softweir

No, KSP does not represent the wing-in-ground effect. Nor, for that matter, does FAR - though Ferram has at times burnt his brains trying to work out a way to achieve that!

Hello and welcome to the forums! Unfortunately I can't help. Are these English usages? If they are translations from another language then you may need to find out what the English equivalents are. Perhaps if you were to quote a few short passages using these terms then that would help people to help you. Also, it would be a good idea to edit your post and change the title to start with "Semiconductors: " so as to attract the people who would have any sort of idea. In its present form, your title could refer to anything. Good luck!

It tries. Doesn't mean it is good enough for aerodynamic purists, but it tries. And the stock aerodynamics improve continually!

It's a hangover from before MV4 had the code to draw the circular torque arrow. It can still be useful occasionally when, for whatever reason, the circular arrow is hard to interpret or doesn't draw.

As the OP says, each collectible will be available for 24 hours. I feel they should have pre-announced the first one by a day or two so people could get into the habit of watching the forums in advance - not everybody comes here every day! Then again, if it's a way of rewarding only the very mostest fanatic of forum-users, then not pre-announcing it works...

External forces found in space can be so large compared to gravity waves that variations in them could swamp a gravitational wave experiment. Even the effects of sunlight and solar wind would be large enough to upset the equipment needed to detect g-waves. Using these thrusters (according to the article linked) may be able to overcome these problems.

Yes. Multiple toolbars, any size, any number of buttons per toolbar, anywhere on screen.

Exactly. Blizzy's toolbar has more features. While they are unnecessary for those who use only one or two mods, people who have more than four or five mods find Blizzy's toolbar to be essential - the stock toolbar just doesn't have the facilities for managing that number of buttons!

That's very interesting indeed! This is one to keep an eye on.

That. Or, indeed, that! Which is less silly.

Oops! Sorry. That'll teach me to read posts more carefully.

No, not fuel crossfeed Falcon-Heavy Style. The Falcon Heavy may (if they get the tec working) feed fuel and oxidiser from the strap-on stages to power the core stage until separation. In the Proton oxidiser is fed out to the ring of engines while fuel feeds down, and they have arranged things so the fuel and oxidiser empty more or less simultaneously. As posts above have described, the Proton is designed this way so the large and heavy first stage can be transported by rail. If they built the fuel tanks on to the core then it would all be too big to fit the railways used to transport it from the manufacturing site to the assembly/launch site. Instead, the strap-on fuel tanks and engines go on one set of carriages, while the core is just narrow enough to be carried on its own carriage.

I don't know this, but I am pretty sure that the heavier the probe, the bigger the airbags need to be to safely protect the probe, and that it would not be a linear increase but a square or even cube increase. So by the time you are landing something as big as Curiosity, the bags would need to be vastly larger than it! At some point it simply becomes impractical.

FIFY

One major requirement for both Shuttle and Buran was that they could fly "crossrange", that is, after reentry they could aim at a touchdown point well to one side of their reentry trajectory. This was a military requirement, enabling them to be used to launch spy satellites or even weapons systems during a conflict, reenter within one orbit, and still reach a safe landing point without coming under enemy attack. Hence the requirement for a reentry vehicle with wings, which could use those wings to glide to a touchdown. In the case of the Buran, they made the orbiter/reentry vehicle a great deal cheaper and lighter (and hence more capable) by not having massive launch engines on it. The expendable rocket part was more expensive as a result, but still cheap enough that the cost seemed affordable - disposable rockets can be quite cheap compared to reusable ones. It also saved fuel - the Shuttle had to waste a lot of Orbital Maneuvering Engine fuel hauling those huge launch engines while performing final circularisation! The buran, on the other hand - left the huge engines to drop back into the atmosphere. Having said all that, it is arguable whether any kind of "spaceplane" can be justified for civilian use. If you don't need the extreme crossrange capability of the Shuttle or Buran then the huge additional costs of a flying, reusable orbiter no longer make sense. SpaceX has proven that vertical landings are achievable, and though I wouldn't trust my cheeks in one yet it is quite probable that with enough development and experience that sort of system could be made to work. (OK, Skylon might, just, perhaps, one day get off the ground.)

