Lukaszenko

This approach doesn't always work, especially when you encounter the truly dumb person: I once got the good ol' "there's no gravity in space" comment. I tried to correct her, but she immediately angered in response because "there's no gravity in space " This short exchange therefore automatically defaulted into an argument. Unfortunatley, she held onto this curious concept where "I never argue, unless I'm 100% sure that I'm correct." The result of this logical loop is, of course, that there's no gravity in space. Complex or mind boggling or whatever, that was a truly stupid space-related comment. Not because of the comment itself, but because of the person that presented it, and the way she approached the possibility of being wrong.

True, point taken. Seems then it shouldn't be so hard to implement reaction wheel saturation into KSP. Make the wheels overpowered, give them extreme performance, make the "bleed off momentum" function automatic, and do whatever else needs to be done to maintain playability, but at least make it be grounded in some sort of accepted theory.

So I understand that in real life, reaction wheels get saturated because of minute outside effects such as magnetic fields, photon pressure, and gravity gradients. Could we just say then that in KSP it's not that the reaction wheels violate conservation of momentum, but that simply these minute magnetic/photon/gravity effects are not modeled? Would nothing be violated then?

Getting captured with proper aerodynamics and heat is more difficult than current stock, but it's also more rewarding and nowhere near impossible, unless you're going really really fast. Just takes a bit more planning and maybe some spare fuel to slow you down (for when you ARE going really really fast ). Also keep in mind that in real life, an aerocapture maneuver has never been performed.

Acceleration in cars/ trains/ boats/ railguns/ planes* is NOT constant with power. Acceleration decreases the faster you go. The only time that acceleration is constant with constant power is with things like rockets that bring their reaction mass with them. This is a special case and it has to do with many things, among them the fact that kinetic energy depends on which frame of reference you use. With a car that pushes against the earth, it makes sense to reference the earth. A rocket pushes essentially against itself, so you can easily jump between frames of reference and come up with apparent paradoxes. Of course with a rocket you can resolve the paradoxes, but as you pointed out it nevertheless is still a problem with the emdrive since it doesn't seem like it pushes against anything.

I think I'd like the performance/ weight of parts to be capped at their sandbox values, but to start out at much lower, perhaps even uselessly so, values. Science would "grow" the parts to their nominal values.

Samoa and Tokelau skip a day for dateline change

Let's not forget this guy!

I test and I pay for all failures. This means that I will rarely test an entire huge rocket, but I will at least drop the lander form a height, for example, or test some aspect of the rocket I'm unsure of. This means I have to be more thoughtful and careful of my designs. When landing on another planet I have to rely on simple math and engineering choices to make sure it will work. They didn't hyperedit the Lunar Lander onto the moon before going for the full mission (although they probably can simulate it much better nowadays, but never 100%). When launching the full-sized rocket it will usually be the final attempt, but I have to be pretty confident it will work or else it will be a total loss. It's happened many times, so I always give the Kerbals an escape. I'll launch them separately if need be.

If they make it reliable enough then there might not be much of a need for contingency plans. Huge jets with probably more fuel fly over our heads all the time, and sometimes they do fall on our heads. However, it happens so rarely that little is done about it. Unfortunately, I imagine that a rocket will never be made as reliable as a passenger jet, or at least not in the near future.

I rename them as "debris" and just leave them up there. Feels like an exploit to just re-purpose them immediately. I might leave one as a probe if it has science equipment for "science around" contracts.

While true, I'm guessing most of things like impacting asteroids and comets comets, solar wind, tidal effects, friction, and even radiation pressure EACH would have a much larger effect than a slingshot spacecraft.

I sometimes put many movies on my device because you never really know what you're going to watch when, and you don't want to spend hours planning for it. In this case, the more the better. I do an analogous thing when I pack for a trip: I just kind of throw a little bit of all my clothes in the luggage so I don't have to think about it too much and something will always work. But 40 HD movies does sound like taking this too far. It's the equivalent of taking your whole wardrobe with you for a weekend trip. I agree it would be NICE to be able to do this, but in reality it's just not practical and necessary enough to warrant the expense. For most of us, at least.

