TheDarkStar

I've played since 0.9 or so and I estimate 1500-2000 hours.

Why would they ever reply like that? Every toddler should know in detail how rockets work! If KSP was made into legos, it would probably need to be extremely modular, with individual rocket parts like the big orange tanks or the gray tanks interchangeable, and probably being able to attach almost anywhere.

You get them from EVA'd Kerbals. Right click on them, and you should see an option. You can also right-click on placed flags in EVA to remove them.

Do you remember when docking was added? Squad said for a while that it would take a long time, and then (after a while) they were able to code it (not counting the later debugging) in just four days. However, it took a long, long time to get it to the point where they could do that.

You forgot the Minmus rover tracks (They are like Carl Sagen's face, except they are giant rover tracks. They can only be seen from orbit.).

Dres, since it has the deepest canyon in the solar system.

I marked 600-1000, but I have no idea. I've been playing since 0.9 or so, and I haven't switched to Steam, so close to 1000 is more of a minimum. I've quite possibly played more than 2000 hours, though.

I started around 0.8 or 0.9, back when there were only about 10 parts and no timewarp or map.

The math would break down only if the fueltank and engine were massless while the fuel had mass.

I'm pretty sure this is not the case; there are quite a few large features that are not done yet. A few major things from the list: -Resources/mining -Money -More to the career mode (missions?) -More planets with things like volcanism and rings

The game does not really have a planned date for 1.00, but there is still a lot to be added. Extra solar systems are possible.

I agree with this; from what I've seen, while it is possible to talk about a shorter distance, that smaller distance does not matter and has no effect (but correct me please).

Only one is required because there tends not to be a time when you need to have a lot of turning force. Gimballed engines are good for when you are in the atmosphere, RCS for sudden turns and corrections when landing or setting an intercept, and one SAS for general turning. Gigantic or non-balance ships might require more.

I've heard that Kerbals have less drag, and using only a Kerbal gives you a bonus of -100. To beat mine without using a Kerbal and still going interplanetary, you'd need an altitude of about 10.572 km. Doing this would most likely require both a very well timed intercept and the Orion mod to reach the necessary ~100 km/s. However, do note that negative scores are realistically possible. Edit: Can you clarify the part about rescuing the Kerbal? I'm not sure if this means I can launch a second rescue mission to save my Kerbal, or if they have to be in the same mission.

I tried a few times, and my altitude was the lowest I was able to get to without reentering. I suspect people will see diminishing returns, since I have never been able to hit 0 meters above 120 m/s or so, even with the Orion mod.

I'm 15, and I've played since 0.8 or so. I made my forum account much later.

Here's something I did for a challenge: http://imgur.com/a/ZNlbG#0 tl;dr I sent Jeb at Kerbin going at around 28500 m/s.

I went and got an orbit out past Eeloo, burned retrograde, and then hit Kerbin's SoI going straight at it. Going interplanetary was not disallowed, so I'm assuming I'm fine doing this. http://imgur.com/a/ZNlbG#0 Yep, I managed to go over 28000 km/s doing this. My score: (17.657)2 * 0.5 (still can escape Kerbin's SoI) - 100 (extreme skydiving) = 55.885.

You tend to get large amounts of science for orbits, flybys, and landings. You get more if you bring extra mass in the form of science modules along.

One successful weapon is to drive next to something with a high-thrust engine. Both sides are propelled away (unless you have something to counter that thrust, like an engine on the opposite side). It's the same principle behind Kerbal cannons.

I'm not sure, but when I was around five I often asked my parents to read books like "A Brief History of Time" and explain them. Later on, I would read non-fiction for fun (the more math, the better). I've always wanted to know how everything works.

If you are asking at what speed the light beams go relative to each other, it is still exactly c. A similar thing would happen if two rockets were going at 75% c (from a reference frame next to them) straight at each other. An outside observer would see them going at 75% c, but observers on them would not see them going at 150% c. Instead, they would see the other one going at a large fraction of c, but slowed down in time (someone better with the formulas can give a better number than me for the exact time dilation). Edit: The equation in this article shows that they would both be going at 0.6c from each other's perspective.

This looks simply amazing.

I quicksave, but I've been playing since 0.9 or so. I've probably killed between 1 and 2 thousand Kerbals outside of quicksaves, most of them on Kerbin (with a few on the Mun and a few more on planets with badly-timed quicksaves).

I can make decent airplanes, but I can't do SSTOs. I've landed everywhere and returned from everywhere except Tylo and Eve. I've done a few missions that involved a mothership, but I run into trouble with longer-ranged ones, since I usually run out of fuel. I've been working on a lot of minimalist rockets so that I can make smaller ones for Tylo and Eve.