Lisias

Should not be that horrible. Your hub could be in USB 1.1 mode due energy constraints. Try a powered hub 3.0 to see if it make things better - the alternative is change the MoBo (what can be probably a good idea, as things are not going well with it). EDIT: Check the PSU too. Just in case.

The WIFI adapter is just the trigger. The problem is on the MoBo. Try using a powered USB hub for the WiFi. This would lesser the load on the MoBo's circuits, but, frankly, this should not be happening.

KSP.log would help. But you probably installed that one too many mod (or a preexisting one was updated and used that one too much kilobyte more) and Unity blew up. Move out all mods from GameData (leaving just Squad* ones), and then move a few back each time while firing up KSP until it breaks again, and then you remove the last ones you tried and that's it. Move back in order of importance, so the least important ones are left behind.

It's measuring the altitude from the bottom of the sea, probably.

Yeah… As it appears, I've been reading articles from the very authors that "further suggest that the term Super-Earth might be limited to rocky planets without a significant atmosphere, or planets that have not just atmospheres but also solid surfaces or oceans with a sharp boundary between liquid and atmosphere". Sorry about the noise.

(highlights are mine) Yet. Give the guy some more time. Musk took only 10 years (more or less) in order to build something that it's making half the competition's hardware be decommissioned. God knows what this dude will manage to do in the next 20 - he's a engineer before a salesman or manager, he takes this decisions with logic and expertise (and are not afraid to take some back as soon as he realized it was a mistake).

What leads to my question: How a "super earth" got into this mess? Rocky planets are (at least to my knowledge) formed near the Sun. Something very unusual should had happened in order to expand an inner planet's orbit to there. Perhaps a rogue exoplanet would make more sense?

How many "updates" for an entrant do you think it's nice? I'm trying to minimize mine to prevent being a sas-mohole but I got some improvements on my score.

Some "bugs" doesn't worth being fixed - sometimes, the fix do more evil than good. Once people start to use the name, changing it will break everything that mention such a name. And, besides, some people like them - it helps to break the "4th wall" (how it's named on gaming?), as nothing is perfect in the real world. See 'Endeavor" in this link: https://www.wired.com/2008/08/gallery-nasa-50-mistakes/

Uh… I'm pretty sure I had given the reason to the guy. Not sure about how to react….

(link on the quoted text is mine) Agreed. There're two main sources of recurrent problems on KSP nowadays, and more than half would go away directly or indirectly by ditching Unity. Such move would be traumatic, as Unity's leaked abstractions is everywhere on the Mods, and so a huge effort would be needed to "pair" KSP2 to 1. But, frankly? Once the incoming to finance the stunt is secured (and I fear this is the worst problem to solve now), it would probably expand the user base enough to pay itself: there's a very limited amount of users willing to cope with a eternal beta status while gaming (not to mention the Console users, a very large and lucrative niche that demands a very high level of Q/A, as they are locked inside a walled garden and can't take the preventive (and corrective) measures we are used to on PC Gaming).

Probably. But our main source of knowledge, Wikipedia , don't do much to clarify things: But, yeah, the source of the extra kinetic energy is "stolen" from the reaction mass (that became "slower" on the Reference Frame than outside the Oberth's window), not the body's - so, you are pretty right about this point:

Interesting. Something exactly the inverse from what I'm pursuing! Challenge accepted. Check the fuel balance, and you probably need better elevators/stabilizers. The one you are using produces less drag and it's lighter , but the AVR-08 (that's the name? I forgot) produces more control.

But… But… But… Everything is in motion in the Universe. You can be (apparently) motionless in a given Reference Frame, but otherwise... The very notion of Kinetic Energy is tied to a Reference Frame... If I understood correctly, K^2 examples were given in two Frames - the Neutron Star one, and the one that rules the star's motion...

Exactly. And this closed system involves a hugely massive celestial body from where you "stoled" that energy. By the formula of the kinetic energy, you infer that the enormous mass of the body makes the delta-V it loose insignificant, barely computable. But it effects on your puny vessel are pretty visible.

Perhaps due the Moderation acting quickly? (just a guess, I really don't know). It's probably unfeasible on this forum's engine, but I like the Slashdot's Meta-Moderation. It used to work on the times there were "real moderators" overwatching the meta-moderation, but since they (apparently) started to rely only on the meta-moderaion itself things kind of gone through the tubes.

