cantab

In Career Mode leaving a satellite in orbit round a planet or moon makes it easy to do contracts for "Science from space around". In Science Mode that does not apply, so putting a probe in orbit is often no better than flying one past. Once you have the "Gravioli" experiment that is good to put in orbit.

The icon shows a fairing base with a fairing attached, looking somewhat like a bullet for the narrowest ones. They are some way up in the tech tree.

With that ship design, its function, and the ambition of your plans? It can only be the Moon-a-tick! Or some variant spelling thereof.

This seems strange. I was under the impression that the main aspect of 1.1 was to be Unity 5 with all its attendant improvements and potential problems.Unity 5 as a revision before 1.1, ie a "1.0.5", seems like a very bad idea because it's almost certain to break loads of mods, quite probably requiring mod devs to do more than a simple recompile to get them working again, and Squad don't make previous revisions available. Imagine if the available KSP versions were the archaic 0.90 and the brand-new devoid of mods 1.1.5, with 1.1.4 no longer available for download! And I truly doubt there's anything else critical that would stop Squad simply calling it 1.1 and kicking whatever other stuff there is to either a 1.1.x revision if it's minor or a 1.2 release if it's more significant. Unity 5 after 1.1 could make more sense. It would be an unexpected development, implying that U5 has given Squad enough trouble that they instead opted to spend their time improving the game on the older Unity version, potentially including bugfixes to code that U5 will render redundant.

I've had that happen when adding or changing planets before too. I don't know if there's any solution other than to move the objects back to their correct location with Hyperedit or savefile editing.

After my earlier rant, decided to go for the simple life and break out the KSP demo, and successfully landed Jeb on the Mun despite the only liquid-fuelled engine available being the Reliant. True, Jeb was not in the spacecraft when he touched down, but details schmetails

One word: Jeb.

I've not looked at the details, but considering you have Mun, Aptur, and Serran with biomes plus Sonnah without I'm not sure there's that much of a science shortage. I'm playing with the stock tech tree, 60% science gains, but DMagic Orbital Science parts present. Once I had jets and wheels I did do a bit of science grinding around the KSC and I have needed to choose my tech nodes well, but so far progression was fine, and that's with being cautious with Kerbals because I'm playing without reverts. Plus I'd say none of what you list is needed for a Kerballed landing. Provided you have stack and radial decouplers, struts, and ideally decent-sized fuel tanks you should be good to go. Remember the advantage of science mode is no worries about mass or part count. But if you do want more science points then to me the obvious thing is to chuck probes at the other planets.

If you do the ballistic plot you will often see a "ridge" cutting through your transfer windows. These appear because if your transfer involves making half an orbit round the Sun - which is the most efficient transfer - then you cannot practically shift your position at arrival north or south, you need to make a mid-course correction to do that.

Nearly reached the end of my patience. It's been about a week since I last truly played this game. That time I was hammered by bugs and bad framerate. Since then I've been doing seemingly interminable fps tests, and again just encountering a string of bugs and inconsistent results. Half my work was virtual junk because Squad thought that 1.0.x should behave differently depending on the current directory when you run the game. Most recently the stupid GC collection stutter showed itself again. I'm all but done with this rubbish. It's the one thing I hate about PC gaming, period, and I'm just about ready to sling this thing against the wall and pull out the 3DS instead. /rant Now I'm going to watch some Bargain Hunt.

Going from its forum thread at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/54954 DRE isn't replacing the stock heating model any more. Therefore I very much doubt it's going to help.

Has anyone thought of making a mod to just completely turn off the heating system? As far as I'm concerned it's fatally flawed, I've had enough of parts exploding when a ship is in deep space doing nothing. There's the heatproofing cheat but that still has the useless code wasting my CPU power and the glowing parts spoil my screenshots.

Difficulty is not measured by delta-V alone. Minmus's inclination is what makes it a little harder to get there.

Minmus has a useful role where it is, being an easier place to land on than the Mun but a little harder to get there to compensate. To relocate it in your own install you can write a custom Kopernicus configuration.

