DaMachinator

Hence my suggestions of BBCode or MarkDown. The only thing unrestricted HTML allows you to do that could make it a bad idea (that I am aware of) is embedded objects. Workaround is to use a different image hosting site. I like u.tylian.net + spoilers to pretend that I have an album and not several embedded photos.

I think this is what happens from the point of view of an outside observer were a ship to travel at the speed of light. From the point of view of an inside observer, everyone would be blind.

For most of MJ's stuff the most useful thing is the maneuver node editor since I can't get PreciseNode to work. Also the ability to execute maneuver nodes to inhuman precisions. (Moho, especially, requires precision down to .01 and .001 m/s to actually get CLOSE. And you still need a course correction.)

Which reminds me, what are the objections to having an alternate editor layout that uses HTML, Markdown (as used by Reddit and GitHub) and/or BBcode? To clarify, this would be an "Advanced" option or something in the standard editor, where one could switch modes.

The Explorer 4 drawing looks like they commandeered a Minuteman ICBM to put it into orbit.

On minmus nothing is expensive. I bet you could EVA the kerbal in the wrong orbit all the way to your ship with just his/her jetpack.

Try pressing down the mouse-wheel and dragging up or down. Also try using ALT instead of SHIFT. (MMB+drag or ALT+scroll)

I've never had issues with my intercepts magically disappearing (except for interplanetary when my ship is slowly rotating in 1.0.5). I HAVE had issues, however, with the "closest approach" display being outright wrong. Only noticed this when I let MechJeb's autopilot do a "Hoffman transfer to target" with distance of 500m. The close approach marker showed a distance of ~4km IIRC. Mechjeb was right, though. I got within 500 m of my target (whatever it was)

See also: NEXUS, DC-Y concept, North American Air Augmented VTOVL, and others.

If there are, they are military designs and therefore probably classified. You would have to design one from scratch. Which you would have to do anyways, because replacing engines on a precisely designed aircraft is no simple task. It might not be possible at all. Voyager/Voyager 2 http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/ is probably the one. Note my above comment that the noise of the sonic boom is proportional to the lift generated by the wings, heavily favoring business jets for supercruise capabilities. Unless it's a closed-cycle design, like a nuclear lightbulb (closed-cycle gas core reactor rocket) Which so happens to be even more efficient than a solid core NTR. Even better would be nuclear pulse propulsion, which has the side effect of frying unshielded electronics on the same side of the Earth as it when you use it because of the EMP from a nuclear explosion.

This still requires propellant to circularize...

Some of these issues might be solved by technological developments in engine technology - if pulse detonation engines or scramjets ever become practical, for instance. However, this discussion concerns the here and now. As far as that goes: The TSA is ineffective. Crazy people still get on planes, and there's no TSA for general aviation. Nobody's going to keep you from buying a used cargo jet if you have the money. If we're targeting this group of wealthier people who can afford SST flight, why not make the plane roomier? Say 2 or 3 seats an aisle instead of 4, and put the seats farther apart. Headroom will still be a bit of an issue, but the Concorde passengers didn't seem to care. The Concorde actually made British Airways money, as unbelievable as that is. OT: Interestingly, one of AMTRAK's other profitable routes is Virginia? to Central Florida. Rich peoples love their beaches and expensive condos and (comparatively) warm winters.

You could also use unconventional propulsion - mass drivers, nuclear thermal engines (which as far as I know can use any fuel that expands sigificantly at high temperatures compared to it's storage temperature), pulsed detonation engines, nuclear pulse propulsion, various forms of electric and hybrid electric engines - all kinds of old and new concepts come to mind. Many electric and hybrid-electric engines, however, require exotic propellants or enhance the efficiency of conventional propellants, either not solving the problem or substituting it for a similar one. Also, what are the objections to constructing spacecraft out of advanced composite materials rather than aluminum? Glass-reinforced plastic, carbon fiber, various other pure carbon materials, and tungsten carbide come to mind.

