Skorpion

Are you suggesting that Squad works in mysterious ways?

You think the problem is that easter eggs are too easy to find? Really? I was thinking this suggestion is a non-starter unless something like ISA MapSat is integrated to help us find the Easter eggs.

Hey now, no need to shout. You don't need synonyms for danger. You need specific examples of danger. The only one you posted was "about to crash". Even that could be more specific, such as "heading intersects with nearby terrain at high speeds". Unfortunately, computers don't understand "danger". I think the dangers that the system currently checks are "an explosion just happened nearby" and "experiencing high G forces". Do you have any others to add to that, other than "heading intersects with nearby terrain at high speeds". (That's the most fundamental problem with your question; there's also a performance penalty with checking the terrain intersections so often, which might make that suggestion not worth the extra processing for such a little but more verisimilitude.)

Oh, you naive little thing. You think we designed nuclear rockets through hard work and experimentation? Wake up man! NERVA was "designed" in Area 51!

Parts? Nah, you're thinking too small. I'd like to see the ability to build a VAB-equivalent wherever I want, including in orbit. Then I could deliver the raw materials to the orbital VAB-equivalent, and build space stations that I could never dream of launching from the surface. Thanks to the latest update, with an in-world space centre, this is sounding less crazy than it used to!

I haven't noticed this correlation myself, but I wouldn't rule out coincidence. The old system loaded a static scene whenever you went to the space centre, which meant it had a roughly constant load time, but in the new system it's just drawing part of the universe, which means caching effects should affect the load time: the space centre should load faster if you were recently in its vicinity (since it's already in memory) but load slower if you've been away for a while. This means that in a new campaign, you'll likely see fast load times as you fool around at KSC, but as you get further in the game you're more likely to see slower load times. If you started a new campaign when 0.21 came out, it's possible the longer load times you're seeing are related to your progress, rather than the patch.

Whenever possible, undo is always a better solution than a confirmation box. Undo would work perfectly here.

I'm saying you should not only be able to deorbit your space station for the heck of it, but you should be able to rewind once you're done screwing around. Actually, we can already do this with quicksaves, but the new rewind feature has the potential to be much a more natural interface, if only it was less limited. I don't get why people are complaining about the rewind feature when we've had quicksaves for ages.

Twin engines are great, but we don't need Squad to make them for us. We need Squad to give us parts so we can make our own twin engines. (Of course, that's already possible with the parts they've given us, but I certainly wouldn't turn down even more parts.) As far as the art pass goes, the real question we need to ask is, would you rather Bac9 and DanRosas spend their time on more art passes, or on new parts? I know what I would vote for, and it's not more art passes.

I completely disagree that the rewind feature is too forgiving. In fact, I don't think it's forgiving enough.

I'd be amazed if this hadn't been suggested before, but it would be real nice if SRB nozzles were separate parts from the propellant, like we have with liquid engines. That way we could build taller SRBs without requiring purpose-built parts. It would also allow for high-tech nozzles with vectoring or emergency shutdown, as you suggest.

From what you linked, the Alderson Drive posits the existence of a parallel universe with no quantum effects, and a fifth physical force that accelerates particles in this parallel universe. Unless I'm missing something important, I'm not sure I'd classify that as "somewhat plausible". Not that I'd care if KSP added implausible tech to the late stages of the game, mind you.

Discovering artifacts would be another great way to improve your science rating. Also, I hope 'gathering data' includes using mapping satellites, a la ISA MapSat.

I build my rovers in the spaceplane hangar and then copy them into the VAB folder when I'm ready to launch them. Ideally I'd like to be able to do this in-game instead of having to do file management in Windows. There's also a bug when you do this: the revert button will take you to the spaceplane hangar, even if you were just in the VAB building the rocket that goes under the rover.

It's your semantics I have a problem with. I agree it's in the realm of theory. That's not the same thing as being in the realm of fantasy. And "handwavium" means "I'm feeding you goobledeegook that I don't want you to think to heavily about", which is the exact opposite of "we have mathematical models suggesting this is possible, but we need to think about them more". Your use of "unobtanium" is more forgivable, because the Alcubierre drive requires negative energy, which is problematic. However, negative energy must exist because our universe is still expanding, and we know that quantum fluctuations can create a net negative energy. All I'm saying is that the Alcubierre drive shouldn't be lumped together with stargates and dilithium crystals. But I think the simplest solution in gameplay terms is just to let you click on your trajectory and choose "fast forward to here". That way, even if your destination is a thousand years in the future, you don't have to wait for it. However, it does assume that Kerbals are immortal. (At least, as far as age is concerned; they can clearly still die in rocket disasters. Maybe that's why they're so eager to throw caution to the wind!)