It hasn't been mentioned.. Best bet is to come back every few days and see what the OP of this thread says. I think modders have enough work keeping up with KSP updates as it is, and I suspect setting up an email subscription on top of that would be excessive.

Manual download until CKAN catches up. See first post for download address.

I'd be amazed if Ferram has the time to produce FAR builds with backwards compatibility with outdated versions of KSP. Doing so would vastly increase the effort and vastly increase the number of bugs. In any case, testing new FAR with old mods isn't sensible. Doing so just makes it very much harder to decide where the bugs are coming from. The sensible method is to test FAR in a clean KSP installation, with new craft, and only those mods which FAR depends on. I understand, however, your reluctance to have to go to that much work at this stage. Better use your old installation for a few months, and keep your fingers crossed that all the mods you depend on will be updated!

The monopropellant thruster is a thruster like all the rocket engines and is throttled like them even though it uses monopropellant, so one uses the throttle keys to control it, not the translate keys.

There are perfectly innocent explanations for this sort of arrangement. It is difficult for a company that is selling to the world to ensure that it complies with every single regulation in every single market it sells to, and with differences in regulations increasing every year it gets increasingly hard. Having a subsidiary to sell through in each major market simplifies things: each subsidiary is locally staffed with people who understand the local regulations and don't need to concern themselves with regulations in other markets. There are potential bad reasons for running local subsidiaries, but we have no reason other than cynicism to assume they apply in this case.

You put a joke about "101" in your nickname, and he picked it up and ran with it in an attempt to engage with you on the joke. That's all. If you aren't happy with the joke anymore, then maybe it's time to change your nickname.

You missed a point: the regolith is rich in perchlorate salts. We make bleach out of perchlorate salts. So the regolith is like soil soaked with bleach. Nobody needs to try growing potatoes in bleach-soaked-soil because we know it is damned toxic. Maybe there is a way to extract the perchlorate salts from the regolith, but that would be a very water-consuming and energy-consuming exercise. And even if you succeeded, what is left is so short of everything plants need (nitrates, sulphates, phosphates and all the other nutrients) that you have to add all those, so why not make things easier and leave the regolith out of the equation? Why go to all that effort to import a toxic, caustic material into your base where it will be a serious health hazard?

I was 7 at the time, and staying up to watch was wonderful! Of course none of us understood just how difficult the whole enterprise was, but the seriousness with which it was reported and commented on made me realise it was something extraordinary and incredible!

That sounds like an interesting mod for stock aerodynamics! However, it would probably be very non-trivial converting Ferram's code to operate with stock: every line of the graphing code will be written with the assumption that it is referencing FAR aerodynamic behaviour. It would probably be easier for somebody to create new code from scratch - and i doubt Ferram has the time or inclination to do that!

I feel this is an idea worth exploring! Humans are very good at finding things "disgusting", whether those things are concepts (religious or otherwise) cultural practices, or even appearance. While it is going far too far to suggest that all hypothetical alien races would have a similar behaviour, it is not implausible to hypothesise that in a sufficiently crowded galaxy at least one race might finds other intelligent races are disgusting or offend their beliefs simply by existing. The might be offended by the fact we are intelligent when their religion demands that they are the only intelligent race, they may be offended by some detail of our biology, they may be offended by some detail of our emotional, cultural or religious behaviour. I have for a while been considering a situation where humanity might encounter aliens, only to discover that they find us objectionable because we can choke on our food, since (in this scenario) we are the only intelligent race to have evolved with crossed respiratory and digestive tracts. Also that they also find our uniquely bipedal locomotion extremely disturbing, or at least pathetically ridiculous! Though I had not taken that scenario to the extent of having them try to wipe out the object of their objection.