Obviosuly there's that also, but realistically how many parts' malfunction would cause a catastrophic spacecraft failure? I'm willing to bet there's orders of magnitude more parts whose failure would, right now, at least give you some time to think about your imminent doom. Currently, EVERYTHING on a spacecraft has to have ridiculous reliability. If you can easily fix it and it's failure won't certainly kill you, that requirement is removed. Of course, you will always have parts whose failure will kill you. The solution is simple: continue to engineer those parts not to fail.

Reliability is important in space because if a part breaks, you're hundreds (millions?) of kilometers, tens-of-thousands of kilometers per hour, weeks/ months, millions/billions of dollars away from a replacement. If only there was a way to print a replacement part on the spot

There's only so much space in a cell phone. Some phones even opt to have NO micro-SD card slots, I imagine because it takes up a lot of room compared to built-in memory. You have to fit in the memory chip, the housing, the slot, who knows what else, and you have to shift everything else around to make it all fit. I'm guessing it's simply very low on the list of important things in a cell phone. What do people look for? Performance, battery life, thickness. It just doesn't seem like a full-sized hard-drive's memory at the expense of everything else would sell.

I guess, but since the fairings are attached to the payload then in effect the payload gets strutted. Here's an example of what kind of payloads this lets you do launch:

Flip a fairing base upside down and place it on top as shown, and make sure "auto struts" are on. This will secure your payload.

I did describe the problem starting in post 2824. Perhaps you didn't see it, or perhaps I didn't give enough info. Anyway, it *might* have been resolved by me simply re-making an identical rocket, but I'm still testing. I'll let you know if I find anything. Either way, no complaints. Even if it's unfixable and makes the game unplayable for me, I already squeezed more enjoyment out of the game and your mod than I could ask for! Edit: Oh, and yes...I just realized that I've been playing the beta version.

I've been having some problems with the new iteration of this mod and I agree...I couldn't play the game. I was messing around trying to isolate the problem, but I just couldn't play the game without Deadly Reentry. This possibility simply wasn't (and still isn't) in the cards.

I re-tested it with a ship not exceeding 1.7 g. Still blew up at like 1500 degrees. The parachute on the front of the same pod was around 350 degrees. It survived and kept flying along with the rocket, even though the pod it was originally attached to was no longer there. I rebuilt a similar ship, and it didn't blow up. I'm guessing there's bug on this particular ship

Since installing the last release, I can't fly my rocket with an MK1 command pod because it keeps burning up on takeoff. The temperatures climb really fast, to >1500 degrees at around 800 m/s, 25000 m, and it blows up, before even the probe core or the parachute that are in front of it. This was on the normal setting but it blows up on the easy, too. Is this right? It doesn't seem so... A poor Kerbal had to die the first time this happened, but I forgot his name.

I do in the Jool system, to return back to Kerbin. Can make a huge difference. I also used it when sending scanning satellites to Jool. I only sent a couple of them and used gravity assists to send them to and scan all the moons. Also I've used EVE to get to/ from Moho.

I did an EVE return mission without hyperedit, as I felt it was a more rewarding experience. I had to pay more attention to designing it correctly the first (and 2nd and 3rd.... ) time because the cost of failure was that much higher. It felt more realistic, too. After all, when we send probes to other planets we don't hyperedit them there, we build them to the conditions they must survive in, but we design and test them on earth (as much as possible). I'm now planning on doing another EVE return mission in "ironman" mode, where each test failure also costs me (lots of) funds, although on the other hand it seems easier since version .23.5's larger parts.

But some people DO need hard mode, and I'm not ashamed to admit I'm one of them. That's the whole point of video games for lots of us: to present us with an alternate reality through which we have to navigate. Sure we can fill in gaps in sound/ realism/ graphics/ control/ bugs/ whatever is important to us with our imagination and mode of play, but the more "gaps" that we have to fill in the less immersive and fun it is. After all, you can always fill in more and more gaps until you can just close your eyes and create your own video game in your head. That said, I still play with quick save but only rarely use it when it was an obvious bug. I WOULD feel that I took a shortcut by reverting due to an obvious error on my part, no matter how mundane. The problem is that this requires strict personal rules, the adherence to which can detract from enjoyment especially when you're in a "gray area" of what should count as a bug/ programming error and what should not. My point is, I agree that quick-saving can easily defeat the purpose of hard mode.