cantab

VOID is another mod that can do it. I've not used it but it looks pretty good, puts the info in a nice display around the altimeter. As for a purely stock way, check the orbital parameters for your ship in the quicksave or persistence file. The inclination and longitude of the ascending node are easily seen, though to actually get a specific inclination this way will require trial and error or complicated maths. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Orbit#Orbits_in_the_save_file

Basaltic rocks melt from 1000 to 1200 °C or so. Most steels are solid at that temperature. If the fuel inside melts, so what? Presumably you would bury the sphere initially so that it won't waste its heat. It could also help to have a sphere made of something with a higher melting point that's then placed in a mass of molten iron. The iron does most of the "work" of getting down through the rock.

Decoupler on top of building, rocket thingy on top of decoupler. Set it down, fire decoupler, fly skycrane away.

I'm going to say no. The rocket equation is the single most important equation in spaceflight, and if the new player is handed a delta-V readout on a platter it turns that equation into a black box, removing the encouragement to learn how the equation works. Better would be a tutorial on how to do the calculations, though we might then need an in-game calculator since not everyone will have one handy. Making a flight information computer an unlockable career mode part would be an option, but not everyone's going to play career first, and it may put people who first play sandbox off career mode altogether. Give us the dry mass and mass of fuel in the VAB though, preferably but not essentially per-stage. Manually adding up the parts is annoying, and the map screen info box is non-obvious. It's that adding up, rather than the actual rocket equation, that encouraged me to get KER. And I wouldn't mind seeing a complete switch of the resources (excluding electric charge) to use kilograms, though it would muck up the old fuel tank names.

You mean I shouldn't enter Kerbin's atmosphere near-vertically on the way back from Eeloo?

There's a whole thread recently for clipping discussion that's covered all this.

I did put permadeath on for my .23.5 save. A combination of unmanned testing, abort procedures, and a bit of luck has kept everyone alive and well so far, but then I've yet to land on any planets or moons (apart from Kerbin).

I voted for the Mk2 Lander-can. If I want to send two Kerbals it's a lot lighter than the Mk1-2 pod, and does nicely on all sorts of ships. Mind you, that low crash tolerance is a bit of a worry. I've got a couple of ships where I was going to land it under chute, maybe I'll park in LKO and send the crew down in a bus instead.

I deflected an asteroid. With a bomb. FIRE IN THE HOLE! by cantab314, on Flickr

My Nobel 1, probably. From the massive part count lagging the game like heck, to having to ditch part of it because I didn't have enough fuel, to making a dog's breakfast of the asteroid rendezvous, it's been a pain. I'm flying it right now and soon will be the moment of truth as to whether it even works.

Yeah, anything more than a village really is going to lag things to hell unless you use some mod parts. What will also help is to place stuff far enough apart. So have say your airport a few kilometres from your village, then the only time both need to load at once is on the drive between them. PS: I suggest Eve for the venture. Easy to ship new stuff to from Kerbin.

I believe Squad will be well aware that KSP's attracted a fair few "non-traditional" gamers, those who don't PC game much and thus don't have high-end computers. As such they do work on making the game perform well. The underlying engine is also expected to improve, in part because again it's targeting multiplatform stuff with phones and tablet versions. It probably will always let us lag our PCs to oblivion with massive part count ships though.

Wiki lists the inline as having a dry mass of 50 kg, and the radial a dry mass of 30 kg. You could check this in-game with the tweakables. The masses mean the radial tank has a slightly inferior mass ratio.

Likewise..

Now that you've suggested it, I want to try one.

Jebediah Kerman is officially BadS. It's in the configuration file. You can still scare him though. I suggest deliberately making bits of his rocket explode, he doesn't much like that.

Either exactly the bloody same, or non-existent. At best maybe Unreal Engine would let the high part count ships perform better - but then that might just have delayed the introduction of the bigger engines. The engine, after all, can only render what the developers create, and I doubt the emphasis would have been on ultra-realistic graphics just because of using a different game engine. Non-existent is in the case that Unreal Engine was too costly for some reason, whether it's the licensing or the development learning curve.

Swing and a miss :-P I did see the film, a long long time ago though, I hardly remember it.The idea of a meaningful message in irrational numbers in any case I doubt originated with Sagan, though I may be wrong.

I believe that in low Earth orbit debris is no less a hazard in a prograde than in a retrograde orbit, because most stuff up there is in all sorts of inclinations anyway so closing speeds will be high, unlike around Kerbin where we tend to put everything in near-zero inclination orbits. The delta-V penalty for launching retrograde around Earth, as a percentage of the total, is somewhat higher than for Kerbin but not by much. The Israeli launches have been covered, being constrained by geopolitics. I don't know of any satellites deliberately put into retrograde orbits because it's needed for their mission, apart from sun-synchronous orbiting satellites which have inclinations about 100 degrees (so technically retrograde, but basically polar really).

Just drop it in good solid containers in the bottom of the ocean and stop fretting about it. If it does leak it'll be plenty diluted.

Or you just use magnets like every pound-shop travel game does.I expect that as with most space missions, the astronauts would be given a small weight allowance to use for their personal effects. Pretty much anything could go up in that. While they undoubtedly will have a pretty good computer entertainment system, I believe the mission planners would be foolish to use that as an excuse to skimp on physical recreation items. Playing chess on a computer screen just isn't the same.

A demonstration of power in our Universe only proves the being to have that power. Certainly something capable of destroying the Moon on a whim is worthy of at least not pissing off, but it's no proof they created the Universe in the first place. What I would find decent evidence of a Creator would be the discovery that certain digits of a mathematical constant, when interpreted according to a straightforward code, yield a meaningful message. The message does need to be long enough and not "far down" enough that the chance of any such message is small, even considering the multitude of mathematical constants and the possibility of different codes. To have put such a message in would have required a being to create mathematics itself, and by reasonable implication have at least had some hand in the creation of the Universe. Even in that case, the alternative hypothesis that the being simply meddled with the computers that calculated to constant to make it give a false answer has to be refuted. That may be hard to do with adequate confidence. Also, if such meddling is refuted, it shows only that a Creator exists, not that any specific entity claiming to be such is indeed such.

Not in the stock game. At present the re-entry effects are just eyecandy and do not actually heat up your craft. Now if you install the Deadly Re-Entry mod, then you need heat shields on stuff.

Attaching the separate control sections wasn't my idea, it's something I came across mentioned on the forums. I did figure out putting them "inline" in the tug at launch, I thought it looked better that way, but ironically that's one of the aspects I'd tweak slightly if I launch another similar tug.

Thank you for drawing the distinction.