cantab

While which physical characteristics to consider and which to not consider is in a sense "arbitrary", it's not the same kind of arbitrary as setting a numeric figure. Why 10^23 kg and not e^115 proton masses, for example?

Well the message is referring to the household electricity. If you haven't already, get a surge protector.

Whoops. I spotted that and reran before posting my discussion of the results, but forgot to change the link I posted.

On the other hand it's perfectly possible to screw a build up. I know, I've done it before, and fixing computers is my job. It's probably easier than building Ikea furniture though!

I'm pretty sure I didn't make any typos. I did of course have to play with the language to make the poetry sound right in my head. And still no.

Likewise, just a bunch of streets and trees. I'm checking Maps, not Earth, so maybe the "airport" is only visible in older imagery or something. Measuring the size would help you determine if it's a full-sized thing or something scaled down for models or similar.

Another possibility is the part .cfg has a non-existent tech tree node specified. This can occur with old mods since newer releases have removed nodes, or just if a typo is made. It may also be possible for tech tree changing mods to muck things up.

If this is the issue, the clampotrons usually will snap to the stack node if you fiddle with the VAB camera right, so that you're looking at the attachee part sideways on. Alternatively, Editor Extensions can help by letting you disable radial attachment.

Personally I hope the ladder glitch gets fixed as part of a general physics overhaul, that would cure other bugs too and improve things generally. A special ladder-fix isn't really needed, it's a generally harmless and easily avoidable glitch. (Unlike infinigliding, which is impossible to avoid without completely abandoning control surfaces, thus making it harder than it should be to make an honest ion glider.)

I'm not saying whether or not it's a board game, this is riddles not 20 questions None of the others above.

On the other hand, Gilly's radius is 13 km. If you increases the physics range limit (which I think we can agree is a pure game mechanic issue), would the bottom of Gilly being low in the atmosphere be taken into account, or would drag for the whole mass be calculated based on the altitude of the CoM?

Doctor Who answer: Run like hell to get away from the heat, figure out where it's coming from, use the sonic to reverse the polarity of the thermal flow, then think job done and fly off in the TARDIS without noticing the suspicious recurring feature on the side of the reactor casing.

My go-to impact effects calculator: http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/ Note that I'm ignoring KSP's weird aero model. Incidentally, a 1 km/s impact is highly unlikely if not impossible. Assuming the impactor comes in from interplanetary space and doesn't get its course affected by the Mun or the Kerbals it must hit at at least Kerbin's escape velocity of 3.4 km/s. But for the 1 km/s impact, it would still be a major event. You're looking at the equivalent of over 10 million megatons of TNT. It will make a big old crater comparable to the major craters Kerbin already has. The most destructive effect would be the airblast, capable of knocking down buildings Kerbinwide, and the planet would be blanketed in a layer of ash. There would be a 9.4 magnitude earthquake adding to the destruction near the impact site but this would not be very damaging far away. Notably absent would be a fireball - the speed just isn't fast enough. The impact would need to be at 15 km/s or so to create a significant fireball, which is unlikely in the Kerbol system. http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/cgi-bin/crater.cgi?dist=1000&distanceUnits=1&diam=13000&diameterUnits=1&pdens=13500&pdens_select=0&vel=1&velocityUnits=1θ=45&wdepth=&wdepthUnits=1&tdens=2500 For a faster speed of 3.5 km/s the effects of course get ramped up. By and large it's still the airblast that will do the wide area damage, though the ejecta blanket also becomes notably thicker, you could be looking at at least 3 feet of rock dust dumped on the surface even at the furthest point from the impact. Buildings that survive the blast may well collapse from the weight of ash.

Not Uno cards. I never knew there was an Uno board game, so not that either.

Nope Ihatethecharacterquota

The held object, not being physically connected, is a separate craft. A Kerbal standing on a landed craft is themselves considered landed, so you should be able to recover them separately. If you were to fly them after recovering the cargo bay from around them I guess you'd just see them spawn in mid-air and promptly fall to the ground.

I'll second what Camacha said a couple of pages ago: if you must have an i7, may as well go the whole hog with the 4790K. Even if you don't overclock it's the best non-E chip around right now.

My oven only goes up to 240

Agreed, this sounds like a BIOS settings issue to me, specifically with the boot sequence. You say hard drives, plural, which makes me think the system is trying to boot off the wrong drive. Since you can boot from CD, you can see if the drives are readable from a Xubuntu live cd or similar. If they are, that really points the finger at the boot sequence. Also, if you've been swapping drives around, bear in mind there are some situations where Windows puts stuff it needs to boot on a drive other than the one you put the C: partition on, leading to failure to boot if the drive you didn't even realise Windows was using is removed.

Your oversight is that the Isp will continue rising as the rocket climbs.Still, I've briefly mucked around with LV-N+SRB launchers and not had much success. The low TWR of the LV-N is the killer. Laythe's surface gravity is lower, but I suspect it's still too high for the LV-N to be ideal.

Informally speaking, this would be because that way the BACCs do their job and are then discarded, meaning the LV-T30 and its fuel are pushing a lighter rocket thus getting more delta-V. This is because ultimately they're not adding that much extra fuel, especially against the entire weight of the base rocket. This indicates that by this point your central stack is mostly lifting its own weight rather than the payload, because the payload is too light in comparison to the rocket. If it flies well that quad-stack design might be useful when you need to lift something bigger.

Why did it end up off-centre? A symmetric lander with a stack-attached docking port shouldn't. Pictures would help.

A woman's name, misspelled perhaps, An active verb, a box with flaps, All seeking six four lots of four, To send each other back for more, Red green and blue and yellow to see, It's fun for all the family, Now if you're kept awake with worry, Solving this, well I'm not sorry.

Busy at Laythe Got the burns for three orbital rendezvous set up. The ships are on dregs of fuel, there's enough to get close approaches but I may end up using Kerbal jetpacks to match speeds. This is what I get for building my boat with four separate ascent vehicles. And just to make the launches fun, you can't see it in this shot but the orbits are all abound 20 degrees inclined.

Same issue tbh. Doing the same thing several times is more an exercise in patience than a real challenge. Now anyone who can put an asteroid in Moho orbit I will salute.