cantab

Neither. And heh, clamouring for hints. OK then. Hint 1: It's happened this century.

It has a glue gun for when you've cut something you shouldn't. Biologically-safe glue means even living tissue can be mended*. *Surgical expertise required. For minor wounds only. Not for use on electric eels.

Nowhere is it said or implied that one fund is remotely near one US dollar in value. When a rocket is not thrusting from any part its centre of mass is not accelerating. This could be coded into the physics engine. I don't buy this. By all accounts Unity makes giving the celestials differing axial orientations difficult, but it made maintaining stable physics over interplanetary physics difficult too. The latter was solved (krakensbane), axial tilt could be resolved too if Squad wanted to put the effort in. At the moment of course they are focussed on more visible features - until we get a Uranus analogue axial tilt isn't really apparent.On rocket orientation: The current behaviour is that the VAB door faces east. Rocket parts default to their ventral (down) side north. The old behaviour was that the VAB door faced north, or at least the editor acted that way, and rocket parts defaulted as today to their ventral side north. Incidentally this qualifies as one of my peeves. I think the behaviour should be that the VAB door faces east and rocket parts default to their ventral side east. That way you do an eastwards pitchover rather than a yawover. Where problems tend to arise is if you rotate the whole rocket then remove part of it, the removed part goes back to its original orientation. For example: Start with a command pod. Add another command pod below it. The two will line up. Rotate the whole rocket around the vertical axis. Remove and replace the lower command pod. It will revert to its default orientation and thus be misaligned with the upper pod.

An ingenious solution. It will though have its limits. When deployed the flaps are operating at a higher angle of attack than the wing, and unlike IRL their lift is independent to the main wing. As long as the flaps are still below their maximum lift AoA you'll be fine, but once they pass that and begin stalling you'll start losing their benefit. The flaps will stall before the main wing which may give you bad handling characteristics - it's better if the forward lift surfaces stall before the aft ones. You might be better using control surfaces than wing sections, since control surfaces generate maximum lift at 90 degree AoA (a factor in the "infiniglide" bug) so control surface flaps will basically never stall.

Necrobones' SpaceY mod includes the company logo.

For scrubbing rocket launches, pre 0.90 it was usually the blooming kerbals sneaking onto a ship that's meant to go up unmanned. Staging problems generally don't mean an scrub since you can fix it right there on the pad. Lack of struts usually doesn't reveal itself until the flight, although there have been exceptions: During flight I'd say the most common problem is simple failure to reach orbit. Especially under the new career mode limits I'm partial to low TWR upper stages to keep the weight down, but they're also much more fussy about the ascent profile since you can't just power your way out of trouble. For an unmanned launch though I don't see this as an abort per se, it's just a launch failure. Next most common would be rapid unplanned disassembly. For aircraft test flights the most common problem is falling on its rear end because the rear gear were too far forward. After that it's forgetting the air intakes or leaving the fuel tanks empty. *facepalm* Once on the takeoff roll or inflight crashes are common but aborts are not, I need better safety systems.

Asteroids act like any other experiment and thus give different results in different situations, ie different SOIs and places in said SOIs. I'm not sure about biomes. (In essence "biome" is where you are horizontally and "situation" is where you are vertically). Each asteroid is a unique experiment, which means you can store results from two asteroids in the same situation in the same command pod. They're also affected by the normal science multipliers, which gives some odd results. Most notably an asteroid landing on Kerbin, though awesome, is terrible for getting science because landed on Kerbin has the lowest multiplier. On the other hand meet it in solar orbit and course correct onto a Mun flyby and you can rake in the science with separate readings for Sun high, Kerbin high, Mun high, maybe Mun low and/or Kerbin low.

You may have seen someone using parts that store Intake Air. The stock intakes hold a tiny bit, not really enough to be useful. Firespitter has a bottle that can store a lot more, and other mod parts might do it too. With the stock engines it's rather cheaty, since running on bottled air they'd be a 2000 Isp rocket engine.

Well the thing is most of the stuff KSP is capable of addressing is stuff that's easy (well, easy by rocketry standards). Orbital manouvres, launch profiles, sizing of stages and payload, even how to handle an engine cutting out during ascent. The hard parts are engine design, turbopump machinery, structural design of the rocket, electronics and computer systems -and none of that is simulated by KSP. (Well, structural design is, but really badly by engineering standards). KSP could be useful in the early brainstorming phases of design, letting you quickly try out stuff. It would also certainly work to do quick CGI visualisations for the marketing and outreach side of things. But no more really, and even for those early phases other tools will be better. Why fly individual candidate Mars trajectories, for example, when you can have a computer search the space of possibilities and tell you the good ones automatically?

No to either. And that's a rather vague guess vexx 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.

Lol at NBC taking an obvious joke - SpaceX using KSP for testing - as truth.

Other way round. You always see your own clock ticking away fine - well, until it's physically ripped apart by tidal forces. But the distant observer will never actually see you cross the event horizon.

There have been many trains to carry the name "Orient Express", but only one that ran in space.

We can discuss CPUs plenty, but Fizwalker has the processor he has. On any given system, KSP's performance primarily depends on what you, the player, do. The more parts you put on a rocket the more demanding the game is on your processor, and there comes a point where the processor can't keep up so the game slows down. On one computer that might be a hundred parts, on another it might be five hundred, but even the most powerful PC you can buy will lag if you build a complex enough ship. KSP lags for everyone. (And some parts have more impact than others. Docking ports included, which space stations tend to be full of.) So you have two choices. You either put up with the lag or you build to reduce part count. For a space station ways to reduce part count include using fewer, larger modules, placing modules with a tug so you don't need control stuff on every individual module, and eschewing unneeded structural parts.

I think we would be better off if we used effective exhaust velocity more. It's more apparent what it actually means, at least for rocket engines.

1783: Montgolfier Brothers. First manned balloon flight. 1985: Vega 1 and 2. First balloons on another planet. It would be nice to see some balloon bits in KSP Also the development of ion engines may be of interest 1964: SERT-1. First electrically powered engine (ion engine) tested in space. 1998: Deep Space 1. First interplanetary ion-drive probe. Over 4 km/s delta-V in an under 500 kg spacecraft. And, of course 1959: KIWI-1. First test of a nuclear thermal rocket engine.

I thought it was going to be a satellite in the right orbit but going the wrong way, lots of people have done that. This though is a new one! As Renegrade says, a Mun-Minmus transfer won't require much delta-V, though you will need to get the right timing.

The second design, though ugly, will work well. The first would have problems when the fuel starts draining.

Nu-uh. 10 more charatcers

I think you need to check again. And remember, the fair comparison isn't to merely change the engine on an otherwise-identical lander, but to change the engine AND the amount of fuel to meet the target delta-V and TWR, then compare the masses. Do that and it's very rare for the 909-engined design to turn out lowest mass. Of course mass isn't the only design consideration.

Nope. (Micky, Minnie, Donald, Goofy, Pluto, Bugs, Elmer Fudd, Wile E, Muttley, Jerry)

It is a convincing liar.

Not Christmas

I think that's a bit too questiony for the thread. It's riddles, not animal vegetable mineral

...well, yes...the riddle is asking what day. Newpage repost: 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.