cantab

Lightness, compactness, and simplicity. The OX-STAT is massless. Even if it wasn't, it's very light. And you don't need to worry about deploying it. The power generation is enough for many smaller craft.

Are you using any aerodynamics mods? Are you using the fancy SAS features like follow prograde? They can be very shaky. Even regular SAS shakes if you overdo the control authority.

Not quite. Their viewpoint expressed was rather that they wanted some way to test out the new aerodynamics, and one way was to see how the old stock planes flew in them. And that I think is just talking about the aerodynamics. The part rebalancing is another matter, that will throw the behaviour of old craft off inevitably.

Well I'm not sure what you could do about the 'kn' cluster, other than put a hyphen when it's pronounced as two separate letters like in break-neck. But you can't just generally change it to n, because 'know', 'no', and 'now' are different words - the reform would be more confusing than the original.

Ashflare, no tail? Yeah, NEAR won't like that much. As for myself, I finally built a Kethane miner in my Kethane Space Program! I also flew my drone to finish a contract, and rather liked the landing site afterwards

I did a flyby grand tour a while back. I had a fair bit more delta-V, but it was still a case of pulling a load of gravity assists. The big catch compared to real life is there's only one big outer planet, Jool. There's nothing analogous to the Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune trick. Duna can be useful but doesn't really have the punch to sling you out to Jool.

I entered Kerbin's SOI doing around 25 km/s. Not sure what my speed was on hitting the atmosphere, but the g-forces peaked at 335 g and the ship broke apart. In stock aerodynamics without DRE.

Atoms in general, or maybe hydrogen specifically?

For batch processing it is indeed not necessarily a problem. I've written quick and dirty bash scripts that took hours and hours to convert some data because no thought was given to efficiency, it only needed to work once and was still far far quicker than an attempt to do things manually would have been.It's for the interactive programs that we use on a daily basis that the problem - and my irateness - rises. When I'm waiting for Word to respond, waiting for a website to download despite having a 40 Megabit connection, that sort of stuff.

As far as continued use goes, if it breaks down then it breaks down. I don't think it can be economically fixed any more, so we just wait for its orbit to decay and then possibly send a tug up to do a controlled deorbit. If it gets to the point where it's still working but its orbit has decayed too much, then I'd really like to see an orbital boost mission done at the very least, especially if there isn't a new space telescope covering the same wavelengths. There's no reason to trash a good scope. In either scenario, keep in mind that the orbit is probably a lot lower than it is now when the deorbit or orbital boost is done.

I think you're not far off the truth there Pretty believable. Shakespeare wrote in a time when spelling was only just beginning to be standardised. He also didn't actually write much on paper at all - he would come up with the lines and acted in his plays, but the putting of ink to paper was done by others.

Regarding the aerospike, I just think it should be made stackable. It would make a competent lander or chemical interplanetary engine that way, for cases when you want more thrust than a 909 and less bulk than a 30/45 or Poodle. But it's just such a nuisance to use a single one.

Can we talk about cameras and not about anything and everything in KSP's development. It looks cool enough, but that video is completely different to the current stock "Chase cam", being more of an alternative. You might prefer that style, I prefer having the camera roll with the plane. That's why I want to see both in 1.0.If the new chase cam does roll, then following velocity rather than heading might not do much to normal flight, but it will matter in scenarios like spins. As regards docking, the main concern is what happens when you go from slowly approaching your target to slowly moving away from your target. It's not going to be helpful to have the camera swing round to face away from the target docking port, however quickly or slowly the view turns. Camera views really are a player taste thing, and I never heard of a game being hurt by having too many choices.

Bunk. Denmark doesn't need that at all; they're already generating around 30% of their power from wind and that's increasing. Hydro-electric power trounces gas in terms of responding to demand anyway; Norway and Sweden have a lot of hydroelectric power and that is used to balance Denmark's wind generation. And when it's needed, large industrial consumers can be temporarily disconnected to reduce demand.Grid balance and possible changes in supply and demand obviously need to be considered, but it's complete nonsense to make out you need to build a megawatt of unused gas power capacity for every megawatt of wind or solar generation.

Sure. Didn't Dirac say there's only one electron, that travels back and forth through time? So I just need to learn the stuff for that. Avoid necroing forum threads

Another vote for retaining the classic chase cam. It's basically a camera rigidly mounted to your vehicle, and for planes and rovers that's really engaging. If I do an aileron roll I don't want to see the plane passively spin in front of me, I want to be with the plane and have my whole view roll almost like I was the pilot. Not that I think the new idea is bad. There's space in the game for four camera modes.

Expressing it as a percentage would be more intuitive. Or in terms of such and such old launch TWR > so and so new TWR. In any case, expect the numbers to be given a big shake up. From a realism perspective, KSP engines are underpowered boat anchors as they are. (On the other hand they have unlimited ignitions, are deeply throttlable, and never ever fail, so it's not all bad.) They don't really need making worse in that respect. The poor engine TWR, combined with tanks seemingly made from thick steel, skews staging strategies - in particular, throw in massless unlimited-flow-rate fuel lines and decouplers that never fail (the infamous decoupler bug nothwithstanding) and you end up with players using asparagus everywhere.

I'm not sure how it fits much of it, but is it a navel?

That doesn't really help, not if we retain the view that every word has only one right spelling. (British and American differences notwithstanding). And if we are willing to give up that view, do we need any formal spelling reform anyway? Just let peepol riyt howeva thay liyk.

To be honest, considering that the world's current superpower (the USA) and one of its previous ones (the British Empire) both speak English, I don't think it can be that bad. Singapore's education system teaches in English and it's frequently held up as among the world's best. English writers may have to remember that a queue is a line of people and a cue is what you hit a pool ball with, but French speakers have to remember that un ordinateur (a computer) is "male" while une table (a table) is "female". Japanese and Chinese readers have to remember thousands of characters and it doesn't seem to be holding either of those countries back. Any attempt to make English spelling more closely reflect pronunciation will immediately run into problems with accents, especially in Britain. To take the best known example, is the 'a' in 'bath' like the 'a' in 'cat' or like the 'a' in 'father'?

Considering how often the refrain "Earth is big, we can't harm it" has been shown wrong, I wouldn't be so confident. Over a large enough area this becomes increasingly unlikely. Not impossible, but then fossil fuel power plants breaking down, or the whole grid going kaput, aren't impossible.

Meh. Honestly, this is trivial. It's a simple fix to a long-standing niggle and it's maybe "about time too", but really, it doesn't matter much. The current behaviour isn't unphysical in the same way the "soup" aerodynamics is - it could be recreated by having the engine control system automatically limit the maximum thrust, though there's no real reason to do so IRL. As far as gameplay goes, well on Kerbin launches it just means TWR rises a bit faster than it used to. For Eve and Jool ascents it could really come into play, mandating a specialised engine (eg the Aerospike) for them - but is limiting vehicle design in that way really going to be a good thing?

On the fruity theme, an apple? EDIT: When reading a riddle, any word or phrase could be literal, metaphorical, or somewhere between. Especially if it's one of your riddles!

Found that the Level 2 launchpad is a big troll, with the giant ditch in the middle of the ramp. Save scummed back to the level 1, and now need to make enough money to upgrade SPH *and* runway

I overlooked this before, but actually they don't. I'm not sure how drag on wings works, but they often have much less drag than normal parts. This thing that's almost all winglets hit the ground in freefall at over 1500 m/s: https://flic.kr/p/oP8yBt I'd say enter a steady glide at an angle you're happy with. Which is pretty much what you'd do in real life - until you have identified your landing site and are sure you're in range of it you won't descend faster than you need to.