Arugela

It's Jupiter. Or whater the correct word. Like in an anime I was watching. enough energy and it turns into a star

10/10. I love battleships in space with massive lasers!! http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii613/PicsMe101/KSP/Screenshot%20from%202015-03-09%20104153_zpseplbzfhf.png' alt='Screenshot%20from%202015-03-09%20104153_zpseplbzfhf.png'> One of my own ships!! 8) Give her a rate!

The meaning of life is multiplication!

2/10 I've seen you but I don't know you or anybody on this forum. Plus I don't remember anyone to much anywhere to start with.

It gets cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. I wish you had not wished for this as my arthritis is now getting worse by the day.

Your hill is on my new pile. And as the new creator of existence your hill is by definition my hill and I own you and everything you own from now on. My pile of new existence.

-1 = 7!

Gets kerbal! Puts in an EVA suit!

Please leave some underwear right next to barney. sopxzip

I bend down and plopped some new mysterious substance into the universe! My pile of new existence.

did you see may last answer about supernovas? Nebula? Newborn stars? A star exploding? Stars? Is it a stellar object? A pixel? A bohemian prostitute? Kentucky fried chicken? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supernova_observation supernovas can be seen over a year. It's an exact fit.

You should design those 12 big tanks to both be refillable and come off for easy replacement. Then you could fill up current pods and break off the old and send up new ones in place if you don't just fill them up as is. That could also be good as a way to dump weight if needed for travel. You could make a mini ship to bring the rest of the fuel tanks(full or empty) along afterwords allowing your ship to be broken apart for more fuel efficiency or range or something. both the mini ship and the mothership could be more efficient separately and give some design edge for things. Say landing on planets you can't now without a descending vessel. then you have the option open! Or design the tank with very efficient engines on them and a means to travel alone. Minor rcs or electric turning and some basic engine hiden in them. Then you just need a kerbal based ship to bring them up if you ever needed to replace them outright(say from accidental destruction). They could even fly to you afterwords. This would give more versatility in weight to thrust potentially if detached(assuming both ships have better thrust to weight seperated). And it could be cool to have parts of your mother ship separate and fly behind you on missions to save fuel. Or if that is not realistic because of the engine weight you could also make a thing to fly them to you and attach them. It would only attach the engine till you get it to the ship and attack a new one if needed or to refill your current mother ship via dock. Of if it was possible to design like I originally said they could fly back to kerbin(or wherever you have fuel) and refuel and come back on their own. Self flying refueling fuel pods! 8) I could imagine a smaller ship being capable of bringing up to 4 of those(empty or full) or something to orbit then having them detach and(refuel or) fly to the mother ship to refuel it or replace older canisters. Which could fly back and refuel in orbit and wait on a station till needed to come replace the next batch or whatever. You could also attach them together like a train. That or just make a refueling ship to come refuel via the docking ports. But being able to detach full tanks could be really useful for doing stuff with different weight to thrust without having to burn the fuel. Heck you could even leave them in orbit. But that gets to the transport issue potentially. The other reason for this could be an eventually parts count thing. Detaching the tank and even flying them to a close refueler could be better than attaching two ships depending on the situation. Or did you make it so the entire rear section sepearates for refueling purposes. And the front is like a giant movable space station. Actually, adding all of those ideas together could add lots of versatility to the ship. This is basicallly what I've been doing with an MK2 ship. But I can't do the parts count because of some weird things I'm trying with it from ION and heavy amounts of air intakes. 8) A larger ship focused on only space travel could do this stuff much more easily. then you can make a separate fueler with for atmospheres or make a refueling space with low g.

The almighty god returns. And as promised levels all the mountains and hills..... I stare in awe and a little confused! Now what? http://biblehub.com/luke/3-5.htm <- To clarify. (Wasn't sure of the wording but I knew it sounded familiar. Not sure if this refers to Armageddon or something else. But hey.)

77 is the 7th time the 11th idiot repeated himself!!!

I am a ham sandwich! What are you?

I think it's a type of explosion in space. Notice you watch it through glass/telescope? and stays for some time to watch.... Needs energy to form like a star or similar object. Space data would be eluding to some theory about celestial objects makup in regards to collecting data about the universe. Supernova?

