Godot

All of the ships that are meant for docking have RCS. But I leave it out for ships that aren´t meant for docking, except they go beyond the Kerbin-System

I like the game ... it offers a good mix between realism (the view and conditions on Mars, the instruments and probe/rover types used) and Gameplay

I also hope you are aware of the fact that intelligence and self awareness are 2 different things. A computer program doesn´t have to be self aware in order to show the same intelligence in decision making as a human (which is why e usually refer to "Artificial Consciousness" if we talk about self aware computer (-programs) in contrast to artificial intelligence)

"Visual Analysis" and "Surface Analysis" as additional science categories sound like a very good idea ... this way we still have enough reasons to send Kerbals to places but have good reasons to also send unmanned probes to places (and not just Kerbonauts)

I went to school when it still was 13 years. AFAIK we had a short introduction to the solar system in geography in earlier school years ... maybe 5th or 6th class ... but I can confirm that afterwards they didn´t care anymore to include lessons in astronomy ... neither in further courses of geography, nor in physics

In past versions I almost always had a Mini-Rover underneath my landers ... here a gallery of such a thing in KSP 0.23 http://imgur.com/a/8jL9P It is more or less Apollo-Style ... i.e. Spaceship with lander underneath ... which itsefl has the rover underneath. I should add that in the current version I´ll only rarely use it anymore ... Mun and Minmus get an orbital station with a science lab and research is done via a reusable lander that flies between surface and station. Reattaching the rover to the lander for every return to the station seems to be hard work if not impossible, without using mods like KAS. Therefore in the current version I´ll most likely only use the lander/rover concept for missions where the lander isn´t going to get reused (like for Duna landings, for example)

Then we have to grab our stone tipped spears and overthrow the government, for the future of our children

We could still try to recycle the scrap that is left over from our industrialized past (my melting it and either try to separate the metal contents from each other, or by using it in an impure form)

You would still need 10 probe missions (if we assume that the instruments produce 10% of a Kerbals EVA report /surface sample science) to a Biome in order to produce the EVA/surface sample of a single Kerbonaut (or a single reusable probe + an orbiting science lab + refuel station) (all under the assumption that it is implemented along the way I depicted in my OP, that is, that the scoop and cams could only be used once per Biome [and mounting multiple scoops/cams wouldn´t allow you multiple EVA reports/surface samples per Biome]) So manned missions would still be more cost and time efficient than probe missions would be. The biggest difference IMHO would be Eve ... as you wouldn´t a manned mission (either a one way with the sacrifice/marooning of Kerbals on Eve or a hyperdesigned return one) anymore in order to gain EVA and surface sample science from there

This can not be repeated often enough ... especially ocular filters are a danger here as they are more prone to overheat during use and might burst ... if you´re lucky enough a bursting sunfilter (not to speak of not using a sun filter at all) may "just" burn a punctual hole into your retina and give you a second blind spot ... if you´re unlucky enough ... well, I don´t need to go further Which is why IMHO (at least for the beginning) to papersheet method of sun observation is optimal no sunfilter or electronics needed and no danger of holes in your retina

At the moment probes canot generate any EVA report ... they also cannot collect surface samples. At the moment we also don´t have some of the instruments that are included in all (cameras) or many (sample collection) probe missions Therefore my suggestion are the following instruments, made only for unmanned missions in order to generate EVA reports/surface sample science: 1. Cameras The camera could be used once per Biome the probe/rover is in and would generate a certain percentage (maybe 25%, maybe even just 10%) of the EVA report science a Kerbonaut produces (and would also be subject to the EVA report science pool for the respective Biome). 2. Scoop A scoop would collect a surface sample ... afterwars it can be used in 2 ways: a) On Board Sample Experimental unit ... this is an on board experiment that generates a percentage of the surface sample points a Kerbonaut would produce (like 25% or 10% of it) and would also be subject to the surface sample sc ience pool for the Biome Sample Return Container ... This container would store the surface sample in order to return it to Kerbin ... a sample collected this way would either generate the full percentage of a surface sample that is brought back home by a Kerbonaut, or at least 50% of it (taking into account that maybe a Kerbonaut on the ground is better at selecting surface samples) With regards to Cameras there might even be several models (like ... B/W, Basic Color, Advanced Color) each getting different percentages (of Kerbonauts EVA report science points) out of the Biome and each located at a different node in the tch tree. IMHO these changes would integrate very well into the existing game (after all they only tap into science pools that are already there, i.e. the EVA and surface sample science pools) and the game play ... especially the play with inmanned probes, would win a lot by this. It would increase the usefulness of probes and would also increase the similarity of KSP probe missions and RL probe missions

