cantab

The pound, like the kilogram, is primarily a unit of mass. Though both pound-force and kilogram-force are widely recognised and convenient sometimes.

Fixed that for you

Calculation the ideal inclination is indeed a nightmare, but working it out empirically shouldn't be too hard. Make a guess, see what the ejection burn would be, refine that guess. If you're happy to use Hyperedit or fuelhack to support your working out it won't even be all that hard.We see from the thread Taki linked to - and excellent find btw - that the ejection inclination isn't that much. Looks like maybe 10 or 20 degrees in the right orientation will do it.

No to both. And I think we had wedding day already. 'twas a day, like no other, 'twas a day, there'll be another, 'twas a day, the routine broke, 'twas a day, the woman spoke, 'twas a day, to end, it's fate, 'twas a day, to celebrate, 'twas a day, that much is plain, 'twas a riddle, to puzzle your brain. Hint 1: It's happened this century, ie since 2000. Hint 2: "the woman" in the fourth line is generic, it does not refer to a specific individual. Hint 3: Each line is independent. You could re-order them and it wouldn't affect the meaning of the riddle.

The chief problem is that buoyancy comes from the difference in density between the lifting gas and the air. So a vacuum only has about 10% more lifting power than helium. Set against that is that lifting gases can be contained in a lightweight flexible structure. A vacuum requires a rigid shell to hold it. It's almost impossible to make that shell light enough, and no vacuum balloon has ever been demonstrated.

Ultimately I'd say buy or don't buy a game based on its current state, not on the expectation of future development. Squad, KSH, and any other "early access" developers are under no legal obligation to continue development.

Or c) Tap the brakes, don't hold them.Or perhaps best of all, d) Don't use the brakes to slow down, use reverse! That's much gentler than braking.

When you're thrusting horizontally, all your thrust is going into slowing you down. When you're thrusting upwards, some of it is going into fighting gravity. So the efficient way is to make a small deorbit burn, then a large braking burn that leaves you little distance to fall vertically. Of course you do need to watch out for terrain. You can't have your approach passing through hills! A deorbit burn 1/4 of your orbit ahead of the landing site is usually a good compromise, depending on your orbital height.

The simplest way will be to fly it. Keep in mind that the most efficient approach will be to launch into a somewhat inclined Kerbin orbit, such that you can make a purely prograde ejection burn that puts you into a transfer orbit in the plane of Moho's. Of course it's even more efficient to snag a few gravity assists. Eve can help of course, and even Moho itself can be used to reduce your insertion burn. Look at the real-world MESSENGER probe, which made flybys of Earth, Venus twice, and Mercury three times before entering Mercury orbit on the fourth encounter!

"No hiring of average programmers – They’re simply not able to produce the code we expect. Two average programmers do not equal one great programmer. Even 1,000 average programmers do not equal one great programmer." This I think is an interesting contrast given that Squad, it seems to me, have firmly average programmers - and 3d modellers and everyone else involved. But what Squad have is a project leader with good ideas and vision, and as Captain Sierra has said the integrity to keep developing their current game before moving to a new one.

Funny, but not really fair. I normally play the Linux 64-bit version and .90's maybe a little buggier than .25, I've had the odd game crash, but really nothing objectionable. Now the Windows 64-bit version is definitely buggier than ever. I honestly don't think it should have been released at all. Squad could have directed players wanting Windows 64-bit to the previous version, which is still made available.

EDIT: Ntuple ninja'd fail. 9/10 Thunderbirds Are Go!

This needs highlighting. It's one of the most important things for the game to get right, exposing things to the player well. The map view and the manoeuvre nodes do this excellently for the spaceflight but we've no useful tools for atmospheric flight, or for that matter for rocket structures.Perhaps colour tinting for various things would work. FAR does that - you can have it highlight the parts creating the most drag or most lift. It can even colour in stalled wings IIRC. In-flight Centre of X indicators could be very useful, not just for planes but also asymmetric spacecraft. Maybe something entirely different will work well.

Haha. Good thinking, but no, there is something interesting about it.

Therein I suspect lies the nub.To expand, I would say the thing to keep in mind is that realism and complication are not quite the same thing. A game can be realistic but uncomplicated, by handling the aspects of interest to a high degree of realism and ignoring the aspects not of interest. By way of rough example [table=width: 500, class: grid] [tr] [td][/td] [td]Unrealistic[/td] [td]Realistic[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Simple[/td] [td]Super Mario Bros[/td] [td]KSP, to an extent[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Complicated[/td] [td]Pokemon[/td] [td]DCS World[/td] [/tr] [/table] I'd say that realistic-but-simple box is a good place for KSP to aim for. That means implementing the things that are in to a high level of realism, for example we have pretty good orbital and flight mechanics and we should have pretty good aerodynamics. It also means leaving out many complications. Some of them might be "realistic" features, for example the game ignores failure rates on components. Others might be unrealistic things, and I feel that a lot of career mode in KSP is going down the complicated-and-unrealistic box.

For me it feels a bit low, but it's not really the end of the world. I've become partial to nerfing engines to 85% of their normal Isp, which counters the lower delta-V requirements a bit and at least for the main liquid engines brings them into the range of real-world hypergolics. As the icing on the cake it makes single-stage Tylo landers seriously tough but still doable.Unfortunately since we know that .91 is the game balance update, I think the chance for a system rescale is gone. I can't see it happening in .91, it would be a major undertaking and probably have to tie in with a good art pass on all the celestials. And in any future update it would undo all the good game balance work.

7/10. I can't see how it flies, but it looks the business.

Nuh-uh..............

7/10. Imposing, but the inherent issues in the Star Destroyer layout are not fully resolved in this upscale.

Nope 10chars

Which I think will appear to happen. Noisy souposphere fans will complain that the new system is too hard, and noisy FAR fans will complain that it's nowhere near good enough. The satisfied majority and the new players who never knew the soup will be relatively silent, that's the way these things work.Unlike with the Kerbal experience mechanics or the farmyard KSC, the new aerodynamic model won't be something that can well be judged without playing. So I predict things quiet before the release, but then an absolute storm of complaints afterwards. Whatever Squad do with the aerodynamics, they need to be prepared for the angriest community backlash in the game's history. It will all blow over but I wouldn't be too surprised if Squad get bullied into reverting from a decent new system back to the soup or a minor tweak a la Stock Drag Fix.

7/10. Nice lifting body design. I imagine it's gonna land fast though, unless it has some VTOL jets I can't see or it lands on its tail.

If you want to calculate things, just check the delta-V map. And use the KER mod if you don't want to do manual calculations. If you want to wing it, build a ship that has plenty of parachutes and can go from LKO to the Mun, land on the Mun, get into Munar orbit, and land on the Mun again. (Probably not all in one stage). That should run you your Duna mission.

6/10. Nice stern - or is it the bow - but I'd need to see the whole ship to better judge. Have another boxy one

No. And do I really need to give another hint? Fine... Hint 3: Each line is independent. You could re-order them and it wouldn't affect the meaning of the riddle.