Seret

No it isn't. It's advanced by people who have a good understanding of what's possible and what's not. Sometimes new information changes our ideas of what can and can't be done, but the people who exploit these changes in understanding still understand and work with the limitations that are imposed on them. All design work is essentially a comprimise process where you have to factor in your limitations as much as your capabilities. People who think "anything is possible" never achieve anything of note, they lack the focus and good understanding of reality that effective innovation requires. It's good to be daring and creative, but the real world does place harsh restrictions on what can be done physically, practically, and economically.

What if your ship is already in orbit? Much of my work in space is done with reusable tugs with LV-Ns. These are quite frugal with fuel, and it would be impractical and annoying to launch another rocket each time one of them got low on fuel. The largest type has a max fuel capacity of about 2/3rds of an orange tank, the smaller ones are about half that. It's much easier to put a fuel depot in orbit around one of the bodies they're operating around, and top up whenever they need it. If they were topping up straight from the tankers then I'd end up with tankers hanging around in orbit anyway, effectively just acting as fuel depots. It's also convenient if you're running an exploration mission at the Mun or Minmus where you're shuttling back and forth to the surface. The lander(s) can refuel and offload their science each time they dock.

I think doing either is a bit mental.

Absolutely. It always really bugs me is the way they cock their guns at dramatic points in the action, because it makes an intimidating noise. All that would really do in real life is eject the round in the chamber. Stupid. Movies do things like that though, because movies are made by movie people, who get their information about things like guns and spaceflight from watching movies. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the problem there.

You can also just dock and the lab will be able to process and reset any experiments in the connected vehicle.

Exactly. Probably about half the games I play are tier 2 and 3.

Some definitions are indeed better than others though. I think your definition from high school is not useful for describing objects in LEO. Would you consider a 16 year old to be an adult? I certainly wasn't. Hell, age of consent is about 14 in some countries. I think the simile was a good one, some transitions don't lend themselves well to sharp cut-offs.

I'll chuck my answer in because you really need more than 10 responses to be able to pull out any meaningful stats: 1) Yup 2) 6+ (I'm posting this from it...) 3) It's branded as Google Nexus, but I believe the manufacturer of this model was LG. 4) While commuting, so morning and late afternoon 5) This question is a bit ambiguous. Are you asking if people choose to use their phone everyday, or if they feel they have no choice? If it's the former I completely agree, if it's the latter I completely disagree.

If you don't like grinding, just don't grind. Some of the lower tier tanks are awesome (e.g. BT-2, Pz-1c, Cruiser Mk3, T18) and the gameplay at that level is fast and fun. I have several tanks at lower tiers that I've left there. They've got good crews and are fun to play. I've also got tanks at mid tiers that I won't be upgrading, and only two that I'm interested in getting up to the really top tiers. Leaving some tanks at lower points on the tech tree gives you more options for trying out different branches without having to start from scratch.

I don't. I build the payload for the mission (I start with a spreadsheet), then add enough rocket to get the necessary ÃŽâ€v to get it into space. Designing an actual launcher for your payloads isn't hard if your payloads are sensibly sized. It's the last little job I do before launch time.

This thread is odd. A satellite can see anything it has an unobstructed line of sight to, just like anything else. In reality lines of sight very low on the horizon are likely to be significantly obscured in a lot of wavelengths (visible, IR, etc) due to having to peer through a particularly fat slice of the atmosphere, and obviously things will be heavily masked by terrain.

That's a perfectly reasonable definition for "outer" space elanachan, but also somewhat arbitrary. You'd probably have to be beyond the Van Allen belts to qualify by that definition. You have to ask though, is it a useful definition? What does it classify the region below it as? Because clearly there's a significant region which is qualitatively different from the lower atmosphere. Aerodynamic flight is impossible, hard vacuum, low temperatures, etc. Any sensible definition would call this space too, since for all practical purposes it is, even though there are still some atmospheric effects.

I tend to put a small one in an upper stage or the payload, as it's useful for manuevers once you get out of atmo. For stability on lower stages a set of four fins weighs less than the large SAS.

Er, I can honestly not remember the last time I read one.

It's definitely an exploit, but whether you consider using exploits to be cheating is a personal call. It doesn't really confer any advantage, so the only reason to do it is aesthetic. I don't generally use it myself, but I'm not going to look down my nose at someone who does. AIUI kraken drive does exploit clipping bugs though, which is clearly pretty cheaty as it circumvents the core difficulty mechanic of the game. But again, it's a single player game so if people find fiddling with these exploits entertaining then all the best to them.

In practical terms there is an end to the atmosphere, it just overlaps with what's also defined as space. You can be in both simultaneously.

You can use the debug menu to simulate a space environment. Go to the pad with your design, hit [mod]+[F12] and click the "hack gravity" button. This will give you zero g on the pad, and you can test how your design will perform in space. Don't forget to unhack it before you try a live launch!

It means it can apply that much torque. Torque is a rotational force, it does two useful things: in space it can be used to rotate your spacecraft, in atmosphere you're mostly interested in stopping it from rotating. So a part with high torque could either rotate your ship faster in space, or it could resist a larger force trying to destabilise your rocket in atmo.

Yes, but KSP is just a game, and has to make certain approximations that don't exist in the real world.

Sure, but you can understand why they had it come back several times, right? It maintains dramatic tension. By getting rid of the main "villain" right at the start you're going to have to work that much harder to make a compelling movie.

Do you have an objective in mind for your analysis kellven, or is it just curiosity?

No, he's saying that there will come a point at which you'd no longer be able to detect them. There's always something in space, even in interstellar space. At some point you'd no longer be able to detect any particular concentration of gas that you could say belonged to an atmosphere.

The reason nobody tries to make movies for nerds is because the nerds are never satisfied.

You can draw the line wherever you like, it's an entirely arbitrary point. You're always going to be under the influence of one astronomical body or another, whether it's due to atmospheric particles, gravity, charged particles, etc.

I would imagine they were on NASA's clock. If you're developing a game that's still in alpha and somebody comes along and says it wants to contract you to produce an expansion it would be a dumb business decision to say no. You'd say thanks very much and take the money.