Gaarst

The engines on your average Learjet put out 16kN of thrust each and are a lot larger than 0.625m. Jet engines are incredibly OP in KSP, and the Juno is no exception.

You don't know. I don't know. No one knows. I could easily find dozens of quotes of (presumably) intelligent people betting on a new tech that ends up being forgotten a few months after. I cited 3D TVs earlier, but smart watches are also a good example: was supposed to be the object that everyone had to have, but in the end it's still a niche. The forum topic is: "We absolutely need native VR support". To which I replied by stating my personal opinion (since I don't claim having the ultimate truth) and giving arguments. I don't see how that's off topic.

If you don't want people giving their opinions in a discussion, I suggest staying away from Internet forums.

I don't care about VR at all. It's a niche right now, and I believe it will stay so. (Remember 3D TVs?) Plus, I currently play KSP on a laptop and have neither the will nor the capability to buy a VR set and a VR capable PC (I literally can't afford spending 2 or 3 grands on this). VR is a nice thing to try and have fun with, but it's uses are currently too limited to make it worth. Add VR to KSP and everyone will spend the next month having fun in IVA, and then everyone will forget it. Not to mention that half the people will get motion sickness in a few minutes. VR is not and should not be a major development concern. If you want it, make a mod.

Finished building my new LEO space station. And went to Mercury. (Flew by at night unfortunately, I'm not good enough to gravity assists to nail the hour of arrival)

No.

Parts. Graphical updates (clouds, scattering, planet textures) can stay mod domain because I know I'm not going to use them (no NASA PC for me); but parts need some serious work, in terms of style and overall balance.

If you want a stable craft, then CoL should be behind CoM. For a plane it shouldn't be too far though or you'll dive straight to the ground. Some issues may arise due to the fact that CoL != CoP, but if you are not building a Space Shuttle replica you shouldn't have this problem. Anyway, if you have a problem with a craft in particular, screenshots are very helpful.

I don't see how having 15 FPS can prevent you from playing.

Game was in Beta so makes sense that there were lots of releases 1.0 was the "official release" (not saying it deserved that title), it makes sense that the devs would stop rolling features every week or so. We have 4 (necessary) patches, and one update to prepare 1.1. The time between each leaves time for mods to be updated and to actually enjoy the game for a few months. Also, lack of mods? Did you even check out the Add-on Releases? If some mods you use get abandoned, check for new ones. The DevNotes were still fine, but they took more time to do their thing so they were a bit emptier than during Alpha or Beta. Speak for yourself. While I gave up on hype after 1.0, most of the players are still on board the Hype Train™ whenever an update is announced. I don't see how a shader being removed can prevent you from playing, but hey, we've had weirder bugs. I don't know, the Spacecraft exchange is still full of people building jet planes, dropping missiles and butchering other Kerbals, that has never changed. Grammar aside, that was bad news. But we're still to close to actually know the consequences on the game's development. Nothing says they won't find good devs and continue just fine. We've never had many concrete info on the future of KSP except when just before an update. Though I agree this has gotten a lot worse since 1.2 release. See above about abandoned mods. See above for no roadmap. In 2013 KSP was in Alpha/Beta (can't be bothered checking the dates right now). It's like saying a 10 year old is dead because it doesn't grow as fast as a 6 months old baby. It makes perfect sense that the update pace slowed down. Anyway, you still have a game with hundreds (if not thousands) of mods to play with, even if development is stopped. So in the end, who cares?

I'm still moving mods from 1.0.4 to 1.1.3, I don't see a problem.

Press F2.

How to steal a satellite in 10 easy steps: Find a few hundred billions Get support of US Congress and DoD Wait a few years Roll out your brand new flying brick on the pad Find people willing to get inside Pick up the pieces of foam that fell Postpone launch a few times Launch ! Land because you forgot flying brick is only capable of getting in low orbit and every interesting sat is not in low orbit Be sad (and very in debt)

Yeah, planes are too complicated or whatever... Just give us decent rocket parts already!

Meaning: "we'll add it when we'll add gas planet 2, dV readouts and all the stuff we've announced these past few years."

Try to direct ascent off Eve and you'll see. Apollo style crafts are useful for the places that require the most dV: Tylo and Eve, because your lander will be so big you can't afford bringing the fuel needed to go back to Kerbin down with you Moho, because your orbital craft will be so big you can't afford bringing the fuel needed to go back to Kerbin down with you Other than that it's not necessary at all, but it often ends up being the lightest solution.

E = mc2 describes the rest energy. Kinetic energy adds to that, so without relativistic effects, the maximum energy (we don't care about potential here) would be 3/2*mc2. Except that in special relativity, kinetic energy becomes more complicated and includes a factor γ (Lorentz constant) going to infinity as the velocity of the object goes to c which means that the energy of an object with speed c is infinity. The total energy of an object in special relativity is γmc2 (the velocity of the object is included in the factor γ).

Yeah, and physics says that's wrong. c is a speed, a speed can't equal the square of a speed (it's like saying a mass equals a length). When taking the square of c, you also have to take the square of the unit or conversion factor, so c2=2c is wrong. c2 = (2*(150000 km/s)) * c would be correct.

E = mc2

I guess they mean surface speed and not orbital speed. Click on the speed display to switch from orbital to surface and back.

There is no way to empirically determine whether the laws of gravity are different or the planets are extremely dense. Since only on-rails body create gravity, there is no way to separate G and M in an experiment, so no way to calculate one or another, only µ can be calculated. Except that Squad explicitly stated that G is the same in the Kerbin universe than in ours, so planets are very dense, and debate is over.

Except I and others don't have KSP on Steam and don't wish to have it on Steam. Developing mods on the Workshop may cause some mods to be available for only a part of players. Also, to install mods on KSP you already have to just click a button (ok maybe two buttons), it's one of the simple games to mod: download, unzip and tadaa. The VAB has restrictions in size but not crafts. Even though it's tedious you can build as big as you want by offsetting your craft so that the part you are building is in the VAB. If you are OK with mods, the mod Hangar Extender allows to extend the VAB and build large things more simply. You can enable the Cheats menu by pressing Alt+F12 (on Windows), there there is an "orbit editor" (or whatever it's called) which allows you to teleport crafts wherever you want. It's not a teleporter or stargate part, but it's fine as it is.

The first Soyuz flight was in 1966, so yeah, for all Soyuz launchers.

@bewing@Fearless Son I now know that detached shockwaves are a thing in terms of heating, but I'm not sure that anyone has demonstrated the effects of detached shockwaves for drag. In the thread I wrote for drag tests in 1.2 (link somewhere in my sig), there were discussions about whether or not detached shockwaves exist. While I was obviously wrong initially in assuming they didn't exist at all, I have not seen any conclusive proof of their effects in terms of drag. Though I've never done proper tests specifically to give a definite answer. I'm not really sure I could think of a situation where it would be the dominant effect to test it, but I'd be willing to run the tests if I did. Also, I'm not 100% sure that keeping high AoA shields parts on top from drag. I know from experience it does shields them from heat, but the two appear to behave differently in the game.

The bright object is the Sun that you are supposed to be orbiting. This looks very much like a bug. Please read the following thread to report it: