Deutherius

-9 right on

You should really read the rules... In the same minute. Last post is the correct one, not even mentioning Xannari's edit. We are at -7. You don't want the history to repeat itself again, do you

-6 no

-7 ethan pls

-7, negative side needs some love as well

-7, just like that

-7 again

-7 lol

-7

Granted, but your account got banned. I wish for the Place-Anywhere 7 Linear RCS Port to be actually placeable anywhere.

-7 5char

No clouds at all in north Czech Republic. Coverage only about 60 %, but still beautiful. Now if only I had a better camera...

-6 will do

In an actual 24-cell, the 24 octahedrons are of course, regular and all the same size. I can just about get my head around working out how the 120 regular dodecahedrons fit together in the 120-cell. Haven't really had a good go at fathoming the 600-cell, though. I haven't really played around with other 4D objects before (kinda always got stuck trying to figure out higher dimensional hypercubes), that looks cool as hell. The 600-cell just makes my head hurt But I really like the 120-cell, the hyperspherical description seems pretty easy to understand and not so hard to imagine (read as "my brain doesn't immediately shutdown while looking at it"). Thank you

-4 5char

I don't think I understand the first sentence. The "add lines connecting all points" statement is incomplete, and I should've stated that clearer in the first post. The important thing (in case of the cube) is that duplicated objects are parallel to each other and the lines connecting them are perpendicular to said objects. This is, by definition, only possible N times in an N-dimensional space (starting from a point, just like in the first picture), after that you literally run out of places to put the higher dimensions (of the objects). And I have to disagree - the space you percieve is 3-dimensional, and that's what your brain is most familiar with.

That's where our 3D-accustomed brains stop understanding. Take a look at the #dim part of the picture. There are dimensions X, Y and Z represented as axes in 3D space, each one of them perpendicular to all the other ones. You can define a position of a point in this space with 3 numbers (coordinates). But, when we add the fourth dimension, W, it has to be perpendicular to all the other dimensions as well. And that cannot be truly represented in a 3D space (we ran out of 90° angles we can use), much less in a 2D space of that picture. Mathematically, you just add the fourth coordinate, and everything is fine. But visualising it is really hard. It's the same thing as trying to truly represent a 3D cube on paper, just one dimension higher. You can't really represent a cube on paper, because you are only working in a 2D space. The picture only has width and height, but no depth (each pixel only has X and Y coordinates). Your brain can somewhat visualise how the cube looks like in 3D, but that's only because of percieved perspective and because it knows how a cube really looks like - the picture itself is still only 2D. (EDIT: So not only the fourth example, even the third example is kinda... wrong. In a sense that it is trying to represent something it can't) Now try to imagine the 3D cube represented in 1D space. You probably can't, and neither can I. Just like the 4D tesseract in a 2D space. (The gif gives an illusion of a 3D space, and there the 4D tesseract actually looks kinda decent - just like the 3D cube on a 2D paper).

Frankly, I think it would be better to just launch a new satellite. This one is on a completely different orbit and fixing it would be costly. Important thing to note is that you don't have to launch into an equatorial orbit, in this case it's actually very inefficient. Just put a new satellite on the launchpad and timewarp until you are almost below the desired trajectory. Then launch directly into the desired orbit (e.g. going north if the dots on the closest side are going up, south if they are going down - just use common sense), trying to correct inclination while early in the launch (where it's cheap). Once you're in an orbit with the correct inclination, matching the contract orbit is just a matter of pushing around Ap and Pe.

No we don't. -2

I believe he was talking about the "Take temperature reading at Engineer's Folly below 18 200 m" type of contract. In which case, you just build a plane capable of suborbital speeds and fly it around to pass time at least a bit meaningfully when all your space contracts are en route. You can also designate special crews for this and send them around Kerbin for easier coverage. These contracts don't pay much, but they also don't cost much (unless you crash your plane), and it's basically free science. Personally I liked them, because they forced me to actually explore Kerbin and see all the beautiful landscape from up close, not just from orbit.

I am not! But hey, here's a -1 -2!

Granted. The universe breaks you. I wish for a joystick to play KSP with.

I'm not a linguist, but won't that cause some major conflicts? Basically anything big with water and at least one other component (e.g. big glass of water, big hole filled with water (pool, ocean), etc) will be shortened to the same thing. How do you propose to resolve such conflicts?

I usually get that when flying a spaceplane at high phys warp, most of the time accompanied by a sudden change in pitch/roll. Needless to say, I'd rather have my plane stable

You can alt + right click turbojets on SSTO's and tweak their thrust limiters individually to easily avoid assymetrical thrust/flameouts. I have always avoided two or more enginned SSTOs for this reason and now I have no excuse anymore