*Aqua*

Try some university math and you'll want the simplicity of the secondary school math back. In university (at least in my country) you'll use almost no numbers anymore in math. It's all about mapping one kind of mathematical structure on to an other one while juggling with the properties of sets and fields. It makes you going crazy. You don't know abstract math. Have a look at that. I needed three tries to pass the exam in this. Not exactly. Math show all possibilities but in nature only some of them really exist. It's the task of applied sciences to identify them. For example math allow matter with negative mass (needed by the Alcubierre drive). In reality there is none (or rather we didn't find it yet).

Steam had major issues. But it seems they resolved them.

Scott Manley did that. Unfortunately I can't find the video.

Do you have a link? I don't know of this series. And what does he think now? I know about the string theory. According to this the big bang is just a collision of two strings and we are living on or in one of the strings. (I don't know how to put it into proper English.)

The background radiation is the leftover heat of the big bang under the assumption this 'explosion' really happened. The further the universe expanded after that the colder it gets. So if there was less energy involved in the explosion there would be less background radiation. You got the idea of the big bang and what happened after wrong.The universe came into existence 'after' the 'explosion'. I use quotation marks on these to words because they don't really describe what scientists think what happened. It is unknown if there really was some kind of explosion. 'After' is also the wrong word because the time dimension formed 'after' the big bang. There is no point in asking what happened 'before' because 'before' needs time and there wasn't any. It's a bit mind boggling. Multiple big bangs are unlikely. We would see the consequences of that (e. g. shock fronts, disturbed space and time). Edit >Hopefully better explanation: Space and time formed as effects of the big bang. They didn't existed at the event of the big bang. <

Prove it a LKO can be stable for at least 10 Kerbal years. No mechjeb allowed. They use computers in real life.

Lets say I have a small sat with a kethane scanner and want to map Kerbin's deposits. I put it in a 75x75 km orbit and timewarp as fast as the kethane plugin can keep up. With the rails system this works. With n-body-physics it won't work. After 10 mins (RL time) or so Mun's influence will change the orbit to a like 69x80 km orbit. Other example: I parked a Jool probe in Kerbin's orbit and timewarp to the transfer window (which can take up to a Kerbin year). Same result as above. The Kerbol system won't work with these physics. The celestials have way to much mass. And if you remove the mass the whole system will break apart. And how is a normal player supposed to handle that? This needs ultra precise control of a craft. Say goodbye to the nav ball. That thing isn't accurate enough. Is the craft too light or too heavy? Sorry you just missed the orbit because of that.No kraken is a fine thing. Lagrange points, sun-synchrounous orbits etc., too, I can't deny that. But the other stuff will make the game unplayable.

Let's look at the facts: - N-body-physics make orbits instable. - Some kind of autopilot is required to keep a stable orbit. I guess the autopilot needs electricity and/or fuel to work. If it hasn't that it will stop working. At this point the orbit will gradually decay shooting the craft into a planet or out of the system. Due to lack of fuel/electricity the craft can't do anything anymore. Usually the player will mark it as debris and forget about it. Summary: - With working autopilot you'll have orbits like those of the current system. - Without working autopilot you'll have chaotic orbits but you don't care. You'll discard the space ship anyway. So what's the point of having n-body-physics?

This will happen earlier. The Moon will escape Earth's grasp in about a billion years. The consequence is that the Earth's axial tilt will change. Not at once but gradually. Subsequently massive environmental disasters will occur like complete melting of a polar cap. And there's the Sun, too. It will gradually shine hotter and hotter torching the Earth. The Sun is atm ~20% hotter than when it was born. I don't know when it's too hot for life on Earth. Nevertheless in about 1-2 billion years the last live on Earth will die.

Did you take a look a these unstable orbits? How am I supposed to leave a craft in orbit, knowing it will do everything but not staying there? N-body-physics mean orbits will not last. They will resonate with celestials changing the paths up to a point where they will quickly end in a complete chaos. There is no way for a player to set up an orbit which will last an in-game year.

I think without access to the full source code of KSP modders won't be able to integrate their mod in the game the right way. Unfortunately there is no way Squad will let a modder look inside their code. Therefore there is a lot confusion among the modders how the game works. I made the same experience. It's quite hard to understand what happens where and when and you usually need hours, days and weeks to reverse engineer just a small part of the game mechanics. Conclusion: Mods will nearly always be inferior to what Squad can do. Question: Why would Squad review mod code when they know it has to be reprogrammed to integrate it into the game?

That bright spot in the center... is that the great attractor? And the formation in the upper left, is that the great wall?

Often it helps to have two front wheels. Have only one usually make my planes flipping over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever A standing human with a backpack is a lever from a physical view point. If you fill the backpack the center of mass will move a bit in its direction. To not falling over we lean a bit forward to shift the center back. But whatever you calculate remember that a 1 kg backpack will always apply ~10 N force on the human.

No, actually i meant this pyramid: I don't know how but the particles seem only to exist in a rectangular pyramid. Shouldn't it be a cone?

