cantab

Does tying a plastic bag round the end of a mop to make a toilet plunger count?

Saturn is always special. Jupiter's pretty dependable too. Mars, though ... is a pig. It only gets close for 2 months every 2 years, and even then it's hard to see surface detail unless you have like an 8 inch or larger scope.

Lots of PC players have trouble too, it's mainly down to the wheels. Circumvent the issue by trying a VTOL?

If you want to bring your own fuel, the setup will be a lot smaller with LV-Ns. If you plan on drilling the asteroid, consider the Rhino for more power without needing to spam parts. Either way I recommend meeting the asteroid in solar orbit. Then it doesn't take much delta-V to correct its Kerbin periapsis to where you want - low for an efficient powered capture, even lower for an aerobrake, or you can fish for a gravity assist. Back in the day I got rocks to Eve and Ike that way (although not E classes).

I built a mothership with a lovely little probe lander, flew it out to Jool, landed on the first moon*, ran the science experiments ... and found out I'd forgotten the antenna. That would be bad enough, but I also had nine more identical landers on that mothership and a second one. D'oh! As for your situation, if you have and want to use a quicksave well before re-entry then it's savable. Adjust your atmospheric entry so you don't land but instead aerobrake into a lower orbit. Make that orbit stable (get out and push the capsule if you have to). Then send a rescue ship. (*Dres, in fact, because I have a modified solar system.)

You ask the question "is mining worth it?" but you then go on to complain about something different. You don't need to build a complex multi-module surface base to take advantage of ISRU. Conversely you don't need to use ISRU to build a base. If your objective is to mine fuel, consider instead a single ship that can land, drill, optionally convert, and return to orbit. No roving or surface docking needed. If your objective is to make a base, both wheels and legs are problematic in 1.1.3. You might consider using neither, or just waiting until KSP 1.2.

P.S. for those who think this is true, it is just a satirical piece. - from that article. Take it as a reminder to think more critically when you read the news. That article was just a joke, but often the media will try and deceive you to serve someone else's interests.

Wish granted. All forum games that don't involve direct replies are closed. I wish Virgin Media was less of a steaming pile of excrement.

Granted. Unsurprisingly, chips are banned. I wish cars had a spare battery. I may have left my headlights on earlier...

Update: So there's a much more sensible way to put an upper limit on the Moon's rate of atmosphere loss: Conservation of energy. The Moon receives about 1016 W of power from the Sun. (Solar constant times Moon's cross-sectional area). To warm 1 kilo of oxygen gas from ~300 to ~1000K takes around 106 J of energy. Therefore solar irradiance limits the Moon to losing around 1010 kg of gas per second. There just isn't the heat available to go faster. Now if our terraformed Moon has an atmosphere like Earth's scaled according to its surface area, that's around 1017 kg. Which means it can't escape quicker than 1010 seconds. And that's 300 years. That's still worryingly quick, but it's far far slower than my previous idea of an escape in a few hours! And this lets me conclude that if you have the technology and resources to go from nothing to an Earthlike lunar atmosphere within a few decades, or maybe even one or two centuries, you certainly have the capability to keep it 'topped up' even in the face of atmospheric escape. On the other hand, if your terraforming ideas are going to take millennia, they may not have a hope.

Well let's try and put some numbers on it. Main source: sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/doc.cfm?fobjectid=50647 Crunching the equations for Jeans escape: Assuming oxygen molecules at 300 Kelvin, the expected conditions at the surface. v0 = 390 m/s vesc = 2380 m/s for the Moon For oxygen atoms in the exosphere v0 is more like 1000 m/s as per the source. The exponential term in the Jean's escape formula is thus: ~10-16 at the surface. ~10-3 in the hypothetical exosphere. Unfortunately it ends up very sensitive to the assumed exosphere temperature, so it's hard to make solid conclusions. But nonetheless we can continue. The terraformed Moon is not going to throw off its entire atmosphere in one big lump, but it will 'boil away' from the exosphere. Working out the rate of escape per particle per second, essentially the chance of a particle flying free, for our assumed exosphere I get p = 6.5 If I've got everything right, this seems to be pretty much saying that the lunar exosphere will stream off continuously, no atom will hang around for more than a fraction of a second. But then again, the exosphere is normally only a small part of the atmosphere as a whole. And shouldn't this evaporation process in a sense cool the remaining atmosphere. Here's where I admit my logic gets very wooly. I'm going to compare to Earth. I know the thermosphere is 0.00002 times the total mass of the atmosphere. The exosphere will be even less, but I can't find a good figure. But suppose I use that thermosphere amount, then I'm expecting our Moon to lose a fraction 10-4 of its total atmosphere ever second. And that suggests the whole thing will run off in less than a day. ! ? I really don't know if this assessment is accurate. If it is, it suggests that there's no hope of maintaining a lunar atmosphere, not even with constant gas input. But I'm sceptical of such a result. It ends up so so sensitive to the atmospheric temperature and density profiles, and that's one thing when you're considering known atmospheres, quite another when you're trying to assess what a terraformed Moon would have.

