Thiel

That\'s not in the game yet, so there\'s not much point in worrying about it. Remember, it\'s stock only.

As the owner and frequent user of an Celestaire ASTRA IIIB I\'m happy to prove you wrong.

That only works when you want to get to a body that\'s orbiting the same body as you are.

From the Earth to the Moon Not a documentary, but a must have for any budding rocketeer.

Of course it does. This is KSP you\'re talking about.

http://Eclipse observed from the Mün\'s north pole

I lost my decent stage that way once. I was tweaking the orbit of a very big payload so it wasn\'t immediately apparent and I didn\'t notice it until I detached the payload (And the manoeuvring thrusters that could have taken the Kerbals home. Turned out I\'d been hit by an old discarded stage.

I\'ve had a few impacts. They vary from loosing a winglet (Annoying but non-critical) to loosing an entire stage (The descent stage, they\'re still up there)

Again, no. The difference is the reason why it was impossible. In case of circumnavigating the world they couldn\'t do it because they couldn\'t bring along enough supplies to last them the entire trip. No-one was claiming it was physically impossible, only that it was impractical. In case of heavier than air flight it was the lack of a suitable engine that made it impractical, not because any physical laws said so. Same with supersonic flight. No-body was claiming it was physically impossible, but that it was beyond our ability to engineer at that point. And that\'s why that analogy doesn\'t work. People have realised that we could go around the earth from the moment we found out it was round. We\'ve known heavier than air flight was possible since the moment we invented the kite and we\'ve known supersonic flight was possible since the first time someone fired a rifle. Not so with FTL flight. We have no idea about a clue of a shadow of a hint of a flimsy piece of evidence that suggests how FTL could be done, or if it\'s even doable.

With the resources available at the time you couldn\'t. However that was a function of logistics and not because the laws of physics said so. See above See above No, history shows us that we can overcome any number of engineering and logistics problems, not that we can bend the laws of physics.

Parachutes have no effect on the Mun, so yes you are.

Actually, there\'s not a single shred of evidence to support that. Quite the opposite in fact.

Well, they\'re about ready to release the experimentals to the guinea pigs testers, so I figure we\'ll have it within the next week.

Err, you do know that the phone net is just as dependant on the power grid as your house is right? It just ties into it on a higher level.

Yes? That doesn\'t actually solve any of the problems I outlined. Your still operating the system at high intensity for prolonged periods of time which means the battery life and heat problems are still there. And take a look at the demonstration video. The most demanding game in terms of input had what? 8-10 keys and they took up the majority of the display. And none of the games required the use of more than one control group at a time. KSP does. This has nothing to do with whether or not I like tablets. It has to do with the fact that the touch screen format, especially the portable versions, does not mesh well with games that require a large range of inputs. Also, I suggest you take a look at the computers of the last couple of decades. You\'ll note that all of them have the same input options, the keyboard. You\'ll also note that it haven\'t changed at all since it was first introduced. The only big change that has occurred is the mouse.

You\'re also going to run into another limitation inherent to KSP. SoI scale with gravity, so you\'d basically hit your asteroid seconds after it\'s SoI. That\'s going to make intercepting them mighty hard, not to mention landing on them and forget about orbiting them unless they\'re perfect spheres.

Err, no. That\'s a basic limitation of all touch screen based systems. Your monitor and keybord is one and the same thing, and in a game that require specific keys for specific actions those will have to be shown as such. Right now the core game require just shy of thirty individual keys. (Esc, Caps Lock, Left Shift, Left Ctrl, Q, A, W, S, E, D, C, R, F, T, G, H, N, J, M, I, K, ',', '.', Up, Down, Left, Right and Space. 28 total) This is only going to increase as the game grows in complexity, and that\'s not even considering mods. So between the keys, the nav ball, staging list and other miscellanea there won\'t be much space left to show the main view. And then there\'s the problem of making the controls intuitive without tactile feedback. (A problem for most tablet and smart phone games) Oh yeah, and since this is a handheld system you\'re limited to one hand and maybe the thumb on the other since the off hand will be occupied holding the tablet. (Not much point in making a tablet game if you can\'t play it without placing it on a table) And while we\'re on the subject of portability, this game is going to require a massive amount of power since the processor is going to be running full-tilt constantly which leads to short a battery life and lots of time spent hooked up to an electrical outlet which again kinda defeats the purpose of porting it to a tablet in the first place. And that leads us to another problem. Tablets and smartphones have notoriously bad cooling capacities so they\'re liable to heat up dramatically, which can result in them getting too hot to handle comfortably. Not to mention that it isn\'t exactly great for the hardware either. This is already a problem on a number of smart phones. So no, key binding, no matter how fanciful, isn\'t going to solve the basic limitations of the format. Tablets and smartphones were never intended for this kind of thing and their design reflects that. (Shocking, I know)

The problem isn\'t graphics or even computing power, it\'s power, heat and control layout. Once you\'ve added all the buttons you need there won\'t be any space left on the screen for your ship.

I\'m fairly certain it\'ll have the same problems as all the other proposed solutions once it goes on rails, since as I understand it collider meshes aren\'t simulated then.

That comparison fails on so many levels. EA makes its money selling low value products to untold thousands of individuals. As a result they can loose entire market segments without feeling it. A private space company deals with a small number large companies that have more lawyers than EA has customers. Failure to live up to a contract is going to be very expensive, if it doesn\'t kill the company outright.

Actually, evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not only have we observed speciation, DNA sequencing has made it possible to trace every single species we know. (That we have a DNA sample from obviously)

The rotatron is fine and the strut lengths are fine. And so is the claw as long as you aren\'t going to stick it on the end of an arm. The struts and joints feel much too bulky compared to the existing parts. Oh and a base plate of some sort for the claw would be really neat. Possibly with rotation functionality. And while we\'re wishing cylinders of different lengths would also be nice. But really, this is an awesome mod. Seriously, how many mods lets you make a walking launchpad?

The biggest problem I can think of would be organ rejection. After all, you\'re effectively replacing your tissue with someone else\'s and your immune system is probably going to throw a fit. *Imagines organ rejection of all your skin* Shudder

Would it be possible to get a 1m fuel tank that fits between the HH-77 and the FL-R25? The former is too big for most landers and the latter tends to be too small for anything outside of the most basic landers without resorting to some serious stacking. So far I\'ve been using the stock tank, but it just doesn\'t fit with the NovaPunch parts.

Oh boy, I\'m going to need some bigger fairings. Would it be possible to make a smaller version?