Godot

Nope ... not opposed to use it in the near or far future, for routine flights, but so far I am not using it and never have

Reentry Heat (that is, physical effects on your spaceship, not only visuals) and Flight Protocols (which may be accessible in an archive after recovery or termination of the flight. I think the closest fitting options in your poll to these 2 are "Improved Aerodynamics" and "Working on the Career Mode"

0 Thanks to the Rescue Tower that I add per default to all of my rockets

Maybe they should put the default state on this option on "Endabled" It is something I often forget to switch on, when I install a new update No wonder many people (who don´t even know about this option) are surprised by trees and stones

They always said that the reason for Jebs permanent happpiness is his perfect mixture of high courage and stupidity ... if Kerbal mimics are de facto connected to these 2 stats, I would expect brighter and less brave Kerbonauts to freak out faster

Thanks, didn´t think of F3 .... indeed a good way to still get the flight statistics with the absence of an end flight screen Hope they add whatever they had planned as replacement for it, in 0.22, maybe together with an archive of past flights

Do I see this correctly that we don´t have an end flight screen in 0.21? Ending via normal means (that is in flight) seems to be impossible now (as the only options there are is to resume flight or to revert), so it only seems to be possible to end a (splashed down) flight via going to the space center and then recover the vehicle from within the tracking station, which on the other hand doesn´t give us something like an end flight screen (where you get the statistics, like maximum G, diatance count and so on) but instead just lets the vehicle vanish and returns the Kerbals into the Kerbonaut Pool, without showing anything else

Kerbal Engineer Redux works and there is no other mod I would call essential for my Spacecraft-Designing/Flying ... therefore i am a happy Kerbal now

Looks very good ... and I second the person who wrote that it should be included in the Wiki Maybe could be expanded for chapters regarding Descent and Ground operations. (Well, O.K., Ground OPs may be too short to deserve an own chapter ) Just for completeness sake (and as I´m sure that it will be mentioned by another person, if I wouldn´t mention it), I might point you to a slight spelling error you made in Orbit - 6: Guages instead of Gauges

It could also be connected genetics ... say, that right handedness itself isn´t as important, but that it is genetically connected with another component that on teh other hand increases survival by a large margin (or at least incresed, at soome point in the past). Fact is, that other animals show side preference as well ... pigeons for example show a preference with regards to the direction in which they turn (counter-clockwise IIIRC) which is the same as humans, if they are exposed to a similar setting

Using more than 50% of my jetpack fuel while moving away from my lander, in order to explore the munar landscape ... and then not having enough fuel to return, forcing me to walk several km of the distance back to my lander on foot (fortunately with 0.20 this won´t happen anymore ... now all of my landers are equipped with a mini rover (tested for stability in low G environments))

We found all Easter Eggs .. with the exception of those we didn´t find yet

Had they included a KSP-Version of Io (with things like Sulphur Volcanism and the like) I would have chose this Moon. Due to the lack of such a Moon, I definitely choose Laythe

Not to forget that its ISp in Atmosphere is roughly the same as in vacuum. The reason why my innermost layer of the lifter rockets for my heavy interplanetary spaceship + versatile Lander uses a bundle of 4 rockets with Toroidal Aerospikes that are active from the start of the rocket till ~90 % completion of the 100km orbit around Kerbin.

Definitely ... talent deserves to be fostered

I use the poodle for my ultraheavy 100t lander, therefore for me it is far from useless. In contrast to the white radial mount engines and the LV-1 which, due to their low Isp, I have never used so far

All of my manned rockets have an escape tower on top of their capsule that is operable during the whole ascent ... therefore the probability for them to get killed during this phase of the mission is extremly low. The chance for them to get killed while trying to land on a planet/moon or while being a little too fast with their jetpacks during EVA is considerbaly higher ... but at least in my currrent new game in 0.20 I haven´t lost a single Kerbal yet

It was taken from a Tie Fighter ... the special laser proof military grade glass and hardened frame it uses weights more than the other materials Kerbals use

