don't need turbopumps, depending on what performance you're aiming for. You need whatever system can get the fuel to the combustion chamber fast enough and with enough pressure. It might be as simple as pressurized gas forcing the reactants out the bottom of the tank as a starting point. Performance would be pretty limited, though.

The "dresteroids" aren't to emulate a ring system, they're there to represent the asteroid belt.

I'm not sure that's true in the current version of Unity/PhysX being used - I think there's only one physics thread total available to the game. I'm pretty sure that will change in U5, though.

If we could make vessels out of a bunch of instanced sub-assemblies (as opposed to merging the subassembly in like we do now), that would allow this behavior, and a whole lot of other possibilities as well. Kinda like a CATIA .CATProduct or a ProE .asm.

The part immediately behind the cockbit there is a bicoupler, which has two attach nodes on it. It's usually done Mk2 Cockpit->Mk2 Fuselage->Mk2 Bicoupler->2x engine, but in thid case he's going Mk2 Fuselage->Mk2 Bicoupler->2x FL-T800->2x engines, presumeably. Works fine as long as you do that, not trying to turn the bicoupler around to feed a single engine. That would be much trouble. - - - Updated - - - Edit. I may have misunderstood the question and you already know what the "pants" do, fishguys?

You see that big red "X" in the upper-right-hand corner? That is how you do this one.

Tater isn't arguing that an S-L parameter of 1 isn't a good cutoff (well…at least not in that post). He's saying that the IAU's resolution doesn't anywhere state that the S-L parameter is the preferred measure of "clearing", let alone that 1 is an appropriate cutoff. It also doesn't do a good job of specifying what the "neighborhood" is. EDIT: ninja'd

You'll also need a keyboard and mouse.

Add an RCS tank below the capsule in both vessels, then adjust the monoprop mass until they mass exactly the same. Your performance differences between the two should then be only about the aerodynamics of the front end.

Sorry, had to correct you there. Success with the hack is rather hit-or-miss. And since your whole reason to use it is to run mods, please don't ask for mod support without first verifying that whatever bug you're experiencing is legitimately caused by the mod (that is, reproduce it in 32-bit first).