cantab

Laser vs kinetic for range is an interesting question. Lasers travel at the speed of light making them much more difficult to evade, but they spread out as they travel eventually becoming too diffuse to do damage. Projectiles stay together and so could inflict damage on a target unable to change its path (which notably includes planets and moons) at much greater distances but a manoeuvrable spacecraft can see them coming and take evasive or defensive action. It's plausible then that against a small target a laser is better, while against a large one a kinetic is better. But it's also plausible that one pretty much dominates and the other is hardly used. If you're interested in lasers, particle cannons, railguns, and the like then the book on the subject is Effects of Directed Energy Weapons by Philip E Nielsen, available as a PDF online. Written in the 90s for the US Air Force, it runs to nearly 400 pages and is incredibly comprehensive. Want to know why a laser weapon might need a large 'barrel', why a neutral particle beam performs better in space but a charged particle beam performs better in air, or how much damage an unladen swallow could do to a spy satellite? EDEW has it. OK I'm exaggerating slightly on the swallow thing

Saturn V. It actually flew, the SLS remains an ongoing project. It had a compelling payload, possibly the most compelling spacecraft in all of history, Apollo. SLS has nothing really. Re-enacting Apollo 8? Fun, but hardly groundbreaking. Visiting a small asteroid that's been dragged into lunar orbit? Kind of neat, but wouldn't it be better to put the rock in LEO? Anything else for SLS is somewhat hypothetical. I can't say why America won't go to Mars (because Squad sez NO POLITICS GUIS!). Hubble 2 or ISS2 would both be great candidates for SLS launches benefiting from its wide payload fairing but there's basically no work on those ideas. The Saturn V was pretty much the rocket it was meant to be. It helped that it had a clearly defined goal of course. The SLS Block I by contrast is a half-baked version. NASA are working on flying it with Shuttle SRBs and an upper stage nicked off the Delta IV, while all along they want different boosters and upper stage for the "real" SLS. And NASA tried the same route with the Shuttle and the intended configuration never flew, it got stuck with the solid boosters forever. As for Falcon Heavy, it's in the same class as SLS Block 1 and I expect it to fly. If R&D was directed into making lightweight spacecraft I think it could run a Moon mission and it certainly could if orbital assembly was used.

It will depend heavily on the technology around, but I think there are a few general conclusions: Don't expect guns to fire in the direction the engines thrust. After all the direction you're going and the direction you're thrusting can be two different things. Small weapons will probably be turreted, large ones may have their positioning dictated by the structures of the weapon and the ship. Don't expect spaceships to be laid out like ocean liners, with decks parallel to the engine thrust. That should obviously be daft but it's so, so common in sci-fi. Much more plausible I feel is for spaceships to be laid out like buildings, with the engines at the bottom and the decks perpendicular to the thrust so that when the engines are firing the people inside feel a downwards gravity. For that matter, don't expect space warfare to be anything like naval warfare - again, something that's so so common in sci-fi. Expect it to be a bit like air warfare, but really it will be its own thing. Naval-derived terms might stick around, influenced as much by science-fiction itself as anything. Perhaps don't expect any people on military spaceships at all. We squishy meatbags held back the performance of the Saturn V in 1960. Drone spaceships will be able to accelerate harder than crewed ones, they can be lighter and more compact with no need for life support or large interior spaces, and they'll allow fewer human deaths in pitched battles. Expect sophisticated point defense systems and possibly armour. Don't expect "shields", a sci-fi trope with little basis in reality. Don't expect spaceships to always go kaboom when disabled. Nuclear missiles don't explode unless properly detonated, nuclear reactors don't explode either. If antimatter isn't in use a damaged spaceship might catch fire or suffer relatively small explosions from chemicals on board but it's not going to go up like a giant bomb unless there's a self-destruct that someone hits.

