razark

If the moon landings were fake, how do you explain why there are hundreds of pictures of people on the moon? No, the only moon rocks I've seen are real ones. I have also seen quite a few descriptions of simulated lunar regolith, however. Not to mention papers about why it's bad stuff to be around. But regolith isn't rocks, is it? Speaking of around: The belts are limited in their north-south extent. Aside from the fact they are nowhere near as dangerous as you imply, the lunar flights were planned to travel at the northern or southern extremes to get around them, but also to pass through them quickly to avoid the issues. Besides that, if NASA can't put people past the belts, how do you explain that they did put two dozen men out beyond the belts? Please address the video posted in http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/155271-have-we-landed-on-the-moon/&page=10#comment-2953262! Do you have any response to the fact that it would have been a more extreme task to fake the landings than to actually do it? Simply put, you have once again failed to actually provide any evidence that the moon landings were faked. You've consistently provided red herrings, or tried to sidetrack the discussion to fallacies. Can you please provide some any support for your position before it collapses like a house of straw in a slight breeze?

I don't know if it survived the purge, but the argument was: A. The military keeps secrets. B. NASA is military. C. By (A) and (B), NASA keeps secrets. :. The moon landings were faked.

We prefer "Johnson Space Center", and there's a hell of a lot more going on than just Mission Control.

Talking about von Braun specifically, he was working with the Army Ballistic Missile Agency when NASA was founded. Two years later, he and his team were transferred to NASA. Personally, I've never really looked at the history of NACA. Did von Braun actually work for that group?

Woo hoo! Open for business again. Anyway, to address the point you're going to bring up again: Many of the scientists that began work on many of the major rocket systems of the late 1940s and 1950s were brought over by Operation Paperclip, but not all. Nor were they founders of NASA. That would be the U.S. government. The Germans were working for the Army, but were later brought over to NASA. The fact that any of these Germans may or may not have been members of A Certain Political Party That Must Not Be Named is very irrelevant to the moon landings, however.

As pointed out by two of us already, the information he cites is not valid toward the argument that he (and by extension, you) is making. You still have yet to provide any reasoning to support this. Again, you still have yet to provide any reasoning to support this. (Edited to remove a portion that I had misread earlier.)

I draw your attention to this section of your linked page: Note the bold part, which explicitly states that Congress is creating a civilian agency. The italicized portion shows that there is some overlap with DoD, but only under certain cases. This is not enough to define NASA as a "military organization". The section you quoted falls under the heading of "PROPERTY RIGHTS IN INVENTIONS" and means that for legal purposes, certain inventions may be considered secret, rather than being publicly available works of the Federal Government. This only makes sense, since the difference between a space-launch rocket and a missile is where the guidance system tells it to go. However, is it is a military organization, can you explain why my father, with 30+ years at NASA, retiring as Chief Engineer for Shuttle, is still only a Sergeant in the USMC?

It was present in SH4 when it was released. It's not exactly easy to get to, and it's barely even mentioned in the manual, but it's there. Ouch. That is pretty bad. I used auto-targetting in SH3, and it's been a long time since I've played, so I can't say I ever noticed it. Yikes. Yeah, I just checked in stock SH4. Fortunately, my shooting methods tend not to involve the attack map and its calculations.

It's quite present in SH4, considering the large number of features they did drop. I've never noticed any particular problems with it, but I've been running a highly modified version for a long time now. Edit: Although, I must admit I don't actually use it all that often. I tend to use the regular map and the TDC dials much more.

While you may see an occasional uniform, as there are a few active-duty military personnel at NASA, the agency is strictly a civilian one. Yes, the do work closely with the military, but NASA is absolutely NOT military. Further, most of the workforce is made up of contractors that work for private companies. The fact that you do not understand the basic structure of the agency speaks volumes to what you do and do not understand about it.

That you know not of which you speak?

We all know that if you don't play exactly the way I do that you are not only obviously wrong, but also a horrible person that doesn't even realize that you're not actually having fun! Seriously, though, think of it as more of a vote for options.

What amuses me is the number of people that bring up the flag waving in a vacuum. And then they bring up a photograph to show it.

<Post missing due to forum crash>

If you want to add realism, any time you cancel something you should have to pay to close out the project.

I prefer more posts per page. Posts-per-page should be a user setting.

The wow is that six people didn't.

I just received an email from one of my kid's teachers. I was appalled by the choppiness of the writing, multiple run sentences and sentence fragments, and generally poor grammar. Your writing, while not perfect, is quite a bit better quality than that. Given that you are posting on a game forum and not composing professional communication, don't downplay your skill compared to some of us native speakers.

Your link above for 1.4.6.1 points to 1.4.6, and that appears to be the latest release. Edit: Spacedock does have the 1.4.6.1 file, though.

Imagine seeing the Conroy Virtus take flight: Sure, it's only four engines, but notice that each of those fuselages is a B-52.

Because you can examine the pictures and videos, along with the other evidence, and realize that it would be a hell of a lot harder (if not impossible) to fake it all than to actually do it.

I've been considering doing this myself. Somewhere I've got some maps of WWII air transport routes that I keep meaning to use. The DC-3/C-47 is one impressive airplane.

Not that. I mean the menu itself. I'd like to click on it, not wait for it to finish flying about the screen.

The animated main menu. Damn thing is annoying.

There is a setting that allows KER without added requirements.