cantab

Well the KSP runway's somewhat shorter, about 1.8 km or 5900 feet, which is on the short side for airliners, but then few KSP aircraft approach airliners in size and mass. Being unable to takeoff until passing the end of the runway, and more generally needing excessive speed, is often down to poor gear or elevator placement preventing rotation.

Make a single missile that's so big you can hardly miss with it.

53. When numbers cease to exist...again.

The surface gravity of an infinite plane is well-defined, though looking it up I just find a load of maths with no clear formula. One property is that it's constant with altitude. Considering the thinness of Minecraft's world, it would probably be very low. On the other hand we know perfectly well that a Minecraft world does have a gravity of 9.8 m/s2. The conclusion seems simple: bedrock has an extremely high density. That would also explain why you can't mine it in survival. Indeed, perhaps minecraft's bedrock is a cousin of the similarly impossible dense and equally indestructible stuff the celestials in KSP are made of.

I've got a few big missions still going on .23.5 and don't want to have to troubleshoot compatibility issues. As such I've declined to change versions. So far as I know none of the parts I've used for the flights here changed in .24.

If it's controllable and has power, then full throttle, 4x physics warp, and a hard turn - yaw, opposite roll, unbalanced thrust if you can. Very likely to wreck things. Otherwise, build another boat and RAMMING SPEED!

Same place as the full SRB, which is in the middle or near enough. I'm pretty sure the part configs have no way to express the resources not being aligned with the CoM.

Regarding glitch-based propulsion, I shan't diminish the achievement. Creating a reliable kraken drive, a good infiniglider, even a decent ladderlifter isn't trivial. However since they are glitch-abusing they can never be seen as fully legitimate. Being able to climb into orbit from Eve doesn't make an "Eve SSTO" possible, not in the normal sense meant by Eve SSTO, and infinigliders are rightly excluded from most aircraft challenges.

Hmmm...could a car with nitrous drive on the moon?

Needed five tries to land my replacement Laythe boat successfully. The margin for error on it is slim, but I nailed it first time on the original landing.

Four LV-N's is often pretty sensible. You don't want too few or your TWR will be poor making ejection burns difficult. Equally you don't want too high or you'd actually be better off with a chemical engine. I don't know how much delta-V it's got but that ship looks OK. My LV-N count record is 14, which for its payload probably was overkill, but then I was making a ship for someone else to fly in a collab and wanted to keep the burn time down for them. (Said payload could actually have made Jool all by itself on its mod ion engines, but that would be cruel.)

Not really. For a Duna ascent going full throttle with high TWR will waste fuel, but it's nowhere near as severe as on Kerbin, and if you're making a powered or partly powered touchdown the thrust may help. For airless bodies a higher TWR makes landing and takeoff both more efficient, and landing easier too, but of course it means more weight of engine which may undo the efficiency benefits. Eve and Tylo are so extreme most people build specific landers for them. For the smaller bodies you can often use the same lander design a lot though. 3000 m/s or so should cover everywhere else, 2000 is enough for all but Laythe, Vall, and Moho.

Changeable units on the speedometer, job done.

I suspect the biggest advantage of FAR won't be the glide performance - Kasuha and Monthar have shown stock planes can glide well - but the massively lower drag in the ascent. From a pure delta-V perspective a BACC's enough to make orbit in FAR, but about 500 m/s short in stock.

You're not the first person to have issues with contracts in Jool orbit. Contributing to the confusion, it seems like different parts of the game use different things to determine what sort of trajectory you're on. The science system for example requires a periapsis below the surface as well as a position in the atmosphere to be considered flying rather than in space.

I believe his new computer is pretty good, being as it's new and built with KSP in mind.In any case, there's more to Whackjob's rockets than scale or partcount alone.

In practical terms, if you're in your parking orbit and know you want to leave now, and you have a certain amount of delta-V to use, just set a manouevre with that much delta-V prograde, then move it around the orbit until you get an encounter or close approach with the target, then refine as needed. This will work for standard Hohmann transfers if you know how much dV you need and that you're in a transfer window.

Probes can be made much, much lighter than Kerballed craft. You can make an entire launcher capable of putting a probe into LKO for less weight than a single Mk 1 Pod. Even a launch-chair-only craft can't come in quite as light as a probe.

By 300-ish parts the game is running at about half speed, but still feels smooth enough. By 500-600 or so things are definitely jerky. Incidentally, even with 1 part 60 fps is in my dreams. In terms of overdoing the part count, my "Nobel 1" mission probably fits the bill. I had a part-count-intensive payload and chose my von Braun launcher for it, which was a Saturn V workalike with lots of part-hungry features like a stock fairing round the second-stage engines, sepratron ullage motors, and weird fuel arrangements involving fuel lines for balance. My Magellan rescue mission used more parts but that was down to sheer scale rather than niceties.

The Kerbol system's not meant to be an exact scaling of the solar system anyway, merely broadly inspired by it. Just look at Duna and Ike.

Scaling up - or down - the celestials in order to reduce the impact of bugs is pretty kludgy though. Better to actually fix them.

I'd have thought the oil would be more of a concern on the e-reader. Unless you have a ruggedised device or something.

They ruined the Youtube comments by using them to push Google Plus. Then again the Youtube comments were already a wretched hive of scum and villainry.

Well, there are quite a few people somewhat seriously considering that IRL.An idea, though I really think it would be better saved for a mod, is for the pricing of things to be variable. For example when you start out rockets are expensive, there are plenty of people willing to fund you, and even if you could mine something it wouldn't be worth it. Once your space program's more established rockets are cheaper, but maybe funding's drying up a bit, however the price of minerals has gone up so you might actually turn a profit by mining. Flood Kerbin with loads of the same mineral though and your revenues from it will drop, encouraging you to explore more and diversify, or cut costs. PS: We have a part to transfer resources on the ground without docking - the claw.

KSPI prevents you running certain engines if there's a nearby Kerbal on EVA. But NERVA-like designs shouldn't emit significant amounts of radiation.