Kimberly

I'd prefer to be able to add sounds to Dwarf Fortress--it's such a shame the game doesn't have any! But uh, that aside, the music isn't easily moddable at the moment. The have been various suggestions for a more dynamic and customizable system.

I don't think it really is backward...it's just something people keep repeating to each other, based on the kerbals' facial expressions. As far as I'm concerned, kerbals only have one facial expression--derp.

It's made of pure imagination. Anyway, I think it's a gas under the surface and a liquid when used.

I suppose you could call me a cadet wannabe--I intend to do ROTC for two years in college, enlist after graduating, and then go to OCS once I'm eligible.

It's the moment, it's just land-collect-analyze-return. Kethane integration is being looked at, to make interesting sample sites a "resource" that you can scan for from orbit. You get a bit of extra knowledge if you land just anywhere, but a bonus if you collect a sample from one of the interesting sites. That was the plan last I heard about it, anyway.

I think there will only be one science value (from what I've read), but that works if you think about in the abstract. Collecting rocks from the Moon didn't do anything for our engines or spacecraft design by itself, but we had to make a lot of advances in those fields to start collecting those rocks. You'll be cashing in your science points at the end of your project, instead of with each little advance.

It substantiates the point that coal power is more dangerous than nuclear power. The thing about nuclear power is that it's quite dangerous when something goes wrong. Because of that risk, we've gotten very good at making nuclear power safe. The waste produced is not really dangerous as such; it just has to be handled with care and stashed in a safe place. With coal power, however, there is emission of radiation (and other pollution) as a matter of course--we don't get a nice barrel of waste to put under a mountain somewhere, we pump the waste into the atmosphere.

Then you haven't set an artificial delay, or so it would seem. Can you show a screenshot of your window with the burn active and the queue open, please?

First, use the buttons to make your craft orient the correct way. Then click the "queue" button to open the queue window. Enter the burn information on the boxes on the bottom-left, but don't hit enter yet. In the bottom-right hand corner, press the amount of seconds of delay you want and press enter. Now hit enter on the burn--the command will be sent to the probe, and once the artificial delay has expired the burn will be performed.

Don't worry, RickRastardly--the public is a lot more afraid of nuclear power than it needs to be. The World Health Organization found that there was no risk to the general public inside or outside Japan, and predicted only a minor increase in cancer risk in Fukushima Prefecture. Despite this, the original incident received the same level on the international scale measuring nuclear incidents as the Chernobyl explosion! A Pew Study recorded that 51% percent of people watching coverage on the earthquake in Japan focused on the damaged nuclear plants1--how many deaths did the damage cause? As far as we know, zero so far. The earthquake and tsunami, on the other hand, killed some 16000 people. The ongoing problems at Fukushima are a serious environmental issue, to be sure. Just not one the average Joe really needs to worry about at all. To answer your main question: they don't reuse it because it's not a closed system. There are leaks all over the place. If you pump in contaminated water, then some of that water is going to leak out, and if you cycle it over and over you keep putting more of it into the environment. You limit the amount of radioactive particles that get into the environment by only pumping in clean water. 1. Pew Research, "Most Are Attentive to News About Disaster in Japan: Public Focuses on Crisis at Nuclear Plants", March 2011.

It would definitely be interesting, but I think it would have to be in conjunction with more options in terms of wheels and landing legs. Just look at the variety people thought up when designing lunar rovers! Before we really had a good idea of what the surface was like, it was one of the major design problems.

That's the extendable 8000 km antenna (from RemoteTech 2). It is normally retracted when driving in-atmosphere, to prevent damage. The 250 km antennae are used to control nearby rovers, separated MoLab modules, or to transmit basic telemetry in conjunction with a satellite with a large dish. The long-range antenna allows periodic contact with mission control or a planetary base where no satellite is available to accommodate the short-range antenna, and also allows better data transfer rates. For example, the MoLab might be driving during the day, transmitting data on temperature and atmospheric pressure and such, or its current position. When night falls, it deploys the long-range antenna and is able to transmit stored high-resolution video and photography that was taken earlier.

I don't know what people you've been hanging around with, but personally I noticed widespread discontent with the retirement of the Space Shuttle before a replacement was available. I don't know to what extent that was polled, but "absolutely nobody" is excessively hyperbolic.

I wouldn't make it dependent on the amount of scans. That would encourage a Kethane-like scanning pattern, where you want to have as low an orbital period as possible because you can only scan one hex at a time anyway.

