cantab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension The processor has more address lines. Enough for 64 GB (not 128, but certainly more than 4). Of course it requires hardware support.

It's a stage in their development cycle. I think it's one of the last steps before release, when the last bugs are being found, playtesting is being done, and the media people can get their hands on the build and start streaming and youtubing.

It's one of the cooler science messages, yes. By the way, if you want to impact Jool, arrange it nice and far out , eg with a course correction between the orbits of Duna and Dres, and you won't need much fuel.

Hopefully it'll be moddable. I like the idea of a one-off performance buff, but I understand Squad not putting it in stock after the forum backlash the idea caused. A mechanics aspect that may need testing: if the admin building is destroyed, do your strategies all get cancelled, or do they stay "stuck" on what they were? The latter could really let a careless player screw themselves over, if they're heavily converting funds to other stuff. There's supposed to be an overall loss, meaning that a strategy loop would just waste currencies. If all strategies are applied together based on the "raw" value then there's no ordering issue.

Just tell everyone you were making a spaceplane boneyard

I can't take partial guesses, sorry.

Historical accident and commercial pressures. Gliding and ballooning are not likely to make good spectator sports. Red Bull Air Race style stuff does, but motorised sports just aren't seen in the Olympics.

Not managed to have two ships occupying the same place; I had a near miss docking with my station once but that was just plain bad flying. Usually it's just the old warping past manoeuvres, which I manage to do even with Kerbal Alarm Clock. Alarm goes off, OK, check engines, rotate ship to marker, darn 3 minutes is too long to wait let's timewarp, oh balls we're five minutes past the node.

I absolutely agree that picture positioning in MS Word, and LibO/OO Writer for that matter, is a nightmare. But then maybe as Gene suggested, if you're concerned about layout and graphics then a desktop publishing program rather than a word processor would be more suitable. Been a while since I used MS Publisher, it should be OK. Not spectacular, but OK. I've used Scribus and don't really recommend that, it felt very over-complicated for what I did. Scrivener is very popular for novel writers, but I don't know how good its handling of graphics is. If you take a write first, add pictures afterwards approach it might be useful. And I have used LaTeX. It was a different experience, more of a write-test-debug kind of cycle, rather than the "fighting" that I felt I was doing with word processors. It's not, I think, a good choice if you want to insist yourself exactly where each image goes.

AMD may market* more cores, but Intel's are faster. A modern highly-clocked Intel CPU will run KSP just about as well as anything. For budget an overclocked Pentium G3258 will handle pretty much all modern games very well, or at the higher end go for a Core i5. There should be PC builders who will pre-overclock your system for you, saving you the work. A Core i7 probably isn't worth it unless you want to splash out for the sake of it or really don't want an overclocked CPU; the money would be better spent elsewhere. * AMD's current architecture has a pair of cores sharing a single floating-point unit, making them more like 1 1/2 cores than two.

Copyright and licensing issues mainly, coupled with a dose of "not invented here" syndrome. Squad themselves have favoured hiring/contracting to modders; the SP+ parts in .25 are changed a fair bit from those in the mod. 32-bit desktop Windows can't use more than 4GB, a deliberate decision taken by Microsoft. 32-bit Linux, Windows server, and other OSes have supported something like 128 GB 64 GB since around the year 2000. It doesn't help KSP or any single program since there's still a per-process 4GB limit, but "32-bit can't use more than 4 GB" is a lie propagated by Microsoft* and it really hacks me off when I see it repeated. /rant* I have MS-endorsed study materials that state it.

Not cosmonaut, though I see where you're coming from. New page, and as usual a clue One beyond the planets reversed. One in airs of Earth dispersed. One that stars just cannot form. One that's rarer than them all. Lots you shouldn't in water dissolve. Mix around, this riddle to solve. Clue 1: As a few people have surmised, each of the first five lines refers to a different element. The answer, though, is nothing to do with chemistry.

Sweet, thanks. Slowly getting to grips with Mission Architect. What I'm trying to plan is a departure from Laythe orbit, via a Tylo assist (well, I would accept Vall, but think Tylo's the better target) to get back to Kerbin quicker than would otherwise be the case with my delta-V budget. With bonus fun from my Laythe orbit being about 20 degrees inclined. It's proving dang tricky to figure out, hence turning to KSPTOT in the first place.

Nope. And I've no idea what that image is.

None of them

Not ozone.

Not thallium

Not antimatter

Intel change their CPU sockets seemingly every year these days, and even AMD aren't far off. So it's not that you want a motherboard upgrade for its own sake, but you want a CPU upgrade and that requires a motherboard upgrade (and in your case a full RAM upgrade). Upgrading just the CPU only really makes sense for relatively recent motherboards with low-end CPUs. When you're at the point of needing to upgrade CPU, motherboard, RAM, GPU, power supply, probably drives as well since an old mechanical hard drive will hold performance back, you're practically needing a whole new PC anyway. Unless you're particularly attached to your old case or really want to economise it might be worth doing a new build, and sell the old PC or put it to other use. If you want a "stop-gap" update, bring RAM to 8 GB (for DDR2 the affordable maximum is 2 GB per slot) and add a decent budget GPU. And if the CPU is really low-end, like a Celeron D or Pentium D, then it might be worth looking for a better second-hand CPU cheaply. Bear in mind though that these upgrades aren't going to get you anywhere near the performance of even a budget modern gaming PC.

Indeed. If you're trying to move a planet with a reaction engine, then one thing you're not short of is reaction mass.

If the atmosphere's in your way, get rid of it. As the source I gave mentioned, that's trivial compared to the main task. Alternatively, build the engines on an artificial mountain that puts them above most of the atmosphere. And indeed the engine cluster will slowly sink, as its force bends the lithosphere down and pushes the asthenosphere out of the way. This may reach an equilibrium, just as mountains do, but if not then you will indeed need to keep infilling with rock to counteract the sinking. Maybe you could deliberately induce volcanic eruptions around the engine cluster so the magma will do the infilling for you.

My record is 86.7 km, on an aerocapture from a forty km/s approach. That made heavy use of mods though, principally Near Future, so it's not eligible. It might be possible to try something similar with stock parts, of course using a much smaller payload and maybe needing a bit more patience with the departure burn. Picture if interested: https://flic.kr/p/oKBCqv

Nup. Good guess though.

A lot. If you don't want to burn up a big chunk of the Earth's mass you're going to need specific impulse beyond any reasonable proposals. And a rocket engine/cluster the size of a small country. http://qntm.org/moving

None of the above.