Pipcard

I like ISRU being a stock feature, but the overheating rate is ridiculous (and is nonexistent at x1000 time warp for some reason), even if you have the large solar panels which allegedly radiate heat.

Recently, it seems that when I have Kerbal Engineer installed, there is a significant chance that my computer freezes/completely locks up, forcing me to cut off the power (turn off the surge protector) and reboot the computer. It does not seem to happen when it is not installed. It happens randomly, usually in the VAB or SPH, so there is no procedure for it to be reproducible. In the assembly building, a part is usually being highlighted with the cursor when the freeze suddenly occurs. Can someone please explain to me what might be causing this?

It would be good if NASA had 1% of the total budget instead of 0.5%, but 10% is too much edit: They had over 4% during the middle of the Apollo program (mid-60s, prior to the actual landings). But when adjusted for inflation, NASA in 1966 had a budget (US$43.6 billion) about two-and-a-half times bigger than NASA in 2014 (US$17.6 billion).

I bought this computer in 2012. According to SystemRequirementsLab, my computer does not even meet the minimum requirements for KSP - only because the dedicated video RAM is 256 instead of 512 MB. Should I buy/build a new computer (I don't actually play a lot of games, though; I just want KSP to look good without having a jerky framerate, or be able to install those "visual enhancement" mods), or should I just upgrade to a better graphics card? If I were to just upgrade my existing computer, how would I clean up all the dust that has accumulated, and how would I install things without ruining everything? (note that the case has a transparent wall so I can see what is inside)

This update seems to load faster and perform better on my computer. Apparently, it's because rockets in atmosphere have a much lower tolerance for pointing in a direction other than prograde. Also, I love the new camera shake effects, but the default setting is way too much (I prefer 0.5).

If that is the issue here (and apparently it is, according to this reddit thread): My usual manual launch profile involved tilting from vertical to horizontal, 22.5 degrees at a time, whenever the apoapsis (not the altitude) was about to reach 15 km, 30 km, 45 km, and 60 km (Kerbal Engineer conveniently displayed that without needing the map view). I might have to divide it into smaller increments this time. edit: oh yeah, and real life rockets don't do that either. How much tilting is too much?

When I try to fly it, even a 1.25-m "stick" with a nosecone and a gimbaling engine tends to flip down when I try to slightly tilt it over. Pretty much all real-life orbital launch vehicles do not need stability fins or winglets either. They have gimbaling and/or vernier engines. If I put control surface fins, the rocket can barely rotate if they are too far back from the center of mass, so I have to put them so that the center of lift is right behind the center of mass (just like how one would make an aircraft/spaceplane).

Preparing for 1.0 (retconned, see post below) Recently, KASDA engineers have been receiving a (written/analog/digital/morse code/whatever kind) message from a mysterious source. It has been hypothesized to be extra-dimensional. "1.0 will happen soon. There will be significant changes to your universe, especially to your planet's atmosphere. All of your people will survive. But unless you return all of your people from space before then, their vessels may not be able to protect them when they come back. You must prepare now." KASDA never figured out what "1.0" meant, but throughout the history of KASDA, they did notice some occasional and slight changes happening to their universe. They did not want to risk anything, so they returned all the Kerbals living on Futurelab, Minmus, and the Mun. [The KerbPaint paintjobs seem to have been removed from the RCVs] Click below to see more: https://imgur.com/a/P315z Futurelab's systems were also getting old, so it was decided that the station be decommissioned and de-orbited. [Does this entry sequence remind you anything other than Gravity?] [Note: When 0.90 came out, a lot of my deep space probes had mod parts that were incompatible, so what was left was the manned space outposts as well as KASDA's first satellite, which is still in the persistence file. 1.0 would basically be a near-reboot for KASDA, especially if the Futurebases were to be abandoned.] [When I read that 1.0 was going to have stock in-situ resources, I was wondering what it would be called. And then I learned that it was just going to be called "Ore." But I will refer to this "Ore" as "Kerbonite" because it is based on the Karbonite mod which I have never used (again, I never really used Kethane either)]

But of course, we don't need to wait until "every problem on Earth is solved" before we can explore space; we can have a balance between the two.

Question: if JAXA (Japan) or CNSA (China) magically received a larger budget to enable human mars exploration, what would they name their colony? No "New/Neo [insert Japanese/Chinese city here]" (just a note - Mars in Japanese/Chinese is ç«星 [Kasei/HuÇ’xÄ«ng or "fire star"])

Can SpaceEngine even be classified as a game, though?

That's why the plan is to land at Callisto, where it receives only 0.01 rem/day (Ganymede - 8 rem/day, Europa - 540 rem/day)

Direct link They are Elon Musk's own words.

But people do care, don't you see the views that SpaceX videos get? Over 3 million views and over 13000 likes (400 dislikes) in just four days on a YouTube video .

Never? In this century? Not even the Moon? Why so pessimistic? I expect a Mars mission in the 2030s, and an outer planet mission in the late 21st century, but not in the 2040s/2050s.

Chutes mean less landing accuracy, which will make recovery and rapid reusability harder compared to a precise propulsive landing. Also, there will need to be large parachutes for a large stage, which will add a lot of weight.

I always see some people praising the idea of reusabiility. "Throw-away rockets are a waste! Why build a new rocket every time? Rapid reusability is possible! It is the future, and it will revolutionize space access!" and then I see some people doubting it. "Maintenance will cost too much! Not enough launch rate/flight rate! What about mass production? The market isn't big enough!" But which one will be true for SpaceX? We'll just have to find out. They probably know about the lessons learned from the Space Shuttle, and are applying them to the Falcon 9. For example, their launch system doesn't involve 35000 tiles on a large winged orbiter that need to be inspected individually.

RCV01 "Hatsune" visits the core module of the HSS

Over the Solomon Islands

I followed the link in the text, and apparently it's named after Kerman, a city in Iran with a lot of pistachio production. There's also a Kerman in California, but it's not related to pistachios.

At least it was an improvement over last time.

It's true that the space race was borne out of ICBM development, but Saturn V was way too big to be an ICBM. Russia's Proton (which carried about 1/6 of the payload capacity as the Saturn V) was originally planned to be a super-heavy ICBM, but then it was realized that it would be oversized for that purpose.

Core module now made in Wings3D

They are just lightning rods.

Freedom, Eagle, and GalaxyOne. Then Zeus and Vulcan were added to the poll.