One could replace the turbojets with ramjets, which are more efficient at supersonic speeds. Whether this would actually improve efficiency and be at all practical is another matter, although I suspect that it would be. Again, it had no competition, meaning that the kind of people who wanted the aircraft that the Concorde was had no other choice. Even with it's outdated technology and poor fuel efficiency, the Concorde aircraft did make British Airways a profit. Any extreme commercial aircraft is going to be suited only for long-range or mid-range high traffic routes. The A380 has the same problem, yet it is used. Also, planes don't fly straight across the Pacific (or the Atlantic, for that matter). They fly polar great circle routes. Or you could refuel the aircraft. The Concorde still would make the trip over twice as fast as any modern subsonic jet. The sonic boom occurs continually as long as an aircraft is moving, but anything moving slower than the aircraft will only hear the characteristic double boom. As best as I can tell, there are four ways to decrease it: Decrease the lift produced by the wings. The higher the lift, the bigger the sonic boom. This strongly favors small aircraft like fighters and business jets, and is the real reason business jets should be able to supercruise over land. Go faster. Shape the aircraft in such a way that less of the energy of the sonic boom is directed towards the ground. Shape the aircraft in such a way that the sonic boom has less energy to begin with. All planes are expensive. The key word here should be "specialized" or "high performance". In other words, any aircraft that does a few things really well will be lacking in other areas, perhaps enough to render it impractical. It is the nature of people to be upset at things which make them late. There are multiple airlines that operate the A380. If one airline is consistently late, people will not use it.

Since supersonic commercial aircraft are clearly possible (see: Concorde) what would be the obstacles to the construction and operation of a new one? Obstacles I see: Noise pollution Dubious economy of operation Low public interest Lack of obvious use in which they would significantly outperform existing subsonic aircraft Additionally, how impractical are theoretical hypersonic large aircraft that "skip" across the thicker layer of the atmosphere?

Concorde had no competitors in it's niche, meaning that the companies who owned it probably had the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. On the subject of the aircraft in question: It's an electric aircraft powered by a nuclear reactor. It doesn't use nuclear propulsion. The fission reactor on the NR-1 could easily fit in any modern airliner. It would need very infrequent refueling - the biggest problem would be heat dissipation. Whether 5MW (as someone who, without citing their sources, said the power output was) is enough to propel an airliner through the air, and whether the weight of a reactor would significantly disturb the CoM, is something I am not knowledgable enough to speak on.

BOOSTERS!!! Sorry, I had to do that at least once.

I use https://u.tylian.net mostly. https://u.tylian.net and put the images in spoilers instead because it doesn't do albums.

Personally, making the planet VFX look better would be a start. They already look good, but adding things like a "halo" around a planet with an atmosphere when it is between you and the sun would be worth going to for screenshots. The problem is that it is up to the player to set goals. Contracts in career are simply an income source, as I see it. While being able to do "press releases" and stuff that would cause the contracts you get to more specifically target your long-term goals would be nice, and the ability to SELL space on rockets instead of accepting contracts (e.g. KSA is offering to put up to 5 tons in a high Kerbin orbit for 10,000 kredits!) even better, it is ultimately up to the player to decide what they want to do.

Do note that the company primarily responsible for the console ports is not SQUAD. I forget the name, but SQUAD partnered with another company to port KSP to console.

Lock or remove as you see fit, please: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/143822-kiwiirc-connects-to-espernet-again-yay/

KiwiIRC no longer connects to EsperNet. This is probably collateral damage from a specific user getting K-lined, since everyone who uses KiwiIRC has the same hostname. I like the webchat client I linked as an alternative better than KiwiIRC anyways so I left the next part in a spoiler: Fixed by an unknown party, KiwiIRC users can connect to EsperNet again!

I already have engine lighting, but mostly because it provides a good visual indicator of distance to ground for night landings When you've got multiple engines on your lander, you know you're close when the circles of light intersect.

Gratituous explosions are plentiful, especially when using explosive decoupling

This is in the Windows 10 photo viewer with a grey theme applied to window tops and the start menu bar. The Win10 photo viewer is black with white line icons.