Outlander4

We are not responsible for the unfiltered file in any way or form. We are stretched as we are trying to maintain the proof-read version, sorry.

It's a very good idea; it's attention to detail that makes games awesome. It should be put in at some point!

Guys, if you've found any mistakes please leave a comment in the cfg file itself (Google docs allow it). I've already marked KerbAl entries. When Kyle gets better/less busy he'll fix it.

I got ill, so I'll take a leave for a week or so.

It's always exciting to have new entries, but please re-post them into the system using link to the submission page in the first post of the thread (if you haven't done so already).

There are plenty of more serious entries in there; unfortunately, for most people it's easier to write something silly/funny than something serious/scientific due to the lack of normal science in KSP and little available information about planetary composition, structure, atmosphere etc. So there are plenty of 'whackiness' in the file. On the other hand, reports not totally unlike 'WHEEE!' were present in the real world (Yuri Gagarin's 'Let's go!' which actually was 'Let's ride!', or 'I'm feeling good').

It's not set in stone; at least two proofreaders use British spelling; others use American one. If the entry is sound, the original spelling is conserved; if changes are made or entry is re-written from scratch, proofreader uses his/her preferred spelling, so there are entries using both British and American spelling. Dissonance is not that big, and is preferable to starting the flame war about spelling. Metric system is used universally, though, because it's used in KSP. The only guideline I can give is to avoid using local slang/dialect, as it makes everybody freak out.

Aye aye, I'm back, reporting for duty

Guys, I'll be off for a week or so to deal with some real-life problems. Shall return to proofreading afterwards

That's how it was done most of the time. Soyuz was designed as a multi-purpose craft; it can even withstand aerobraking from the lunar return trajectory (using the same techniques as Apollo). And while the capsule itself is very small ('criminally small', as one of the first Soyuz cosmonauts told in an interview), the rest of the ship provides more pressurised and habitable volume than the huge Apollo capsule. And long approach to the station has its advantages - it allows for a wider launch window, doesn't require very high launch precision and generally makes things simpler. And Russians absolutely love their technology to be simple and reliable, even at cost of some inconvenience to the crew.

Well, it's difficult because the logs you submit are not traced back to you in any way. And it's not because we respect your privacy (which we do), but because of how the system works. All being said, we are trying to modify entries which are not good enough to fit the mould to use them anyway. So, if you can't find your entry but can see something that is quite similar there is a good chance it's your entry after some editing, so your work won't be totally wasted. If you want to be sure, send me a PM with several entries that can characterise general style and degree of scientific accuracy of the entries you'd like to submit, and I'll tell you if they are fine. Please note that I live in Europe which may be very different from your time zone and result in me answering you at some rather inconvenient time.

Hmm, something tells me it came from the first (available for anyone to edit) file, which was used as a base for the current file. Thanks for pointing that out!

Actually, the difference between a female astranaut and a male astranaut when they're suited up isn't that apparent. So, if KSP just adds the same model with slightly different face and more femenine hairstyle it'd be more than enough, no? EDIT: I don't know how I've missed people telling the same thing just a couple of posts above; consider that I'm adding my voice to theirs.

I remember deleting child-unsafe entries from the last two experiments; they still contain errors and illogical statements though.

Completely off-topic: Haha, here we are, evil proofreaders pursuing our own petty projects. Actually, I want to construct baskerbal court. Right. Now. Yeah, now I see it! It's a mad combination of tennis, basketball, and maybe golf and rugby. Two teams of kerbals; the starting team selects one kerbal and designates him a ball, or, so to say, a kerball. The goal is to put this kerball into the basket, using strategically placed kerbals as a ladder. There should be some elevations on the court to make it easier and moar interesting. Basket size is just enough for kerbal body to squeeze in, but not enough to let the helmet through. When the point is scored, the section of the court containing the basket is jettisoned to the side, opening a new area with a new basket. If you don't manage to get kerball though the enemy team, and enemy team manages to push your kerball out of the court, the game stops and the turn goes to the enemy team, who selects their own kerball and here it goes. Edit: The team that first jettisons the last basket wins and walks away through the opening. I say it's brilliant.

