cantab

It is very variable depending on the asteroid's trajectory. 3000 m/s is ample, 2000 should be fine. If you're selective with your asteroids and fly well you might manage it in 1000. If you go for a solar orbit intercept then since most asteroids are on Kerbin flyby trajectories, most of your delta-v is spent getting there and matching speeds and it only takes a small amount if any to course correct to a Kerbin landing trajectory.

Oh, grounds. Sonvan thought you said oceans. Ah well, no harm done. For your next challenge: The Recovery teams have gone on strike! They have positioned fully-fuelled orange tanks on the launchpad and the runway to top up the picket line braziers from; these tanks are in the way of further launches. Remove a full orange tank from either the launchpad or the runway (or both, if you really want) by any means other than the recovery facility. Leave no debris that would get in the way of a launch/takeoff, or remove any such debris as well.

If you're in career, maybe you got the booster as a one-off from a testing contract? Turn SAS on, with T, to help keep your rocket on course. If it still veers add more control. Reaction wheels can go anywhere but fins should go at the bottom.

Paintball is for lamers who aren't adult enough to call themselves out when they're hit by an airsoft pellet.

If a boat is downrange, we still launch. (And yes, I know Orbital Sciences isn't NASA.)

Underdid a deorbit burn. Have been waiting ages for this thing to come down now. I could goap but would rather not since I don't technically need to.

I think some sort of life support should be added, not just for its own sake but as an enabling feature for career mode aspects that depend on game time. So often ideas like a part that slowly generates science get shot down with the objection that players can just timewarp. With some sort of life support requirements - whether it's "actual" life support like TAC, something not-quite-essential like Snacks, or even kerbals needing a salary - the game can then add things that depend on time without them being so abusable by timewarping.

I wish for .90

The wiki should say what parts are physicsless. The small experiments are. You can't put a ship on the pad with an occupied chair. You need to move the Kerbal over manually. Either put a pod on a decoupler and discard said pod before takeoff, or have a kerbal waiting on the ground away from the runway or launchpad. But anyway a Mun spaceplane is perfectly possible without needing external seats, or nuclear or ion engines. Once you have an efficient flightplan and as many intakes per engine as you're OK with, you simply need to add more fuel.

Town Criers? And why so long to respond to guesses

Granted. During the next flight you're on. I wish for more wishes.

70 km. The game's atmosphere ends precisely, unlike in real life, and though it actually ends at 69.something km 70 is easier to remember.

From a distance, they look like a new star that appears, brightens over the course of a week or two (though less if it's not spotted right away), then fades over a few months. This light is produced by hot ejected material, heated by radioactive decay of heavy nuclei and/or kinetic energy from the blast depending on the type of supernova. At shorter wavelengths the peak is much narrower and corresponding more closely to the actual supernova explosion. As long as you're far enough to be outside the expanding hot ejecta, I expect you'll see more or less the same thing. I'm not sure how big said ejecta gets, but I'd guess several AU. If you're so close that you're inside the ejecta, you'll basically be inside a searing fireball akin to the outer layers of the Sun.

Which with a constant hover height on a level surface is zero. A force that produces no motion does no work and thus need not require energy.In practice it probably will, and it will need an energy input to start hovering and to go up slopes, but in a level hover there's no general (ie independent of the specific technology) reason the power requirement will have any minimum value.

Whoa, yeah, that design is going to be tricky. Even if I wanted to keep the tall and skinny form factor, I would at least take out that girder adapter, and just stick the long girder atop the lander can. It looks like you have severely imbalanced RCS. Loads of ports at the bottom but none at the top. That means that when you try and apply lateral thrust, which would otherwise really help you land, you'll also be tilting the craft. And the angled ports won't work great either. I would change to a ring of 4 or 8 ports at the base, and another at the top mounted on a part above the ThF4 containers. If you need more vertical thrust add linear ports on the base, or better use the O-10 engines, variable thrust will help you land. You could also try more torque, it can help steady the lander on tricky terrain. Maybe stick a large ASAS on the top that can both do that and hold your upper RCS ports.

