Jovus

Hegel Hegel Hegel, I read him back in the day, Hegel Hegel Hegel, I can't put him away... (Read Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Also, a fun phrase: transcendental unity of apperception.)

The biggest two problems I see are that you'd need a lot of corn to see positive effects (since the vast, vast majority of mutations are negative) and that the actual mutation effects of X-rays (or other radiation) while present, are fairly small compared to other factors (like replication errors and sexual recombination). Still, it's certainly a possible strategy.

If you're using the Mk1, I suspect Deadly Reentry makes that pod a little tougher by accident, since it adds ablative shielding. (I've intentionally crashed it into the ground at ~2m/s faster than its listed crash tolerance, and it survived. Not so without DR.)

I'm somewhat confused by the phrasing of your question, but wouldn't Euler's method be exactly what you're looking for?

Try setting them as spoilers. Then strip the symmetry and set each to a different action group. Easier might be to use an airbrake part from a mod pack like B9.

Von Braun was a persona non grata to the Department of Defense and the Department of State at the time, due to suspected continuing .... sympathies. (Utterly groundless, I might add.) As a result, the Navy spent a good several years failing to make rockets (and employing Robert Heinlein on the project, no less!) before finally giving up and having von Braun solve their problems in a couple months.

He who controls the mainsails, controls the universe.

At least it's not Papyrus.

Kerbodyne: proving once and for all that you don't need wings to be a plane.

Because a sphere is the most efficient shape for a given volume of space, and they need the extra room for snack storage.

Congratulations! I know the feeling; I just got my computer working a few weeks ago myself.

TIme on its own doesn't exist. Time is the measurement of motion. The geometry of spacetime (which is space with the concern of the measurement of motion) is hyperbolic. Restating in a different way: Time itself doesn't 'advance' and it doesn't have any 'dimensions'. It is not even a phenomenon, contrary to Kant. However, time is an axis in space-time, and the angle between the axis of time and the axes of space is governed by a hyperbola. (The hyperbola changes its equation depending on the speed of the object moving through spacetime.)

You clearly did not understand what I was saying. A Hilbert Space is infinitely extensible, though not necessarily unbounded. (You can set boundaries arbitrarily.) However, neither I nor the article are talking about an infinity of matter in the Universe, only an infinity of space, which is essentially a mathematical concept that is physically verifiable but has nothing to do with bodies. (It has to do with the motion of bodies, of course...) I suggest reading Dedekind's Essays on the Theory of Numbers, though only after you've given Aristotle's Physics Book Gamma a good long go. (Descartes' Geometry is also likely to be helpful, and all of this requires a good grounding in Euclid, at least Book 1, and the Conics of Appolonius.)

A question and a suggestion for the man of the thread. Suggestion: if you're interested, instead of shortest time from pad to landing, do the shortest time from LEO to landing. That'll allow you to build big and use big engines, because you don't need the starting TWR to get to space. (Use Hyperedit to get it up there; I shudder to think of orbital construction of one of your monstrosities.) Question: Instead of your strut-truss-strut-tank system, have you tried a hybrid of cross-struts and cross-fuel-lines? I'm curious, because fuel lines are supposed to flex, and in fact have a much higher breaking tolerance in practice than struts because of it.

Perhaps y'all should read it less as a, "Here's a smartass suggestion to shut you down," and more of a, "Just in case you didn't know, there's a mod you can use to fix the problem on your end (without impacting your contention that this is something innately wrong that should be fixed by the KSP devs)." That's a serious suggestion, not intended as snark. I know that's how I mean it whenever I reply something along the lines of "there's a mod for that." Not meant as a "shut up and move along" but as a real, helpful "just in case you didn't know" suggestion. (I'm also not claiming that's how it's always intended by the poster. I honestly couldn't know that. Just pointing out a way we can give each other some credit and maybe not get angry at one another.)

FTFY Off-topic: I've idly wondered what would happen if regex and Whackjob met at a KerbalKon and were left alone in a room together. (Probably they'd just talk about KSP and decide to get beers together, but in my head they're like opposite poles of awesome.)

Just spitballing from the WISE specs, but that sounds about right. Stealth in space would involve hiding behind other bodies and blowing up enemy detectors, not designing ships that can't be seen. Though to be frank, I doubt stealth will be much used if we ever have fusion torch battles. (As opposed to some FTL or other science fantasy paradigm, which of course can't at all be predicted.)

I know my opinion doesn't count for much, but I'm firmly in the camp of 'bouncing counts' here. Soft landings? Who has time for that?

Sort of, anyway. People do still plant heritage crops. Their yields are lower and their various resistances weaker, usually, which is why they're not as popular, I'm told, and why hybrids exist in the first place. The main difference, I think, is nobody is patenting 'eugenically modified' breeds and then suing people over them. Edit: Wow, looks like I'm wrong about this by a long margin. Sorry! Disclaimer: I'm not a farmer, just some guy with opinions on stuff he knows only a tiny bit about.

I don't know how this normally works, since you've been on hiatus since before I bought the game, but: Whackjob, will you be offering a craft file of your creation so those of us who are masochistic can try it ourselves? I'm curious to see what could actually push my new box.

Aside: looks like I was wrong and we do live in a Hilbert space.

Nah. I'm not saying this is what you said. All I'm saying is that this is the only way that the inverse square law of flux gives a non-decreasing flux with distance. If the object behaves like a point source from sufficient distance, then the luminosity falls of like 1/r^2; if it behaves like a line, then it falls off like 1/r, and if it behaves like a plane, then it doesn't fall off, because as you pointed out, the cone subtends more of the source as you pull back. That's all I'm saying. Not to my understanding, though it has been a few years since I seriously studied such. (My specialty is ULXs, not the CMR.) In very broad outline, you use the characteristics of the cosmic microwave radiation along with observable gravitational interactions to come up with a whole-universe estimate. I could be wrong. Here, have a link to a simplistic explanation.

If the stars in the universe can be modeled as an infinite plane, then ZetaX is correct. Unfortunately (or actually very fortunately!) they can't. We have a fairly good measurement of the mass of the universe. Whether or not space is infinite, the amount of matter certainly isn't.

If your engines refuse to work with anything except the stock fuels, I'd suspect a bad RO install. But I don't really know.

Liquid engines. They don't throttle.