The stock game already includes "progress tracking" code, with a part of the save file to cover that. So on one level adding Steam achievements ought to be easy. On the other hand, the stock game currently makes no effort to prevent "cheating" that progress tracking feature. Would Steam consider this an issue? Would they consider the availability of the F12 menu 'cheats' an issue? I don't want to see PC KSP end up more locked-down as it were just to facilitate some meaningless trinkets.

It's not a general issue, but a problem with certain parts. Wheels in particular misbehave badly. Anything attached to a hollow part will also be a problem to offset, because the game tries to stop you floating a part in thin air in the middle.

Ions. I packed 20 km/s for my Moho trip. Overkill, absolutely, but having heard so many stories of other players running out of delta-V on their Moho trips I decided that whatever went wrong with mine it wouldn't be lack of propulsion! In the event I needed two goes to stick the landing but otherwise the trip was a resounding success, and I had enough leftover dV in the mothership to stop off at Gilly and Bop for jetpack landings before returning to Kerbin.

"ASUS something" tells me nothing. All companies make all sorts of computers. To get informed advice we're going to need to know what your requirements and your budget are. In particular I'd say think about whether you need a second laptop, or whether a desktop would be suitable since you already have the Macbook.

Granted. Nothing changes, and you come to realise that this Earth we have truly is the best of all possible worlds. In your despair you commit suicide. The worls is made a better place for that. Nobody attends your funeral. I wish I didn't have such a dark mind.

Granted. Enjoy. I wish to be bald in a world where having a combover is punishable by death.

I would say probably not so many. Pokemon Go is encouraging its players to do things they otherwise would not normally do, including walking around while staring at your phone, and it has a massive popularity far beyond Ingress or anything else similar. The world is not divided into total brainiacs and total idiots. I also know that the game could have been designed to encouraging less staring at the screen. And less draining the battery - which actually, I see as a safety issue too. To go from fully charged to flat as a pancake in two hours while running an app that's basically a glorified satnav is pretty pants and will probably catch people out.

I seem to remember plenty did. In Gran Turismo (edit: 4) I could get less than full throttle by being gentle on the button.

The reason that happens, though, is arguably because AMD release cards with rubbish drivers. (Whatever the OS). Not sure it should really be considered a plus point for them.

It will probably just work. Seemed to in KSP 1.1.2 with its versions of Kopernicus at least. (Kopernicus on KSP 1.1.3 has a bug with other planet mods that move Kerbin, so I haven't upgraded myself).

You have to keep your screen on for ages for it to work right? Have Niantic not heard the phrase 'battery life'?

The gotcha there is the 6600K doesn't come with a cooler, so add another 20 dollars or more for an aftermarket cooler, and overclocking wants a Z170 motherboard which is a further extra cost. Of course the 6600K is a good choice for many people but the overall cost difference versus the locked i5's is bigger than it looks. Try and find some Blender benchmarks of the RX 480. Relative performance - and compatibility and other factors - might not be the same as for gaming. (Not that all games are the same either.)

Just because somebody else isn't literally breaking the law doesn't mean they aren't annoying.

Since that's the case, may as well compare GPU performance: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=3114&cmp[]=108 A synthetic benchmark so won't be precise, but going from a 330M to a 960 (non-M) is about a fifteen times performance improvement. It's huge.