Within the EU even just 66% of the people answered the question about heliocentric vs. geocentric correctly ... I am speechless ... I´d love to see the individual percentage of countries within the EU (I somehow cannot believe that the percentage in germany, france or GB is at this level ... rather that some other EU countries push the percentage down to a large degree) The big difference between the USA and almost all other countries (except russia) when it comes to the percentage giving the correct answer to the evolution question is remarkable however

Jup ... it is just a matter of statistics ... if we assume that 5 % of all people are jerks (IMHO a rather too optimistic assumption) ... and assume that the population of players of a computer game / users of a certain mod follows the same distribution as the normal population, we can assume that for every 100 users of a mod, the mod creator will get pestered by 5 jerks

Well, to my knowledge a better/more detailed description for the difference would be: Newb = Someone who is new but able/willing to learn the basics of the game Noob = Hopeless case ... too dumb or lazy or unwilling to learn the game ... will often pester the community with question he already asked (and got answered) days before

Well, generally speaking (if we compare telescopes of he same diameter) refractors are better for viewing planets with a high magnification (due to the closed tube and due to the fact that not part of the telescopes opening is blocked by the secondary mirror and due to the usual higher focal ratio). On the other hand reflectors give you more bang for the buck ehm more diameter (aperture size) for your money, which evens everything out ... so a reflector that costs the same as a refractor usually can be as good as the refractor, due to its higher diameter ... it also is definitely better for deep sky (i.e. faint objects like nebulae or galaxies) observations (where higher diameter rules)

I´m not surprisd, especially considering the fact that the last 5 years also saw the resurrection of the Flat Earth Society, which now already has 500 members and rising

Actually it depends on the question whether your readers know which unit is used. If a car driver (in germany) asks his passenger: Are we fast enough and the pasenger answers with: Give me 20 more Then both understand that km/h is meant and not m/s, litres or lightyears Its all about conventions. Similarly as everyone understands that in case of dV m/s is the unit used ... problems will only arise if colmo meant 150 km/s

Depends on what you call a "model-rocket" ... if you mean a rocket that is not built by a rocket scientist / space agency ... sure it is possible, if you have enough money (and the permission by your federal aviation agency to start it)

If I see this correctly, most of them are Newtonian reflectors ... with the exception of the single refractor and the Celestron, which is a Maksutov Cassegrain (that measn it is a reflector, but has a closed Tubus with a lense and reflects the light to the back of the telescope) I for my part would go with the Celectron Nexstar 5", due to its good combination of diameter and focal ratio and the fact that it has a computerized mount

Well, for missions with return (including Mun / Minmus) I calculate so that I have an excess of 1000 - 1500 m/s dV upon return to Kerbin. Reason is, that I play with Deadly reentry and thos 1000-1500 m/s come in handy to slow me down enough during reentry, that reentry heat doesn´t affect my spaceship (enabling me usually to recover the whole landing module (which has parachutes for this case) instead of just the heat shielded command module. For other missions (like robotic missions) I calculate between 10-25% more than needed

Either Jupiter or Saturn ... must be a stunning view to stand on one of their moons and see them in their full beauty

That´s why you should select your contracts well and not accept every contract that is offered. Removing the speed equirement altogether would ramove any challenge from the contracts ... you could just accept any conract without thinking twice and would need no thinking when designing ships to test them

Nope ... the container for supplies still is double used as container for waste. Also as long as you don´t use recycling, it doesn´t matter nevertheless ... any waste that wouldn´t fit into the container would be vented into space

Great, thanks for the prompt reply

One thing that would be nice to have for 1.x (and was included in Padishars Hotfix dll for 0.24) would be the Biome you´re currently flying over as (optional) field for the surface-tab