GoSlash27

My favorites were already posted upstream; the Victor and Buccaneer. I'll add the De Havilland Mosquito, which was arguably one of the best aircraft in WWII. Best, -Slashy

First console game: Sears TeleGames Pong (belonged to my neighbor) First handheld game: Merlin by Parker Bros. Best, -Slashy

Early 2014 with the .18 demo. Back then the most mass- efficient and compact landers used RCS instead of hydrolox. At the moment I set foot on the Mun, I knew I had to have the full game. HoHoHo, -Slashy

You have to not do anything at all. KSC requires no power and has no carbon footprint. Any launches will negatively impact the environment, so the most environmentally responsible way to play the game is not to play at all. Best, -Slashy

Another spin on the original: "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish.... Then he's got to get a fishing license but he doesn't have any money. So he's got to get a job and he has to get into the social security system and pay taxes. And now you're gonna audit the poor guy 'cuz he's not really good with math. They'll pull the IRS van up to your house and take *all* your stuff. They'll take your black velvet Elvis, and your Batman toothbrush and that all goes up for auction with the burden of proof on you because you forgot to carry the one because you were worried about eatin' a.... freakin' FISH! And you couldn't even cook the fish because you needed a permit for an open flame and then the health department is gonna start askin' you a lot of question about "where are you gonna dump the scales and the guts? This is not a sanitary environment!" And at the end of the day if you get sick of it all.... it's not even legal to kill yourself" -Doug Stanhope Shorter and pithier version: "Build a man a fire and you'll keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire and you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life" - Unknown HoHoHo, -Slashy

This is like saying you want to build a house but we shouldn't talk about carpentry because it makes no sense to you. You simply cannot plan an interplanetary mission without knowing what your DV is. That is the basic unit of measure in this realm. You don't necessarily need to know how to compute what DV your rocket has or how much DV you need to get to your destination (there are mods for that), but you absolutely must know what "DV" means if you're going to plan an interplanetary trip. You need to know how much DV your ship has and how much DV it takes to complete your trip.

You say you don't know how to calculate your DV, but don't want to know how to calculate your DV either. So... what are you asking?

Well... that and the fact that all parts are 100% reliable in stock KSP. Redundancy is just added mass and cost when it's impossible for parts to fail. @TheEpicSquared has a reason to do this. The rest of us don't. *shrug* Merry Christmas, -Slashy

I second @Geschosskopf's recommendation. I have often had success righting tipped landers with a kerbal on EVA. For future reference... 4 legs are better than 3 and if at all possible the fuel tank should be at the top instead of the bottom so that your CoG falls as the fuel drains. Best, -Slashy D'oh! Caught unawares by a necro!

45, and see 5thHorseman's comment. I build my craft to be cheap and effective with no regard for aesthetics. Merry Christmas. Now get offa mah lawn! Best, -Slashy

Loren Pechtel, I believe you are safe from the kraken so long as you don't focus on the object. Nevertheless, I'd delete that piece of debris just out of general principle. Best, -Slashy

Let's assume just for the sake of argument that people who play stock *do* think they're better than you. So what? Why are you so concerned about someone else's opinion? More importantly, what gives you the right to dictate what others are allowed to think? No, "stock elitism" isn't a thing, let alone a problem. It certainly doesn't need to be fixed.

Objectively speaking, nothing has any major use in sandbox beyond what you assign it. It's as foamyesque said. Best, -Slashy

Certainly in early career they're worth it for collecting science from Kerbin's biomes. Best, -Slashy

The free return trajectory is actually useful in early career mode in KSP, especially when you're doing caveman mode. You need to do a Munar flyby for science. You want to be able to mission plan with minimal parts and acceptable launchpad mass, but you don't have the luxury of patched conics. You don't want to haul the fuel required for a full orbit and return burn, so how do you make it all work? The free return, or at least something close to it. I just wait until my prograde is precisely aligned with the Mun and burn for an apoapsis of 16 Mm. This puts me into something very close to a free return that requires very little DV to get reentry. To do this, I keep the nose on prograde and wait until the Mun is aligned along my ship then burn, switch to map view, and wait for Ap. It's not perfect, but it works out close for me. Best, -Slashy

Nose gear should never have brakes. Best, -Slashy

It is as tomf said: If you leave with an angle more prograde relative the assisting body than you entered, then you will gain prograde velocity during the encounter. If you leave less prograde than you entered, then you will lose it. Energy gain and loss is all about the angles. HTHs, -Slashy

I wouldn't mind it. I'd also like a pressure center indication.

The problem with a wind tunnel is that KSP doesn't model airflow. You can get lift and drag data like what's available in the aero overlay, but that's about it. Best, -Slashy

A stock LV-N has a sea level t/w under .5. That's not counting the fuel, wings etc. If you were to make it with an infinite number of fuel tanks it would barely have enough DV to reach orbit, but t/w approaching zero. So no. An all-nuke SSTO isn't possible. Or at least not one that launches from sea level. Perhaps if you were to launch from the top of a mountain.... Best, -Slashy

By way of illustration, here's the biggest single RAPIER design I've done: Needless to say, it was on the ragged edge and I had to work to get it past Mach 1. I have found that anything that can exceed 380 m/sec can make it to hypersonic speed. Best, -Slashy

MitchS, The ship I posted upstream was a single RAPIER design, both the easy version and the bodged canard version. It's a larger and heavier ship than you've posted here, so clearly it is possible. In fact, a single RAPIER is capable of handling much more cargo than I loaded it with there. If you can't clear Mach one, then your overriding concern is drag. You must look for ways to reduce the parasitic drag to get you past Mach 1.2. Once you achieve that, drag reduces and thrust increases making the rest of the journey a cakewalk. You need zero AoA through the Mach barrier and minimal parasitic drag. Those control surfaces are also probably overkill. Make sure you're riding the air-breathing mode for all the velocity you can get. The one thing that sticks out for me is all the reaction wheels. They make a nice work- around for a fundamentally unstable design, but they can hold you in an aerodynamically inefficient flight profile when SAS is engaged. A truly clean design can work aerodynamically without reaction wheels or with reaction wheels without control surfaces. I've seen it (and done it) done both ways, but IMO *minimal* control surfaces work better because they naturally revert to a low drag state. Good luck, -Slashy

The one thing that really stood out to me was how seamlessly this movie transitioned into episode IV at the end. Not just the storyline, but the actual sets, lighting, and effects. It was like the whole movie climbed into a time machine and temporally displaced back to 1976. It leaves off at the exact moment Episode IV begins, and it *feels* like it was shot the same way in the same places. I felt a sense of actual deja vu as the movie came to a close. It was *that* convincing. I personally didn't miss the "crawl" in this movie because it portrays what happened in the crawl for episode IV. Best, -Slashy

I saw it last night, and was thoroughly impressed. It's a Star Wars movie for adults. Minor observations: -The CGI used to insert humans into dramatic roles isn't quite there yet. Tarkin and Leia were just artificial enough to bring me out of the moment. -I don't think there was quite enough character development for the rebel spies, and they had too many one- liners. This made their deaths too cheap IMO. -That second star destroyer must've been built by the lowest bidder. It RUDed way too easily. Did anyone else notice the Ghost at the battle? It was never mentioned and the camera never focused on it, but it was there. Best, -Slashy

Well.. the bug was that the ablator wasn't draggy enough to slow the capsule to a safe deployment speed before smacking into the ground. The workaround was to exploit this bug instead Best, -Slashy