r_rolo1

^^That is actually a good point. More, given the proven l33t skillz some of the detainees have (say , like reality altering powers ), aren't Val and co giving a LOT of leeway to them ?

Well, if you don't want to leave the stock planetary system, you can always up your game and do harder stuff. Say, learn how to do gravitational assists ( far harder than it looks ) or , if you are willing to go mods, try the kOS mod and dotry a completely automated mission programmed from the start ( really hard stuff )

Where is Appendix B? I demand to see it Oh and BTW ,Appendix A would also be nice

Well, leap years have nothing to do with sideral day lenght, besides the fact that the Earth orbital period is not a perfect multiple of it ( if it was , there would not be a need for them )

Well, I do not play with RSS, but I think I can give you some advice. The period of a geostationary orbit is 24h ( duh ), so the best way of dealing with the 3 sat positioning in GEO would be to launch the three of them in one launch, put them all in a orbit with a period of 24/3 = 8 hours and that has the Apoapsis at the geostationary height ( around 36000 km , IIRC ) and then separate one at the time for the circularization burn every time you get to the Apoapsis of that 8h orbit. But given that you already launched the first one ... Well, Give me some moments for doing the math ( or that someone that knows it to chime in ) P.S. Do you have a preference about the parking orbit altitude ? It makes a diference

Rep to you, Mr GregoxMun, rep to you

Stop calling me Shirl ... oh Well, I think it is quite obvious where this is going. Like someone suggested some pages ago, Kerbfleet is ( unlike, say , NASA ) a military enterprise and the military decided to put some brakes on our hungry-for-funds and most definitely not a military Kerb Mortimer ... they still need a place to keep Jeb out of the Air Force, after all P.S Just a question , though: why the navy?

I forgot the antenna once again

Well, this is not speculation ( atleast mine ). See KSP section of this Pax Prime Nindies @ Night , by our dear Maxmaps ( starts at 15m ) Max says clearly what I posted above. P.S. Sorry for the quality, but couldn't find a better quality video :/

Well, KSP for Wii-U will allow building stuff on their pad-like controller while piloting in the main screen, so SQUAD is working in something *similar* to what the OP is asking...

Well, I think that they meant to do with the dV meter what they ended making with manouver nodes: something to get unlocked with the career progression. The issue is that, unlike manouver nodes ( well, sorta. You can reach the planets without manouver nodes ... it is just much harder to do it properly ), you can actually do good enough in KSP without a dV meter , so the development of it was ( and is ) always in the second page of the "to do" list. But, as you can't actually say that without looking bad, might as well drop the "experimentation" meme, maybe coupled with the "funny explosions" one ... Anyway, this is largely off topic. Better leave it where it is before a mod closes this thread .

Actually the star in game is called Sun. Check the game And I accept your dime

Hum, this means that Bill is either Neo, Agent Smith or Cypher ( the only ones in the Matrix movie(s ... ) that could enter or get out of the Matrix at will ) I just wonder which one ... On the squeeziness part ... well, it was not already established that kerbals were made of fuel? ( atleast is what the good ol'Karbonite mod says ... )

Well, galaxies coliding is not a exactly a traumatic event at star level. In fact our own galaxy exactly at this moment is colliding with the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy ... On the very improbable case that Sol and Sun ( if I got a dime for every time that anyone uses a incorrect name for the star of the Kerbin system, I would be rich , very rich ) would become a binary system ... in spite of the absurd densities of the planets ( and star ... BTW a star so dense would most likely not be the yellow star we know from the game, but I digress ), the actual mass of the Sun system is probably 2 or 3 orders of magnitude below the one of Sol system, so unless Sol and Sun became quite close in orbit ( say, closer than the Kuiper belt ) the only diference from now would be some extra comets everytime Sun came close to Solar periapsis. If they actually got close enough ... well chaoticity would endure some planetary orbits going haywire ( like, BTW it is believed to have happened in the early Solar System due to Jupiter ). The actual results... well, if you have a supercomputer avaliable , we can actually try some simulation runs

Well, I see things slightly diferently, simply because you can know a lot about atleast close by planets simply by observation from where you are ... say, temperature, existance of major liquid surfaces, rough outline of the geography ( better if you can actually see it via telescope, but you can atleast have a idea via radiotelescopes ), atmo composition ( only high atmo if the atmosphere is dense and/cloudy, though ) and obviously, size,mass and orbital parameters... I would not even be against having a KSC building that ( pending updates to it and with scientific staff, OFC ) would give you some science just from observation of celestial bodies from Kerbin... OTOH I agree with you in that atleast you should need atleast a flyby or a orbiting sat to have really detailed pictures of the planet in question, especially if far away or near the Sun ( it's hard to see anything else than the Sun, if you're looking directly in it's direction, right ? ). That alone would help a lot in increasing the veracity of the experience