As other people said, the runway is more than enough for our needs. I'd like to have a second parallel runway and a North-South runway though.

It was requested a lot in the early days, and it's a logical thing to do. As far as I remember, Chad aka C7 even had such a part in the pipeline a while ago. I guess re-making part system prevented it from appearing in the game. We'll have to wait for the atmosphere/spaceplane update for this to happen - so it's definitely coming, just not now.

Should work by swapping the file I think. Make sure to back-up the original file just in case.

Nae, as sjwt said, it's not worth the cost. In Soviet centralised economic system it was even more pointless. If I'm not mistaken, the debris was recovered eventually, I don't know if it's done now. Russian recoverable designs were all plane-launched spaceplanes, until the government decided they absolutely need to copy that insane Space Shuttle design. Even that didn't stop Russians from building a more sensible system overall (a super-heavy Saturn-V / SLS-class multi-purpose launcher called Energia and a Buran orbiter). The latest normal Russian re-usable design is MAKS system but the government doesn't provide support to anything that makes even a slightest bit of sense...

The problem with exterminating (mostly, smallpox is effectively dead now, living in three or four labs mostly in cryopreservation) is that by exterminating the disease we effectively exterminate the factor of evolution. Natural selection is thus reduced. Moreover, eliminating the infectious agent ultimately frees an ecological niche for another organisms to come and live in (HIV, anyone?). It's a very difficult ethical question, all-in-all, and it requires some long-term thinking humans are mostly incapable of. Curiously, terraforming requires exactly the same thing. As a broad answer to OP: I don't think that terraforming a planet with indigenous life is ethical. On the other hand, living organisms adapt to thrive in all environments and eventually change them to be better suited for life; thus the planet should develop a complicated ecosystem which should be perfectly visible from orbit. That is, if the place looks like a lifeless rock, it probably is. As for alternatives to terraforming, making a shell around asteroids/dwarf planets may be a nice way to colonise other worlds. I'd rather not live in such place myself, with the sky made of metal plates several meters thick, lamps that somehow more or less exactly fail to simulate daylight and horizon that is so small that you can spit over it. Some city dwellers may be perfectly fine with that, though, and with added fun of low gravity, denser atmosphere, perfectly working wing-suits and ease of doing business in space it may be an ok opportunity.

It takes a lot of thinking and a streak of genius to make profanity funny for intellectually capable audience. I don't think there are many people out there with such a talent. Personally, I'm not against some mild old-fashioned swearing like 'damn' or 'what the Hell?' or 'Flight controller is a bloody idiot', but the joke needs to be really funny. And in case of this mod, I believe it's up to its author to set the guidelines and for us - to follow them.

So far it has been awesome apart from some idiotic entries and, well, people not knowing the limits. Of course, upcoming proofreading should remedy that, but I'd like to see some guidelines as well. Apart from that, I'd like to see less explicit, less direct hints at all the Easter Eggs. Saying that Mystery Goo wants to escape to 'someTHING', for example. Hints should be veiled or followed by the negating statement; and also something looking similar to hints should be added to Easter Egg-free areas as well.

This is amazing. Contributing to it now!

You're not alone in your confusion... Balloons definitely won't be implemented until the whole atmospheric model is re-worked. As for aeroplanes, I think that having two start tech levels (one for rockets, and one for planes) should help. Of course, it brings a lot of problems with using plane technology in rockets...but then again, basic probe core, passive stabilisers and basic control surfaces should be in the first tech level. German V-2 rocket had them; even earlier experimental rockets had them.

I don't know why people want magnetic boots (even putting aside the fact that they're implausible in the real world, etc.). Walking outside of your space stations? Well, you'd need a pretty big space station for that, and the novelty of doing it would wear out pretty fast.