minimuffin

furnace of doom

Granted, but you find that someone else found it out first! (I think I may have, actually!) I wish I had 5 billion dollars to fund space exploration! (And some for me, too)

Banned for having a unusually cropped avatar

9/10 See you all the time!

True! The user below me has a cat.

Night, sleep? Assumptions!

Fire? It could also be oil, I think.

Yes, it would. By the way, you encouraged me to do this now. It is a a great idea! Don't worry though, I am not going to record and post it. I managed to land on the SPH and VAB with a lander, but never a plane! Maybe you should do more "Stunt" videos. Like landing on each building, intact, or flying past a Mun Arch at orbital velocities! You could even ride rovers down the mountains east of KSC! [Excitement End]

The Mün is awesome! Canyons, craters, hole on the pole, anomalies! Also, it is the only moon I have ever landed on other then Gilly. Ike would be a close runner up, and I might of chose it if I landed there. It is tidally locked to Duna, and is almost impossible not to get a encounter. Vall would also be close, with amazing views of Jool and the other moons. It is also beautiful. Then Laythe, simply because of the view and the ability to use jets.

6/10 I do not really understand your avatar

I was mislead by the thread title. I thought you were landing intact on all the buildings. Otherwise, the video was great! I agree with Deep Space Kraken. EDIT: Oh good, you changed the thread title. You should try landing on all of them anyway!

That was not bad pinkie, but I think you could have had a better thread name. I thought you were landing the plane intact on all of the buildings. Either way, it is pretty nice, and I am going to try that myself when I have the chance.

I did not launch, sadly, but might be a nice thanksgiving present.

NASA is in a state of almost stagnation they do not have enough funding. They are getting back on their feet, but has been largely inactive, launching sats and unmanned probes at best. I would first make some missions to show how the government should fund the program more, and set up a way for citizens to donate. (Aside from taxes) Then, I would consolidate the funds into a pool for missions to "prove" how space is valuable. I would start launching revolutionary unmanned flights, gaining funds and plan for the future. The very first missions I would do would be to send a probe to pretty much everything, to have lots of chances to say "Bam! Landed a probe on Europa! How about that funding now?" In 5 to 10 years I would start focusing on a moon base, and by 15 years have landed a man on mars. By 20 years, a mars base should be in planning and development while I see about sending people to even more planets and moons. The rest is history. This would lead to massive colonizing endeavors. I would also try to collaborate with all the private space agencies and encourage them to all start towards space, causing a new "Space Boom" where everybody is obsessed with space.

I think it is a very neat feature. I however, think it would be more of a novelty. We will have to wait till it actually comes to decide! I also have never used one so... I could not really tell you. I am excited about it though.

[DISCLAIMER] The following is my opinion based on what I know and common sense. I might be beyond wrong, or I might be perfectly right. [END DISCLAIMER] I am no scientist, but based on common sense it seems to me that a bunch of smaller pieces would be less damaging. Assuming the pieces are quite closely packed, and they all equal the mass of one big impact, the multiple ones would be better. Reasons are: Small ones would burn up faster then big ones; It is not concentrated as much, meaning that the force would be spread out a small amount; Also, if the pieces all scattered, then that would probably be safest, as the force is spread out. People might find asteroid pieces in their cars, but overall it is safest. (In my opinion)

Around 520 hrs, on steam, although I share my copy with a friend, so that is not entirely accurate of my play time.

I voted bug, as I am confident that is their origins, but I also think the developers had a hand in it. I think the holes were generated by a bug, then I think the developers found it as they were first testing and developing the planet, liked it and named/renamed it to Moho. Why did they name it Moho? Read this article: MohoroviÄÂić discontinuity Coincidence? I think not! TL;DR I think Devs found the Moholes caused by the game, liked it,changed the name of the planet, and has nurtured it since.

Wow, that is hair-raising.

I like low orbit probes. They are very exciting, and best done on fairly flat planets. The first one I made was called the "Eviel Knievel" and literally got so close that the fuel tank broke off while leaving the probe unscathed. It got really close to a mun arch too. I was trying to fly through it, actually. Obviously, this orbit was not safe and would require upkeep during flight to avoid mountains. Also, this was done before the Mun changed to have the new interesting terrain.

I chose disagree, despite the fact that my probes do not typically return. I voted disagree because I test manned missions beforehand using probes and if that means returning, simply to see if I can, I will.

Oh my help me! That is crazy looking.

Thanks for telling me! Now I think I might actually learn before I am a hobbling old man! (If there are any "Old men" here, please do not be offended)

Thank you! I also saw that video just now, and boy is it nice!

Yes! This typically happens when I have so much SRB thrust that I can literally cut my engines and still accelerate very fast. Also, it has stopped happening almost completely as I now know better and I installed Deadly Re-Entry, witch I think changes the situation in witch you will flame up a bit. Also I have Kerbal Engineer telling me my atmospheric efficiency. It is fun to roast Jeb sometimes though....