Sounds like it was already a bit late to make changes then

A few things to bear in mind: It depends on aerodynamics. A rocket with poor aerdynamics, for example because you're launching an oversized payload, will require more delta-V. Less obviously a smaller rocket will require more delta-V because drag mainly relates to areas not volumes. If you measure by vacuum delta-V then you're influenced by how the engine's Isp falls off in atmosphere. A Reliant will show less vacuum delta-V than a Swivel with the same fuel, but actually give more delta-V at sea level. When designing I use sea-level dV and TWR for the first stage and vacuum for all the rest. I think MechJeb might be able to record actual delta-V during the flight. Minimum delta-V to orbit is irrelevant anyway, except as a challenge for the sake of it. Payload fraction is also irrelevant, but correlates better to things that matter. Things that are relevant include cost per kilo of payload in career mode (and in Real Life), parts per kilo for lag reduction, fuel per kilo for reusable launchers on Kerbin or elsewhere, and even mass to orbit in a given diameter stack for common booster core designs.

I believe it was meant to let you reroot a set of ghosted out parts, for example that you just pulled off your rocket or another craft you merged in. But that doesn't work.

The slower you're moving the less delta-v a plane change needs. The higher you are the slower you're moving. And keep in mind a 170 degree inclination means orbiting retrograde. It's most fuel-efficient to launch into the inclination you want, which you do by waiting until KSC is underneath the target orbit then pitching over in the right direction during your ascent. If you did a common launch to a 0 degree inclination then in your case you will need to pretty much stop dead and start going the other way. Even 5 thousand km up that's going to need a decent chunk of delta-V.

An Intel build will run KSP significantly better. The Pentium G3258 is about the same money and can be overclocked for great single-threaded performance but may struggle with other games that expect a processor with four threads. The Core i3 4170 has hyperthreading which helps with games that use it and will still be a good processor for KSP but it is a fair chunk more expensive than the Athlon or the Pentium. Also that power supply sounds really dubious.

You can upload them anywhere you like, but http://kerbalx.com/ is dedicated to KSP craft

Try a design along the lines of the Delta IV Heavy, it's a good way to launch a heavy payload without an excessively tall rocket. I recently put a 40-ton station in Mun orbit using a rocket like that, with the core and boosters each having three Skippers since I hadn't unlocked Mainsails, and an upper stage with a Poodle. The other thing to know is that SAS responds to the movement of the controlling part. You can click any command pod, probe core, or docking port and choose "control from here" and that not only sets the navball orientation but also where SAS responds from. For a tall rocket it's helpful to place a probe core somewhere nice and stable close to the engines, for example on the core stage of a Delta IV Heavy style design, and control from it. That way if the payload at the top starts to wobble a bit while the bulk of the rocket is flying straight the SAS won't make the wobble worse.

An excellent demonstration of why ferram doesn't support Windows 64-bit versions of KSP, and indeed why Squad stopped supporting it or even releasing it with 1.0.

You've got(ksp folder)/GameData/GameData/FerramAerospaceResearch and you *should* have (ksp folder)/GameData/FerramAerospaceResearch

I got a science station around the Mun. Jeb, the scientists, and a lander are there already, but it needs more solar power to do the research. And I only have OX-STATS. Can you say "Part Count"? And it suddenly occurs to me that if I'd run the first Mun landing anyway I could have unlocked the extending ones. Oh well.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. Four Reliants or Swivels do not compare to one Mainsail in terms of thrust. To match a single Mainsail would require 7 Reliants or 8 Swivels. Three Reliants or Swivels compared to one Skipper is a fair comparison on the other hand. The Skipper offers clearly superior performance for virtually all applications*, as it should be in my view since the player should not be penalised for keeping part count down. Unfortunately the clusters are cheaper which may encourage the career mode player to opt for them and the attendant extra lag, not a good thing. * Ascents from planets with thicker air than Kerbin, ie Eve and Jool in stock, are the exception where the Reliant does better

A little detail I noticed. To convert results into data only required any single Kerbal in the lab, at least in Science Mode. So pilots or engineers can if desired get the lab filled up with data ready for a later arrival of scientists. It's a bit situational but that could be useful in installs with life support.