No matter what you do to terraform Mars it will always need tremendous amounts of work and effort. The website mentions this at the beginning. It says whatever you do you'll need the ability to send thousands of people to Mars each year and transportation systems like Sänger or HOTOL for them. There must be a space station with living rooms for these thousands of astronauts which also can act as a fuel station, storage and construction yard for whatever is needed. You didn't visit the site, did you?

There is a website of the German Space Society which analyses different methods to terraform our neighbor planets: http://www.drg-gss.org/typo3/html/index.php?id=74 (Click here for bad google translation) The methods discussed: Greenhouse effect by reducing albedo of the polar caps Reducing of the albedo (currently 80%) to 6% (as dark as cole) can be done by covering the poles with dust. The dust can come from the greats deserts or just by letting Phobos crash on the poles. Result: The poles would absorb 13 times more solar energy, in numbers: 10 TW. This is nothing compared to what the Mars already absorbs: 30 000 TW. Using bacterias to change the composition of the atmosphere It is proposed to bring genetically engineered bacterias to mars (a few hundred tons - that's feasible) which will convert the atmosphere to biomass. Result: There is not enough water. The grow of the biomass will stop at some point. Unfortunately this point is faraway from the point of really changing the atmopshere. Putting Greenhouse gases into the atmosphere The basic idea is to build factories on Mars which produce CFC (FCKW in German) which is released into the atmosphere. Result: At least 400 mio tons of CFC are needed. 1990 the factories on Earth produced 2 mio tons. It is still unknown if the gases really contributes to the Greenhouse effect in the scale we think of. Evaporating the south pole with a giant mirror in orbit The evaporation of this pole will add about 100 millibars to the atmosphere which makes a great difference. Why the south pole? There is water ice! We need a giant (250 km diameter) mirror made of aluminum to pull this of. The aluminum can be prospected from the Moon an brought to Mars. Result: It will take a lot of time (>100 000 years) and 200 000 tons of aluminum but it is possible! We can expect an about 5 degrees warmer Mars. A greater mirror will heat the Mars even faster and more. Nuclear mining (who tough of that name?) Detonating nuclear bombs underground will heat up the ground which itself releases CO2. Unfortunately we will need 2.8 mio megatons or 500 mio fusion bombs. I doubt there is enough uranium or plutonium in the vicinity to ignite that many fusion bombs. And how long do we need to dig 4 mio holes with a depth of 1000 meters? Impacts You can use comets, asteroids or small moons (like Hyperion or Enceladus) and let them strike the Mars. This will heat the planet a lot. The problems are the composition of these objects (they can consist toxic substances), needed amount (up to 300 000 asteroids) and their propulsion. It is also unknown what other effects can occur and in what magnitude, e.g. a large object can blast half of the atmosphere away. In my opinion we shouldn't try to teraform Mars. Instead we should dig far into (hundreds of kilometers) the deep and build a colony there. In this deep there will be a gravitation acceleration of 1 g, a breathable atmosphere can be created and people are shielded from dangerous interstellar radiation. I don't think people will ever walk on the surface for an extended time let alone live on it.

Most (or all?) engines in KSP are only usable in special circumstances. For example the Mainsail is good for early stages of a heavy rocket. The Skipper is the same but for higher stages. The Poodle is good for orbital maneuvers of such a rocket. This all works because different atmosphere thicknesses at different heights requires adapting. In space there is no atmosphere so the difference between more thrust/less ISP and less thrust more/ISP becomes the main deciding factor of what engine to use. If there's an engine which has a higher ISP and small drawback like the need for a nuclear reactor I would always choose the later engine over the LV-N. In fact your proposed engine is so good there is no reason to not use it. It only needs a high amount of electricity and a little bit of fuel. Maybe I can swap some fuel tanks for some solar panels. It makes the craft lighter while providing the energy need. The thrust is about half of that of a LV-N but I don't care. I just put two of your engines on my rocket. It's still more efficient. It's the ultimate engine for interplanetary flights. Your proposed engine would break the balance of all available engines.

It should has a thrust of 2.5 Newton and an ISP of 20.000 s. That's what RL ion engines can do. Squad boosted the thrust so nobody has to wait for months for completing maneuvers.

Do we really need another LV-N? The ion engine is already bosted in terms of thrust and nerved in terms of ISP. In it's current form it is the engine for tiny and small probes.

Why does it look like a pyramid?

Thank you for what you have done. It must have been quite tedious. I like the result. Kerbin hase a nice set of surface features. It would be great if there are a bit more deserts at the equator and jungles! Edit: @Pds314 Is there a way to make 5760x1200 (3* 1920x1200) wallpaper out of it? It obviously needs a rework of the colors as they are a bit bright.

The Scott Manley answer was funny. It's nice to know that Squad has a grasp about what people think.

Can you post a screenshot of the map view? Something must be wrong.

Are your and your targets orbit in the same plane? They have to or the plane change adds up an your relative speed.