I too love using these modules for making rovers, Starwaster. Meet the MoLab: In its default configuration, it has a utility, habitation, science and logistics module, plus an airlock. A crew of 4 can live and work there for a month before needing to resupply. Because the design is modular, you can replace modules with more logistics or habitation modules for supply or crew transportation. Alternatively, you can simply use the command module as a short-range three-man rover--it's equipped with full environmental sensors, an extendable and retractable antenna for long-range communication (8 Mm), and a short-range (250 km) antenna as well. The other modules are equipped with short-range anntennae, too, so no precision landings are necessary--so long as they land in a 250 km radius around the command module, they can be driven to it remotely and slotted together. The solar panels give the wheels more than enough power during the day, and at night the utility module's RTG can fully supply the three remaining modules. (The modules' battery capacity must be tapped if more than three modules are attached to the MoLab.) The landing legs allow the MoLab to deploy into a stable and level configuration at night, or to dock with any immobile bases for resupply. The many wheels act almost like treads, making the ride fairly smooth even when driving across bumpy terrain. Their offset from the modules themselves ensure the modules cannot flip on their sides, and when coming to a sudden stop, the modules' connection can compress, absorbing some of the shock. The one thing you shouldn't do is turn at high speeds--the sway of the "snake" can break the docking port connections.

If you were to use a hexagonal scanning method, how would you handle differing resolutions and level of detail? Frankly, Kethane scanning is very simplistic--and that's not necessarily a bad thing, because mapping is not the central focus of the mod. But it would certainly devalue Mapsat if you went with the Kethane paradigm of "lower orbital period = better", with a ton of scanners being necessary for scanning at warp instead of being able to adjust resolution and orbit to something that will work at a high level of warp and produce a high-detail result. (On a related note, if you reveal a pre-generated image instead of doing actual scanning, would the mod still be compatible after terrain changes like Mapsat is now?)

W-w-w-wait. The KSP debug console keeps track of "blast awesomeness"? XD

I think the whole idea of using a map made up of hexagons for the purpose of creating an actual height map is insane. It's not intuitive and at all and would feel terribly realistic. It's different for resources, because you're not trying to create an exact map of the resources--you just want to know where they are, and where they aren't. For ISA, mapping precisely and completely is an art; that's the fun in it. By all means, it would be nice if we could get the maps greater resolution, but we shouldn't rip out the very feature that makes Mapsat special. If you can think of a way to keep satellites mapping while they're not focused on, I'm sure people would love to have it. But I don't think scaling back the very scanning feature makes sense. It's not like the maps aren't available elsewhere; what is there to the Mapsat mod, if not a cool way to make maps? I like that Mapsat has scan lines, can give you scanning artifacts in certain orbits and warps, and so on.

SAS and the RemoteTech killrot function are already independent in RemoteTech 2, which is being developed for 0.21. A good fix in the meantime, though.

Wouldn't a hexagonal grid be a big step backwards in terms of detail? I think the current implementation is essentially perfect, with actual scan beams that depend on your particular orbit, with a resolution adjustable in the settings so you can get a clear picture at your orbit or time warp (at the cost of increased in-game scanning time). You need to go into the Mapsat settings, and check "Auto-update hilo.dat", then delete your hilo.dat file. This will cause it to rebuild the file based on 0.21.1's terrain--the function is specifically designed to maintain compatibility after terrain updates.

Oh, that'll be it! Hadn't noticed the issue with regular decouplers...probably because those don't really need to fall away, just detach.

I feel you. I get the same thing, even when my username's used in the same sentence! But as for the thermometer comment, thermometers do show a different temperature based on altitude, which vaguely mimics the actual temperature changes with altitude on Earth (unlike commonly believed, it's not "higher = colder", but somewhat counter-intuitive). But reentry heat is not simulated.

"Less than 1%" is pretty much NASA's budget now. If we decided to make 1% the absolute minimum for NASA's budget, that would be a sizable improvement, compared to most years.

There's a reason they thoroughly train astronauts to accommodate high-G and whatnot. If you vomit in your spacesuit, you will drown in it...what a way to go.

They look great! I was kind of hoping from the thread name these would be rated for Mun launches, but I suppose I'll have to configure that part myself. Will definitely be making use of these, though. One issue--I'm confused about your manual. We should pitch down all the way to 10 degrees first, then back to 45, then vertical again? That can't be right.