cantab

For the cupola, "The window is made up of four panes – an inner scratch pane to protect the pressure pane from accidental damage, two pressure panes 25mm thick to maintain cabin pressure, and finally an outer debris pane.". And there are metal shutters outside that which can be closed. But it's a totally different scenario anyway. Smartphones need to withstand abrasion eg from objects in pockets with them, overall shock from dropping the phone, and impacts of low-speed moderate/high mass objects eg dropping something on the phone. Spacecraft windows need to withstand hypervelocity impacts of small low-mass objects.

Atoms? Electrons?

Here's one approach: By using twin engines on the lander, I was able to reduce the thrust limiter on one so the combined centre of thrust is through the centre of mass despite the off-balance load. Then once the rover is released I set both engines to full thrust for takeoff. That's a small probe rover, but no reason it wouldn't scaled to a Kerballed one on the side of a 2.5 m lander.

I like the Materials Bay. It's basically a whole little robotic lab, there's lots of detail on the part, and it gives plenty of opportunities for amusing descriptive text. The Goo on the other hand is rather goofy and cartoonish.

Designed and flew the Mk2 version of the Dirty Rascal 2. Six engines rather than four, winglets for a little more lift, airbrakes on the fuselage, and all but the outermost elevons are set as flaps. Takeoff speed is thus lower than on the original, so will hopefully be safer. I pushed its limits to get some contracts. It went supersonic with no drama despite never being built for it, and hit 24 km in a zoom climb. Maybe a little cheaty since unlike the stock Basic Jet, the little MRS one isn't nerfed by FAR. I thus ticked off the part testing contracts. Which means I can't build another one, mind.

The bartender shouts out "Hey! No faster-than-light particles allowed!" A tachyon walks into a bar.

I believe it tries to, but the response isn't "tuned" either manually or automatically to take into account how much torque is available and what the vessel's rotational inertia is. (And throw in the complication of aerodynamics). Hence regular SAS jitters with high control authority and is sluggish and lazy with low control authority.A cleverer system ought to be possible, but I'd put it some way down the development priority list.

A general rule that the propulsion must be from an engine consuming liquid fuel, with or without oxidizer, would cover all bases. (Including banning the monopropellant thrusters.)

Probably just to get a wider stance. I've used that decoupler in a similar way, just to get a part further away from the fuselage/body without intending on ever decoupling it.It also lets you drop the weight of the legs when you take off, but that's usually not much of a saving.

It's also flicking the control surfaces like crazy, much like the new superSAS options (eg hold prograde) do. At best that makes an unwanted infiniglider. At worst, ie in FAR or I expect in newstock, it needlessly increases drag. And either way, it looks ridiculous. A fair point has been made that the current SAS is unwilling to use full control authority, but using full authority in response to the tiniest deviation isn't a lot better.

Put two Kerbals in orbit around the Mun in my career. They do not have the fuel to get back. Lesson learned: Basic Jet boosters are not all that useful in FAR.

Speaking of airbrakes, in FAR with the stock parts if you make a spoiler and set its deflection to the maximum, I found that makes an effective airbrake. For vertically aligned airbrakes that flip out sideways it helps to give them a definite up and down. A tiny rotation will do the job. Then a mirrored pair will deploy mirrrored instead of both flipping the same way. I'm not sure how well you can do a deceleron or a Shuttle-style split rudder this way. The braking aspect will work well but I'm not sure if the control will also be effective having essentially two control surfaces stacked.

How do you view your own Visitor Messages? I can't find it for the life of me.

A rocket that's relatively squat can have stability issues, they need to be sufficiently slender to fly straight or else you need to add over-large fins and they add their own mass and drag.At least that's how it behaves in FAR.

Update here. Highlights are for once up to date to the latest stream. Episodes 12 and 13 saw the design and flight of the Dirty Rascal 2, a significantly heavier Kethane plane than its predecessor but with major difficulties getting airborne when full, while Episode 14 saw me try and fail to build a spaceplane at viewer request. Episode 15 will be rockets for once, as we're set to design a Kerballed Mun mission.

"Gorilla Glass" is indeed very resistant to scratching. Metal items won't generally scratch; I just tried my knife against my phone (on a part outside the visible screen) and it had no effect. Sand and grit, however, are full of quartz which is a hard mineral and that can scratch the glass. Be careful at the beach! As for cracks, well while it's tougher than normal glass it's still brittle compared to many other materials. Combine that with the thinness of the glass used in phones and if hit hard enough the glass will break. And remember not all phones use the same stuff. Some use glass from another maker, others might even use altogether cheaper and less durable materials.

For a moment there I thought there was a new thread with 16 pages already! But you just changed the title Gregrox.

I think the barrier to mod parts could be legal as much as technical. A modmaker could in principle license their parts restrictively, such that Eucl3d would not have the permission to 3D print them. If the system could technically print any ship built in the game, I'm not sure how Eucl3d could avoid such issues outside of a block on printing non-approved parts. But it's probably just going to upload a .craft file anyway, which would naturally preclude printing parts Eucl3d don't have.

Number 2, it's to place the intakes that will feed an engine, then the engine, and repeat that process. Rather than placing all the engines then all the intakes. Or there's a mod that will do that for you after the fact so you don't have to worry about it so much. But the mod can be a bit weird if your plane is complicated.

33. (And this is sort of a test post)

Actually, I'd tip LEGO over Estes. LEGO has a wider audience, and most model rocket hobbyists already know about KSP I expect.

nVidia's proprietary drivers on Linux are very good, and I've come across claims that OpenGL performs better on them than on the Windows drivers. Picture colour might be monitor gamma settings or similar?

Orbital constraints and general practicality. Especially as unlike in KSP, real rocket engines can only ignite a finite number of times, often only once. Ariane 5 is one example of a rocket built with launching two payloads at once in mind. It's caused problems. Satellites have tended to become heavier than they used to, and the Ariane 5 is too expensive to economically launch a single satellite so Arianespace needs to find a "light" satellite to pair with a "heavy" satellite, which causes delays. Overall Ariane 5 is reliable and reasonably cost effective, but it's not overwhelmingly cheaper than other one-payload launchers.

In the realm of stating the bleeding obvious: you *do* have the volume turned up on the display/speakers/whatever?

My suggestion is to take it apart, remove the electronics - there's usually a small circuit board - and clean the rest. Hand wash with detergent or put in the dishwasher on a cool cycle but don't let the dishwasher dry! Then let the parts dry on a towel for a few days before reassembly. The dishwasher method is what I did for mine when it got too dirty. This only applies to membrane type keyboards. Don't wash mechanical switches in water!