Gaarst

Because digging a few holes hundreds of meters deep will stop the rotation of a 2000km wide ball of molten metal 4000km further down... As @sevenperforce said a nuclear bomb in the Yellowstone won't probably do that much damage to the Earth even if the whole thing blew up. And we have detonated several dozen H bombs for underwater tests are we are not living with the fishes[citation needed] as far as I'm aware of. I don't want you to take a map with a big red circle on it and say "it's at the place of the big red circle". Take an actual map (or Google Earth if you want) and go find that crater without any indication of its location. And you will find... nothing. Because even something that can wipe out all life from Earth doesn't do anything to the planet itself.

I think you have a problem of scale here. Humans can do what they want to climate or stuff, but the Earth doesn't even know we're there. The impact of men on the big rock under our feet is literally nothing. Take atom bombs for example: hugely destructive, could cause the extinction on mankind in a few days/weeks, really bad stuff for the planet you might say. Now take earthquakes or volcanoes: each of these is several times more powerful than any atom bomb in terms of energy released, and what are they ? Small movement or holes in the crust leading to the Earth mantle. Even an asteroid that could wipe out all life on Earth would leave nothing but a small scar. Try finding the Chixclucxub-whatever crater on a map. Another example that could be more appropriate here: do you fear that Earth is going to fall towards the Sun each time a satellite uses a gravity assist ? Earth has nothing to fear from a few moving things drilling small holes on its surface. And as long as you do it with a bit of good engineering, neither does mankind.

And their drivers are not even nice...

RCS Build Aid does it. Or you could use ye olde way and calculate it yourself using the rocket equation.

The Earth is big, like really big. The world energy consumption is about 100 TWh per year. The total internal energy in the Earth is about 1015 TWh. You shouldn't worry about geothermal energy cooling the Earth. It's not endless, but mankind is a lot less endless than that (whatever this means).

What ? You mean is it more efficient than the old "turn 45° at 10km" thing ? I don't know if it's that much more efficient, but it's definitely the best way to make it to orbit without flipping or without spamming fins at the bottom of your rocket.

Hi nobody ! Welcome to the forums, I hope you'll like the people here ! There is a French section in the forum (there was, now it's just a thread, but nvm), be sure to drop by and say bonjour to meet the other French people hanging around here.

Ascent profiles have indeeed changed since the Aero update of 1.0 last year. The method that you have is outdated and doesn't work anymore, you now have to do a gradual gravity turn, just like real rockets. To get up-to-date tutorials, I suggest you take a look in the Tutorials section of the forums, and especially to this post, explaining how to make a proper ascent and gravity turn in 1.1: (Even though basics are always the same, know that there are several different ways to make it to orbit, so you should search and try a few to see which one suits you the best)

That's true, I was wrong on that one, shouldn't have said this as a justification, but I still believe the first two lines I wrote are right.

@Buzz light fear, you're lucky, EJ made a stream yesterday explaining how to make stock hinges. While it won't tell you how to make your X-wing, it will probably be helpful. Link to the VOD: https://www.twitch.tv/ej_sa/v/65869504

Please do not suggest for new parts in the stock game. First off, Squad won't listen to it; second the parts you suggest are way too specific to make anything but dumbed down replicas. There probably are a few mods adding an N1 to the game (I know SXT had one at a time). And the KSP devs have made the choice of keeping the game far from actual spaceflight history, having parts for replicas or Kerbals named after actual astronauts wouldn't make any sense. As several people below made me notice, this is obviously false. Like really false, please stop quoting me

Rain/weather/clouds have already been asked/discussed/rejected a few times. Please take the time to read this before making a suggestion (although only clouds are mentioned there, I'm pretty sure weather was on the previous list):

I could do the Skype thing though I would prefer Discord (I can make an effort) I don't have lots of time right now because of exams, but things should get better past next week I can do maths, that's not a problem I am really bad at kOS I can build rockets I probably can assist on stuff depending on what I need to do @Dman979, about FDO thing, who do I need to contact ? And for the planning team, @ILikeIke, could you explain briefly what you do and how I could help ?

I probably won't have time to seriously look into that in the next few days (exams and stuff), and while I know how stock hinges work, I am a beginner in this domain. I think that stock X-Wings replica have already been done; I'd suggest you search on the forums (Spacecraft Exchange), YouTube or Twitch and see if you find anyone that built one and explaining how to precisely make these.

Is there any role in the backup mission controllers needed that does not require a mic ?

Parts that move (airbrakes, gears, panels) do not allow other parts to be attached on their moveable sections. The only way to have moveable things in the stock game is using the very Krakeny stock hinges which are basically two crafts that are undocked but still somehow linked together so that they can move relative to each other. I'm not really sure I understood how you would like your wings to move though.

Don't want to get into that, but in what regards are mods that more than triple dV requirements, force you to use life support for your kerbals not to die, make reentry actually dangerous... cheating ? BTW, using 50-60 mods and my KSP is fine, thank you

If what @5thHorseman said doesn't work, you can similarly try to edit the "state = [something]" line to "state = Available". This is what I use to revive Kerbals, but I'm not sure firing works the same way.

It's true, add this to the (small) list of good things brought by the shuttle. Anyway, I seriously doubt they will do this much to recover Hubble. Costs are too high (have to develop a complete reentry module from scratch), and chances of failures as well. And reviving the shuttle ? I don't think this will ever happen. NASA will probably send up a tug to make sure it reenters safely and not crash on someone's head and that will be it.

So use one of the most scientifically productive machine ever built by man to revive the greatest waste of money ever in the history of spaceflight ? On second thought, just leave it up there.

NASA's ahead of you Though by "safe disposal of Hubble", I'm not sure if they really intend to bring it down safely. Anyway, as of today, we have no craft able to bring back a large cargo from orbit. STS was good at it (one of its very few advantages over expandable rockets) but there is no replacement that would have the same ability planned that I know of.

Hover your mouse over the Kerbal portraits and click on the little button bottom left of the portraits. There might be a key mapping that I'm not aware of though.

Here.

Trying to land an asteroid with a space shuttle on a single mission has got to be part of the hardest things I've ever tried in KSP. Still trying.

You have too much stuff underwater causing insane amounts of drag. Fastest boats in real life and in KSP AFAIK are hydroplanes, designed to have only very few contact with water (single hull, and no insanely heavy ore ballasts). Keep it simple is the golden rule. And as said before, 35m/s is pretty fast for a cruising boat: 68 knots, 126 kph or 78 mph compared to less than 10 knots in real life.