cantab

Whoops, I got my stellar classes mixed up, F is brighter than G not fainter. But what's a couple of orders of magnitude between friends.

Microscope? Eyepiece?

Lower! 54

47 again

Chipping away to 47

Keep taking one at a time 48

I do subtract a one from your fifty-one making the result fifty.

I could say the same. 50

Two steps backwards, one step ahead for team minus. 50

Take it away, 49 (ers)!

You may pine for success, but the pluses shall not win. Hopefully. 47

It's not in the bag yet for you overpositive lot. 46

Reaching a specific inclined orbit - as opposed to merely a specific inclination - around a planet is indeed tricky. I would start with a correction to make your Jool periapsis touch the target orbit, or as close to that as you can get. From there you could either a) Combine your capture and plane change into a single burn at your AN/DN relative to the target orbit. You benefit from Pythagoras - the total burn is less than the sum of the prograde and normal components, and indeed probably won't be much more than the cost of a plain capture. Make an initial capture into an elliptical orbit with an apoapsis high over Jool. Make your plane change when high over Jool. Then lower your orbit to match the target. You benefit because plane changes take less delta-V when you're going slower and you're going slower when you're higher up.

My prediction has been 20-50% boost. I've read that the new PhysX brings a 20% improvement for joint performance. As for what that translates to, well I'll take the upper end. If you currently get 20 fps with a 200 part ship, that means you will get 30 fps with a 200 part ship. However it doesn't mean you'll get 20 fps with a 300 part ship, because frametimes in KSP scale more than linearly with part count. It might be quadratic, cubic, or some other power, it might even be exponential. The end result is that even a good boost in game performance by normal standards won't actually increase the tolerable part count that much.

All just roughly guesstimating. Fermi Estimation. Well it's blocking 25% of the disc, and that's about 25% of the full sphere, and I'll guess the star is 10% as luminous as the Sun (EDIT: That luminosity is incorrect). All told, about 0.001 solar luminosities. Considering the efficiencies in any conversion process, probably 0.0001 solar luminosities goes to antimatter, a leading fuel for an interplanetary spaceship. So about 3 x 10^24 Watts. In a year, about 10^32 Joules of energy. How much is that? Well here we go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28power%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29 We're looking at a civilization that could feasibly push planets around in its star system, or blow them to smithereens like the Death Star, though both would be major undertakings. Of course we kind of know that already because to build such a megastructure in the first place demands you take planets to pieces. That said, that the energy a Dyson Sphere can produce is comparable to the energy it takes to build tells us something - it tells us that a small Dyson structure can support its own expansion over sensible timescales. But what about spaceships? Well to get something up to most of the speed of light takes energy equal to its own mass energy. So this civilization could each year be sending off an interstellar ship of about 10^15 kg. That assumes a beamed power system to circumvent the rocket equation, it would be less if all the fuel had to be carried. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28mass%29 We're definitely talking building masses, shading into small asteroid masses here. They could probably send a Rama to another star if they wanted.

Regarding the EU, yes it's 'canon', but it was also always clear that the movies trump the EU stuff. This is just a particularly big case of that. And the EU was full of silly stuff *cough* Sun Crusher *cough*, maybe it's best if that can be evicted from canon.

Down to 43

But what if the number represents the troubles of the world. Would adding to it be so positive then? I'll stick with subtracting. 30

ping pong return to 30

Kopernicus makes it simple to change the surface gravity. As far as gameplay goes, the obvious difference is that rockets will need less thrust and planes need less wing.

Seems like some good ideas. Considering it's one resource for one engine, I think even more parts supporting that one engine is a bit much, and the best option seems like using the existing air intakes and 1.25m ISRU unit.

Returning to 30

And down to 30

Couln't put humpty dumpty together again. Down to 24

All the minuses 24