It's a routine problem when adding, removing, or sometimes updating planet packs and it's fairly easy to edit the save to fix it. 1) Note down where everything is before you change your planets. Screenshots of the tracking station work well. 2) Change your planets, and start the game up, but don't open your savefile yet. 3) Check the file Logs/Kopernicus.log. In there are all the flightglobalsindex values for the planets and moons. 4) Go through your savefile searching for lines that say "REF = (some number)". There will be one for each vessel in the ORBIT section. Change the number to be the flightglobalsindex for the correct planet or moon that vessel should be at.

KSP has always had oddities in its fuel flow. Here's the new secret of the jets - they draw evenly from all tanks in what KSP thinks is the lowest stage, the first one to be dropped. That is generally a sensible thing to do, but as you found it can give unexpected results. Consider fiddling with your staging.

Could be worse, you could do it on solar-electric. Fair point. I guess I got lucky with my contracts.In terms of how much imaginary money and science you get for the time you spend playing, planes don't tend to fare well. But that's not what the game should be about. It should be about enjoying yourself, and I personally like flying planes in KSP.

The key advantage of planes is that you don't. If you miss your landing site you can simply taxi round.

How on Kerbin do you know it's that one?

UK. 5char.

I have a bad record with DIY projects so making my own case is out. Pricing is rather vague at the moment, and I wouldn't really know where to start with ordering custom stuff. Riser cards - eh, if they work OK I'm not opposed to a case that uses one. A quick search on http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php puts it pretty much the same as the regular HD 4600, so others can probably advise. I've played KSP on theoretically worse myself.

I think that only takes low-profile expansion cards unfortunately. That would limit my graphics card choice too much. And a good point that dust filters can be bought separately and fitted. I've heard arranging positive pressure by having more intake airflow than exhaust airflow helps with the dust by ensuring air goes out, not in, any small gaps. For what it's worth this is my current case: http://www.coolermaster.com/case/mini-tower/elite-360/ I'm realising now how compact it is - space for a full ATX board in a case just 14 inches tall and 6 inches wide. It strikes me that the same concept sized for Micro ATX would make a really compact system. Maybe I should just do my new build in it. EDIT: Actually, some of the newer Cooler Master cases might fit the bill.

So I'm looking for case suggestions for my upcoming Micro-ATX build. What I want, most important first: Compact. It's going on the desk so footprint matters. A tower shouldn't be much wider than the DVD drive bay in my opinion, which counts out a lot of the fancier cases, and I don't want something stupidly tall either. I do need space for a full-height graphics card though. I'll consider desktop cases but am leaning towards towers. Not loud. Good component choice will keep the noise down without extra soundproofing, but I want to avoid any cases with particular noise problems. And by implication avoid cases with airflow problems that would make the fans work too hard and make a racket. Dustproof. My current PC seems to attract the dust badly. No mesh fronts. I really don't like that look. Distinctive without being over-the-top. I don't like flashy lights or gratuitous angles everywhere. I do like colours other than black. I'm indifferent to side windows. (That said if a case is ticks all my other wants I'll consider it even if it is a plain black box.) Cases I've considered so far: Bitfenix Prodigy M - rejected. Too bulky. Bitfenix Aegis - I love the styling on this, but then I checked the dimensions and it's larger than I'd like. Corsair Obsidian 350D - this is OK if a bit boring styling wise, but again I still feel it's on the large side Antec VSK 3000 B - I give this as an example of a generic cheap case. The dimensions - 173 x 365 x 393 mm, or just under 7 inches wide and about 14 inches tall - are the kind of dimensions I want. Compare that to the Aegis or the 350 D which are both over 8 inches wide and about 18 tall. But I don't hugely want to buy a cheap, low-quality case.

Not with Kopernicus, the limitation is that KSP loads everything at once. A few dozen planets is possible. Maybe even a couple of hundred with 64-bit KSP. But not a galaxy on the scale of Space Engine or Elite Dangerous without another mod to dynamically load and unload the stars and planets.