I think it's rather that people want a barn.Timber makes sense for the main building, you don't see too many metal barns at least not where I've been. I think the hard thing to get right with tier 0 - and for that matter all the tiers - is the other facilities. VAB is easy, it's the biggest thing at the space centre. Launchpad and runway are trivial. SPH is pretty easy, just make something that looks like an aircraft hangar. Tracking station isn't too hard, though I might complement the telescope with a tall mast carrying some radio antennae, along the lines of a typical ham radio setup like http://www.ko4bb.com/ham_radio/Pumkin_Tower-2.jpg But distinguishing R&D, Mission Control, the Astronaut complex, and the Admin Building, that's where the designers need to do their work. Some very rough ideas from myself: Mission Control - The only "fortified" building, clearly protected from explosions so controllers could be there during launches. R&D - I think the best thing would be some sort of obvious testing equipment outside. Not sure what, a rocket sled track might do the trick. And perhaps it would be better if R&D had the telescope (the higher levels do) and the tracking station was just a few radio masts? Astronaut Complex - If this were the *only* facility using caravans, instead of them being all over the place, it might stand out more as the place people live. And maybe have a ping-pong table outside. Do Kerbals play ping pong? Admin Building - I'm kinda stumped.

Compared to the preview pics we were shown of the barn and other early game stuff, the tier 1 and 2 we got is decently - not brilliantly, but decently - modelled and textured.

Depends on country. Britain has completely done away with analogue TV broadcasts, rendering the ability to receive them irrelevant to anybody who doesn't want to use a really old games console, VCR, or suchlike. And consider that some models of the NES and all SNESes supported composite video which is something you are likely to want and get on a modern TV, so you're looking at NES era or even earlier to find equipment that demands the ability to receive an analogue TV broadcast type of signal here. To our OP, consider finding a NES that supports composite video output and getting hold of the relevant cables. I think the original North American NES does but the updated top-loading one doesn't.

Oh joy, arguments over how planes fly. Saying that a plane can fly with "Zero Angle of Attack" is one part misleading and one part vacuous, because it depends entirely on how you define 0 degrees angle of attack. The bottom surface of the wing is not very helpful though I feel. More common is the chord line - the line joining the leading and trailing edges. In the above diagram you can see that the chord line is not horizontal. Sometimes 0 degrees angle of attack is instead defined as the angle the wing generates zero lift at! For a symmetric airfoil those two definitions are the same (as should be obvious), for an asymmetric one they may not be. Additionally the airflow aft of the wing depicted in the above diagram is incorrect. Aft of a real wing far from the ground the airflow is deflected downwards. It's an effect not always seen in wind tunnels due to differences between that environment and real flight but it's crucial to the real physics. In any case a wide range of airfoil shapes are used, from the "classic" shape seen above, to symmetric airfoils, to designs that are concave on the lower surface. I believe FAR assumes a shape like the "supersonic interceptor", but you could check with Ferram. Such a shape stands out as it's symmetric both top-bottom and front-back, freeing the player of concerns about orientation especially with wing parts that look like they have exactly that symmetry. Similar symmetry considerations would apply in newstock and even if the actual wing performance differs you will still get zero lift at zero angle of attack with respect to the chord line.

The thing is real nebulae are huge, and the gas is so diffuse you could be in the middle of one and you wouldn't even notice.

I've seen terrain glitching occur in stock if you fly a ship very far from the Sun then go back to the Space Centre. Makes me wonder if it isn't some glitch in the way the world origin is handled and that's causing floating point errors.

They need a wardrobe. Gotta get changed into those morale-boosting red shirts.

Rather seems like it's been dropped to me. Now we've got something that's decently modelled but looks like a freaking 1960s comprehensive school.

Hold a cube so that one vertex is nearest to you and the opposite vertex is behind it and it will look like a hexagon, but it's still the same cube. That's what I take the third and fourth lines as referring to. Taking all three dimensions into account, from that viewpoint the cube has three-fold rotational symmetry, and in crystallography cubic symmetry is defined by having four three-fold axes of rotation (corresponding to the four diagonals of a cube). I've spent enough time fooling around with molecular models of crystal structures that I readily recognised the riddle as possibly referring to a cube.

If it was a single photon its frequency would remain unchanged and it would stay a single photon. I know that because I know from experience mirrors don't red- or blueshift the light they reflect. However even if you could ensure the sphere wouldn't absorb the photon, there is always a chance of the photon quantum tunnelling through the sphere and escaping. Perfect, indefinite containment would seem to be impossible.

Wings act like wings in stock and FAR aerodynamics. Both can handle putting pieces next to each other to make bigger wings, but if you try and make your own airfoil shape from the wing pieces that isn't going to work. Basically despite the appearances you can regard the wings as already being airfoils.