F1147: You made it in time from the last floor and realize the last floor you were just on was the roof, but, luckily, you see a partial open floor in jumping distance on the next building over! (I think we lost the one sentence per floor rules!! ><) (Edit: notice this one means the floor is going to repeat 1147 again. rule say nothing about the floor staying the same. And why do people completely ignore even the last posting... sigh!)

Nope. Not me! 8D (As in, not me next)

That is absolutely mistaken. If you have never grown plants you would probably not know that though.

it's F2P but stuff is set regularly that might get you to want to buy it. Or you have to grind a lot to get them. I was playing it(though I found the ship releases annoying), but being on linux, and running through wine, it was hard to grind becuase of performance decreases after basically every instanced event. which the game is largely based on for combat. And was/is for the world/universe map. Although I think they might have changed that to a larger single galaxy map for everyone. But there were instances for each galaxy/area also. So you could endlessly jump for harvesting resources or whatever you needed. Helped with lag when overcrowded. Unless you wanted in the lag for fun. Which did sometimes happen. Especially with the balloon guns. Which of course they eventually nerfed... 8\

I didn't have SNES while it was out. I only had NES(played on other peoples SNES though). I played those japenese games with the mini dudes. I loved the volleyball and the one where you are going through the streets fighting gangs and buying upgrades. I also liked FF and I actually started on an Intelevision! 8) SHARK SHARK & DND FTW!!! I also had an amiga commodore 64! >< Scorched earth and other stuff was fun. then I had a computer based on DOS 6.0/1 with windows 3.1 and did that stuff(and later 98 then an xp system till linux now). Especially adventure games. I loved adventure games!! I stopped with consoles after the PS1 ended(except I, breifly, had an xbox and nintendo 64 and a few things. Those were a waste of money though.). I miss my rpgs!! 8(... The rest was all computer games after that. I had so many good RPGS on PS1. Anyone have and play the original FF game. I had that till I sold all my games like an idiot.

The almost look like very hairy pigs that can hang from trees by their tales... Or are they?! 8d Around where I live we basically only have possum and racoons and squirrels and other smaller animals. The rest are strays. No skunks, thankfully. Unlike some places farther north of us! 8D

Whether it is happening is absolutely up for debate. So is the existence of human affect on it or anything other level of argument. Everything is always up for debate. Sorry, but the fact that a person does something does not mean it's harmful(at which point the argument that affect of humans is not up for debate has it's end. Beyond that you can still argue there is 0 affect. No argument every stops to exist and in a serious manner. EVER.). You do not know wiping out the rain forests is even bad. How do you know we are not part of the ecosystem and it expects us to do it!? How do you know the planet won't turn into Venus if we don't cut it all down and it's vital we do it? How do you know the data you see is not part of something larger, or some other misconception, and it is not something good or vital? You are almost, if not literally, assuming perpetuity is the norm. Or any other endless combination of logic. It is too complicated to say with the current arguments being thrown around what is what. Maybe the destruction of the rainforest is the most important part of the lifecycle of the rainforest?! That is actually very normal with plants and ecosystems. The fact is most people don't know and don't have the knowledge or information to know this sort of thing or anything like. That is why I refered to people not having a background with plants or having one sufficiently. The more you learn about plants the more you learn about their complexity and diversity. It changes per plant. There is no simple set anything in regards to them and what is good bad. It's all over the place! And talking about an ecosystem is that much more complex. There is nothing you can say easily, if ever, is good or bad for them in the end in any way. If you don't beleive me. Grow a garden.

Your holding that more parameters can't exist and the data must fit your conclusion(at minimum). Your logic is faulty to it's core. What you said in no way proves anything. You can't prove it within the parameters and you can't prove there aren't more parameters. Tell us how do know that the given data proves what you said(your hypothesis)? Also, data does not simplify a theory or proof. It only adds more work and more things to prove.

But the point of climate is that it impacts things. Doing something to something that you do not know about is the worst possible solution. It's always wrong. That is the definition of being responsible. Doing things based on knowledge and not speculation. Or it is, by definition, the only way to be responsible. Nothing else works the way being described by climate proponents. It's that easy for a theory to be proven wrong with new information. It should be expected. And being expected, these conclusions to change things in this manner are abysmally irresponsible.