Sure ... the crater with the attached canyon that looks like a tadpole was named tadpole crater by me ... the 2 craters connected by a canyon are the Bola Craters and the Crater with the Armstrong Memorial is the Armstrong Crater

No checklists für flight procedures (except mental ones) ... but I note my missions and details about my spacecraft (including action groups) in Excel and also do certification/testing of spaceships before I send them on interplanetary missions (with testing for atmospheric landers/rovers being done on Kerbin and testing for vacuum landers/rovers being done on Mun and Minmus)

1. Well, all in all it doesn´t matter too much how many stages you need (although using multiple stages could be a little bit more efficient if you set it up right) ... what matters is that the dV (if calculated right) is >= the dV needed ... what matters more with regards to the dV needed to get into Kerbins 100km Orbit is, how you perform your gravity turns ... peforming the right turns at the right altitudes can indeed make a difference between needing 4500 dV to get to the 100k orbit, or needing 5000+ (something that btw. is dependant on the individual rocket ... many people have taken up the standard practice of taken gravity turns at 10, 20 and 30km) 2. You already cited the formula with which dV is calculated. All in all you can sum it up with ... the more efficient your engine is (expressed by Isp) and the more percent of your rocket is taken up by fuel (or more correctly, by fuel that can be used by the current stage to produce propulsion (in contrast to fuel that only gets used in latter stages ... this counts as payload for this stage) the higher your dV. One might 3. It determines how much much more than its own weight the engine can lift (or, if calculated for a rocket/stage ... how much more than the rocket weight the engines of this stage can lift) ... so, if you have a TWR of 1.0, your rocket engines might (if your rocket currently is in air and facing upwards) just be able to keep your rocket at the same height, but not be able to ligft it up ... if it is below 1, then it might even just be able to slow the fall of the rocket, if your rocket currently is floating in the air and facing upwards. Therefore you should always try to have a TWR > 1.0 for your ascent stages (at least those stages that are active below ~60km ... in later stages you try to propel your rocket sideways -> TWR doesn´t play too much of a role in those stages ... for the interplanetary stages the role of TWR becomes rather insignificant (at least if you don´t mind the time needed to have your engines active to reach a certain speed) 4. Yep, the higher the TWR, the faster your Propulsion ... for your ascent a TWR of 2.2 is more than sufficient as it allows you to reach terminal velocity (which you shouldn´t exceed if you want to have an efficient ascent ... if you exceed terminal velocity you lose more energy due to atmospheric drag, than you lose due to gravity) 5. The first one is the dV of the stage you are looking at, the second number is the sum of all preceding stages ... lets say you are looking at Stage 11 (which becomes active after stages 13 and 12) and it says 1100/4300 then 1100 is the dV of stage 11 and 4300 the sum of stages 11+12+13. As for the mass ... mass of this stage vs. total mass of the rocket

Yes, they have to be deployed (the only exception being the OX-Stat single colar panel) You do so in flight by right clicking on the solar mopdule and choosing "deploy solar sail" or (better) by setting an action group in the VAB before flight that deploays all solar sails

I assume you mean without the landing and returning of Kerbonauts of course ... aside from the one spaceship that (ab-)used the elasticity of girders and struts for return to Eves Orbit (which surely wouldn´t be allowed in Dans homework) I cannot imagine a mission for < 250k that includes a manned landing on Eve

I use 2 sets of lights in my spaceships (that is, my lander/spaceship combinations that are intended to bring Kerbonauts to other planets/moons ... 2 illuminators each at the bottom of each fuel tank of my lander (i.e. a total of 8) to illuminate the ground in case of low illumination conditions during landing and 4 illuminators at the bottom of my spaceship that illuminate the lander as long as it is docked at my spaceship. The latter set has been proven to be extremly helpful, for example if I want to transfer my crew to the lander while on the nightside of the planet/moon

See the link Enigma provided ... it also has a further link to the rules for the project: http://www.aplusphysics.com/projects/kerbal.html