Gaarst

There is nothing to start since the two are not opposed. Also RSS has no tilt since the way planet orbits are modelled doesn't allow it (also the reason why Uranus is boringly "upside-up"). All planets orbit normally but the ecliptic is inclined by 23.5° instead of the contrary.

I might be wrong, but I don't think KSP models any form of air flow besides the drag defined by the drag cubes. Planes don't stall, radial parts that are clipped still generate drag, radial occlusion or detached shock are not a thing...

It most likely won't unless they re-upload their manually. Though I can see HoloYolo's.

Please no. Give us something to build actual rockets for once. I couldn't care less about planes or shuttle but we have literally no diversity at all in rocket parts. We had plane parts for the last few major updates so give rockets some love please.

The RD-0110 used on the third stage of the Soyuz-U is the same as for all Soyuz launchers from Soyuz to Soyuz-2.(except Soyuz-2.1b), so if the problem comes from there, the problem can be serious. Even if the engine is not in cause, all Soyuz designs are very close to each other: issues in one version could easily be found on another. A simple engine malfunction wouldn't cause loss of telemetry. For M-12M, the malfunction was transmitted to the ground stations as intended and the guys at Roscosmos knew what was going on straight away.

My knowledge of Russian geography is very limited. Well, now it's clear: it's been struck down by a meteor! Russia seems to like these (they the biggest country on Earth so it make sense they have more).

For those speaking Russian: I doubt it made orbit though, if there was a failure leading to loss of thrust, it's probably somewhere in Siberia by now.

In IPA: /lait/, /val/ and /pɔl/ respectively. Which is basically just me reading the names in French since I got used to the names before I ever heard them in English. When I make the effort of not thinking in Frenglish, it's: /lɛjθ/, /vɔɫ/ and /pɔɫ/.

Aye. From what @JPLRepo said, I understood that even if the update is done successfully, the avatars will not be recovered right? Maybe a PSA could be written to tell people why they can't see theirs and what to do to fix them. I've edited the topic to show the solution, but a post by a moderator might have more visibility.

Still a negligible fraction of the overall cost. Even more so if the research cost a lot more than the hardware. And you would need to test all the salvaged parts even more than if they just came out the factory, which will make you spend the few bucks you saved by recovering them. Edit: I really need to read the posts above mine. I basically said the same thing as Ten Key.

They were simply not made to be reused. Reusing stuff that goes to space is hard. This is one of the reasons why SpaceX doesn't fly its recovered boosters and why the space shuttle was such a waste of money and time. Here we're talking about a pod that reenters from lunar orbit (so much faster than anything from LEO, 11km/s vs 7.8km/s) made of aluminum sheets so thin the astronauts could puncture them if they hit it a bit too hard. Refurbishing an Apollo capsule would probably be more expensive than making a whole new one, so would modifying them so that they could be reused more easily. Even if they were reused, there's a 3000t rocket below that could not be reused, so you'd save at most a couple millions per launch out of $100 billion the Apollo program cost.

Thanks for the explanation. I've re-uploaded my profile pic, can people still not see it? Yeah, I've assumed that anyone who uploaded an avatar in the last month could affected, meaning either because you're new, or just because you changed it (as I did).

I can see his avatar. Can't see the avatars of the two that Dman mentioned.

Do you need more names? I can give a lot of them. When you go to a user's profile, and hover over their avatar, the link to the avatar is something of the form: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/uploads/monthly_##_2016/... All the users that are affected that I've seen so far had "monthly_11_2016" in this field, indicating they uploaded the image in November. Maybe there was a forum or server change in the last month which messed things up?

I'd be interested to know if they take PayPal...

The two mentioned by JKerman above, and I remember not seeing ruinzv2's avatar (was in the recent activity at the time). More generally, when going to advanced search and filtering members that joined less than one month ago, I can see the default avatar normally, but I can't see about half of these who have "proper" avatars.

Edit: a failed update caused the loss of some avatars uploaded in the end of November, if you're having this problem, simply re-uploading your avatar should fix it. (Kudos to @kunok for making me notice this) Some users' avatars seem to be broken, only displaying as a transparent background with the typical "missing image" symbol of your browser. It seems to happen regardless of the browser (noticed on Chrome, Edge and Firefox) but not for everyone. While some people cannot see my avatar, I and other users can; but I can't see the avatar of some people. I don't think the problem comes from my image itself since it is an ordinary .jpg. Strangely enough, it seems to only happen to users that have changed their avatar in November (I have yet to see a counter-example), but not everyone that did so is affected. If anyone has got more on this, please comment. Pinging @Red Iron Crown since I don't know who is in charge of the forum software.

Yes. I don't think we need a colonising aspect to the game, but others disagree. No one likes the current campaign. So changes would be good. No. Because not everyone has KSP through Steam or want to switch to Steam. In any case it is not needed. There isn't. The only limit is your hardware. Already exists.

How do I cancel a request? I'm a bit short on money at the moment, and I don't think my current account allows overdrafts of $80M.

There you are: I'm afraid it seems abandoned though.

No. The fuel of fission reactors is not nearly refined enough to be able to explode. If it was, half of the world would have nukes, and we'd probably all be dead.

The two stations were essentially in the same orbit, one higher than the other. It just amounts to doing your regular Hohmann transfer to the highest station.

Aerodynamic overlay is quantitatively wrong and should in no case be used for debugging.

If your two stations are on the same orbit, then sure. Else, no. Inclination changes are insanely expensive in LEO, neither the Soyuz nor the Dragon have the capability of transferring from one station to another (they pack at most a handful of hundreds m/s of dV which is enough to circularise, rendez-vous, deorbit but not much more). To be able to transfer from one station to another you'd basically need a really big fuel tank with a small payload on top. Since you'd need to refuel it for each transfer anyway, you might as well launch your thing from the ground.

Ugh, this software is terrible on mobile. I'm not going through the trouble of attempting to write a reply of more than two sentences to lose it all again. I'll catch up tonight.