Well, half of the issues you mention were caused by SQUAD rather inconsistent and not exactly persistent through versions philosophy about fuel routing ( say, decouplers allow fuel transfer -> decouplers don't allow fuel transfer ->decouplers allow fuel transfer for certain engines, but not others, but they will still say that they can't tranfer fuel ), so they aren't exactly scot-free ... and the rest is basically unsolvable without knowing exactly the flight profile you'll use, something that the base game does not allow and probably never will ( OTOH Mechjeb ... ). I'm not saying that the issue is not a can of worms, I'm just saying that half of the worms were put there by SQUAD itself... And I'm not atributing to malice anything. I'm actually quoting MaxMaps in one Squadcast last year ( before the schmelta-v tweet, mind that ), where he said explicitely the lack of dV meter was to encourage experimentation ( and fiery explosions ). So either there is what you call malice on their actions, or there is atleast some misdirection ... And TBH, given the huge can of worms they put themselves into with the changes for 1.1, I would not say that SQUAD devs can be called lazy

That I can't confirm or deny , but since the early 50's that it was known that Venus surface was hot and that had no ocean to speak off ( This book by Sagan and Shklovsky ( from 1966, in spite of the original version being from 1962 by Shklovsky ) has a nice chapter about the evolution on the knowledge about Venus since the first radiotelescope . Given that Sagan speciality was Venus , I assume that it is basically correct given the 1966 knowledge ). That didn't exclude the possibility of isolated liquid pockets and I assume that was the reason behind what you said.

Well, if you need to pierce the cloud surface of a planet to know if it has oceans, you're doing your astrophysics wrong For a RL example, it was widely known that Venus had no oceans ( or any liquid surface ) far before we even had launched a satelite, just by analysis of the radiation Venus sends back ... That said, having acurate maps of the planets even before the first launch , especially of stuff that is barely visible from Kerbin ( AFAIK the only stuff you can see by naked eye from Kerbin is the Mun, Minmus ( if you squint hard ), Jool ( if you have good eye sight and a good monitor ) and maybe Eve ) is somewhat stupid. If that stuff was only revealed by direct observation, it would only add to the game ...

Well, I do not disagree with that , but for me the lack of atmosphere in Tylo sticks out like a sore thumb because a body that can have that surface gravity and is as far away from the parent star as it is must have a atmo, especially considering the quite dense one that Laythe has. If you want a almost 1 kerbin g body with no atmo, atleast toss it in a place where that would make sense ( say, somewhere between Moho and Eve ). Tylo where it is with no atmo makes as much sense as a Minmus made of ice... oh wait

Algeria doing a asteroid landing mission in 1963 is quite a achievement, especially considering that in our timeline both the USA and the USSR were trying hard to even hit the Moon by that date

1 -A real, honest to God, asteroid belt. And some trojans in Sun-Jool L4 and L5 points ( this would be doable with the current physics ) would also be nice 2- Some planets beyond Jool, to be able to give a use to Jool gravity well for slingshots. The game loses so much by not having atleast a planet that is exterior to Jool ( remember kids, by IAU rules, Eeloo is a dwarf planet because it is not the dominant body in it's orbit ( Jool is ) ) ... 3- Fix the Mun intersecting crater rims. Craters do not​ work like that P.S. 4- Make the rivers that exist in game to be actual rivers and not very long canyons at sea level. Also add rivers to Eve ... or there is no ( purple ) rain in Eve ? :/

Hum, [art critic mode] not sure if that is cubism. In my opinion this looks more like Italian school Futurism [/art critic mode] That said one time I had a pink Kerbin on the load screen, courtesy of a outdated scatterer mod glitch. Not too much extraoridnary, but a pink Kerbin is actually a fun sight

So, next episode will be a series of surface docking hijinks at the tune of Yakety Sax ? Surface docking is one of the worst experiences in game IMHO, only surpassed by surface clawing and surface rovering with wheels ( and not landing gear ). It never seems to go right That said, we need a animated gif of Tedus air guitar

The dV meter ... or better said, the lack of it in stock. I can't find a rational reason for not having it besides adding artificial difficulty to the game disguised as a incentive to experimentation. Really, the same game devs that make manouver nodes that give dV count and burn times ( so they actually made the game do half of the math needed ) refuse to make a dV meter ... On a honorary second: the cousin of click throught: the scroll through. If you try to scroll in some menus ( like in the load saved games ) in game, you will also do whatever scroll does for the backround menus and game. Very jarring And on something that MaxMaps said last Friday: no, super elastic and bouncy female kerbals are not funny, especially if you join them to slippery inclined surfaces in low gravity and ragdolling Kerbals ( BTW why do kerbals ragdoll at all? Or , even if there is a good reason to ragdoll, why the game does not return us control of them after some time of ragdolling? Ragdolling in Gilly is FUN :/) . In some situations you can literally have some Siphisean jobs just to try to bring a female kerbal back to a lander: you jetpack the kerbal up to the lander and as soon as you land and make one step, they freeze, start sliding sideways and rolling back to the initial spot, where they get 5 minutes of ragdolling bounciness later ...No, Max that is NOT fun

Hum, maybe they will get some purple rain in the way ?