Coming back to the core matter. For a straightforward transfer from 70 km LKO to 10 km Low Munar Orbit, you should be using 860 m/s for the trans-Munar injection and 270 for the orbital capture. Small changes in these orbital altitudes won't make much difference. If you're using more for your ejection burn, don't. With that 860 m/s set, I suspect you'll only get one burn point in your orbit for a low Mun periapsis. You can save up to 90 m/s off your capture burn by using a Munar gravity assist. Small beer really. Basically you want to make one flyby of the Mun that puts you in an orbit similar to the Mun's, then go round and when you approach the Mun again you can capture for less delta-V. As for landing, the most efficient approach is a small deorbit burn to put periapsis level with the ground at your landing site, then a large "suicide burn" as late as possible to land. A good landing can save plenty of delta-V compared to a bad one. You can lop a bit more off by lithobraking with tough parts like the aeroplane landing gear. All told, I reckon one could get LKO-Mun surface-Kerbin down to 2450 m/s. That's using Mun gravity assist to reduce capture requirements, a 50 m/s landing, and Mun gravity assist again to return to Kerbin. While harder to put in delta-V terms, fuel can also be saved in the aircraft ascent. And excess fuel or oxidizer once in LKO, if there's any, should be dumped before the trans-Munar-injection.

Is the orbit comfortably above the highest point of the terrain? If not, it could crash. Is the orbit clear of the atmosphere, if applicable? If not, drag will bring it down. Is the orbit comfortably within the Sphere of Influence of the primary? (The planet or moon being orbited) If not, it will escape. The tracking station may show orbits as closed when they actually extend outside the SOI. Is the orbit well clear of the orbits of any of the primary's satellites, such that it can never enter the SOI of those satellites? If not, sooner or later it will be affected by said satellite. In the case of Kerbin, this means orbits crossing or even coming close to that of the Mun are a Bad Idea.

For monopropellant, the game tries to drain the lowest stages first. Fuel lines have no effect. That's fine for a single rocket, but will cause decouplable probes to lose their monoprop before the main ship. The resolution is to disable fuel flow from the probes' monoprop tanks, by right-clicking them (either in the VAB or flight) and changing the green arrow to a red no sign.

At best, it falls into a solution in search of a problem. Cars with pivoting wheels have been built and indeed are capable of easily parking in tighter spots. The military uses tracked, wheeled, and hovering vehicles as appropriate.

578. We let a nuclear reactor meltdown just to see what happens. I suppose that makes us the Russians...

Screwed up the final rendezvous of the Magellan mission. Kerbal on EVA with no fuel, detachable capsule with no monopropellant, leaving me only the big and unwieldy main ship to try and get the ladder in the right place. And then I had camera issues, switching from the kerbal to the main ship was putting the camera *inside* said main ship right when I needed to look and rotate fast. Must be one of the trickiest things I've ever done in KSP, but now that kerbal is onboard, and the return burn set up. Yes, that's a solar retrograde escape trajectory. Near Future = lol delta-V

It's tough. For science, I have to put the US top, Europe second, and maybe Japan third. NASA and ESA both have a bunch of awesome science missions operational and planned, NASA's bunch being rather larger. I've heard less about JAXA recently, compared to say Chinese and Indian projects, but still reckon the Japanese will be more advanced. For manned spaceflight it's Russia, China, US. The US is operating half of the ISS, let's not discount that, but right now they can't even launch people to it. For commercial satellites and launches, I'm not sure. I'd guess US first, then Russia and Europe in some order, they're the three big players at least. For the military, well military space operations are likely to be highly covert. I'd put money on the US having the most and best spy satellites but reckon the Russians or Chinese might be stronger in the area of anti-satellite weaponry.

Seconded. I have the original Moto G, bought outright SIM-free for £160, and have been very happy with it. It's "got it where it counts" with a good CPU, lovely screen, and is just about the right size. Runs nearly-stock Android, in contrast to say Samsungs that are heavily altered.I've also had great battery life out of it; this is something that's very user-dependent but for me 48 hours between charges isn't uncommon and I did over 4 days on one charge once or twice.

Yeah, auto-lock of old threads would be nice to have, but ultimately isn't important. Manual blanket locking would be a big waste of time.

Seconded. And for KSP I'd go with Intel unless you're on a budget so tight that integrated graphics is the only option. One of the faster-clocked Pentiums ir i3's will be OK. The Pentium "Anniversary Edition" is overclockable and on a matching motherboard would be awesome but you'll be lucky to find one in a cheap general-purpose PC.On GPU, I have a GT610 and consider it underpowered for KSP, though that hasn't stopped me putting in hundreds of hours of gameplay! GT750Ti would be great, regular 750 or 740 OK. Searching through Newegg, this might be a good buy, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883156235, leaving you enough for a GT 750 Ti.