TheCardinal

Thank you very much, you're a gentleman/lady!

The Andromeda Ascendant, although the vipers would pose a nasty problem. a Borg globe vs V'ger

Frizzank, I can understand the sentiments, but in nature asteroids are seldom nicely shaped. Personally i like the irregular shapes the most. (To my opinion the patato is still too regular). Besides, it enhances the challenge of achieving a base.

I started with 0.13 and went upwards ever since. I guess anybody can post their experiences here because every version has it's own difficulties, challenges and achievements. Besides, everytime there's a new version there's a new learning curve for me as well. I do remember the first time i achieved a (catastrophic) landing on the Mun. Poor Kerbals! Many have passed on to greener pastures ever since!

It does. I've just tried it to get a 200m asteroid in a circular orbit around Kerbin.

Two examples of space stations with the spherical tanks:

Besides, counterfitting is punishable bij law in every country ... (just joking) . Usually, those people don't even realise what really makes them happy. They get what they want, use it once or twice and toss it aside. If i look at myself, there are lots of great mods, i use some of them, but there are only a few i wouldn't want to miss.

I have a feeling you won't be disappointed on that.

The option to have some asteroid on which one can land is great. At the first post you mention that you've added five smaller ones. What is their size? Personally, i'm looking for an icy asteroid sized between 50 and 100 meter in shape comparable to the one below.

I have to disagree with you about the "none at all". I know an atomic bomb won't explode when struck with an object at a high speed. I was thinking about the kinetic damage to the structure of a (or more) magazines. A small rock will puncture the magazine and bend the metal out of shape, thereby (possibly) making the further release of bombs impossible. I know the chances of being hit by a large enough rock are slim, but at several km/s the effect is quite considerable. Even though the craft has sixty magazines, i don't think it would be something ignored especially since there's no shortage of power.

Adding a surface attachable hatch is preferable to a fixed hatch at some spot i.m.h.o.. And I like the texture very much.

You misunderstood me. I meant at the front of the craft. The velocity of the craft will be high enough that any object striking the front will cause quite some damage. Consider the effect a strike at a magazine would have.

Will the ship get a protective shield?

I fully agree on the votes for Footfall and The Mote in God's Eye but i would like to add The legacy of heoroth to the list as it is a very plausible colonisation of a faraway planet by people from earth.

A small token of my appreciation:

If you added the dot in the weight, it is interpreted as 10 not 10000. Set the weight at 100, that should be more than enough.

Footfall is a 1985 science fiction novel written by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournell. Earth uses a ship such as described here to defeat the invading enemy. The direction of travel of the ship is managed by steampropulsion and launching the drive-bombs off-center. "Finer" adjustments to the acceleration are made by the distance at which the drive-bombs are exploded. (only one type of drive-bomb was used). The further the bomb is away, the less push it has.

A suggestion on Carbon analyser. No (or at most one) decimal places. Giving numbers with four or five decimal places doesn't make much of a difference but does make it harder to read.

The generator doesn't need to be very complex. Think of a jet engine in KSP (intake, fuel, exhaust). Instead of the exhaust (with flames and smoke etc.) a small part which blows upwards, thrust 0, generating throttle times a certain amount of electricity. Besides that, there are already some nuclear generators available.

It seems intuitive to use fuel for more powerful sets but the reality is that the most powerful machines work on electricity for movement. Take f.e. a diesellocomotive. The motors which move the locomotive are in fact electric. The dieselengines generate the electricity for those motors. If you look at the largest digging equipment in existence, those run on electricity as well....

ninja - ed

That's an easy one. No, the third law doesn't apply anymore even at lower speeds than the speed of light. A law (such as Newton's law) usually is a theoretical and mathematical simplication of reality. It applies within certain boundaries. When those boundaries are crossed, the law ceases to be a good simplication, hence it ceases to be a law. Newton's first law is a good example. In normal everyday life it accurately predicts what will happen given the specific circumstances at that time. Cosmological speaking, it has been proven to be inaccurate. Einstein's theory of relativity gives a better prediction (again within certain circumstances) but since that is very cumbersome to use in everyday life, Newton's law is used. . As someone else already mentioned here, the answer to your question depends on your definition of "escaping the universe". This is not the place for someone who blasts someone else. Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion (within the normal constraints), no matter how ridiculous a theorie may sound. . In my opinion the poll should have a third option "That depends .....".

A great idea!, but ..... i'm wondering how you will achieve this. Calculating the positions of x nodes can be done. Adding a central node can be done as well. Technically it can be done, but the rules determining if it is a valid configuration will be quite challenging.

A magnificent design. If you could give that bunker a cover of mun dust, it would be perfect!

You assume there is a speed at which you can escape the universe? What speed is that (and why do think that is the speed to escape the universe)?