cantab

No, but...The "but" is that just as you wouldn't your first rocket to make orbit or even space, so you shouldn't expect your first planes to do that either. I recommend being reasonably good at atmospheric aircraft before worrying about the space bit. In science or career mode planes can be a bit tricky. But you can make a rocket plane or a rocket-launched glider as soon as you unlock winglets; launch vertically and land with chutes. The range may be short but such a craft can be useful for completing visual survey contracts.

The stability derivatives page in the FAR analysis lets you put in a height and a Mach number, and one of the readouts is angle of attack. That's what you need for level flight, and if it says 0 that's code for the plane CAN'T fly level at that speed and altitude.

Military rations? (AKA Meal, Ready to Eat).

It's probably just taking whatever name is a closest match

Looks like a decent gaming laptop. It's not an OMGBeastPowerhouse but I expect it will handle most games quite well. In games like KSP that aren't heavily multithreaded, you might want to check that the processor is hitting a high Turbo, the max is 3.4 GHz. True on desktops, but plain not true on laptops. Laptop i5's are hyperthreaded dual-cores, so they're like desktop i3's.

If the batteries are connected in series this can certainly happen. I think it's more an issue over multiple charge/discharge cycles, eventually one of the cells is bound to go negative. That's one reason why when I wanted an extra battery pack for my ham radio I just used a multiple battery holder with spring terminals, and charged the cells individually each time. (The other reason being that soldering to ordinary batteries is a right pain.)

Find that file and change the security settings so your user account has full control over it. Alternatively run the program as administrator.

Well, either guess right, or have one ready for when the thread is open after a correct guesser doesn't want to post their own.

Seconding the electric propellers. Though they would then also want another addition - larger static solar panels.

Did you accept the contract? The Tracking Station shows orbits and sites for available and accepted contracts but the map view only shows them for accepted ones.

I had to not use a new mouse because KSP was treating one of its extra buttons as the same as one of my joypad buttons, and that was the button used for stage. One false move or slip with that mouse and it would have been curtains.

From what I've seen, they're good for making things that spontaneously break up. The joints seem to be like tissue paper.

I've opined before that jets in space are a reasonable test. Sure, *you* know they won't work, but the Kerbals don't know that! Also, another way to headcanon it, and many of the other strange tests, is that you aren't testing whether they work in space so much as testing whether the environment of space has done any damage. Sure you aren't going to use landing gear on a Kerbin escape trajectory, but you might use them on a spaceplane that's flying from Kerbin to Laythe and you don't want them breaking on the journey.

Hydrogen, fusing in the core of the Sun? Or darkness? Since without it you can't distinguish light, or something.

I wondered if the first line was referring to natural musical sounds. And the penultimate I took to be a reference to musical modes, a type of scale. Anyway, I'm lacking ideas myself, so I'll open the floor.

More Vernors are required. For translation three 4-way RCS thrusters suffice (though four is preferable), vs six Vernors. For rotation and translation six 4-way RCS thrusters suffices (8 preferable), whereas I think you need twelve Vernors. Vernors deliver more thrust. When it comes to making the kind of fine movements you want RCS thrust for, too much thrust can be a bad thing. Vernors use liquid fuel and oxidizer, which means you need to worry about fuel flow for them. For example suppose your ship has a command module without fuel and a service module with the fuel, separated by a decoupler; Vernors won't work on the command module without additional workarounds. RCS thrusters use monopropellant so you can add them anywhere.

NavHUD shows the location marker. Keep in mind that it shows the direction not the position, which makes a difference if you zoom out a lot.

Is it music?

Unlike most aeroplanes rockets are lifted by their engines, so the impact of an engine failure is much greater. Also consider that the Space Shuttle had rubbish aerodynamics when empty; with the ET and Boosters attached I expect the control surfaces on the orbiter would be basically useless. Then there's the Shuttle spending much of its ascent so high that aerodynamic control would be completely irrelevant - I believe most of the manoeuvres required for the RTLS abort scenario would have taken place at such heights.

That's emphatically not starting parts though. Doing these sort of missions in what's now Science Mode is well-established of course. Doing one in true career, on the other hand...I'm not sure how far you could get. SRBs are heavy so explosive decoupling is much less useful. Without the astronaut complex upgrade either a Mun return is definitely out, and I doubt even a Minmus return is possible, unless in either case you start having ships physically push other ships. For a one-way landing Eve requires the least delta-V of anywhere, I think that or a Duna one-way *might* be possible.

The location names are randomly generated. So my "Manley Hill" could be in a totally different place - even on a totally different planet - to your "Manley Hill". They show in the Tracking Station once the contract has been offered. Sites for different contracts are in different colours so you can easily distinguish them, and they have an icon indicating which experiment needs doing there. Once you have accepted a contract the sites will also show in Map View. You can click on them and choose "Activate Navigation", and an icon will appear on the navball showing you the direction to go.

I've not actually made any changes to my game that weren't part of a released mod. Though I did make some ModuleManager patches to add radial attachment nodes to some parts I felt were missing them, but then lost interest in that. I routinely play with a custom engine Isp nerf in KIDS, reducing the efficiencies to 85% of normal. This partly offsets the reduced delta-V to orbit in FAR. That's really the only customised - ie not in the stock game or a standard mod - thing I have now. And you can't really call making parts *worse* cheating!

I tend to build quite functionally, within the overall design and objectives I've chosen. That overall design might not be the most efficient possible - for example I'll typically use a separate orbiter and lander, even if a direct ascent would be lower mass. I also like to "show my stuff", at least when it comes to spacecraft - things like batteries belong in plain view for me, not concealed in cargo bays and definitely not clipped inside other parts. I will make some concessions to looks though. I don't want something that just looks daft unless that's my actual goal. I'll add parts to sort out aesthetic issues even if they add a bit of mass, or use a heavier component because it fits better. I'm not going to slap stuff like batteries on willy-nilly, they go somewhere sensible. And for planes, and occasionally spacecraft, I will be more likely to hide things out of sight.

I would like to see the amounts of all non-massless resources displayed in mass units, either kilograms or tonnes, rather than the current system of arbitrary units. This could be done without any code changes, simply by updating the resource definitions and part .cfg's appropriately, although that would mess up the balance of existing mod parts. Alternatively the game code could be changed to accept resource amounts in part .cfg's as either the legacy arbitrary-units parameters or a new mass-units parameter and convert automatically to display in mass units, thereby not changing existing mod parts. I feel this change would make the game more transparent. At present there's nothing to directly tell the player whether 100 units of fuel weighs more, less, or the same as as 100 units of monopropellant, or even how much they *do* weigh. It creates an additional needless barrier to understanding and using the rocket equation oneself, which is something I feel players should do - delta-V should not be a "black box".

I'm going with internal fault, rather than debris strike or deliberate attack. As mentioned, either a battery short-circuiting or a chemical reaction in monopropellant could account for it.