I want one copy, please. I will pay you as soon as I receive the money promised by a Nigerian Prince for helping him recover his unduly frozen account.

On a side note, there's a beneficial side effect of such hysteria: political support for the Man going back to Moon. We need a reprise for this show.

There's no way to get less wing surface, as I already using the smaller lifting surface available from the game! And frankly, the craft don't need it anyway, as all the hard lifting work on this craft is being done by the Control Surfaces. It's probably an exploit of the KSP' Physics Engine, but… Well, it's working. Other than that, yes, your advice is valid. I do it on cargo planes where lift is more important than speed, and also on some other planes where the main fuselage inclination causes more drag than the inclined wings - so by raising the wing's angle of incidente, the main fuselage "drops" the nose on cruising, minimizing the fuselage's drag. p.s.: The link on the quoted text is mine.

You need to give credits too: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

No expert here, but…. To anything turn into a black hole, it must be compressed into its Schwarzschild radius. Since the moon weighs about 7.35 x 1022 kg, so if by some espetacular compression force it turns into a black hole, it's size would be… 0.00010916095764576308 meters. Python 3.6.5 (default, Mar 29 2018, 15:38:43) [GCC 4.2.1 Compatible Apple LLVM 8.1.0 (clang-802.0.42)] on darwin Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> M = 7.35 * 10**22 >>> G = 6.67408 * 10**-11 >>> c = 299792458 >>> rs = (2*G*M)/(c**2) >>> print (rs) 0.00010916095764576308 >>> So, yeah. It would vanish from the skies. But besides being "black" and sizing less than a millimetre, nothing else would change. The thing would still has mass, the same mass. So the gravitational forces would still be there. I don't think that any radiation would be emitted at all. It's plain impossible to the Moon to turn into a Black Hole without external mechanical help - the Moon's density is incommensurably smaller than the needed, the known process of a Star becoming a Black Hole doesn't apply. The mechanical power used to compress the Moon, on the other side, could inflict some colateral effects on us. Since the 3rd Newton's Law would still apply, such energy would irradiate towards us. I don't know how to measure and don't have the slightest clue about how to research the needed data for this. But I think it's reasonable to assume the at least the part of Earth facing the event would be scorched.

It depends of the License the original author choose for the works.

That. As long it's a grammatically valid sentence, and not "Ooooohhhhhh". "AAaaaaahhhhhh" or pieces of paper like that, I'm ok with minimalists posts. Of course, I'm just brainstoming and not proposing a final solution - I would need to carry on some statistics on the forum's data set in order to really propose something like this.

If you don't mind, delay it for some more time. @swjr-swis insights won me at least 10 m/s more!!! I'll update this post with the mk2 entry soon. EDIT: 10 m/s? I said TEN m/s? HA!!! NEW ENTRY: L's X1 Stock Mark 2 ("Wings are still overrated"). With the invaluable advices from @swjr-swis, I was able to reach 760 m/s !! So, here is my new entry: @swjr-swis, as I promised, here follows the screenshots with the Force Vectors: Any lifting surface adds drags, and I don't need more lift - I think that even the Basic Fin I added is not really needed for lift (just to provide pivotal axis for the control surfaces to act), as the aircraft manages to take off without it, she just don't keep flying the way I want without the Fins! The Canards adds a considerable amount of drag themselves - I would probably gain something by scratching either the canards or the elevators and then strapping some lifting surfaces. But I didn't managed to stabilize the craft by doing that - at least with this airframe. I will probably scratch her and start the L''s X-2 branch in order to pursue this.

Kerbal-X is nice because it lists the parts used on the aircraft. I think it should be standard procedure publishing the entry on Kerbal-X due that. Hummm… Nice catch. I was in the mistaken believing that I would get the best results flying on thinner atmosphere, but then I saw the good numbers happening the low as possible, and forgot to adjust. Good catch. I'm using canards and elevators. Sounds crazy, they also provides lift and less drag than wings. With two sets of control surfaces on both tail and nose, you have an incredible amount of control about the craft atitude - and the vectors end up acting as lifting too! I'll post a picture of the Force Vectors on my next entry. Again, I missed that. On my career, I don't have tech for retractable landing gears yet - and forgot to adapt when I move the vessel to the Sandbox. Thx!